Epstein Data Wiki

Integrity Defenders

Properties2
tagsentity, andover-new-jersey, online-reputation-management, search-engine-optimization, epstein-media-strategy
aliasesIntegrity Defenders, Inc., Integrity Defender

36 min read

TypeOnline reputation management firm, styled on its own invoice “Integrity Defenders, Inc.”1
Address on that invoicePO Box 32, Andover, New Jersey 078211
Staff named in these documentsLeslie Yueling, “Account Manager”, who signed her messages over the firm’s website address2
How it reached EpsteinIt was named to him on February 7, 2012 by a correspondent working on his search results, after Reputation.com had declined him3
What it soldA “Personal Advanced Online Reputation Package - 2 Pages”, a campaign to displace the negative listings on the first two pages of results for his name14
Price2,449.00, described to Epstein as “a one time fee”56
ApprovedEpstein answered “Yes” on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 am Eastern7
PaidLesley Groff reported the same evening, “I spoke with Leslie and have paid.”8
Proposed to be droppedOn May 2, 2012 the correspondent told Epstein the firm was not showing enough progress and proposed Reputation Changer in its place9

Integrity Defenders, Inc. is a New Jersey online reputation management firm that Jeffrey Epstein’s office engaged on February 8, 2012 for a single flat fee of 2,449.00, on the recommendation of a correspondent who had just been turned down by a larger competitor on Epstein’s behalf. It is the earlier of the two search-suppression vendors covered on this wiki, and much the cheaper: a single 2,449.00 against the $7,500 first month and $5,000 a month that the same correspondent proposed in its place in May. The release holds the firm’s invoice, the account manager’s own written pitch, the day of correspondence in which Epstein approved the charge and his office chased the account manager by telephone to pay her, the firm’s request for the passwords to Epstein’s websites, three months of instructions sent to it, one written progress report from the firm itself, two moments at which Epstein’s own side recorded that the work had produced a visible result, and the message that ended it. What the release does not hold is any statement of account, card statement or ledger entry recording the money leaving Epstein’s hands, and no deliverable produced by the firm survives in it as a document.

The referral, February 7, 2012

The firm arrived as a second choice. On February 7, 2012 the correspondent working on Epstein’s search results wrote to him under the subject line “update”: “Reputation.com said they can’t represent you because of your background. BUT Integrity Defenders will. They are Yale vs. Harvard. Integrity is also less expensive by far.” She gave the firm’s website address in the plural form, and closed: “An account manager is reviewing your case and will contact me today with a pitch and time frame.”3 Three months later, explaining why she wanted the firm dropped, she named the chain the other way round: the firm, she wrote, “were recommended to me by Rep=tation Management (the firm that couldn’t take you)”. The ”=” stands for a lost character in the machine-readable text of that sheet.10

The pitch came the same afternoon. Leslie Yueling, signing “Account Manager” over the firm’s website address, wrote under the subject line “Jeffrey Epstein”: “In reference to your client’s online reputation management plan, we have a process we execute for all of our clients that entails creating volumes of numerous sites, back linking and good content that will rank highly in results, eventually displacing the negative content.” She set the horizon at the outset: “The process for you client will take well into 6 months to a year because of the high profile nature of his links.” The sentence after that asked for access to a website in Epstein’s own name in order to move it up the ranks. Then the method: “We will recycle information found on his foundation website and also focus on other individuals with the same name in order to diffuse the monopoly of information there is about him.” And a warning to the client: “You can usually see our input within the first few weeks. Please ask him or anyone else not to click on any of the negative links EVER again as that can keep them lingering on the first page.”2

The pitch, and one question from Epstein

The correspondent forwarded that message to Epstein with a covering note of her own: “The company is confident that they can remove bad stuff from the first two pages, including Wikipedia. You will see results in the first two weeks but it will take 6 months to a year. Cost is $2,449. They do a lot of algorithmic work that is proprietary.” She asked for a conference call so that he could put questions to the account manager directly.4 Epstein asked one question in reply, four words long and without a question mark: “is that per month”.11 The answer that came back closed the commercial question in a single line: “Hi, no it’s a one time fee.”5

