Epstein Data Wiki

Alice Fisher

Properties2
tagsperson, department-of-justice, criminal-division, non-prosecution-agreement, office-of-professional-responsibility, victim-notification, epstein-defense-team
aliasesAlice S. Fisher, Fisher, Alice, AAG Fisher, Alice fisher

54 min read

Named on the documents as”Alice S. Fisher” in the addressee block of Kenneth W. Starr’s letter of November 28, 20071 and in the typed name on an approval issued out of the Office of the Assistant Attorney General on April 13, 20072; “Alice Fisher” throughout the Office of Professional Responsibility report3; “Alice fisher” and “alice fisher” in Jeffrey Epstein’s own e-mail45
Described in the documents as”the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division” in the OPR report3; “the head of the criminal division” in argument before Judge Richard M. Berman on July 15, 20196; “AAG Alice Fisher (now in private practice)” in a written response to OPR of May 20197
Acts this release recordsApproval, over her typed name, of a request for authority to seek a compulsion order, April 13, 2007; asking her Principal Deputy to return Starr’s telephone call, November 16, 2007; a request that the same official serve as interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section; speaking with Starr at a point the report places in late February 2008, and again on the day before his letter of May 14, 2008; reviewing and giving input on the Criminal Division’s decision letter of May 15, 2008; giving an interview to OPR289101112
What she told OPRThat she “played no role in” the non-prosecution agreement and did not review or approve it before or after signature13; that she had no recollection of the November 16, 2007 call8; that she did not recall reading Starr’s November 28 letter13
Where the record conflictsOPR records that the meeting Starr asked for never took place and that his request was not granted1314; a written response to OPR of May 2019 states that she “met with the attorneys and prepared a written opinion rejecting Epstein’s arguments”7
Documents cited hereApril 13, 2007 to December 18, 2020
Size of the returnThe phrase “Alice Fisher” returns 190 pages across 96 documents of the corpus full-text index15

Alice S. Fisher was the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the United States Department of Justice during the period the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility treated as most relevant to its report on the Epstein matter.3 In the documents released so far she is overwhelmingly a person other people wrote to: her name stands in the copy line of letters between R. Alexander Acosta and Epstein’s counsel, in exhibit indexes, and in the recurring sentence that Epstein was offered thirty days to appeal the Southern District of Florida’s decision to her.15 The release records a smaller number of things she herself did. One of them, an approval issued over her typed name on April 13, 2007, is the only instrument in the documents read for this page that was sent out of her own office in this matter.2

Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing.

The office, and what the OPR report says it was

The OPR report states, in the passage describing the Department’s structure: “During the period most relevant to this Report, the Attorney General was Michael Mukasey, the Deputy Attorney General was Mark Filip, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was Alice Fisher. The Chief of CEOS was Andrew Oosterbaan.”3 The organisation chart the report prints a hundred pages later places her at the head of the Criminal Division, with Andrew Lourie as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Sigal Mandelker as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Oosterbaan as Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.16 Lourie held the Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff post on detail from late September 2007 until he left the Department in February 2008.17

A letter of June 2, 2008 from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida to Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip records an earlier connection: Lourie “had returned to his position as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division in West Palm Beach (head of the West Palm Beach branch office), after serving as the interim Chief of the Public Integrity Section at DOJ at the request of AAG Fisher.”9 The same letter states that the prosecution memorandum and proposed indictment had been “extensively reviewed and re-reviewed” through the district’s chain of command and by CEOS, and that “Many of these legal and factual issues have been discussed and approved by Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (DAAG) Sigal Mandelker and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (AAG) Alice S. Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section and the Office of Enforcement Operations regarding the petit policy.”18 That sentence is about the indictment package, not about the non-prosecution agreement, and the two are distinct: what she told OPR about the agreement is set out below.13

April 13, 2007: an approval out of her office

The one instrument in the documents read for this page that went out over her name is a single sheet on Criminal Division letterhead, headed “Office of the Assistant Attorney General”, carrying a rubber-stamped date reading APR 1 3 2007, addressed to “The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida” for the attention of an Assistant United States Attorney whose middle name the producing party bars, and captioned “Re: Grand Jury Investigation, Jeffrey Epstein, et al.”2 Its operative sentence reads: “Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 18 U.S.C. § 6003(b) and 28 C.F.R. § 0.175(a), I hereby approve your request for authority to apply to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for an order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002-6003 requiring [name barred] to give testimony or provide other information in the above matter and in any further proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto.”2 The name of the person to be compelled is covered on the sheet and is not supplied here.

