Epstein Data Wiki

Reputation Changer

Properties2
tagsentity, west-chester-pennsylvania, online-reputation-management, search-engine-optimization, epstein-media-strategy
aliasesReputation Changer, LLC, Reputation Changer LLC

44 min read

TypeOnline reputation management firm, described on its own proposal as “Reputation Changer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company”1
Offices given on its proposals39 West Gay St., West Chester, Pennsylvania, April 2012;2 10 N Church St., West Chester, October 20123
Staff named in these documentsPhilippe Han, “Account Executive” in April 20121 and “Senior Client Account Manager” in November 2012;4 Dennis Brown, “Client Services Director,” October 2012;3 Cliff Stein, who signed his messages “Reputation Changer-CEO”5
What it offered EpsteinA “Reputation Clearing Action Plan” to push negative listings off the first pages of Google, Bing and Yahoo for the search term “Jeffrey Epstein”678
Priced twiceApril 27, 2012: $7,500 for month 1, then $5,000 a month;1 October 15, 2012: $12,500 for month 1, then $8,500 a month3
RetainedEpstein approved the charge on October 15, 2012;910 $12,500 was wired to the firm on October 16 and $8,500 on December 20, 2012, both from his JPMorgan account111213

Reputation Changer, LLC is a West Chester, Pennsylvania search-reputation firm that twice put a dated, priced action plan in front of Jeffrey Epstein to change what a search engine returned for his name, and was then paid to run the campaign. The release holds the April 2012 proposal in full, a second and more expensive proposal dated October 15, 2012, the correspondence in which the firm’s chief executive chased the paperwork and the money, two wire payments recorded on Epstein’s own bank statements, the firm’s account manager describing how the work was done, and, four months after the first payment, Richard Kahn of HBRK Associates asking Epstein whether the firm might be manufacturing the problem it was being paid to solve. The release also carries the name into 2013: in June, Epstein passed it on to a correspondent asking for help getting sexual material involving a third party taken off the internet; in August, a correspondent proposed moving three of the websites off the firm’s server.

The April 2012 proposal

The firm’s title page carries its mark, the line “WE CHANGE ONLINE REPUTATIONS,” the heading “Reputation Changer Action Plan” and, beneath it, “Proposal for: Jeffrey Epstein.”14 Every following sheet is headed “Jeffrey Epstein / PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,” and every footer carries the date “April 27, 2012,” the words “Clearing Action Plan Estimate Expires in 30 Days,” a copyright line for Reputation Changer, LLC, the firm’s West Chester street address, and the line “Account Executive: Philippe Han.”2

The document sets out what the firm proposed to do. Its executive summary states the premise directly: “There is no way to completely stop negative publicity from getting submitted online… However, there is a way to suppress negative listings that can render them nearly invisible.”15 It promises “Complete confidentiality,” saying that “Reputation Changer respects the sensitivity and privacy required for these types of projects” and that clients’ “information is never released,” and it undertakes that original articles, mini-sites, social media profiles, press releases and blogs “are generated and maintained for your company by professional creative writers,” adding that the firm “does not ‘spin’ articles.”15 It guarantees “that our content will outrank the prior listings, and span up to the first 4 pages on major search engines including Google, Bing, and Yahoo.”15 A covering paragraph on the next sheet is subscribed “Philippe Han - Account Executive.”16

The reputation analysis sheet identifies exactly one search term. Under the heading “Negative Keywords” the whole list reads “Jeffrey Epstein.”6 Two black bars stand side by side in the sentence “Based on our initial call with [redacted] [redacted], the Reputation Changer team completed a thorough reputation analysis for Jeffrey Epstein,” with no conjunction between them; this page does not say how many people that redaction covers.6 Beneath the heading “Sample Negative Web Site Listings” the same sheet explains that “After searching for the keywords listed above, the following websites are returned, highlighted are the listings that pose a reputational threat.”6 The sheet that follows is a screen capture of a Google results page for his name run from New York, with a search-optimisation browser overlay across it; six of the ten organic results are shaded, and the four left unshaded are two listings for a same-named hair-transplant physician, one professional-network profile page and one site in Epstein’s own name.17 The listings themselves are not reproduced on this page.

The recommended solution is the firm’s “Reputation Clearing Action Plan,” offered “on a month-to-month basis with no long term commitment required,” under a proprietary “Reputation Management and Real-Time Linking System” that “pushes negative content about you or your brand off of the first page of the major search engines and out of general public view.”7 The stated objective is “to outrank and force the negative content currently displayed on the first page of Google and other search engines as far back as [redacted] [redacted] desires.”7 The monthly process sheet lists the steps: registering “multiple high quality mini-sites,” moving each onto “our worldwide network of independent hosting servers,” building each site “using a unique theme,” creating articles for submission “through a list of over 500 top online article directories,” creating “multiple press releases,” submitting a release “to the AP and several other media outlets,” placing “strategic backlinks,” and running “Guest posts on relevant PR4+ blogs.”8 The team sheet promises a dedicated team of “Internet Marketers,” “Search Engine Optimization Experts,” “Certified Google Consultants,” “Web Developers,” “Journalists,” “Social Media Experts” and “Public Relation Specialists,” and guarantees at least twelve ranked “positive assets” within sixty days “or you may cancel your account and receive 100% of all your money back.”18

The price is on the last sheet, under “Campaign Investment”: “Month 1: (Accelerated Suppression Phase) $7,500 for month 1” and “Month 2: (Boosting Phase) $5,000 starting until the negative listings are suppressed to client’s satisfaction.” Below it the firm is identified as a Delaware limited liability company, over a script signature in the name of Philippe Han and the printed line “Philippe Han / Account Executive.”1 No signature or acknowledgement by Epstein appears anywhere in this copy.

