Epstein Data Wiki

D. E. Shaw & Co.

Properties2
tagsentity, hedge-fund, lawrence-summers, science, schrodinger, new-york, 2011, 2014
aliasesD. E. Shaw & Co., D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., D.E. Shaw, DE Shaw, D. E. Shaw Group, D. E. Shaw Research, D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, David E. Shaw

28 min read

D. E. Shaw & Co.

what this page is about, and what it is not

D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P. describes itself in its own contracts as a Delaware limited partnership, and the group it heads is defined in those contracts by reference to David E. Shaw. Neither the firm nor the man had a page on this wiki before this one, and the reason was a search result that turned out to be wrong: earlier research into the subject reported that every spelling of the name it tried returned nothing in the released files. The firm’s own name, written as the firm writes it, reaches seventy documents. This page records what the documents actually show. No allegation against the firm, against David E. Shaw, or against any person named here was found in the material reviewed for this page, and none is made here. No telephone number, residential address, account identifier or card number appearing in any document cited below is reproduced on this page. The bare name “David Shaw” also reaches other people in these files who are not this one; where a document gives only the bare name, this page says so rather than guessing.

What it is”D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., a Delaware limited partnership”, in its own contract; what it buys in that contract is “investing advice” and “advice regarding investment opportunities and macroeconomic developments”12
The groupThe same contract defines “D. E. Shaw Group” to include D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., D. E. Shaw & Co., L.L.C., their general partner and managing member, their subsidiaries, and “any affiliate of any of the foregoing or of David E. Shaw”1
Research armD. E. Shaw Research, LLC, described in a Schrödinger, Inc. board resolution as “controlled by David E. Shaw, a greater than 3% stockholder of the Company”3
The strongest documentAn executed consulting agreement of 21 November 2011 between the firm and Lawrence Summers, nineteen sheets, retaining him as “Senior Adviser” at $166,666.67 a month12
Where the firm’s name reaches70 documents carry “D. E. Shaw”; 16 carry “David E. Shaw”, of which fourteen are e-mail documents and two are the contract documents described here4
Epstein typed the name himself13 August 2014, in a note to his own address under the subject “billionaire”, and on 17 August 2014 in a message to Bill Gates asking “who do you know and like?” Both sheets print it lower case and without an initial; that it is this man is this page’s reading and not a documented fact56
Proposed for a dinner12 February 2014: Neil Gershenfeld asks the group planning the evening of 14 March, “Anyone else relevant in the NYC area who we’d like to join? David E. Shaw?”7
Financial flows to or from Epstein entitiesNone found in the material reviewed for this page. The searches run are named at 4

Two contracts in the released Epstein files turn on the same man. One retains a Senior Adviser at $166,666.67 a month.2 The other is a board’s consent to a licence for molecular dynamics simulation software. Both define their counterparty by reference to David E. Shaw, and neither of them mentions Jeffrey Epstein anywhere. No letter between Shaw and Epstein is in the files read for this page. No wire is, no meeting is, and no record of contact of any kind is. What the files hold instead is the name arriving in Epstein’s world from four unconnected directions: the hedge fund’s consulting contract, which has nothing to do with Epstein and everything to do with someone who does; a dinner guest list; a charity’s co-chair panel, which reached Epstein’s mailbox in 2012 and his house in 2017 and 2018; and Epstein’s own typing, twice in August 2014, in a list he headed “billionaire”.

The consulting agreement, 21 November 2011

The most substantial document naming this firm in the released files is not about Epstein at all. It is a nineteen-sheet Consulting Agreement “dated as of this 21st day of November, 2011, by and between D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, and Lawrence Summers (the ‘Senior Adviser’)”.1

The terms are precise. The term of the agreement “shall commence (or has commenced) on September 13, 2011, and shall continue until December 31, 2012”.1 The fee is “$166,666.67 per month”, payable in arrears within five business days of the last day of each month.2 If the firm terminated him without cause, or he resigned for Good Reason, the firm owed him “an amount equal to (1) $2,583,333.33 less (2) all the fees that the Senior Adviser will have already received”.1 The agreement also records that this was a return rather than a first engagement: it preserves compensation paid “in connection with his prior employment relationship with the Company which terminated on or about December 31, 2008”.8

