Epstein Secrets

the validity of a claim of privilege based on the same feared prosecution, depending on whether the claim was asserted in state or federal court."); Kastigar v. U.S., 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653 (1972)(The Fifth Amendment privilege "can be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administra

poena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence EFTA00222080 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009

t that the papers existed, were in his possession or control, and were authentic. United States v. Doe, 465 U.S., at 613, and n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 123T Fisher, 425 U.S., at 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 1569; id., at 428, 432, 96 S.Ct. 1569 (concurring opinions). See Braswell v. United States, 1487 U.S..'! at 104, 10

521-23. Interestingly, in that case, the government conceded that "the leaking of privileged materials to investigators would raise the specter of Kastigar-like evidentiary hearings". Id. at 517. This case presents the same specter should Mr. Epstein be indicted. The recognized importance of the attorn

Biscayne Boulevard. Suite 1300 • Miami. Florida 33131- Phone: 305-371-6421• Fax 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA01713175 under the teaching of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398 (1976), result in compelling testimony from Mr. Epstein himself, in violation of his right against self incrimi

e: 305-371-6421 • Fax 305-358-2006 • www.RoyBlackcom EFTA01713179 incriminating effect". United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); see also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 ("the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the content

521-23. Interestingly, in that case, the government conceded that "the leaking of privileged materials to investigators would raise the specter of Kastigar-like evidentiary hearings". Id. at 517. This case presents the same specter should Mr. Epstein be indicted. The recognized importance of the attorn

, Komspan & Stum 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 • Miami, Florida 33131. Phone: Fax • www.RoyBlack.com EFTA00178998 under the teaching of Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 398 (1976), result in compelling testimony from Mr. Epstein himself, in violation of his right against self incrimi

Florida 33131 • Phone: • Fax: • vwov.RoyBlack.com EFTA00179002 incriminating effect". United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612 (1984); see also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410 ("the act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena . . . has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the content

in employees — Janusz Banasiak Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, r. anasi was satisfied with a standard Kastigar letter, but Ms. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted above, so was Individual #28. I don't believe that, prior to thi

ready to unwind the Agreement. B I() 11/30/2007 Kenneth Starr Alex Acosta Letter in response to 11/28/2007 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Outlines the history of negotiations with various counsel for Epstein illustrating how the Non-Prosecution Agreement was reached. Request to prov