Epstein Secrets

mit a revised, more detailed log. See N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp. 257 F.R.D. 302, 307 (D.D.C. 2009) (c

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

d 944) merely procedural will result in the same trivialization of premature incarceration of accused persons prior to trial. I hold with Justice Jackson who, sitting as a circuit justice, said: It is difficult to reconcile with traditional American law the jailing of persons by the courts because

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

"in a case of child abuse under Florida Statute §39.204." See endnote 2 for full text of §39.204, Fla. Stat.2 (,-r's Motion, p. 8-9). See Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and Doherty v. John Doe No. 22, 957 So.2d 1267 (4th DCA 2007). A reading of these cases establishes tha

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

, Fla. Stat.2 (¶'s Motion, p. 8-9). See Carson v. Jackson, 466 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and D

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

) of the Fed.R.Civ.P. Har- grave McKinney, 413 F.2d 320, 324 (6 Cir. 1 9). We cannot attribute to the 3. Set Gunn I ralveralty Committee, supra; Jackson Cboo9t61404 F24 910, 012 (5 eft. 1908): Lyons ■ Davoren, 402 P.24 890, 892 (1 Cir. 1 , cert. denied, 393 U.B. 1081, 89 8.1 . 861, 21 LFAI24 u 7

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