What the firm bought is set out in one paragraph. The duties “will include providing investing advice; advice regarding investment opportunities and macroeconomic developments; marketing, fundraising, and recruitment assistance”, and the whole of it was expected to take “approximately ten (10) percent of the Senior Adviser’s business time”. He “will report to Max Stone”.2 The firm is nowhere described in the document as a hedge fund, but its non-compete requires notice before the adviser takes up a relationship with “another hedge fund manager or investment adviser”, and the word doing the work there is “another”.9

Then comes the sentence that repays reading twice:

“The Senior Adviser’s duties will not include a requirement to lobby government officials or speak publicly on behalf of the Company or its affiliates without the Senior Adviser’s consent. For the avoidance of doubt, the introduction of Company employees to government officials (as may be mutually agreed by the Company and the Senior Adviser from time to time) shall not be interpreted to constitute lobbying.”2

The firm wrote down that it was not hiring a lobbyist, and in the same breath wrote down that walking its staff into a government office would not count as lobbying. The compliance provisions point the same way. The adviser must give the firm access, on reasonable request, to “copies of account statements and trade confirmations for the Senior Adviser’s personal securities and commodities transactions”; he must give the Executive Committee and the Chief Compliance Officer advance notice before joining a public company board or any business that “could reasonably be expected to result in the Senior Adviser obtaining access to material non-public information”; and he must comply with firm policies “that require the Company’s pre-approval of all campaign contributions” by covered associates “or their spouses and minor children”.9 The question this document answers, and it answers it in writing, is what a hedge fund thought it was buying from this adviser in 2011, and what it wanted to be able to say it was not buying.

Who signed it, and who did not

The agreement as produced carries two signature pages, each printed with the page number 15, each signed by one party and blank for the other. On the first, a signature in ink runs across the rule above “Max Stone / Managing Director” for D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., and the Senior Adviser’s line is empty. On the second, a signature in ink runs above “Lawrence Summers”, and the firm’s line is empty.10 These are counterparts. Nothing on either sheet is dated.

The general release attached as Exhibit A is not signed at all. It is the form the agreement requires to be executed if an Early Termination Payment ever falls due, and it is a severe one: it releases “any and all claims or demands (known or unknown)” against the firm, states that it “shall not be used as evidence or otherwise admitted in a proceeding of any kind” except by the firm as a defence, and entitles the firm to “a refund of the Early Termination Payment” plus its legal costs if the adviser breaches it. On the produced copy the firm’s signature line, the adviser’s signature line and the date line are all blank.11 Nothing read for this page says whether the agreement ran to term, was terminated early, or whether any Early Termination Payment was ever made.

What the agreement does not say

Jeffrey Epstein’s name appears on no sheet of it. Neither does the name of any Epstein entity. The nineteen sheets are a consulting contract and nothing else, and they carry no cover letter, no transmittal, no production legend and nothing at all that says how they came to be in this collection. This page did not open the documents produced immediately around it.1 This page does not know why the agreement is in the Epstein files, and it does not speculate. What can be said is narrower and still worth saying: a reader who wants to know what Lawrence Summers was contractually obliged to do for a hedge fund in 2011 and 2012 can read the instrument itself, because it is in the released files, and a reader who searched those files for “D.E. Shaw” would not have found it.

Schrödinger, Inc., May 2014

The firm’s research arm surfaces in a second contract-class document. Proposed resolutions of the board of directors of Schrödinger, Inc. for its 19 May 2014 meeting record that the company’s wholly-owned subsidiary “wishes to enter into an Amended and Restated License and Software Development Agreement with D. E. Shaw Research, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company”, and that “D. E. Shaw Research is controlled by David E. Shaw, a greater than 3% stockholder of the Company”.3 Because Shaw was both the counterparty’s controller and a greater than 3% stockholder, the agreement was a related-party transaction, and the resolutions walk through the protective provisions in the company’s charter that required the holders of the Series B and Series C preferred stock to consent before the board could approve it. They had done so on 13 May 2014.3

Minutes of an earlier Schrödinger board meeting in the same release put the relationship in plainer words, recording that the counterparty is “a company owned entirely by David Shaw” and that what was being licensed was its molecular dynamics simulation software.12 Epstein is named nowhere in either document, and nothing read for this page says why Schrödinger’s board papers are in this collection. What they add here is only the corporate fact: the research company and the investment firm trace to the same person.