The signature block on that sheet is in two parts, and the distinction matters. Beneath “Sincerely,” stands the typed name “Alice S. Fisher / Assistant Attorney General”, in printed type with no rule and no ink; below it an ink signature runs across the sheet above the printed block “BRUCE C. SWARTZ / DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL / CRIMINAL DIVISION”.2 A sworn declaration filed in the Crime Victims’ Rights Act litigation by the Assistant U.S. Attorney who prepared the request describes the same act in those terms: “On April 13, 2007, Bruce C. Swartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, approved the request, on behalf of Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General.”19

An authorization in the identical form, sent to the same U.S. Attorney in the same matter and stamped JUN 24 2008, carries the typed name “Matthew W. Friedrich / Acting Assistant Attorney General” and an ink signature over the printed block “Sigal P. Mandelker / Deputy Assistant Attorney General / Criminal Division”.20

October 2007: the defence considers how to approach her

Six weeks before Epstein’s counsel wrote to her, they were weighing whether to. On October 16, 2007 Alan M. Dershowitz wrote to Judge Herbert J. Stern to retain him for an expert opinion on the Southern District of Florida’s handling of the matter, and set out the purpose in these terms: “It is on these, and related questions, that we seek your views, in part, so that we may determine whether, and how, to approach Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher or others in the Department of Justice, with our concerns.”21 The same page states the fee arrangement, “As we discussed, I will provide a retainer in the amount of $100,000, against which you would charge your time. For purposes of full disclosure, although I am retaining you, you should understand that it is Mr. Epstein, who is providing the money to pay your fee”, and asks for the opinion “within two to three weeks”.21

November 2007: the call and the letter

The OPR report dates the beginning of the Departmental approach to November 16, 2007, when “Epstein attorney Kenneth Starr called the office of Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher and left a message that he was calling regarding Epstein.” It continues: “At Fisher’s request, Lourie, who in late September 2007 had begun serving his detail as Fisher’s Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff, returned the call. Fisher told OPR that she had no recollection of this call, and Lourie also could not recall for OPR the substance of his conversation with Starr, other than that it was likely about Epstein’s wish to have the Department review the case.”8 A footnote on the same sheet records what Lourie reported back to her the next day: “In a short email to Fisher, the next day, Lourie reported simply: ‘He was very nice. Kept me on the phone for [a] half hour talking about [P]epperdine,’”.8

Twelve days later Starr put the request in writing. His letter of November 28, 2007, on Kirkland & Ellis letterhead and marked “VIA FACSIMILE”, is addressed to “Honorable Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Criminal Division” and opens “Dear Ms. Fisher:”.1 It states his purpose in the first paragraph, “I am writing to request a meeting with you to discuss certain aspects of this case that I find especially troublesome”, and objects to the requirement that Epstein waive jurisdiction and liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 for claims by victims the office had not yet identified, calling the use of that statute as a precondition of a non-prosecution agreement “highly unusual”.1 It closes: “In sum, we believe that the actions undertaken in this matter by the USAO with respect to the 18 U.S.C. § 2255 provisions of the Agreement are highly unusual. We respectfully request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss the important issues raised by the USAO’s conduct in this deeply policy-laden matter.” The three-page letter is signed in ink above the printed name “Kenneth W. Starr”.1

What the Criminal Division did with it is set out in the OPR report. Oosterbaan told Lourie he was “not thrilled” about the agreement, “described Epstein’s conduct as unusually ‘egregious,’ particularly because of its serial nature; and observed that the NPA was ‘pretty advantageous for the defendant and not all that helpful to the victims.’” He “opined, however, that the Assistant Attorney General would not and should not consider or address the NPA ‘other than to say that she agrees with it.’”13 The report then gives her account: “During her OPR interview, Fisher did not recall reading Starr’s letter or discussing it with Oosterbaan, but believed the comment about her ‘agree[ing] with it’ referred to a federal prosecution of Epstein, which she believed was appropriate. She told OPR, however, that she ‘played no role in’ the NPA and did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed.”13