The request to pay went into the office the same afternoon, on the letter that describes the trade in the plainest terms the release contains: “Jeffrey would like me to sign him onto Integrity Defenders. They are a tech group that works to get bad press off the Internet. (The field is called Offline Management). Their website is www.integritydefenders.com.” It named the price as “$2,449 plus taxes I think for the advanced package”, said the writer would be liaising with the account manager, and asked Lesley Groff to “call or email her and give her a credit card for payment”12 Groff put it to Epstein that evening: “Please see below and confirm you wish me to buy you the advanced package with integrity defenders for around $2449 plus tax.”13

The approval and the payment, February 8

The following morning Groff asked again, in the form the office used for a decision: “Did you want me to sign you up for the Integrity Defenders as [redacted] is requesting?”14 Epstein’s answer, timed on the header of the message that carried it onward as February 8, 2012 at 11:39:26 am EST, was one word: “Yes”.7 Groff acknowledged it in three: “will do..thanks”.15 A separate message that morning, whose writer the release withholds, passed the approval to whoever would make the charge: “Wanted you to have below approval from JE…I am going to put this on his Visa card…” Bella Klein answered it.16

An item then went into the office’s task list, stored on the mail server and set to raise an alarm on February 8, 2012 at 12:03:21 pm EST. Its subject is the whole instruction: “Speak to Leslie at Integrity Defenders and pay”.17

The account manager was hard to reach. The correspondent wrote at 11:50 that morning with a correction and a confirmation: “I had sent you the wrong company link! It is: http://www.integritydefender.com/” and “I spoke to the account manager, Leslie Yeuling, and she confirmed that for high profile individuals, it is a one time fee of $2,449.” She added: “Leslie will start as soon as she gets payment information from you.” Then a direct line: “Her extension is: ext. 722”6 Groff tried it: “I have called Leslie and left 2 messages today…did you find her hard to get a hold of? should I just speak to anyone or does it need to be her?” The correspondent advised going through the switchboard instead: “So sorry for the difficulty. I usually got her when I called the main number and did not dial an extension but asked for her from the main operator.”18 Groff agreed to try it: “i will try not dialing the extension and just asking for her…thanks”19 At 5:31 that afternoon she reported the transaction done: “I spoke with Leslie and have paid. She says she will be in touch with you. Thx!” The answer was “Terrific, thanks so much.”8

The invoice

Later that evening an automated message went out from “Integrity Defenders, Inc.” with a PDF attached whose file name carries the invoice number 20205: “Dear Customer : / Your invoice is attached. / Thank you for your business - we appreciate it very much.” It is signed in the firm’s name over a toll-free telephone number, which is not reproduced on this page.20

The invoice itself is a single sheet. It prints the firm’s name, “PO Box 32” and “Andover, NJ 07821” at the head, a “Bill To” block whose two lines render as “tale E stein” and “do” in the machine-readable text, a single line of description, “Personal Advanced Online Reputation Package - 2 Pages”, and one money figure, “2,449.00”. Its invoice number is 20205, the number the emailed file name carries. Its date field prints as “2/102012”, with the second solidus lost.1 Read as February 10, 2012, that puts the sheet billing the work after the evening the invoice bearing its number was emailed out, and two days after the office reported the charge already made, and nothing among the documents read for this page reconciles those dates. ⚠ But that sequence rests entirely on a reading of a damaged field, and no image of this sheet was opened for this page. If the field is 2/8 or 2/9 there is no discrepancy at all. The reading is stated so that it can be checked, and the discrepancy is not carried anywhere else on this page.

What the firm was given, and what it did

The firm began the day it was paid. On February 8 Leslie Yueling wrote: “We have started working on the account and need to have the user id and password for the Blogger account … website asap.”21 The correspondent answered the same night: “This is blogspot so you can also access his google+ account. The personal website is hosted by host gator. I will call them in the morning to get the user and password. will let you know ASAP.”22 She reported the handover to Epstein the next morning under the subject line “Fwd: Blogger account access”: “Read below. They have already started working on your account.”23

On February 13 the account manager set out what she was building: “As per our conversation, we are establishing a blog and recycling information pertaining to the science information. We will also be backlinking information to other sites in order to strengthen the exisitng links. If you have any pictures or information that is not already on the web, you can send that to me. The process will take some time before we see any real movement due to the high profile links that are on the first page.”24 The correspondent forwarded that to Epstein with a line of her own that names a second and opposite half of the work: “Please see below. They have also started deoptimizing your name with the bad links.”25

