Epstein Secrets

1349 (quoting Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops N.W., 441 U.S. 211, 223 (1979)). Whether proceeding u

investigation, and Ms. likely testimony. Exhibit 1 at P-003732 thru P-003733. 7. On February 5, 2007, I provided Mr. Eisenberg with two proposed Kastigar letters that, again, discuss the grand jury's investigation. Exhibit 1 at P-003739 thru P-003743, P-003745. 8. In response to a complaint from Mr.

timony solely as a victim/winless. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her

t Criminal Division, Rm. 1056 1001 G Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20530 PHONE NO: (202) 514-5541

4715 06/18/2008 15:15 FAX 5618059846 USA0 WPB CONFRM Q003 has been approached by the FBI to provide information via an informal proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. is represented by counsel in New York. has never spoken to a ny law enforc

hold 40,000 books); see also In re Search of 3817 W. West.End, 321 F. Supp.2d 953, 959 (ND. Ill. 2004

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

EXECUTIVE OFFICER SSN: xxx-xx-xxxx Company: L.A.W. PLANTATION MANAGEMENT CORP. Address: 515 ABIGAIL

h evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing. This provision is necessary to avoid the necessity for a Kastigar hearing. Furthermore, under this agreement, no information disclosed by you during the debriefing will be offered in evidence against you in any cr

justify federal interven- tion"); see also Howard W. Brill, Equity and the Criminal Law, 2000 Ark. L.

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

I ea:1 ye. app 20 A. 21 0- en i's going to tot YOU • Ls 22 Oolstions. msso, gaisttoes ted.y. If at any alma you 23 ..44.4 to talc. • break. W. rut lot.. •••••• Mai? 24 A. 25 0. If you at cay tine don't understood on. of Ph fax. 1655 PS Beach lace, Ohl.. Sute 913 • Wen GOVERNMENT E

imony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. =, you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her

6, 2007 letter, Lefkowitz to Acosta Complaint, E.W. v. Epstein (CW) Complaint, L.M. I. Epstein (TM)

imony solely as, a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. , you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter and that she also was unwilling to speak with.the grand jury and intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her

hold 40,000 books); see also In re Search of 3817 W. West End, 321 F. Supp.2d 953.959 (N.D. Ill. 2004

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

Chief, Criminal Division Karen Atkinson, Chief4,(W. Northern Division June 17, 2008 From A. Marie

No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA EXHIBIT B-130 P-008365 EFTA00225363 has been approached by the FBI to provide information via an informal proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before t djury with a "pocket immunity" letter. is represented by counsel in New York. has never spoken to any law enforceme

unity for grand jury witness Letter from Matthew W. Friedrich, Acting Assistant Attorney General. B-

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