The option schedule attached to the 2014 resolutions lists individual employees and consultants by name, with their state of residence and their share counts. None of them is a subject of this page and none is named on it.

The guest list, February 2014

On Wednesday 12 February 2014 at 4:57 PM, Neil Gershenfeld wrote to the three scientists he was assembling for the evening of 14 March, under the standing subject line “deception”:

“Judith, Ed, Sebastian: now that this is finally scheduled let’s protect the evening of March 14. Anyone else relevant in the NYC area who we’d like to join? David E. Shaw? John Hopfield? David Tank? …”7

The message quoted beneath it on the same sheet, timed 11:20 AM that morning, reads “Jeffrey says the start time will be 7pm!”7 The next day one of the scientists proposed two further names, and Gershenfeld’s reply settles who was deciding: “Don’t have a strong opinion, cc’ing Jeff to see if he does.”13 The line after it begins “Benchmark is a contrarian disruptive perspective on creating and”, and runs onto the next sheet, where it ends “understanding [brains|consciousness|…].”14

Nothing read for this page says that David E. Shaw was invited, replied, or attended anything. What the sheets establish is the shape of the arrangement: the scientists drew up the names, Jeff set the start time, and it was Jeff whose opinion on the names was sought. Fourteen of the sixteen documents carrying the full name are e-mails; this page read four of them and did not open the other ten.4 The weekend of 22 and 23 February canvassed under the same subject line has its own page at the “deception” weekend, and the three documents cited in this section are not cited there.

”billionaire”

The closest the files come to Epstein himself reaching for the name is two messages in August 2014, and they are the reason this page exists.

On Wednesday 13 August 2014 at 2:25 PM Epstein sent a note to his own address under the subject “billionaire”. The body is a bare list of surnames, and the sheet prints it as four lines:

“david koch, barry diller, herv=bert burda, mort, blavatnik, dell, jobs, peltz leon harris rown dubin perlman, paulson, jim simon, steve cohen, schwartzman, tepper, tom lee. lauder, rpaloh lauren, kraft, milken, merkin, pristsker, greene, branson, kovner, duor jones, leonard stern, david shaw. boardamn, englander, druckmiller, lameort, ron barn, rubenstein, summers geregen, bergruen,”5

On Sunday 17 August 2014 he sent an overlapping list to Bill Gates, under a blank subject line, opening: “who do you know and like? or would like to know. ? David Koch, Barry Diller, , mort zuckerman, Len blavatnik, Nelson peltz leon black josh harris mark rowen glenn dubin , ron. perlman, jon paulson, steve cohen, steve schwartzman, david tepper, tom lee. ronald lauder, bob kraft, tom pristsker, jeff greene, richard branson, bruce kovner, leonard stern, david shaw. Israel , englander, stan druckmiller, ed lambertt, ron baron, / I don;t want too many first round, first thorughts leon , josh harris mort tom pristsker. ron baron?”6

The name is lower case on both sheets and carries no initial, and no document read for this page identifies it. This page’s reading is that in a list headed “billionaire”, running from “david koch” and “barry diller” through “schwartzman”, “tepper”, “kovner”, “druckmiller” and “englander”, “david shaw” is the man this firm is named for; that is stated as a reading and not as a documented fact, and the spellings throughout are the sheet’s own. The same list also carries “summers”.

A charity panel, printed and reprinted

The name recurs in Epstein’s incoming mail in a form that has nothing to do with finance. The Dubin Breast Center of the Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai sent its benefit solicitations to Epstein for years, and each one carries the panel of benefit co-chairs on its face.