The raw material was sourced from Epstein’s own circle. On February 13 the correspondent wrote to Cecile de Jongh, copying Epstein: “Leslie at integrity defender is going to send me an update today on what they are working on. She asked if you email me additional images that are not yet on the Internet: anything you have of Jeffrey, Jeffrey with scientists, at events etc. The more images the better. They will be more effective if they are not yet on the Internet.” She asked as well for “any more newsworthy information that is post 2010”.26 De Jongh answered Epstein directly: “I do not have any pictures of you, do you want me to ask Lesley?” His reply was a single given name and nothing else, “Sarah”, and no document read for this page says who that is.27

Epstein was reading the results himself and finding them thin. On February 14 he asked, of his own newly built profile pages, “why do none of the photo sites come up„ picassa linked in” — the sentence carries no terminal mark in the machine-readable text of that sheet, which prints a stray quotation glyph where the damage falls.28 The answer explained the strategy and gave a figure for the firm’s reach into his accounts: “because you share the name with many other Jeffrey epsteins — so your name is diluted. Integrity has all your public profiles (about 13 of them). I will ask how they can optimize them.”29 A week later the access had widened again: “Leslie at Integrity Defender has access now to the .org site and 6 others. They will be putting simple content on the site, starting tomorrow.” The reasoning was given on the same page: the .org site was already on the first page of results, “and thus has the capacity to pull up all its content to the first pages as well”, and the firm would “connect the .org site to all of the public profiles that I set up (Google plus, linkedln, facebook, twitter etc).”30

From then until May the traffic is one-way instruction. The firm was asked to tweak metadata on the blog, to fix missing meta tags and redirect problems on two foundation websites through a third-party directory, to re-file press releases with Epstein’s name in their titles, and to distribute articles the correspondent had drafted, who thanked it in three separate messages for “zapping these everywhere”, for “posting it on pr.com and everywhere else”, and for “distributiing this through your networks”.313233343536 One request went further than search results. On March 21, under the subject line “wiki page”, the firm was asked: “Also, is there a way to either add another Jeffrey Epstein (ie. the plastic surgeon or the lawyer) to the wikipedia site so that the name redirects? Or can you rename the existing Wiki article so that it redirects?”37 No document read for this page records an answer to it.

The mug shot

Twice the release records the work producing a visible result, and both entries are about the same image. On March 13, 2012 the correspondent wrote to Leslie Yueling, copying Epstein: “I see that the mug shot is no longer on the first page and that the photos are moving. That’s great. Thank you.”38 Eight days later she wrote to her again: “I noticed that Jeffrey’s mug shot is back in view (in 4th position on google images). Can you get rid of this?” The same message reports 24 images uploaded to a photo-sharing site “which seems to do well in google images”, and asks the firm to get a blog in the name of an Epstein foundation onto the first page.39

Epstein’s own assessment sits between those two dates and is the opposite of the first. On March 20 he was told that the firm “is working on getting your blog to the first page as well”, and that he was by then on about twenty public profile sites.40 His reply that evening was flat: “The google results today appear worse than last month . What is going on”41

The progress report, March 21

That question produced the only account of the work the firm itself wrote down. The correspondent asked the account manager for one, and told her in five bullets exactly what she wanted in it: “the progress that you see”, “what you have done so far”, “what you are working on now”, “time frame”, and “the more names and specifics you can give me the better”.42

The report came back on March 21, 2012 at 1:05 pm. On method it repeated the pitch: “We have added content to the websites and have moved them up the first page of results. The goal is to get them into the first and second positions.” On specifics it gave counts rather than names: “We have added content to 3 of the existing domains that you provided and will continue to do so on a regular basis. We have created dozens of profile sites and released each of the press releases provided to over 45 PR sites via Onlywire and other PR sites. We continue to backlink the sites to other sites in order to gamer more rank strength on the existing websites and profile sites. This a backend activity that you won’t see.” It then restated the timetable as a defence: “As told to you in the beginning, due to the high profile nature and the number of negative links, this process will take a minimum of 6 months to a year to clear negative information from the first page. We have made great strides in moving the links up and down considering the volume of information that is at hand.” It closed with a forward plan: “Next week we will be adding 2 other websites in order to get them to the first page results, continue backlinking the existing sites and adding more professional and social sites.”43

