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

me, I can only say that my client does not want to do ei q of your suggestions. She does not want to give a statement under the irnmuni ed with its Kastigar exception and she does not want to test 5'h Amendment grounds. With this client, I am sorry, but I must have a formal grant of m it y f.re she wi

testimony solely as a vie 'm/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 Mftand intends to invoke the Fifth Amendment if questioned. Please confer with her to con

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

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

A7- 327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty altho

921 F.2d 442, 447 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The government bears the burden of proving that the taint [of an illegal search] has been alleviated.")). Like a Kastigar hearing, "the government bears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sou

e A7-327) to the limitations and protections on use when their compulsory powers are used in MLAT requests, an approach which reflects such cases as Kastigar it. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) as well as decisions in UK domestic law. We reiterate the protection at Article 7 (2) of the MLAT treaty alth

921 F.2d 442, 447 (2d Cir. 1990) ("The government bears the burden of proving that the taint [of an illegal search] has been alleviated.")). Like a Kastigar hearing, "the government bears `the heavy burden of proving that all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sou

ates seeks her testimony solely as a witness. During our last conversation regarding indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If ib not amenable to an informal meeting, shetnust still appear purs

bpoenaed solely as a witness. During our last conversation, you stated that Mr. Banasiak would be willing to speak with investigators pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please let me know if that is the case and, if so, when you and Mr. Banasiak are available. My office would rightly question why I would as

ividuals. They are, however, similarly situated, so I have joined both requests for immunity in this memorandum. -1- EFTA00190247 proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the grand jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. Both witnesses are represented by counsel. Miller is an openly hostile

ng our last conversation, you mentioned that Ms. may want to be debriefed rather than appear before the grand jury. In that vein, I have enclosed a Kastigar letter for your review. If we proceed in that fashion and Ms. gives full and complete answers to the questions asked, then we can determine whethe

s her testimony solely as a witness. During our last conversation regarding Ms. you indicated that she was unwilling to speak with us pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please confer with her to confirm whether this remains her position. If Ms. is not amenable to an informal meeting, she must still appear

testimony solely as a victim/witness. During our last conversation regarding El 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

as been subpoenaed solely as a witness. During our last conversation, you stated that M. would be willing to speak with investigators ursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please let me know if that is the case and, if so, when you and M. are available. If is no longer amenable to an informal meetin , he mus

ch evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing. This provision is necessary to avoid the necessity for a Kastigar hearing. Furthermore, under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the debriefing will be offered in evidence against your

ch evidence should not be introduced because it was obtained as a result of the debriefing. This provision is necessary to avoid the necessity for a Kastigar hearing. Furthermore, under this agreement, no information disclosed by your client during the debriefing will be offered in evidence against your

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

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

4715 06/18/2008 15:15 FAX 5618059846 USA0 WPB CONFRM Q003 has been approached by the FBI to provide information via an informal proffer with a "Kastigar letter" or testifying before the jury with a "pocket immunity" letter. is represented by counsel in New York. has never spoken to a ny law enforc

et seq. 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 2 EFTA00235272 only appear if 6001 immunity was received. For example, in my letter of January 24,