  • 14 November 2012. The invitation to the Second Annual Benefit, Monday 10 December 2012 at the Mandarin Oriental, reached Epstein’s address under the subject “A special invitation from Eva Andersson-Dubin, MD”. Among the co-chair entries, in the printed column with “Gabrielle and Louis Bacon”, “Alexandra and Steven Cohen”, “Eva and Glenn Dubin”, “Sonia and Paul Tudor Jones II” and “Allison and Howard Lutnick”, stands “Beth and David Shaw”.15 Epstein forwarded it the same day, writing “i took a table so you can all get dressed up.”16
  • 13 September 2017. A letter addressed to “Mr. Jeffrey E. Epstein” at his East 71st Street address solicits him for the 2017 benefit. “We simply could not do this without your support,” it reads, and encloses a response form. The co-chair panel printed on the same sheet again carries “Beth and David Shaw”.17
  • 27 September 2018. The same, a year later, for the 2018 benefit at the Ziegfeld Ballroom, over the same signature block of benefit co-chairs. “Beth and David Shaw” is in the panel again.18

These documents give the bare name only. No initial, no firm, no address and no other identifier appears beside it on any of those sheets, and this page does not assert that the entry is David E. Shaw. What it does record, and what a reader can check, is that in 2012, in 2017 and in 2018 a charity whose benefit panel also carried the Dubins, the Tudor Joneses, the Cohens and the Lutnicks printed that name on paper addressed to Epstein, and that in 2012 Epstein took a table.

September 2020: an allegation about the firm, in the files

One further document names the firm, and it concerns neither Epstein nor Shaw. On 1 September 2020 at 7:40 AM a correspondent who signs himself “Whistleblower”, Christopher Dilorio, sent one of a long series of e-mails about securities matters that sit in this release. In it he alleged a cover-up in a matter he refers to as KODK: “Now we read where D E Shaw has taken a 5% stake in KODK. guess who DE Shaw largest investor is: Blackstone. Corruption cover up.”19 That is an allegation by a correspondent, not a finding, and nothing read for this page corroborates it. It is recorded because the firm’s name is on that sheet and a reader searching for the firm will reach it.

Other people named David Shaw in these files

A reader should expect collisions. Four documents in the release carry an entry for a different David Shaw in one long social contact list, and that list has nothing to do with this firm or this man.20 Earlier research into the subject also reported a law firm whose name ends in “Shaw” and several unrelated people named Shawn; those readings were not re-checked for this page. The bare surname is not evidence of anything here, and no claim on this page rests on it.

What this page does not establish

  • That David E. Shaw ever met, wrote to, telephoned or was in a room with Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing read for this page shows it.
  • That he attended the 14 March 2014 evening, or that the evening happened. The guest-list sheet records a proposal and nothing more.
  • That any money moved between D. E. Shaw entities and Epstein entities. The searches run for this page returned no transaction record, no wire instruction, no account record and no investment document pairing the two.4
  • That the “david shaw” in Epstein’s August 2014 lists, or the “David Shaw” in the Dubin co-chair panels, is this man. Both readings are stated as readings above and are flagged where they appear.
  • Why the Summers consulting agreement, or the Schrödinger board papers, are in the Epstein files. No document read for this page explains either.