The next day, Jay Lefkowitz asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office to hold back the victim notification letters “until after defense counsel met with Assistant Attorney General Fisher, which he anticipated would take place the following week.”13 On that meeting the report is explicit: “Internal emails indicate that Lourie contacted Oosterbaan about his availability for a meeting with Starr, but both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no evidence that it did.”13 Acosta answered Lefkowitz by letter, directing him to raise victim-notification concerns with the line prosecutor or the First Assistant.13

Acosta, not the Criminal Division, also answered Starr’s letter. The OPR report records the fact and her explanation of it: “In a separate, seven-page letter to Starr, with Villafaña’s and Sloman’s input, Acosta responded to the substance of Starr’s November 28 letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Fisher told OPR that she did not recall why Acosta, rather than her office, responded to the letter, but she conjectured that ‘probably I was trying to make sure that somebody responded since [the Criminal Division wasn’t] going to respond.’”22 A footnote on the same sheet offers the report’s own reading: “The USAO may have been asked to respond because Starr’s letter raised issues that had not been previously raised with the USAO, and it would normally fall to the USAO to address them in the first instance.”22

December 2007 to May 2008: the appeal that was routed elsewhere

After a meeting in Miami on December 14, 2007, Lefkowitz told Acosta the defence might “have no alternative but to seek review in Washington”. The report records what Acosta then did: “Acosta notified Assistant Attorney General Fisher that the defense team might make an appeal to her, and he asked her to grant such a request for review and ‘to in fact review this case in an expedited manner [in order] to preserve the January 4th plea date.’”23 Acosta’s own letter of December 19, 2007 records the same approach in the first person: “With this in mind, and in the event that defense counsel may wish to seek review of our determinations in Washington D.C., I spoke this past Monday with the Assistant Attorney General Fisher, to inform her of a possible appeal, to ask her to grant the potential request for review, and to in fact review this case in an expedited manner to attempt to preserve the January 4th plea date.”24 That letter is signed in ink over the printed block “R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA / UNITED STATES ATTORNEY”, and its copy line opens “cc: Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General”.24 A footnote on the OPR sheet records the message that came back through her Chief of Staff: “As Assistant Attorney General Fisher’s Chief of Staff, Lourie had informed Starr that Fisher hoped Starr would speak to Acosta to ‘resolve the[] fairly narrow issues’ raised in Starr’s correspondence with Acosta. Acosta had the Starr and Lefkowitz submissions of December 11 forwarded to Fisher.”23

The report places two further contacts in 2008. In the passage covering late February, immediately after a sentence dating a defence request for a meeting with Oosterbaan to February 29, 2008: “Starr spoke to Assistant Attorney General Fisher and ‘made it clear that [the defense team would] want an audience with her if [CEOS] decid[ed] to support the prosecution.’”10 And in May: “Finally, in a letter to Assistant Attorney General Fisher on May 14, 2008, Starr thanked her for having spoken with him the previous day, reiterated the defense team’s various complaints, and asked her to meet with him, Lefkowitz, and Whitley.”11

Her recorded part in the outcome is a review role. The same sheet states that the decision letter “was reviewed by and received input from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Fisher, as well as the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section (regarding certain legal issues) and Office of Enforcement Operations (regarding the Petite policy).”11 The report’s summary of the reviews says the case was reconsidered “by CEOS Chief Oosterbaan, in consultation with his staff and with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sigal Mandelker and Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, and then by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.”25 The letter that issued on May 15, 2008 went out over Oosterbaan’s name, not hers: it is signed in ink “Andrew G. Oosterbaan / Chief”, and its copy line reads “cc: AAG Alice S. Fisher / DAAG Sigal P. Mandelker / U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta”.26 Its closing paragraph, which begins on the previous sheet under the run-in heading “Conclusion.”, states what the review concluded: “After carefully considering all the factual and legal issues raised, as well as the arguments concerning the general propriety of a federal case against Mr. Epstein on these facts, we conclude that federal prosecution in this case would not be improper or inappropriate. While you raise many compelling arguments, we do not see anything that says to us categorically that a federal case should not be brought. Mr. Acosta would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein.”26