How the proposal reached Epstein, and what he refused

On August 10, 2012, a correspondent working on Epstein’s search results, whose name the release withholds, emailed him a numbered progress report. Item 3 asked for something Epstein did not grant: “To make progress in your google search. I really would like your permission to contact The Daily Beast or at least the journalist and ask them to remove their articles on the basis of libel.” Item 4 introduced the firm: “I spoke to the CEO of Reputation Changer yesterday. See attached proposal. They have over $10mil in revenues. I would like to schedule a conference call for the two of you. His firm is ranked in first place by ‘TOP SEO’s’ and they have finally agreed to take you on.”19 Epstein answered two and a half minutes later, in full: “sorry, no to contacting daily beast.”1920 The message’s attachment line names two PDF files, one of them a “Clearing Plan-60 Day.”21 The ten-sheet April proposal stands immediately after that message in the release, its first sheet carrying the next release number in sequence.1422

The proposal’s own account of how the engagement began opens with a redaction: “[redacted] [redacted] contacted Reputation Changer ™, seeking full control and maintenance of Jeffrey Epstein’s major search engine results to avoid permanent public embarrassment and the issues associated with derogatory online content.”23 Two black bars stand in the subject position of “contacted,” with no conjunction printed between them; the document does not say who or how many people they cover, and the name “Jeffrey Epstein” stands in the clear later in the same sentence.23

The firm then priced the work again, higher. A second ten-sheet proposal, identical in structure to the April one and headed the same way, is dated October 15, 2012. Its footers give a different West Chester street address and name a different member of staff, “Client Services Director: Dennis Brown.” Its Campaign Investment sheet reads “Month 1: (Accelerated Suppression Phase) $12,500 for month 1” and “Month 2: (Boosting Phase) $8,500 starting until the negative listings are suppressed to client’s satisfaction,” over a script signature in the name of Dennis Brown.243 That sheet carries the firm’s signature block and no counterparty block at all, and no executed or countersigned copy of either proposal is among the documents read for this page.31

The engagement, October 2012

On the morning of October 15, 2012 a DocuSign notice went out under the subject line “RE Reputation Changer : Please DocuSign Attached Reputation Clearing Plan,” with the covering text: “Attached is your Reputation Clearing Plan. Please electronically sign this document. From there we will schedule a call with one of our journalists… Thereafter we will commence the suppression phase of this project.”25 The notice names no document beyond “your Reputation Clearing Plan,” and whether what it attached was the October 15 proposal is not stated by any document read for this page. That afternoon a correspondent whose name the release withholds forwarded it into Epstein’s office with the terms stated plainly: “Jeffrey would like to get started with the online Reputation management company. Below is their payment/ registration form. Jeffrey is going to do a one month trial at a cost of $12,500. The payment does NOT bind Jeffrey to any subsequent months. He can decide that at the end of 30 days.”25 Lesley Groff passed it to Epstein, copying Richard Kahn, with the line “Please advise if you would like to pay for this one month trial.”25 Epstein replied in one word: “approved.”9

Cliff Stein, signing “Reputation Changer-CEO,” worked the office directly across that day and the next. That afternoon he asked Groff, “Have you heard back from Jeffrey yet? I want to make sure I get the journalist call penciled in for this evening or tomorrow morning if possible.” Groff replied that evening that Epstein had cleared it: “Hi Cliff. Jeffrey has approved the charge. What did you need our accounting dept to do?”10 Stein answered, “I’ve attached a copy of our banking information to initiate wire payment. Please let me know once wire payment of $12,500.00 is initiated and I’ll tell my accounting department to alert me as soon as payment hits our account,” and copied Richard Kahn and Bella Klein.5 The next morning he was still chasing: “Are we ready to get started this morning? I have not seen paperwork come through yet.” Groff answered, “Hello Cliff. I know Rich in our accounting dept is on it…thanks, Lesley.”5

The money moved that day. A memorandum on Jeffrey E. Epstein letterhead from Harry Beller to a JPMorgan contact, dated October 16, 2012, instructs: “Please wire Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars & 00/100 ($12,500) from the above account to: Bank Name: Wells Fargo Bank… For credit to: Reputation Changer, LLC… Reference: Jeffrey Epstein - 1 Month Trial.”11 Epstein’s JPMorgan statement for the period September 29 to October 31, 2012 records the completed transaction on the same date: “10/16 Fedwire Debit Via: Wells Fargo NA/… A/C: Reputation Changer LLC Ref: Jeffrey Epstein 1 Month Trial,” in the sum of 12,500.00.12

What the firm built, and how it said it worked

At the end of the first month the correspondent pressed Philippe Han on delivery: “Can you launch the finance site? I don’t see it up yet. Also, how many of the 12 blog articles (not guest) have been published? Also, could your reputation website update all the assets that have been published? It is not updated.” The message was copied to Epstein, and it listed a set of websites in Epstein’s name that were to be pushed up in month 2, three of them the firm’s and two the correspondent’s own.26 Those addresses are not reproduced on this page.

Han’s answer two days earlier, signed “Senior Client Account Manager,” had described the method. He revised the count downward, writing that “The 10 guest blog articles is actually a total of 8,” and did not put the error on anyone: “I don’t know if either I misspoke when reviewing what was on the docket or if you wrote down the wrong number.” He then explained what a guest post was for: “Except for one, these blog posts are actually not articles about Jeffrey Epstein. They are articles that are written about subjects relative to the blogs overall focus. Where we get the really valuable link from is in the writer credit. ie - this post was written by freelance writer John Doe. John Doe has also worked on other projects in the past such as [an Epstein site].” He added that “These guest posts take about 3 weeks for us to retrieve a link. We have a network of high pr ranked bloggers we work with and have to actually shop our story to them in order to get permission to write for them,” and that the remaining links would be posted “as your reputational assets in the Command Center.” He pressed for continuation on the same page: “I would advise that we start month 2 sooner than later.”4

The month 1 tally reached Epstein on December 14, 2012, from the correspondent rather than from the firm: “The content that Reputation Changer produced in Month 1 is: 3 websites… 3 blogs… 3 press releases, 12 blog articles, 10 guest articles.” The guest-article figure there is the one Han had corrected downward sixteen days earlier, from ten to eight. The document carrying Han’s answer runs to three sheets, and its third holds the message he was answering, sent to him that same day: “A review of Month 1 content:”, then “3 websites— done. (1 needs to be published)”, “3 press releases— done.”, “12 blog articles— (they are not all yet published)” and “10 guest blog articles— (not completed yet).” So the ten is the correspondent’s own count, made on the same day Han corrected it and repeated in the December 14 tally; no document read for this page reconciles the two figures.42728 The assessment attached to it was favourable: “The websites they created are necessary to replace negative listings. Websites seem to be the only things that surpass negative press. We are very close to eliminating the remaining negative link from the 1st page so I do think a 2nd month with Reputation Changer is worth it.”28

Month 2, and the suspicion that followed

Three days later Groff asked Epstein whether to set up “the conf. call w/ [redacted] [redacted] and Philippe Han of Reputation Changer for today sometime after 10:30 East Coast time,” noting in a parenthesis that “Philippe Han is the head tech on your account.” Epstein replied “yes.”29 The following morning she arranged an 11:30 New York time call for the firm to reach him, and he asked her to “also add alan halperin around then.”30 On December 20, 2012, Epstein’s JPMorgan statement records a second payment: “12/20 Fedwire Debit Via: Wells Fargo NA/… A/C: Reputation Changer, LLC Ref: Jeffrey Epstein - Month 2,” in the sum of 8,500.00.13 Both figures match the October proposal exactly, and neither matches the April one. A review of transactions related to Epstein, produced by JPMorgan Chase and filed as an exhibit in a New York federal case in 2023, puts the pair in one sentence: “On 10/16/2012 and 12/20/2012, JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, located in the US, originated two wire transactions, totaling $21,000.00, from JPMC account … to beneficiary … Reputation Changer LLC, a reputation management company. Payment details referenced: JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 1 month trial, and month 2.”31 The review that entry belongs to gives its own scope as January 1, 2003 to July 31, 2019.32

Two months later the results were being questioned inside Epstein’s own office. On February 21, 2013, the correspondent sent Epstein and Richard Kahn a monthly summary that included “edited 11 articles for Reputation” and “general correspondence and monitoring of Reputation’s work,” and then reported: “national: 1 negative listing in 3rd place. local: 3 negative listings: 4th, 5th, 6th. I’ve seen no improvement in the local results in the last month. In fact, it’s worse in the last week. I’m doing everything I can to boost the websites but the local press easily dominates.”33 The summary did not end there. Under a heading “Moving forward” the writer proposed to wind their own work down: “I’m finishing up with content for the forum that Jeffrey sent me. After that, I don’t think it makes sense for me to continue as is. The progress on the national front is good. But not the local.” Three options followed: “1. I either stop entirely. 2. Or continue to boost all websites regularly at 1/2 salary— concentrating on directory listings. Press releases are expensive. 3. Supplement the above with a proposal that I have to present on deciphering signal cell intelligence.”34 That is a proposal about the writer’s own engagement, not the firm’s; no document read for this page records what was decided.

Epstein wrote back the next morning, “i am confused by how backward things have gone. do you think repuation worked . ?”, and was told, “I think reputation worked for the national but not the local at all. I’ll let you know what they say after I call them today.”33 Kahn, of HBRK Associates, forwarded the thread to Epstein with one line of his own: “could reputation changer be promoting negative articles to make it appear that we need them…”33 Epstein answered within three minutes: “i thouught so also.”35 Nothing in the documents read for this page records the firm being asked that question or answering it.

Epstein names the firm, June 2013

Six months after the second payment the firm’s name appears again in Epstein’s own correspondence. In an exchange of June 2013 a correspondent whose name the release withholds asked Epstein for help getting sexual material involving a third party taken off the internet: “Can you help find the right tech guys to help cleaning the wrong stuff on internet?” Epstein answered on June 25, 2013 with three companies, this firm among them, and the words “all co that do those thihngs”; earlier in the same exchange he had written “or reputation changer based in ny.”36 Fifty-three minutes later the correspondent wrote again on the same thread, asking what could be said to help that third party, and Epstein’s answer to that was “i know”.37 No document read for this page records the firm being contacted, engaged or paid in connection with that request.38