Footnotes

  1. Consulting Agreement between D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P. and Lawrence Summers, dated as of 21 November 2011, nineteen sheets. EFTA00597567 p. 1, stamped EFTA00597567, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, with a negative control on an invented identifier returning 403 against this document’s 200, and the page count reconciled at nineteen. The released text of this sheet renders the Early Termination figure as 52,583,333.33; the paper reads $2,583,333.33, and the figure on this page is the image’s. The same sheet reads “D. E. Shaw & Co., L.L.C.” and “D. E. Shaw & Co. II, Inc.” where the released text gives LLC. and D. E. Shaw & Co.!!, Inc.. All nineteen sheets were read in the released text; five were read at the image (pp. 1, 3, 15, 16 and 19), and pp. 2, 4 to 14, 17 and 18 were not. Neither “Epstein” nor “Jeffrey” appears on any sheet of this document. The identifiers produced immediately before and after it were not opened for this page and nothing is asserted about them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  2. The same agreement, Sections 2 and 3(a). EFTA00597567 p. 3, stamped EFTA00597569, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch. The released text renders the monthly fee as 5166,666.67; the paper reads $166,666.67, and the figure on this page is the image’s. The released text of the expenses clause reads navel-related where the paper reads “travel-related”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Proposed resolutions of the board of directors of Schrödinger, Inc. for its meeting of 19 May 2014, marked CONFIDENTIAL, nine sheets. The heading is printed in capitals on the sheet and is described here rather than quoted, because its punctuation is damaged in the released text and p. 1 was not rendered. EFTA00293484 p. 2, stamped EFTA00293485, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, page count reconciled at nine. The image prints the company’s name with an umlaut, “Schrödinger”, where the released text gives Schrodinger. The Series B and Series C consent date of 13 May 2014 and the board’s ratifying resolution are on p. 3, stamped EFTA00293486, released text only, not rendered. Neither “Epstein” nor “Jeffrey” appears on any sheet of this document. The option schedule at pp. 5 to 8 names individual employees and consultants with their states of residence and share counts and nothing from it is reproduced here; p. 9 is a bare exhibit cover for the licence agreement itself, and that agreement is not in this document. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Counts taken 25 October 2026 against the full-text corpus, distinct document identifiers, FTS5 phrase queries. "D. E. Shaw" 70; "DE Shaw" 46; "David E. Shaw" 16; "David Shaw" 18; "D. E. Shaw Research" 3; "D. E. Shaw Group" 1. These are floors and should be read as such. The index’s tokenizer discards punctuation, so "D. E. Shaw" and "DE Shaw" match different token sequences and neither is a superset of the other, and a form damaged in scanning would be reached by neither. Of the sixteen documents carrying “David E. Shaw”, fourteen are e-mail documents and two are the contract documents described on this page. Twelve of the fourteen carry a February 2014 date in this project’s index and two carry none; this page read four of the fourteen and opened none of the other ten, so nothing is asserted here about their contents. Of the seventy documents carrying the firm’s name, this page read three, and the remaining sixty-seven, most of which lie in a long run of numerically adjacent documents in dataset 9, were not read. On the financial question the searches run were the firm’s name and its research arm’s name against the documents in this release classified as transaction, wire, account and investment records, and against the named Epstein entities; they returned nothing pairing a D. E. Shaw entity with an Epstein entity. That is a statement about those searches and about the material reviewed for this page, not about the release as a whole, and it is not a statement about what any producer did or did not release. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. “jeffrey E.” to “Jeffrey Epstein”, Wed 8/13/2014 2:25:50 PM, subject “billionaire”. EFTA01980504 p. 1, stamped EFTA_R1_00468673 and EFTA01980504, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, page count reconciled at one. The body is four lines and is quoted here in full as the sheet prints it, with its own spellings unrepaired; the sheet’s inter-word spacing is irregular and is set as single spaces here, which is the only alteration made. The released text of this sheet differs from the paper at several words, among them havris for “harris” and milkers for “milken”, and the quotation on this page is the image’s. Below the body stands a confidentiality notice, which is not part of the list. ↩ ↩2

  6. “jeffrey E.” to “Bill Gates”, Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:16:13 +0000, subject line empty. EFTA00995604 p. 1, stamped EFTA00995604, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, page count reconciled at one. The first paragraph is quoted here as the sheet prints it, spellings unrepaired, with the sheet’s irregular inter-word spacing set as single spaces, which is the only alteration made. The message continues with two further paragraphs, one asking “how did the meeting go re DAF ?” and one describing an institute at MIT, neither of which is quoted or relied on here. No address value from this sheet is reproduced or supplied. A further copy of the same message, carrying quoted-printable soft breaks on its face, is at EFTA02588689 p. 1, released text only, not rendered, and nothing on this page is quoted from it. ↩ ↩2