The correspondent passed it to Epstein with a deadline attached. Her covering note reads in part: “I asked Leslie to send a summary of their progress (see below).” Then, of her own work: “I will bombard Leslie with more content and images.” Then the deadline: “If you don’t see any progress by the end of June, then yes, I think you should consider stopping.”44

Epstein’s reply was two words and three marks of punctuation: “Why Leslie?!?”45 His own executive assistant was Lesley Groff. The answer next day identified the other one and got her surname wrong for the second time: “The person at Integrity Defender is called Leslie Yeusling. Sorry for the confusion!”46

Dropped, May 2012

The end came six weeks before the June deadline, and it came from the correspondent rather than from Epstein. On May 2, 2012, under the subject line “Update” and with a sixty-day clearing plan in Epstein’s own name attached, she wrote: “I don’t think Integrity Defender is showing enough progress however. I’d like to deduct the fee that you paid for them ($2149) from my next wire. You shouldn’t have to pay for it.” The rest of the message is the case for Reputation Changer, at $7,500 for the first month and $5,000 a month afterwards.9 On May 10 she made the same offer in the same words with a different conjunction, “I don’t think Integrity Defender is showing enough progress either”, and added the referral chain: “I should deduct their fee ($2,149). They were recommended to me by Rep=tation Management (the firm that couldn’t take you).”10

The figure she offered to absorb is not the figure on the invoice. She names it twice, as “$2149” and as “$2,149”, where the invoice, the account manager and every February message put the price at $2,449. Nothing read for this page reconciles the two, and nothing records the deduction being made.

Four days after repeating that proposal she was still sending the firm work: an article, on May 14, with the line “Thanks for distributiing this through your networks.”36

One later mention, October 2012

The firm’s name surfaces once more, five months later and in a note about housekeeping. On October 16, 2012 the same correspondent wrote to the chief executive of the firm that had replaced this one, with access details for a press-release account and a caution attached: “we gave this same excel sheet to Integrity Defenders back in February.” She asked him to change the password on every site he touched.47 That is the last appearance of the name among the documents read for this page.

What these documents do not show

Bounded to the documents cited here:

  • No record of the money leaving. The office reported paying by card on February 8, 2012 and the firm issued invoice 20205 for 2,449.00. No card statement, bank statement, ledger, schedule or accounting entry among the documents read for this page records that charge. The invoice and the sentence “I spoke with Leslie and have paid.” are the whole of the payment evidence.81
  • No deliverable. The firm is credited with content on three domains, “dozens of profile sites”, releases to more than forty-five press-release sites, backlinking and a new blog. Not one of those artefacts is in the release as a document: no site, no article, no press release, no report, no list of assets, no screen capture of a result page. Everything known about the output is known from the firm’s own summary or from the correspondent’s reports of it.4330
  • No instrument. No engagement letter, proposal document, contract, terms sheet or signature block for or on behalf of Epstein appears among the documents read for this page. The only instrument is the invoice, and it carries no counterparty signature.1
  • No termination. Nothing records the engagement being ended, the account being closed, the passwords being changed, the access being withdrawn, or the $2,149 or $2,449 deduction being taken off any wire.91047
  • No answer from the firm to the Wikipedia request, and no document read for this page records the firm being asked whether it had acted on it.37
  • No second person at the firm. One name, one job title and one extension is the whole of the firm’s staffing in these documents.26
  • No finding about the firm’s conduct. Engaging a reputation management firm is not an offence and nothing on this page should be read as alleging one. The documents record a purchase, a method described by the seller, and a buyer’s side that concluded it had not worked.

Names, values and damage

The correspondent who found the firm, negotiated with it, instructed it for three months and then recommended dropping it is named on none of the sheets cited here: the producing party withholds her name in the header block and the signature block of every message of hers quoted on this page, and this page does not supply it, does not say how many people any redaction covers, and gives her no employer. Where a redaction is described, what is reported is what stands on the sheet.