On the meetings Starr sought, the report is unambiguous within its own scope: “Starr and other defense attorneys only obtained one meeting at the Department level, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mandelker and CEOS Chief Oosterbaan in March 2008. Although Starr requested a meeting with Assistant Attorney General Fisher and another with Deputy Attorney General Filip, those requests were not granted.”14 The body text on the same sheet says the December 14 meeting with Acosta “occurred in lieu of the meeting Starr had requested of Assistant Attorney General Fisher, most likely because the defense submissions to the Department’s Criminal Division had raised issues not previously raised with the USAO and the Department determined that Acosta should address those in the first instance.”14

A conflict in the record about a meeting and an opinion

The release contains an account that does not agree with that one. In the fifty-eight-page written response to the Office of Professional Responsibility of May 2019,27 headed “STATEMENT OF A. [name barred] IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 2, 2019 LETTER FROM [name barred]”, an entry under a bold heading reads in full: “AAG Alice Fisher (now in private practice): After CEOS rejected the ‘appeal’ from Mr. Epstein’s attorneys, they asked for further review by [name barred] She met with the attorneys and prepared a written opinion rejecting Epstein’s arguments.”7 The next entry on the same sheet opens “Following AAG Fisher’s rejection, Epstein’s attorneys asked for review by the DAG.”7 An earlier sheet of the same statement puts it again: “Later, when Epstein’s attorneys appealed to AAG Alice Fisher, Mr. [name barred] was on detail as AAG Fisher’s Chief of Staff and facilitated the meeting between Epstein’s counsel and the AAG. AAG Fisher’s written response was issued while MAUSA [name barred] was still her Chief of Staff. I do not know who drafted the written response.”28 That document is treated in full at the 2019 written response to OPR.

The two accounts do not agree about the meeting. OPR records that “both Fisher and Lourie told OPR that such a meeting never took place, and OPR found no evidence that it did”, and in its own voice that Starr’s requested meetings with her “were not granted”; the 2019 response states that a meeting between Epstein’s counsel and the Assistant Attorney General was facilitated and took place.131428 On the “written opinion”, the OPR account attributes the May 15, 2008 decision letter to Oosterbaan with her input; the 2019 response attributes a written opinion to her.11267 The dating in the 2019 response also has a difficulty on its own face, and setting it out requires one step this page takes openly. The 2019 sheet bars the Chief of Staff’s name, writing only “MAUSA [name barred] was still her Chief of Staff”.28 Two documents print the name and put Andrew Lourie in that post over the same period, and one of the two does so more than once. The OPR report carries an organisation chart listing him as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General under her with an asterisk reading “Until late Feb. 2008”, and body text having him “serving his detail as Fisher’s Principal Deputy and Chief of Staff” from late September 2007; a footnote elsewhere in the same report says the same thing of the detail post a third time.16817 The second document is the June 2, 2008 letter to Filip, which records that “By October 2007, Mr. Lourie would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher’s Chief of Staff”.9 That the barred name is his is this page’s inference from those two documents, not something the 2019 sheet says. On the OPR report’s own account he had left before the CEOS letter issued: the report places him as having “just then left the Department to enter private practice” in a paragraph opening “By February 25, 2008”, and its chart carries the same “Until late Feb. 2008” against his name. The CEOS letter issued on May 15, 2008.171626 The June 2, 2008 letter to Filip does not date any departure from the Department and is not cited for one. This page does not resolve which account is right. It records that the release carries both.

A third account sits in a memorandum to file of September 25, 2008 headed “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-WORK PRODUCT” and “RE: WRONGDOING BY ATTORNEYS IN THE EPSTEIN CRIMINAL MATTER”, written by Darren K. Indyke. Under a heading for two of Epstein’s lawyers it reads: “Guy and Mike said that Guy was friendly with Barry M and called JEE Christmas Eve to say that Guy had talked and met with Alice Fisher. Guy had also spoken to Drew Roth, and got absolutely nowhere.”29 That is a note of what two lawyers said they had done, recorded by a third party nine months later, and the memorandum’s own purpose is to catalogue what its author regarded as failures by counsel.29