  7. E-mail under the subject “Re: deception”, Wednesday 12 February 2014 10:09 PM, carrying beneath it Neil Gershenfeld’s message of the same day at 4:57 PM and, beneath that, a message timed 11:20 AM. EFTA02114374 p. 1, stamped EFTA_R1_00739172 and EFTA02114374, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, page count reconciled at one. The attribution line “On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Neil Gershenfeld” stands above the quoted paragraph. Gershenfeld’s message opens with a travel-booking sentence whose first words are covered, and nothing is quoted across that span; the paragraph quoted on this page is the second one, which is unbroken. The 11:20 AM message’s sender value is covered and is not supplied here, so it is quoted as an unattributed message in the chain. Address values on this sheet are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. The same agreement, Section 3(c), which preserves compensation paid under the prior employment relationship. EFTA00597567 p. 4, stamped EFTA00597570. Released text only; this sheet was not rendered for this page. A second statement of the same date stands at Section 5(b)(iv) on p. 8, stamped EFTA00597574, where the released text prints the year as 3008; that sheet was also not rendered, and the date given on this page is taken from p. 4 and not from p. 8. ↩

  9. The same agreement, Sections 6(a), 8(b), 8(c) and 8(d). The non-compete notice provision quoted in the body is Section 6(a), on p. 10, stamped EFTA00597576, released text only and not rendered. EFTA00597567 pp. 11 and 12, stamped EFTA00597577 and EFTA00597578. Released text only; neither sheet was rendered for this page. The account-statement and material-non-public-information phrases are on p. 11. The campaign-contribution clause runs from the foot of p. 11 onto p. 12, and the words quoted here are those on p. 12; the two sheets are pinned separately and no quotation is joined across them. ↩ ↩2

  10. The two signature pages. EFTA00597567 pp. 15 and 16, stamped EFTA00597581 and EFTA00597582, both read at the page image at 96 dots per inch. Each sheet prints the page number 15. On the first, the ink signature is above the firm’s block and the Senior Adviser’s rule is bare; on the second, the ink signature is above “Lawrence Summers” and the firm’s rule is bare. The released text of this document shows neither signature, because ink is not text, so a reader working from the extracted text alone would conclude the document was unexecuted and this finding is the image’s alone. Contact and residential values on these sheets are not reproduced, and values covered by the producing party are not supplied. ↩

  11. Exhibit A, “General Release and Agreement”. EFTA00597567 pp. 17, 18 and 19, stamped EFTA00597583, EFTA00597584 and EFTA00597585. p. 19 was read at the page image at 96 dots per inch; pp. 17 and 18 were read in the released text only. The quoted phrase “any and all claims or demands (known or unknown)” is on p. 17; “shall not be used as evidence or otherwise admitted in a proceeding of any kind” and the refund provision are on p. 18; the phrases are pinned separately and are not joined. On p. 19 the firm’s signature rule, the adviser’s signature rule and the date rule are all blank at the image. Values covered by the producing party on that sheet are not supplied. ↩

  12. Minutes of an earlier Schrödinger board meeting, recording the licensing negotiation and describing the counterparty as “a company owned entirely by David Shaw”. EFTA00293474 p. 6. Released text only; not rendered for this page. The released text of this sheet is damaged at the company’s name, printing Schr6dinger, and renders the counterparty’s name as M. Shaw Research, LLC before defining it as “DESRES”; the phrase quoted on this page is undamaged on the sheet and no repair is made inside it. This document is cited for a different purpose on David J. Mitchell, where p. 6 was also used; no other sheet of it was opened for this page. ↩

  13. E-mail from Lesley Groff, Sunday 16 February 2014 9:04 PM, subject “Re: deception”, carrying Ed Boyden’s itinerary message of the same day at 2:40 PM and beneath it Neil Gershenfeld’s message of Thursday 13 February 2014 at 11:21 AM, which in turn carries a message of 13 February at 6:10 AM proposing two further names. EFTA02114558 p. 1, stamped EFTA_R1_00739616 and EFTA02114558, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch, page count reconciled at two. The sheet prints the Gershenfeld line inside a quoting chain, as >> Don't have a strong opinion, cc'ing Jeff to see if he does.; the quotation marks on this page enclose the words and not the chain prefixes. Address values in the headers and in the quoted attribution lines are covered and are neither reproduced nor supplied. A further copy of the same reply is at EFTA01936597 p. 1, released text only, not rendered, and the clock time given on this page is the one printed on the rendered sheet. ↩