Leslie Yueling is named as the firm’s account manager on the sheets cited, and her surname is spelled three different ways across the release: “Yueling” in her own signature block, “Yeuling” in the February 8 correction, and “Yeusling” in the March 22 answer to Epstein’s question. This page uses the spelling from her own signature.2646

Telephone numbers, email addresses, credentials and the web addresses of Epstein’s own sites print on several of the sheets cited here and are not reproduced on this page. One of them is named on this page only by its top-level domain, which is how the documents themselves refer to it.

Every quotation here is taken from the machine-readable text of the sheet cited, and the damage that text carries is reproduced rather than mended: the lost solidus in the invoice date, the ”=” standing for a dropped character in the May 10 message, the stray quotation glyph in Epstein’s February 14 question, and the firm’s and correspondents’ own misspellings, including “exisitng”, “gamer” for garner, “distributiing”, “linkedln” and “This a backend activity”.

The firm that replaced this one, whose first month alone was priced at three times this firm’s entire fee, is at Reputation Changer; the same correspondent introduced both, the attachment line of her May 2 and May 10, 2012 messages names a sixty-day clearing plan in Epstein’s name, and the body of the May 10 message reproduces that firm’s own description of its monthly process.910 Epstein’s earlier and different use of a crisis-communications firm is at Sitrick And Company. Lesley Groff; Bella Klein; Cecile de Jongh.

Footnotes

  1. Invoice of Integrity Defenders, Inc., one sheet. The head of the sheet prints “Integrity Defenders, Inc.”, “PO Box 32” and “Andover, NJ 07821”; the “Bill To” block beneath it prints two lines which the machine-readable text renders as “tale E stein” and “do”, a mangling of the customer’s name and, apparently, of a “c/o” line, and this page does not supply what it cannot read. The field labels print as “Invoice”, “Date”, “Invoice #”, “No.”, “berms” (a mangling of Terms), “Project”, “Quantity”, “Description”, “Rate”, “Amount” and “Total”. Under Date the text reads “2/102012”: the second solidus is lost in the machine-readable text, and the string reads as February 10, 2012. Under Invoice # it reads “20205”. The single description line reads “Personal Advanced Online Reputation Package - 2 Pages” and one money figure, “2,449.00”, prints beside it; the Total field prints no separate figure this text can read. Nothing on the sheet is signed or acknowledged by or for Epstein. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00301933 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Leslie Yueling to the correspondent, “Jeffrey Epstein”, quoted on the attribution line as “Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 1:47 PM”, as it stands quoted inside the message forwarded to Epstein the same afternoon. Her signature block reads “Leslie Yueling / Account Manager” over the firm’s website address, which the machine-readable text of this sheet renders in the plural form; her email address is blacked out. The sentence not quoted in the body, between “the high profile nature of his links” and “We will recycle information”, asks for access to a website in Epstein’s own name in order to move it up the ranks; that address is not reproduced here. The salutation is on the first sheet and the body runs onto the second. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00719710 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Email to Jeffrey Epstein, “update”, February 7, 2012, whose own header gives 18:16:59 UTC. The sender’s name, cell and email lines are blacked out. The firm’s website address is given in the plural form on this sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00928748 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  4. The correspondent’s covering note above that pitch, “Integrity Defenders”, February 7, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 19:16:57. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01843804 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  5. Reply to that question, “Re: Integrity Defenders”, February 7, 2012, header 22:30:37 UTC, standing above Epstein’s four words. The sender’s name and email are blacked out and this page attributes the line to nobody. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00719710 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  6. The correspondent to Lesley Groff, quoted on the attribution line at “On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:50 AM”, as it stands at the foot of the thread. The spelling “Yeuling” is this message’s own and differs from the signature block printed below it. The message gives an extension for the account manager; her cell and email lines beneath it are blacked out. The sentence beginning “It is:” carries no terminal mark on the sheet and none is supplied here. The top of the same sheet carries a reply of the same day, header 16:57:55 UTC, reading “great. I will call her now. thanks.”, whose sender is blacked out and to whom this page attributes it to nobody. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420014 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Integrity Defenders”, February 8, 2012, header 16:39:26 UTC, replying in one word above Groff’s question. The same reply is quoted on a second sheet with an explicit zone, “Date: Februa” over “8, 2012 11:39:26 AM EST”, the month name having lost its last characters and the line having broken in that text; 16:39:26 UTC is 11:39:26 EST, so the two readings agree and the time in the body is taken from the zoned one at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420019 p.1. His sign-off line follows the word and is not quoted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00928789 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  8. Lesley Groff, named in the clear, quoted on the attribution line at “On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:31 PM”, with the answer “Hi Lesley, / Terrific, thanks so much.” above it at the head of the same sheet, dated February 9, 2012 on the sheet’s own field. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02175361 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “Update”, May 2, 2012, header 04:08:31 UTC, with the attachment line naming a sixty-day clearing plan in Epstein’s name. The bulk of the message is the case for the competing firm, at “$7,500 for the first month and $5,000 per month afterwards”. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00709668 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  10. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “notes”, May 10, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 17:22, with the attachment line naming the same sixty-day clearing plan. This sheet reaches the release with its quoted-printable escape sequences truncated: a character is missing from a number of words and a literal ”=” stands in its place. The quotations on this page from it are printed exactly as the sheet prints them, including “Rep=tation Management”, and nothing is restored. The lower part of the sheet and its second sheet carry the competing firm’s own process list, which belongs to that firm’s page and is not quoted here. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02698102 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Integrity Defenders”, February 7, 2012, header 19:22:24 UTC, replying in four words above the covering note quoted at the footnote before. The reply carries no terminal punctuation on the sheet and none is supplied here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00928752 p.1. ↩