The domain transfer, August 2013

Nearly eight months after the second payment a correspondent told Tyler Shears that the three websites the firm had been credited with building were still on the firm’s server, and proposed moving them off it. On August 10, 2013 the correspondent wrote: “The finance, info and .co sites are on Reputation Changer’s server. I’ll call them on Monday to have them switched to a different server? Could you let me know about that? Jeffrey’s paid for them so I don’t see why we can’t control them.” Shears replied the same day: “Yeah let’s do that. I can get us a server and transfer them - please just get me in touch with the guys at Rep Change on Monday.”39 No document read for this page states what Shears’s position was or whom he worked for. Nineteen days later Shears wrote again, under the subject line “Fwd: Domain Transfer for [redacted]”; the addressee line on that message is blacked out, and Epstein and Richard Kahn are copied: “FYI - the reputation changer domains are now in the primary Jeffrey account. I am checking them for any errors this afternoon but so far things look right.”40 The thread he forwarded runs back six days on the document’s second sheet. On August 23 the correspondent who carried out the transfer had written, “I am working on transferring [redacted] domains to your server,” and had asked Shears for a customer ID and password in order to do it; on August 26 Shears asked which customer ID was meant, said he had no account with the company he named in reply, and offered to “set up any accounts necessary to complete the transfer,” adding, “If you meant setting up a new hosting account somewhere I can also do that.”40 So what the document records is the domains moving into an account in Epstein’s name, with the hosting left as a step Shears offers rather than one he reports; the August 10 exchange had proposed moving the sites off the firm’s server, and no document read for this page records that step being taken. The three sites named in the August 10 message are the three the December 2012 tally credited to the firm.28 No document read for this page records a payment to the firm after December 20, 2012, or an instrument terminating the engagement.38

The proposal in the release

The proposal stands in the release five times over: four separate ten-sheet runs dated April 27, 2012 and one ten-sheet run dated October 15, 2012.38 Sheets in the later productions carry two stamps, an EFTA_R1_ number above the EFTA number, and this page cites by the EFTA identifier and the sheet, without mixing the two series.14 The JPMorgan material carries further numbering of its own from the bank’s productions.12 Telephone numbers, fax numbers, email addresses and bank account numbers appear on several of the sheets cited here and are not reproduced on this page; nor are the search listings on the proposal’s fifth and sixth sheets, or the web addresses listed in the November and December 2012 correspondence.

Names blacked out by the producing party are left blacked out here. That includes the correspondent who introduced the firm to Epstein,41 the correspondent in the June 2013 exchange,36 and whatever stands behind the redaction in the proposal’s account of its “initial call.” This page does not supply those names, does not say how many people any redaction covers, and gives no person an employer or an attribute the documents withhold. Where a redaction is described, what is reported is what stands on the sheet: how many bars there are, or what they cover, which is a fact about the printing and not about the people.

Epstein’s earlier and separate use of a traditional crisis-communications firm is at Sitrick And Company, whose 2011 invoice bills for “internet research on coverage of the Prince Andrew stories” but records no search-suppression work. Lesley Groff; Richard Kahn; Harry Beller; HBRK Associates.

Footnotes

  1. Same proposal, “Campaign Investment,” the last sheet. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the two price lines are set in bold; the pause-and-cancel paragraph beneath them stands in a shaded band, which the October copy of the same sheet shows to be a yellow highlight rendered here by a greyscale scan. The slot at the end of that paragraph, where an email address would stand, is not a black bar: measured across the slot at 400 dpi on an 8-bit greyscale rendering, the tone is uniform at 127 of 255 with no pixel below a threshold of 80, against a mean of 102 with 23 per cent of pixels below that threshold for the highlighted band where text runs, and 0 with every pixel below it for the redaction bars elsewhere in this run. It is an empty highlight, not a redaction. The block below reads “Reputation Changer: / Reputation Changer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.” over “By:” and a script signature in the name of Philippe Han, above the printed lines “Philippe Han / Account Executive” and the firm’s West Chester street address. Nothing on the sheet is signed or acknowledged by or for Epstein. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. Same proposal, table of contents sheet, headed “Jeffrey Epstein / PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL.” Read at the image at 300 dpi. Its footer carries “April 27, 2012 / Clearing Action Plan Estimate Expires in 30 Days / © 2011. REPUTATION CHANGER, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,” “Account Executive: Philippe Han,” the street address 39 West Gay St., West Chester, PA 19380, and the labels “Office” and “Fax,” which print with no values on this sheet. The contents list runs Executive Summary 3-4, Reputation Analysis 5, Negative Keywords 5, Sample Negative Web Site Listings 5-6, Recommended Solution 7, Reputation Changer Methodology 7-8, Reputation Changer Monthly Process 8, Your Reputation Changer Team 9, Campaign Investment 10, and maps one-to-one onto the sheets that follow. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.2. ↩ ↩2

