Epstein Secrets

n led to; the impeachment ofPresident Clinton. Marra describes an October 2007 breakfast meeting between Acosta, who,is now U.S; labor secretary, and Lefkowitz shortly after the noh-prosecution agreement was inked, After the meeting, Lefkowitz sent Acosta a note thanking him for “the commitment you made to m

ruling. Neither Black nor New York City attorney Jay Lefkowitz,,who led efforts to bury the federal indictment,

uture plea deal. He insists Epstein will emerge in the end with his: reputation untarnished. "He will recover from this," he said. Staffwriter Larry. Keller and staff researchers Bridget Bulger, Angelica Cortez, AmyHanaway and Melanie Mend contributed id this'story. [email protected] CA/Aronberg-000149 FI

R BEYER,LAWRENCE COHLAN,JOHN LEFKOWITZ,ELISE JAMES,JANET B HILL,MELANIE

FEY,EDWARD G MINIKES,MICHAEL KOLLER,HELMUT BALLINGER,WALTER S SLOTKIN,M

al or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turlev 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

nscend any difficulties that the exercise of the privilege may impose on society in the detection and prosecution of a crime." Id, at 490; and In re Keller Financial Svcs. of Fla., Inc., 259 B.R. 391, 399 (M.D. Fla. 2000). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a con

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

ted information only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00222536 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Pag

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citin Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege

AYRAIN09 PaKO PS 4 24 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 13 that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, .gr Hoffman, at 486. In the instant case, the privilege applies as Defendant EPSTEIN "has reasonable cause to appr

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

ted information only if it "clearly appears" to the court that the witness was mistaken in his invocation of the privilege." (Emphasis added). In re Keller Financial Svcs., supra at 399, ciSgr Hoffman at 486. 12 EFTA00067394 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Pag