  12. The message to Lesley Groff timed on its quoted header “February 7, 2012 4:20:00 PM EST”, subject “Integrity Defenders”, as quoted inside Groff’s message to Epstein. Groff is named in the clear on the addressee line. The sender’s name is blacked out at the foot of the quoted message on this sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01173492 p.1. ⚠ Two produced copies of this message disagree on its date: the copy cited here prints “February 1, 2012 4:20:00 PM” with a lost character where a second digit belongs, and the copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420019 p.1 prints “February 7, 2012 4:20:00 PM EST”. February 1 is impossible on the sequence, because the firm was not named to Epstein until February 7, so this page follows the second copy. Neither date is asserted from this sheet alone. ↩

  13. Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: Integrity Defenders”, February 7, 2012, header 21:58:22 UTC, forwarding the message at the footnote before. The spelling and the lower case in “integrity defenders for around $2449 plus tax” are the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420258 p.1. ↩

  14. Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Integrity Defenders”, February 8, 2012, header 16:04:35 UTC, named in the clear as the sender. A black bar stands in the sentence where a name would be and this page does not supply it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01173492 p.1. ↩

  15. Lesley Groff, “Re: Integrity Defenders”, February 8, 2012, named in the clear as the sender, replying in three words above Epstein’s one. This sheet’s own field gives 16:38:31, fifty-five seconds before the message it quotes, which is an inconsistency on the face of the document; no time of day is taken from it here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01996952 p.1. ↩

  16. Bella Klein, “Re: Integrity Defenders”, February 8, 2012, header 17:05:43 UTC, named in the clear as the sender. Her own message body renders as a single mangled word in the machine-readable text and is not quoted here. The line quoted in the body belongs to the message she is answering, quoted on the attribution line at “On Feb 8, 2012, at 11:59 AM”, whose sender the producing party blacks out; the three-dot ellipses in it are the writer’s own punctuation. The attribution lines on this thread run an hour ahead of the Eastern clock that the messages’ own zoned headers give, so no time of day is taken from them. Beneath it the sheet carries Epstein’s approval and, beneath that, the February 7 request. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420019 p.1. ↩

  17. A task item exported from the office mail client, headed with its subject line and stating that it “is stored on an IMAP server”, “is managed by Mail”, has no due date, is incomplete, has no priority and is “stored in the Mail To Do calendar”, with one alarm set to display a message “on February 8, 2012” “at 12:03:21 PM EST”. A second export of the same item, carrying the same item identifier, gives the alarm as 12:00:00 AM EST, and this page takes the reading from the sheet cited rather than reconciling them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420017 p.1. ↩

  18. Lesley Groff, named in the clear, quoted on the attribution line at “On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:03 PM”, with the correspondent’s answer above it at 3:21 PM, inside a thread whose top message is dated February 9, 2012 on its own field. The attribution lines give no zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02175361 p.1. ↩

