Epstein Secrets

/21/07) and Viliafaiia to Menchel (6/21/07) attached , 6/22/2007 Subpoena to Guys and Dolls (return date 7/10/07) 6/25/2007 Jeffrey Sloman and Andrew _ Lourie Gerald B. 12fcourt Letter containing overview of position of Epstein's counsel and the materials planned to present at 6/26/07 meeting with

dence between Lilly Ann Sanchez, Gerald Lelcourt, Andrew Laurie, A. Marie Villafrina, and John McMillan r

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

Attorney Jeff Sloman Chief, Criminal Division Andrew Lourie, MAUSA Northern Division Karen Atkinson,

ividuals. They are, however, similarly situated, so I have joined both requests for immunity in this memorandum. -1- EFTA00190247 proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the grand jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. Both witnesses are represented by counsel. Miller is an openly hostile

etween 1998 and 2001 a Stolt—Niel- sen executive, Andrew Pickering, ex- changed customer allocation lists

itness' invocation of the Fifth Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that the scope of the immu- nity granted must be as broad as the privi- lege. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1859. Due to the cumbersome requirements of obtaining properly authorized statutory im- munity, U.S. Attorneys often

2:52 AM To: Cc: , Daniel Cundy; Jennifer Richardson Subject: Re: Reference materials further to our call Dear i I believe my response is clear. The Duke of York will provide a witness statement and will agree, following the provision of that witness statement, to a voluntary written interview wherein he will

es Attorney Southern District of New York 1 St. Andrew's Plaza ISM From: Gary Bloxsome Sent: Wednesda

e A7-327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty altho