  3. Same October 15, 2012 proposal, “Campaign Investment,” the last sheet. Read at the image at 300 dpi: the firm’s mark on this run is printed in colour where the April run’s is greyscale; the two price lines read $12,500 and $8,500; the pause-and-cancel paragraph is highlighted in yellow and ends in a hyperlinked email address; the block below reads “Reputation Changer, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.” over “By:” and a script signature in the name of Dennis Brown, above the printed lines “Dennis Brown / Client Services Director” and the firm’s West Chester street address. Email addresses, telephone numbers and fax numbers on that sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01108222 p.10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  4. Same thread, second sheet, carrying Philippe Han’s reply of November 28, 2012, signed “Philippe Han / Senior Client Account Manager” over the firm’s website address. Read at the image at 300 dpi: the phone, fax and email fields of his signature block are blacked out. The bracketed substitution in the quotation stands for a web address the message prints, which is not reproduced here; the words “John Doe” are the message’s own example of a byline and not a real name. As on the first sheet, the quotations from this sheet are printed with the missing character restored. Read at the image at 400 dpi, the repairs are nine: the sheet reads “th=t,” “Wh=re,” “=e,” “John=Doe,” “ac=ually,” “soo=er,” “=re” and “=f” where this page prints “that,” “Where,” “ie,” “John Doe,” “actually,” “sooner,” “are” and “if”; and where this page prints “don’t” the sheet carries a mangled apostrophe, “don” followed by a replacement character, “=80” and a second replacement character. Three further alterations are not restorations: the stray entity fragments “&nbs=;” after “retrieve a link.” and ”.=nbsp;” after “write for them” are dropped from the quotations without an ellipsis, and the sheet’s en dash in “=e – this post” is printed here as a hyphen. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01764326 p.2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Lesley Groff, “Re: Follow Up,” October 16, 2012, replying to Cliff Stein, with his messages of October 16 and October 15 quoted beneath. Read at the image at 400 dpi: each of Stein’s messages is subscribed “Cliff Stein” above “Reputation Changer-CEO”. Black bars stand over the addressee line at the head of the sheet, over an inline image beneath each signature, and over Stein’s email address. The addressee fields quoted inside the October 15 message are not barred: they name Lesley Groff, with Richard Kahn and Bella Klein copied. Email addresses on the sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02156735 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Same proposal, “Reputation Analysis.” Read at the image at 400 dpi: two black bars stand side by side in the opening sentence after the words “Based on our initial call with,” with no conjunction printed between them, and this page draws no conclusion from that about how many names they cover; the “Negative Keywords” list beneath consists of the single entry “Jeffrey Epstein”; the “Sample Negative Web Site Listings” heading and its introductory sentence are on this sheet and the listings themselves are on the sheet that follows. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.5. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Same proposal, “Recommended Solution” and “Reputation Changer Methodology.” Read at the image at 400 dpi: two black bars stand side by side in the sentence quoted, before the word “desires,” with no conjunction printed between them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.7. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  8. Same proposal, “Reputation Changer Monthly Process,” which prefaces the list with “Reputation Changer’s actual process is proprietary” and “most techniques will not be disclosed.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.8. ↩ ↩2

  9. Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Follow Up-Reputation Changers,” October 15, 2012, replying in a single word, “approved,” above a forwarded message from Cliff Stein timed “October 15, 2012, 4:31:21 PM EDT.” Read at the image at 700 dpi, because the finding is two clock readings. The sheet carries two: an unlabelled “Sent:” field reading “Mon 10/15/2012 9:41:33 PM,” with no zone, and immediately below it the quoted attribution line “On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM,” also with no zone. So the reply is stamped an hour and thirty-seven minutes before the message it quotes; and read as local it would also postdate Groff’s 6:22 pm report, at the footnote below, that the charge had been approved. The finding that this production’s unlabelled “Sent:” field is UTC was established on two other sheets and is not generalised here. This page therefore gives the date of the approval and no time of day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01892144 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  10. Same thread, second sheet, carrying Groff’s message of October 15, 2012, 6:22 pm (“Hi Cliff. Jeffrey has approved the charge. What did you need our accounting dept to do?”), her 5:16 pm message, and Stein’s messages of 5:17 pm and 4:31 pm. Read at the image at 300 dpi. The clock times are as printed on the quoted headers of this thread, which give no zone; the same exchange is timed “EDT” on its own header at the footnote for the one-word approval above. The document runs to four sheets, and the two the page does not quote were read at the image at 400 dpi on 2026-09-09 at 17:38Z, the third again at 600 dpi. The third carries the same thread earlier that afternoon: a message from Cliff Stein, quoted at 3:04 pm on the attribution line, asking whether “the docusign for Jeffrey Epstein’s campaign” had been completed and opening “Christina gave me your email address”; and Groff’s reply above it, headed 3:12 pm and copied to Christina Galbraith, “ok, thank you. I’m sure it is all fine, but I need jeffrey’s approval myself…hoping he gets back to me asap!” Neither sheet names the document the DocuSign attached. The addressee line of that sheet is blacked out and email addresses on it are not reproduced here. The fourth sheet carries an attachment placeholder only, naming an incoming wire instructions file for the firm. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02156735 pp.2-4. ↩ ↩2

  11. Memorandum on Jeffrey E. Epstein letterhead, from Harry Beller to a JPMorgan contact, dated October 16, 2012, produced by JPMorgan Chase under a request for confidential treatment and stamped JPM-SDNY-00063547 as well as the EFTA number. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the sheet is a photograph carrying paper grain and skew, with a pen signature beside Beller’s printed name, and a fax banner across the foot reading “DATE: 10/16/2012 18:49:00 Page 6 of 7.” Account and routing numbers on the sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01583826 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  12. JPMorgan statement for JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, “For the Period 9/29/12 to 10/31/12,” transaction detail, its own printed page 4 of 8. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the Reputation Changer line carries 12,500.00 in the Transfers & Withdrawals column and a running balance of 244,448.33. The sheet also carries the stamps JPM-SDNY-00004826 and SDNY_GM_00274024. Account numbers on the sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01483650 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. JPMorgan statement for JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, “For the Period 12/1/12 to 12/31/12,” transaction detail, its own printed page 4 of 8. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the Reputation Changer line carries 8,500.00 in the Transfers & Withdrawals column and a running balance of 366,568.78. The sheet also carries the stamps JPM-SDNY-00004862 and SDNY_GM_00274060. Account numbers on the sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01483685 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  14. “Reputation Changer Action Plan / Proposal for: Jeffrey Epstein,” ten sheets, title sheet. Read at the image at 300 dpi: the firm’s shield mark, the line “WE CHANGE ONLINE REPUTATIONS,” the title and the words “Proposal for: Jeffrey Epstein”; a telephone label prints with no value beside it. The sheet carries two production stamps, EFTA_R1_02068577 above EFTA02700902; the covering email at the identifier below carries EFTA_R1_02068576, the number immediately before it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  15. Same proposal, executive summary. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.3. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. Same proposal, second executive-summary sheet, closing “Respectfully,” over a script mark and the printed line “Philippe Han - Account Executive.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.4. ↩

