Epstein Secrets

osts (28 USC 1825, Rule 17(b) Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure)" EFTA00178489 United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: Janusz Banasiak SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No. OLY-23-2 SUBPOENA FOR: PERSON DOCUMENTS OR OBJECT'S) YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to

ematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: Grand Jury 07-103(WPB), Disclosure of Grand Jury Material In Re: Operation Leap Year Dear Judge Middlebrooks: This office wishes to report to the court, consistent with Fed. It. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(B), the disclosure to government personnel of grand jury mate

slands 457 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10022 J. Epstein & Company Financial Trust Company Epstein Interests New York Strategy Group Janusz Banasiak 1430 Suwanee Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33409 J. Epstein Virgin Islands Foundation 9 E. 71st Street, New York, NY 10021 116 E. 65th Street, New Y

ematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: Grand Jury 07-103(WPB), Disclosure of Grand Jury Material In Re: Operation Leap Year Dear Judge Middlebrooks: This office wishes to report to the court, consistent with Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(B), the disclosure to government personnel of grand jury mater

country and was back in France with no plans to return. This information was untrue; Brunel was actually staying with Epstein in West Palm Beach. See Banasiak deposition, deposition attachment #16 at 154-160 and 172-175; see also pages from Epstein's probation file evidenelne Jean Luc Brunel. (JLB) staying

son to believe that Sarah Kellen, Larry Visoski, Larry Harrison, David Rogers, Louella Rabuyo, Nadia Marcinkova, Ghislaine Maxwell, Mark Epstein, and Janusz Banasiak all had lawyers paid for by Epstein. Because Epstein and the co-conspirators in his child molestation criminal enterprise blocked normal discovery av

or other tortious behavior, suéh as tortious interference with business relationship, so long as act has some relationship to proceeding, See Levin, Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So, 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course