Epstein Secrets

ding appeal of drug trafficking conviction to defendant who com- mitted offense before active date of statute); cf. Parker State, 667 P.2d 1272 (Alaska t.Ap .1983) (right to bail pending appeal suffi- ciently accrued at time of offense under state statute so that statute passed after date of offe

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

ls between myself and Jay Lefkowitz about the appointment of I GAL and the possibility of I restitution trust fund similar to the Boehm case out of Alaska. I obtained the trust fund agreement and spoke with the in Alaska. The trust fund a reement was very complex and required I bank to agree to serve

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

/13/2007 6:55pm draft Information 9/13/2007 9/13/2007-9/14/2007 Entails regarding Marie Villafaria research regarding victim trust fund set up in Alaska child exploitation case t•-• 9/13/2007 Additions to pros memo/indictment - Individuals #3, #43, #38, #26, and #39 9/14/2007 A. Marie Villafaii

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