  19. Reply of February 8, 2012, header 20:52:18 UTC, above the exchange at the footnote before. The sender’s name is blacked out and this page attributes the line to nobody; the reply carries no terminal mark and none is supplied here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420039 p.1. ↩

  20. “Integrity Defenders, Inc.” to a recipient whose address is blacked out, “Invoice from Integrity Defenders, Inc.”, header “Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:14:52 +0000”, which is the evening of February 8 Eastern. The attachment line reads “Inv_20205_from_Integrity_De.pdf”. Beneath the signature the sheet prints a ten-digit toll-free number, which is not reproduced here, and a closing instruction to open the attached PDF. The space before the colon in “Dear Customer :” is the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00420051 p.1. ↩

  21. Leslie Yueling, “Re: Blogger account access”, quoted on the attribution line at “On Feb 8, 2012, at 5:08 PM”, as it stands at the foot of the thread forwarded to Epstein the next morning. The spaced ellipsis in the quotation stands where two web addresses in Epstein’s name print, and they are not reproduced here. A second copy of the same thread quotes this message at 6:08 PM instead, so this page gives no time of day for it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708804 p.1. ↩

  22. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, “Re: Blogger account access”, timed on its quoted header “February 8, 2012 10:33:32 PM EST”, as quoted inside the forward at the footnote below. The sentence preceding the quotation supplies a user name and a password for the blog; those values are not reproduced here, nor is the address of the blog. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708804 p.1. ↩

  23. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: Blogger account access”, February 9, 2012, header 03:37:48 UTC, which is the night of February 8 Eastern. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708804 p.1. ↩

  24. Leslie Yueling, “Re: Blogger account access”, timed on its quoted header “February 13, 2012 5:28:54 PM AST”, as quoted inside the forward at the footnote below. That is the only zone other than Eastern printed on any sheet cited here, and no conversion of it is attempted on this page. The misspelling “exisitng” is the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00697796 p.1. ↩

  25. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “Update”, February 14, 2012, header 14:25:46 UTC, forwarding the account manager’s message of February 13. Cecile de Jongh is named in the clear in the second line of the message. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00697796 p.1. ↩

  26. The correspondent to Cecile de Jongh, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “Update”, February 13, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 14:54:31. Cecile de Jongh is named in the clear on the addressee line and Epstein on the copy line; the sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00630499 p.1. ↩

  27. Jeffrey Epstein to Cecile de Jongh, “Re: Update”, February 13, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 16:06:54, replying with one given name above her message of the same day, quoted on the attribution line at 11:49 AM: “Jeffrey, / I do not have any pictures of you, do you want me to ask Lesley?” Epstein is named in the clear as the sender and de Jongh in the clear as the addressee. Neither the reply nor the name in it carries any terminal mark on the sheet and none is supplied here; no document read for this page identifies the person named. Her message’s confidentiality footer and quotation are on the sheet and are not quoted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01841325 p.1. ↩

  28. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Update”, February 14, 2012, header 14:47:24 UTC, named in the clear as the sender, replying above the forward quoted at the “deoptimizing” footnote. The sentence carries no terminal mark: where one would stand, the machine-readable text of this sheet prints a double low-9 quotation mark, which is the extraction’s rendering of damage on the sheet and is reproduced here rather than mended. The spellings “picassa” and “linked in” are the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00929058 p.1. ↩

  29. Reply to that question, “Re: Update”, February 14, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 14:55:54, standing above it. The sender’s name is blacked out and this page attributes the lines to nobody. The double hyphen is the message’s own punctuation. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02022816 p.1. ↩

  30. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein and Cecile De Jongh, “update”, February 21, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 21:29:37. The duplicated “on on” and the spelling “linkedln” are the message’s own. The sender’s name is blacked out. The sites are referred to on this page only as the documents refer to them and no address is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01843411 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  31. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “Jeffrey’s blog”, March 23, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 17:57:38: “Thanks for tweaking the blog with meta tags etc” followed by the blog’s address, which is not reproduced here. The quotation carries no terminal mark on the sheet and none is supplied here. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02007601 p.1. ↩

  32. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “jeffrey’s two foundation websites”, March 30, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 20:08:56. Two website addresses and an account user name print on the sheet, with a password field following, and none of those values is reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01990594 p.1. ↩

