Epstein Secrets

Jay Lefkowitz Response to email that Jenny from Judge Marra's office spoke with the Judge and he agreed to t

and Roy Black; cc: Gerald Lefcourt, John McMillan, Karen Atkinson, and Andrew Lourie . Jay Lefkowitz Response to email that Jenny from Judge Marra's office spoke with the Judge and he agreed to take the matter off the calendar. If a plea agreement is reached, USAO will withdraw the subpoena an

ceeding conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) arising out of a decision by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2I United States, S.D. Fla. Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra; (3) the materials are needed to avoid an injusti

asiak 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 this investigation, I had ev

of the agents and myself the matter was, in fact, "currently under investigation." The NPA was signed on September 24, 2007. The letters that Judge Marra referred to in his order were dated January 10, 2008 and May 30, 2008. During the period that the letters were sent, Epstein was asserting that: (I

as signed on September 24, 2007. The letters that Judge Marra referred to in his order were dated January 10,

with resolving the case against Epstein. In November and December 2006, subpoenas were served on two other Epstein employees — Janusz 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. Muc

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

aid Response be sealed until further order of this Court. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of January, 2015. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EFTA00191401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE D

tached as Exhibit 24). Indeed, going a step further, on October 8, 2009, Epstein took the Fifth when asked whether he even knew Dershowitz was a 38 Mucinska also took the Fifth when asked about the involvement of Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jean Luc Brunel. id. at 37:3, 85:12, 85:13. 32 EFTA0

es previously litigated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in this action. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida, this day of ,201 KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: All counsel EFTA00188716 EFTA00188717 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 282 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2015

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 I UNITED S

tached as Exhibit 24). Indeed, going a step further, on October 8, 2009, Epstein took the Fifth when asked whether he even knew Dershowitz was a 28 Mucinska also took the Fifth when asked about the involvement of Prince Andrew, Ghislaine Maxwell. and Jcan Luc Brunel. Id. at 37:3, 85:12, 85:13. 32 EFTA0

n of Jeffrey Epstein, four women who were assisting him in international sex trafficking and the other co-conspirators that would be involved. Judge Marra, I think it's fair to say, there are a whole series of ruling over seven years so I wouldn't want to try to encapsulate them in just a short statemen

he other co-conspirators that would be involved. Judge Marra, I think it's fair to say, there are a whole seri

ut what I discovered there was that when sarah Kellen was asked about Alan Dershowitz, she took the Fifth and she wasn't the only one. There was Miss Mucinska who also took the Fifth when asked questions about Alan Dershowitz. And then there was Marcin -- Miss Marcinkova who also took the Fifth. So what we

ral part of the civil proceeding, particularly when the condition is asserted as an issue by the party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE RECORDS BE SEALED IN THIS CASE. Dershowitz also appears to contend that Judge Marra’s order striking s

he party seeking closure” (emphasis added)). Il. JUDGE MARRA’S ORDER IN HIS CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE REC

about Alan Dershowitz, she took the Fifth, and there was -- she wasn't the only one. ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS (954) 331-4400 84 There was Miss Mucinska, who also took the Fifth when asked questions about Alan Dershowitz. And then there was Marcin -- Miss Marcinkova who also took the Fifth. So what w

egy Group, Inc. JEGE, Inc. Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA 000590 EFTA00184293 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Do

24, 2007 10:25 AM To: Ocariz, Humberto H. (SHB) Subject: Conflict Check Hi Bert - Here is the list of names for a conflict check Jeffrey Epstein Mucinska J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation, Inc. J.Epstein & Company, Inc. Epstein Interests Financial Trust company, Inc. NES, LLC New York Strategy

ageiee ted Feb 1a ge 2 date. 1353 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014715 EFTA00225177 U.S. Department of Just

ach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (223) On or about September 3, 2005, Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and Mucinska," traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands j • to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard th Gulfstream aircraft owned by Hyperion Air, Inc. (224) On or a

Phonc 561 209-1047 Fax 561 820-8777 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-014975 63 EFTA00225362 ...so Ann JUIUU4004

on named "Operation Leap Year." II. BACKGROUND kra 0 ration Lea Year involves the investigation offeffre E stein and five of his assistants (née Mucinska), , and e targets'would arrange "sexual massages" for Epstein when he would travel to Palm Beach or New York, and many of those "sexual massages"

stributed outside your *racy CAN No 011-110716CV.MARRA P.012645 EFTA00225707 FD•302a (Rev 10.6-931

2423(b) and 2. FORFEITURE 1 Upon conviction of the violation alleged in Count I of this indictment, the defendants, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SARAH KELFN, Mucinska," and , shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to the violation