  17. Same proposal, the sheet carrying the sample negative web site listings themselves. Read at the image at 400 dpi: it is a screen capture of a Google results page for the search term “Jeffrey Epstein,” with the location “New York, NY” shown in the left rail and a search-optimisation browser extension printing statistics under each result; six of the ten organic listings are shaded, and four are not. Counted at 400 dpi, the four unshaded are the third and tenth listings, both for a hair-transplant physician of the same name, the ninth, a professional-network profile page, and the fourth, a website in Epstein’s own name. The listings are not reproduced on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.6. ↩

  18. Same proposal, “Your Reputation Changer Team.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.9. ↩

  19. Email to Jeffrey Epstein, “update,” August 10, 2012, with Epstein’s reply above it beginning “sorry, no to contacting daily beast.” Read at the image at 400 dpi: the sender’s name and address are blacked out in both the header block and the quoted attribution line, and a signature block at the foot carries name, cell and email lines, each struck through with a black bar, one of which stops a single character short of the end of its line. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01876126 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  20. Second copy of Epstein’s reply, carrying an RFC header, “Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:53:04 +0000.” Read at the image at 400 dpi. That is 20:53:04 UTC, stated as such on the header itself. The message it answers carries its own RFC header on the sheet pinned in the next footnote, timed 20:50:39 UTC, which puts the gap between them at two minutes and twenty-five seconds. The unlabelled “Sent:” field on the copy pinned above prints the same clock reading as this UTC header. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00940679 p.1. ↩

  21. Second copy of the August 10, 2012 message, carrying an RFC header, “Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 20:50:39 +0000,” which is 20:50:39 UTC as stated on the header itself, and the line “Attachments: Jeffrey_Epstein-_Clearing_Plan-60_Day.pdf; RDC_NDA.pdf.” Read at the image at 400 dpi. Whether either named attachment is the April proposal is not stated by any document read for this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00713371 p.1. ↩

  22. A third copy of the same August 10, 2012 message, produced immediately before the ten-sheet April proposal. Read at the image at 300 dpi: its unlabelled “Sent:” field reads “Friday, August 10, 2012 8:51 PM,” its attachment line reads “Jeffrey Epstein- Clearing Plan-60 Day.pdf; RDC NDA.pdf,” and it is stamped EFTA_R1_02068576, the release number immediately before the EFTA_R1_02068577 on the proposal’s title sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700901 p.1. ↩

  23. Same proposal, executive summary, the sentence opening its account of how the engagement began. Read at the image at 400 dpi: two black bars stand side by side at the head of the sentence, with no conjunction printed between them, and they stand in the subject position of the verb “contacted”; the name “Jeffrey Epstein” is in the clear later in the same sentence. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902 p.3. ↩ ↩2

  24. A second ten-sheet run of the same proposal, titled and laid out as the April one, whose footers are dated October 15, 2012, carry a 2012 copyright line, and read “Client Services Director: Dennis Brown” over the street address 10 N Church St., West Chester, PA 19380. Table of contents sheet; the title sheet is p.1 of the same run. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01108222 p.2. ↩

  25. Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, copied to Rich Kahn, “Fwd: RE Reputation Changer : Please DocuSign Attached Reputation Clearing Plan,” October 15, 2012, forwarding a message timed on its own header “October 15, 2012 2:35:25 PM EDT” and, below that, the DocuSign notice sent “Monday, October 15, 2012 10:36 AM.” Read at the image at 400 dpi: the writer’s name is withheld by the producing party and is not supplied here. The body of the forwarded message names Cliff Stein above the line “Reputation Changer-CEO”. This page does not attribute the forwarded message to the correspondent treated as one writer in the footnote below, and attributes it to nobody. The DocuSign notice and its covering text are not on this sheet: they are on the second sheet, headed “Please review & sign your document” over “Sent on behalf of Reputation Changer at Reputation Changer LLC.”, read at the image at 400 dpi at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01983825 p.2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01983825 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  26. Email to Philippe Han, copied to “jeffrey epstein,” “Re: month 1/ month 2,” November 30, 2012. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the message is addressed to Philippe Han. The sender’s name, address, cell and email are blacked out. The message lists five web addresses in Epstein’s name, which are not reproduced here. This message reaches the release with its quoted-printable escape sequences truncated: a single character is missing from a word and a literal ”=” stands in its place, sometimes a letter and sometimes a space. The quotations on this page from both sheets of it restore the missing character and alter nothing else, except as listed at the next footnote. The repairs on this sheet are three: the sheet reads “I don’t=see it up yet,” “have bee= published” and “upda=e all the assets” where this page prints “I don’t see it up yet,” “have been published” and “update all the assets.” A fourth stands in the footnote on the single correspondent below, which prints “3 of yours and 2 of mine” where the sheet reads “3 of yours=and 2 of mine.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01764326 p.1. ↩

  27. Same thread, third sheet, carrying the correspondent’s message to Philippe Han of November 28, 2012 — the message Han’s reply on the second sheet answers. Read at the image at 400 dpi on 2026-09-09 at 17:38Z: Philippe Han is named in the clear on the addressee line, the subject line is empty, and the sender’s name, cell and email lines are blacked out. The sheet carries the same transport damage as the other two, and the stray fragments ”=/DIV>”, ”<=SPAN>” and ”<=DIV>” that stand in and after the list are dropped from the quotations without an ellipsis; nothing else in them is altered. The sheet also asks Han to “send me the remaining guest blog articles” so they could be edited “before we go into month 2,” the second of those printed with the missing character restored as set out above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01764326 p.3. ↩