  33. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, March 28, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 23:20:19: “Could you resend the articles I sent to you through PR.log but with Jeffrey’s name in the title? Won’t that carry more weight? I’m going to do the same with PR.com”. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02005255 p.1. ↩

  34. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, “article attached”, April 5, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 15:57:28: “Attached is another article that I drafted. And below are some journals that have picked it up. Thanks for zapping these everywhere.” The journals themselves do not print on this sheet. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01872938 p.1. ↩

  35. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, “article on Synagogue”, April 15, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 01:39:18, naming an attached document: “Attached is another article on Jeffrey and the St. Thomas Hebrew Congregation. Thank you for posting it on pr.com and everywhere else. I’ll call you on Monday to see how everything’s progressing.” The attachment is not in the release as part of this document. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01874496 p.1. ↩

  36. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “article attached”, May 14, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 17:19:50, naming an attached document: “Attached is another article. Thanks for distributiing this through your networks. I’m submitting it to my channels as well. will be sending you more articles shortly.” The misspelling is the message’s own, and the salutation on this sheet spells the account manager’s given name “Lesley” where the addressee field spells it “Leslie”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02032282 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  37. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “wiki page”, March 21, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 03:59:49. The whole body of the message is the two sentences quoted, over a sign-off. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02027329 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  38. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “Photos”, March 13, 2012, header 02:47:26 UTC. Leslie Yueling is named in the clear on the addressee line and Epstein on the copy line; the sender’s name and address are blacked out. The three sentences quoted are the whole body of the message. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00930860 p.1. ↩

  39. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, copied to Jeffrey Epstein, “update”, March 21, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 03:53:06, a five-bullet message. The addressee field on this sheet spells her surname “Yeusling”. The bullet not summarised here adds four pages to two Epstein websites so that content could be uploaded; the addresses of those sites and of the blog are not reproduced here. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02009408 p.1. ↩

  40. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “questions”, March 20, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 19:21:43, naming an attached spreadsheet. It reports adding four pages to Epstein’s personal websites, states that the firm “is working on getting your blog to the first page as well” and names the blog, whose address is not reproduced here, reports him on “about 20 public profile sites, including My Space, Flikr etc”, and closes “I’ll be sending Leslie more content shortly.” The two numbered questions above that ask for further institutions and foundation names to add as content. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02017601 p.1. ↩

  41. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: questions”, March 20, 2012, named in the clear as the sender and timed on the sheet’s own field 20:45, replying above the message at the footnote before. The space before the full stop after “last month” and the absence of a question mark after “What is going on” are the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01770366 p.1. ↩

  42. The correspondent to Leslie Yueling, quoted on the attribution line at “On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:37 PM”, as it stands at the foot of the thread. The five items are set as bullets on the sheet. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00660109 p.2. ↩

  43. Leslie Yueling, “Re: email summary”, quoted on its own header line as “Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 1:05 PM”, as it stands inside the message forwarded to Epstein. Her email address and the salutation’s addressee are blacked out on this sheet. The word “gamer” stands where “garner” is meant and “This a backend activity” is as printed; both are reproduced rather than mended. The report runs from the first sheet onto the second, where her signature stands. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00660109 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  44. The correspondent to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fw: Re: email summary”, March 21, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 17:52:23, forwarding the report at the footnote before. A news-aggregator link to one of her articles prints in the message and is not reproduced here. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01991501 p.1. ↩

  45. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: email summary”, March 21, 2012, header 21:55:17 UTC, named in the clear as the sender, replying in two words above the forward at the footnote before. His sign-off line follows and is not quoted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00660109 p.1. ↩

  46. Reply to that question, “Re: email summary”, March 22, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 01:24:46, standing above Epstein’s two words. The spelling “Yeusling” is this message’s own and is the third spelling of the surname across the release. The sender’s name is blacked out and this page attributes the line to nobody. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01996793 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  47. The correspondent to the chief executive of the competing firm, “some notes”, October 16, 2012, timed on the sheet’s own field 18:01:02. The message gives a press-release site, a user name and a password, and asks that the password be changed to a named replacement on any site he accesses; none of those values is reproduced here, and the sentence quoted in the body is the whole of what the message says about this firm. The sender’s name is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02003831 p.1. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks