Epstein Secrets

y Jane Doe #14. (126) On or about January 26, 2005, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant ADRIANA ROSS's review regarding a call received from Jane Doe #14 that read: "She is confirming for 5:30". 4, (127) On or about January 26, 2005, Defendant ADRI

alto Shapiro United States, 335 U.S. 1, 19, 68 S.Ct. 6, 1385, 92 L.Ed. 1787 (1948) (following rule of construction of Mike). More recently, in Kastigar, the Court up- held the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. 6002 on the ground that use immunity "is coextensive with the scope of the privi- lege again

certain charges pending in Alabama. Be cause it disputed the very existence of a grant of immunity, the government object- ed to the holding of a Kastigar hearing as unwarranted. Faced with this disputed claim of an un- written grant of immunity, the magistrate did not hold a traditional Kastigar hea

Operation Leap Year." II. BACKGROUND Operation Leap Year involves the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and three of his assistants, Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross (nee Mucinska), and Nadia Marcinkova. The targets would arrange "sexual massages" for Epstein when he would travel to Palm Beach, and many of those

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

ng the cooperation of witnesses. Nonetheless, I felt certain that the agents, my co-counsel, 'it a very strong case ag three rsonal assistants — Adriana Ross, a/k/a " and The case was presented for federal investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department after they felt that Jeffrey Epstein's legal tea

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