  14. The same run, second sheet. EFTA02114558 p. 2, stamped EFTA_R1_00739617 and EFTA02114559, read at the page image at 96 dots per inch. A note for anyone citing this document: its second sheet carries the printed stamp EFTA02114559, which is a sheet identifier and not a separate document. The image reads “[brains|consciousness|…]” with pipe characters and a three-dot ellipsis, where the released text renders [brains consciousness •••]•; the quotation on this page is the image’s. The sentence begins on p. 1 and ends on p. 2 and is quoted as two fragments, each pinned to its own sheet, and is not joined. The sheet also prints Apple property-list metadata, including the values 85 and 84 under gmail-label-ids; no document read for this page says what those labels mean and this page offers no gloss. ↩

  15. “A special invitation from Eva Andersson-Dubin, MD”, Dubin Breast Center to Epstein’s address, Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:13:28 +0000, carrying the invitation to the Second Annual Benefit of Monday 10 December 2012. EFTA01187332 p. 1. A copy of the invitation without any e-mail header is at EFTA02702727 p. 1, stamped EFTA_R1_02076399 and EFTA02702727. Released text only; neither sheet was rendered for this page, and the co-chair panel is printed in capitals on both. An earlier research note described the second document as having been forwarded to Epstein’s address; its two sheets carry no e-mail header, no sender and no addressee, and the header copy relied on here is the separate document above. The second sheet of EFTA02702727 is a blank reply form with payment-card fields and nothing from it is reproduced or relied on here; its tier boxes render in the released text as the letter K, which this page reads as a checkbox glyph, and no claim is made about any box being marked. ↩

  16. Jeffrey Epstein forwarding the invitation, Nov 14, 2012, at 2:15 PM, quoted in two replies to him the same evening. EFTA00527007 p. 1 and EFTA00540152 p. 1. Released text only; neither sheet was rendered for this page. The quoted sentence is identical on both. The two sheets carry different clock conventions from the invitation itself and no interval between them is asserted here; both print the date 14 November 2012. Both sheets name further recipients and carry address values, and none is reproduced. ↩

  17. Letter from the 2017 Dubin Breast Center Benefit Co-Chairs to “Mr. Jeffrey E. Epstein”, dated 13 September 2017, soliciting support for the benefit of Monday 11 December 2017 at the Ziegfeld Ballroom, with the co-chair panel printed on the same sheet and the panel dated “as of August 31, 2017”. EFTA00811560 p. 1. Released text only; not rendered for this page. The second sheet of this two-sheet document was not opened. The addressee block prints a full street address and only the street name is given on this page. ↩

  18. Letter from the 2018 Dubin Breast Center Benefit Co-Chairs to “Mr. Jeffrey E. Epstein”, dated 27 September 2018, for the benefit of Monday 10 December 2018, with the co-chair panel printed on the same sheet and the panel dated “as of September 12, 2018”. EFTA00811904 p. 1. Released text only; not rendered for this page. The second sheet of this two-sheet document was not opened. The honorees named in this letter, and what it says about them, are not reproduced here. ↩

  19. Chris Dilorio, Tuesday, September 1, 2020 7:40 AM, one message in a 122-sheet run of forwarded correspondence. EFTA00010819 the sheet stamped EFTA00010892. Released text only; not rendered for this page. Of the 122 sheets, this page read two and did not read the other 120. The sender’s telephone number prints on the sheet and is not reproduced. An earlier research note gave the sender’s e-mail address with a single i in the surname; the sheet prints it with two. This document is in dataset 8 of the release and concerns a securities matter; nothing on the sheets read connects it to Jeffrey Epstein. ↩

  20. Four documents in the release carry the same entry in a long social contact list, formatted as a name followed by a partner’s name in brackets, in which “David Shaw” is the bracketed name. Nothing else from those entries is reproduced. EFTA01915181 p. 1, EFTA01762318 p. 1, EFTA02010533 p. 2 and EFTA02421758 pp. 3 and 17. Released text only; none was rendered for this page. These are cited solely as a disambiguation, so that a reader running the same search is not misled; no further detail from them is reproduced and no person in them is a subject of this page. ↩

Backlinks