  28. Email to Jeffrey Epstein, “Month 1,” December 14, 2012. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the sender’s name is blacked out in the header and the signature block, along with the cell and email lines. The message names three websites and three blogs by address; those addresses are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01912354 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  29. Jeffrey Epstein to Lesley Groff, “Re: Conf Call w/ [redacted] [redacted] & Philippe Han of Reputation Changer,” December 17, 2012, replying “yes” above her message of the same day. Read at the image at 400 dpi: two black bars stand side by side where a name would be, once in the subject line and once again in the body, with no conjunction printed between them and Philippe Han named beside them on both occasions. This page draws no conclusion from that about how many people the redaction covers. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01912039 p.1. ↩

  30. Jeffrey Epstein to Lesley Groff, “Re: 11:30 NY time conf call,” December 18, 2012, replying “also add alan halperin around then” above her message of the same morning, which reads in part, after a black bar where a name would be, “of Reputation Changer will call you at FTC.” Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01914086 p.1. ↩

  31. Exhibit 27 to Document 285-6 in Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed August 15, 2023: a review of transactions related to Jeffrey E Epstein produced by JPMorgan Chase, setting out wires by date, amount, beneficiary and payment reference. The exhibit’s narrative sheet, at the next footnote, describes the review in the passive with no actor named, and no sheet of this exhibit states who conducted it; what is documented is the production, which is Bates-stamped JPM-SDNYLIT-W-. Read at the image at 400 dpi: the quoted paragraph is the seventh entry on the sheet, which is stamped JPM-SDNYLIT-W-00038407 and headed “Case 1:22-cv-10904-JSR Document 285-6 Filed 08/15/23 Page 9 of 10.” The ellipses in the quotation stand where an account number and a further redaction bar fall, and neither is reproduced here. Searched by phrase across the extracted text of all ten sheets of this exhibit: “Reputation Changer” returns this sheet and no other. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02816080 p.9. ↩

  32. Same exhibit, its first narrative sheet: “Prompted by negative media, a review was conducted of transactions related to Jeffrey E Epstein. Scope: 01/01/2003 to 07/31/2019”. Read at the image at 300 dpi. Identifiers and addresses printed on that sheet are not reproduced here. The exhibit cover sheet, reading “EXHIBIT 27,” is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02816080 p.1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02816080 p.2. ↩

  33. Richard Kahn to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: update,” February 22, 2013, carrying his own line above a forwarded thread that runs from a monthly summary sent February 21, 2013 at 11:00 pm, through Epstein’s reply of February 22 at 6:13 am, to the answer timed “February 22, 2013 8:54:55 AM EST.” Read at the image at 400 dpi: the first two of those clock times are as printed on the quoted attribution lines of this thread, which give no zone, and only the third carries one. Kahn signs with his name and firm, and his contact details are blacked out; the summary writer’s name is withheld by the producing party and is not supplied here. The results and the remainder of the summary are on the second sheet, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01901932 p.2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01901932 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  34. Same February 21, 2013 summary, second sheet, carrying the bullet items that close the work list, the “Results” paragraph and the “Moving forward” section quoted here. Read at the image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01901932 p.2. ↩

  35. Jeffrey Epstein to Richard Kahn, “Re: update,” February 22, 2013, replying “i thouught so also” less than three minutes after the message quoted above, by the “Sent:” fields printed on the two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01901961 p.1. ↩

  36. Thread with the subject line “Re:”, June 2013, between Jeffrey Epstein and a correspondent whose name the release withholds; the exchange runs over the first two sheets of a three-sheet document, the third carrying a confidentiality notice only. Read at the image at 400 dpi, and the third sheet at 300 dpi: Epstein is named in the clear as the sender of both of his replies; black bars stand over the addressee line at the head of the first sheet, over the correspondent’s name and address in both quoted attribution lines, and over the signature block that closes the quoted message on each of the first two sheets. The request quoted here is on the second sheet and both of Epstein’s answers are on the first. His answer naming the firm is dated on this copy from an unlabelled “Sent:” field, “Wed 6/26/2013 12:19:23 AM,” with no zone; a second copy of the same message carries an RFC header, “Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:19:23 -0400,” read at the image at 400 dpi at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00646128 p.1, so it was sent on the evening of June 25, 2013 Eastern time and the unlabelled field on the copy pinned here is UTC. The header on the earlier reply carries no zone and no date is taken from it here. The spellings are the messages’ own. This thread is not among the messages treated as the work of one correspondent below, and this page attributes it to nobody; nobody in the exchange is named on this page, and what the request concerned is stated in the body at the level the subject requires and no further. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01967617 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  37. Same thread, the two messages that follow the answer quoted above. The correspondent’s further message stands at the head of the first sheet of the copy cited in the previous footnote for the RFC header, above the separator rule and above Epstein’s answer; read at the image at 400 dpi at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00646128 p.1, it is addressed to “Jeffrey Epstein” in the clear, the sender’s name and address are blacked out, and it carries its own RFC header with an explicit zone, “Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:12:42 +0000.” Epstein’s answer in the lower half of the same sheet is headed “Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 20:19:23 -0400,” which is 00:19:23 UTC on June 26, so the interval between them is fifty-three minutes and nineteen seconds. Only the closing question of the further message is reported on this page; nothing else it says is reproduced here. Epstein’s answer to it is on a second copy of the thread, read at the image at 400 dpi at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00963782 p.1: “From: Jeffrey Epstein” in the clear, the addressee blacked out, “Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 01:55:37 +0000,” which is forty-two minutes and fifty-five seconds later, and a body of the two words quoted here and nothing else, standing above the text of the message it answers. Both headers state their zone and no time of day is taken here from an unlabelled field. The spelling is Epstein’s own. ↩

