Epstein Secrets

s $1,600.88 4 11/27/2005 Southern Petroleum $73.00 Gasoline $1,527.88 5 11/27/2005 Brookstone $53.25 Clock $1,474.63 6 11/27/2005 Gap $42.59 Janusz's uniform $1,432.04 7 11/28/2005 Burger King $4.15 Meal $1,427.89 8 11/29/2005 Office Depot $113.18 Office & pkging supply $1,314.71 9 11/29/

1.97 20 9/19/2006 Papa John's Pizza $12.77 Meal $669.20 21 9/25/2006 Publix $148.20 Groceries $521.00 22 9/27/2006 Gold Coast Dental $95.00 Janusz's dental $426.00 23 10/1/2006 Southern Petroleum $60.01 Gasoline $365.99 24 10/2/2006 Tropical Shipping $5.00 Tip $360.99 25 10/2/2006 Pap

the ground rules for the interview with your client, Janusz Banasiak ("your client"), to occur today, February 2, 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Banasiak is not a target of this investigation. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, i f your client complies with every provision of t

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

nst Epstein. In November poenas were served on two other Epstein 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 ab

Subpoena to Bill Hammond (pilot) (return date 12/1/06) 11/13/2006 Subpoena to Larry Visoski (pilot)(return date 12/1/06) 11/13/2006 Subpoena to Janusz Banasiak (property manager)(retum date 12/1/06) 11/13/2006 Subpoena to Adriana Mucinska (former assistant) (return date 12/1/06) 15 I 1/15/2006 A. Marie

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

r 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. Mucinska's attorney was insistent on formal immunity, and as noted

eements in connection 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 lett

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

the ground rules for the interview with your client, Janusz Banasiak ("your client"), to occur today, February 2, 2007. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Banasiak is not a target of this investigation. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of th

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