Epstein Secrets

are catalogued on the meeting timeline (Exhibit 5). I believe there was one other meeting soon after Epstein entered his guilty plea, when I went to Jack Goldberger's office and met with him and Mike Tein (Guy Lewis' law partner) about the victim list. Other than that, I do not recall any in-person meetings. I ha

away. Individual #28 contacted Epstein when she received the letter and subpoena; Epstein put her in touch with his attorney, Jack Goldberger; and Goldberger had his friend, Jim Eisenberg, serve as Individual #28's lawyer while Epstein paid Eisenberg's fees. Individual #28 later told Brad Edwards that som

id that he had been threatened with being sued if he didn't allow Epstein to participate (id.) I reviewed my emails and notes of conversations with Black, Goldberger, and other defense counsel about Epstein being incarcerated for the full 18 months (except for credit for "gain time"). Criminal Chief advised me t

nusz Banasiak and Mucinska. Both initially asked for immunity. After speaking with Banasiak's attorney, Mr. Banasiak was satisfied with I 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

age 5 attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense attorney who

e copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 33 Clearly, the nature o

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

age 5 attached Exhibit "A", Affidavit of Jack A. Goldberger, a board certified criminal defense attorney who

e copy of the foregoing has been sent via U.S. Mail and facsimile to the following addressees this 25th day of March, 2009. Adam D. Horowitz, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger EFTA00222107 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 34 of 37 Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein Page 33 Clearly, t

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

ATHRYN A. MEYERS, ESQ. LEWIS TEIN, PL 8 3059 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 340 COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 9 10 11 12 13 14 On behalf of the Defendant: JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS 250 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE SOUTH SUITE 1400 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 561.659.8300 ALSO PRESENT: ON BEHALF

0 appropriate worded question with the proper it foundation and predicate, I will certainly allow 12 the client to answer the question. 13 MR. GOLDBERGER: Why don't you just state 14 attorney/client privilege and just be done with 15 it? 16 17 clear. 18 19 20 21 22 MR. LEOPOLD: I want the

ee Ex. A. I had several oral and written communications with Mr. Eisenberg asking him if Jane Doe 2 would appear under the protection of a standard Kastigar letter, but he told me that Jane Doe 2 would only appear if statutory immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6001 was received. For example, in my letter

2265 File folder entitled "JEGE & Hyperion from Goldberger OLY-46 & OLY-47" containing documents received i

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

DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. ' 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 14 ANN , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 50

efense? 2 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of 3 Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8 the United States A

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

spute about it, I guess some 8 arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. 9 But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 10 Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 11 a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 12 agreement and you're going to m

tes was prepared to name as a victim of an enumerated offense. et Should your client decide to file a claim against Jeffrey Epstein, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, asks that you contact him at Atterbury Goldberger and Weiss, 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Please understand

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

much broader fashion," weighing the veracity of witnesses and how they may fare under defense attorneys' questioning, he said. Epstein's attorney, Jack Goldberger, said his client committed no crimes. "The reports and statements in question refer to false accusations that were not charged because the Palm Be

uestion refer to false accusations that were not charged because the Palm Beach County state attorney questioned the credibility of the witnesses," Goldberger said. A county grand jury "found the allegations wholly unsubstantiated and not credible," and that's why his client was not charged with sexual a

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

e in confinement "24-hours-a-day" 79 6/28/2008 Emails between A. M. Villafalia, J. Sloman, A. Acosta, and IL Senior regarding correspondence with J. Goldberger and proposed change to state plea agreement 77 6/29/2008 \ 'illafafia Kuyrkendall Email regarding work release 80 Privileged Confidential Pa

are catalogued on the meeting timeline (Exhibit 5). I believe there was one other meeting soon after Epstein entered his guilty plea, when I went to Jack Goldberger's office and met with him and Mike Tein (Guy Lewis' law partner) about the victim list. Other than that, I do not recall any in-person meetings. I ha

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

ed on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 14 of 15 Page 14 counsel, he is entitled to follow the recommended advice of his criminal defense attorney. See Goldberger Affidavit attached hereto. EPSTEIN's invocation of his constitutional protections of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments must be upheld for

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