  38. Searched by phrase across the whole corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions: “Reputation Changer” returns 239 pages across 168 documents. Five of those documents are ten-sheet runs of the proposal with every sheet matching: four dated April 27, 2012 and naming Philippe Han, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02700902, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01108193, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01108203 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01176548, and one dated October 15, 2012 and naming Dennis Brown, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01108222. Both dated runs were compared sheet by sheet in the extracted text and the price sheet of one run of each date was read at the image (the April run at the anchor identifier, the October run at EFTA01108222). The search was not narrowed by date. The extent of the reading behind the absence statement in the body is this: the extracted text of all 239 matching pages was read; of the 168 documents, 18 carry a date of 2013 or later on a matching page, and the extracted text of all 18 was read. They are the February 2013 exchange quoted above and its copies (4 documents), one accounting schedule printed January 24, 2013 whose entries are dated 2012 (1), the June 2013 exchange reported in the body and its copies (10), the two August 2013 messages quoted above (2), and the JPMorgan exhibit (1). Every sheet cited on this page was read at the image; the remainder were read in the extracted text only. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  39. Email forwarded to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: other sites,” August 10, 2013, carrying a reply from Tyler Shears timed on its own header “August 10, 2013 10:51:52 AM EDT” above the message it answers, sent the same morning. Read at the image at 400 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear on the forwarded header and in the message text, and the other correspondent’s name is withheld by the producing party and is not supplied here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01959766 p.1. ↩

  40. Tyler Shears, “Fwd: Domain Transfer for [redacted],” August 29, 2013, copied to Jeffrey Epstein and Richard Kahn. The document runs to two sheets and both were read at the image at 400 dpi on 2026-09-09 at 17:35Z. Sheet 1 carries Shears’s forward, quoted in the body, above the message it forwards: a confirmation of the same day from Emily Thompson, “Thank you for the information. I completed the transfer for you.” Tyler Shears is named in the clear as the sender of the forward and in his own signature; the addressee line of the forward is blacked out, as is part of the subject line. Sheet 1 gives Thompson no role and no employer. Sheet 2 gives a role: the thread continues onto it, and the signature block closing Thompson’s message of August 23 prints the name and the title “Strategy Coordinator” on a single line, the name in bold running straight into the title with no space between them; a website address stands further down the block, among the contact lines. No employer is stated for Thompson on either sheet and none is supplied here. Sheet 2 also carries the two messages that precede the transfer. On August 23: “I am working on transferring [redacted] domains to your server. In order to do so, I need your Customer ID and password information.” On August 26, Shears in reply: “Can you please clarify what customer ID you are referring to? I do not have a Brand.com account but can set up any accounts necessary to complete the transfer,” and “If you meant setting up a new hosting account somewhere I can also do that.” The company Shears names in that reply and the website line in the signature block below it are the same domain name, printed twice on this one sheet. This is the thread quoted in the body, where Shears’s message, and not its subject line, carries the phrase “the reputation changer domains,” and Thompson is the correspondent who completed the transfer. What no document read for this page states is what relationship, if any, exists between that company and Reputation Changer, or whom Thompson worked for, and this page supplies neither. The index count bears on other documents rather than on this sheet: searched by phrase across the whole corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions, “Brand.com” in that spelling returns one page, and it is this sheet, so the index holds no second document against which the question could be tested. The printed title is not findable in the extracted text of that sheet, which runs the surname and the title together as a single word, so it is legible only at the image; “Strategy Coordinator” as a phrase returns nothing across the index. Only one message on the document carries a time zone and no time of day is taken from the document here. An account reference, an account number, a fax number and email addresses print across the two sheets and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01962090 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩2

  41. The messages of August 10, November 30 and December 14, 2012 and February 21, 2013 are treated on this page as the work of one correspondent. No document read for this page states that. The producing party withholds the writer’s name in every one of them, so the identification is an inference, and its basis is continuity of subject in the messages themselves, in three links. First, the August 10 message reports maintaining an Epstein forum and replying to its comments, and the February 21 summary reports finishing “content for the forum that Jeffrey sent me.” Second, the November 30 message lists five Epstein-branded websites and separates them as “3 of yours and 2 of mine,” and the December 14 message reports the firm’s month 1 output as three named websites, none of them the education website or the USVI website, and then asks to “complete the work of getting the education website and the USVI website onto the 1st page.” Third, joining those two pairs, the November 30 message presses the firm on how many of its blog articles “have been published” and asks whether the firm’s own site would “update all the assets that have been published,” and the February 21 summary reports “general correspondence and monitoring of Reputation’s work” and “I’m doing everything I can to boost the websites.” The quotations from November 30 are printed with the transport damage repaired, as set out at the footnote for that message above. Deliberately outside this group are the October 15, 2012 message forwarded into Epstein’s office, the June 2013 thread reported in its own section, and the August 10, 2013 message quoted in a later section. No document read for this page attributes any of them to this writer, and this page attributes none of them to anyone. A reader who does not accept the inference should read each message as the work of a correspondent working on Epstein’s search results, which is what any one of them establishes on its own. ↩

Backlinks