In court, 2019

At a conference in United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), before Judge Richard M. Berman in the Southern District of New York on July 15, 2019, the court asked defence counsel to name the officials who had approved the non-prosecution agreement. Martin G. Weinberg answered: “First, the agreement was executed on September 24, 2007. Appeals were taken by Mr. Epstein challenging the federal interest in what was a potential state prosecution. The first level was the criminal division. The head of the criminal division, Alice Fisher, assigned to Sigal Mandelker. I may be mispronouncing her name, but she is the current Undersecretary of the Treasury.”6

The OPR report lists her among the people it interviewed, and it lists her as a witness rather than as one of the five subjects of the investigation: “OPR interviewed current and former USAO staff and attorneys and current and former Department attorneys and senior managers, including former Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip and former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division Alice Fisher.”12

What Epstein said about her, 2014 and 2017

On Sunday, October 19, 2014, Epstein wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler. The standalone copy of that message prints it, with the export’s own damage on the face of the sheet: “Hey , the goofball that approved my extortion was Alice fisher , she is at =atham ?”4 The copy of the same message quoted inside Ruemmler’s reply carries the damage in a different place and prints the firm name whole: “Hey , the goofball that approved my extortion was Alice fisher ,=she is at Latham ?”30 Ruemmler’s reply, sent the same day, reads: “Seriously? Yes, she is the manag=ng partner of the DC office.”30 Later the same day she wrote again: “Hahaha. I had no idea. It=s cold here today. Am going to go for a walk this afternoon on the hi=h line with my friend Leslie Caldwell. She is the head of the crimina= division at DOJ (the job Alice Fisher had). She’s channeling Janet R=no.”31 Epstein does not say on that sheet what he means by “extortion”, and nothing here supplies it; what she told OPR about her part in the non-prosecution agreement is quoted above.13

Two and a half years later her name reached him again. On May 15, 2017, Darren Indyke forwarded Epstein a SmartBrief newsletter under the subject “Fwd: Search for next FBI director moves ahead quickly”, marked Importance: High, with the covering line: “FYI - Alice Fisher stated to be in the mix of potential candidates for new FBI director.”32 The newsletter item beneath it, dated May 15, 2017 and crediting the New York Post of 5/13 and Politico of 5/14, reads: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions interviewed eight candidates to replace fired FBI Director James Comey on Saturday, with President Donald Trump indicating that the nomination could be announced by Friday when he leaves for his first foreign trip. Potential replacements include FBI special agent Adam Lee, Judge Michael Garcia and former Justice Department employee Alice Fisher, who would be the first female director.”33 Epstein’s reply on the same chain reads, in its entirety: “i know”.34 Two days earlier he had written to Ruemmler, on a sheet that prints the message as quoted text inside her answer: “alice fisher fbi would be funny”. Her reply was one word: “Indeed.”5

An allegation made in 2020

A letter dated December 18, 2020, marked “Personal”, sent by Harold Webb to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York at One St. Andrews Plaza and enclosing a memorandum, makes allegations about her which this section sets out beside the record.35 The covering letter says of its writer only that he “lived through the Watergate era while at DOJ”; the addressee’s name is covered.35 A yellow adhesive note on the receiving office’s copy carries a manuscript annotation, nearly all of which stands clear of a small bar at the note’s lower right: “For the file … Helpfully alerting us that Epstein’s NPA was negotiated by DoJ, which has been ‘obscured’ by the media since 2019.”35 The memorandum opens by asserting that “the plea was signed by five DOJ Officials including Deputy AG Mark Filip, Alice S. Fisher, Assistant AG in charge of the Criminal Division and Sigal Mandelker, Deputy Assistant AG, among others”, and that “these DOJ officials participated in the plea deal negotiations and were satisfied with the provisions in signing their names”; she told OPR that she “played no role in” the agreement and did not review or approve it either before or after it was signed.3613 Further on it states: “However, this was not to be because Alice Fisher intervened and the letters did not go out. (See unsealed letter dated 12/04/2008 from Kenneth Starr to Sigal Mandelker in which Starr notes that it was his eleventh hour appeal to Fisher that caused the victim letters not to be sent.)”37 It goes on to quote a passage it attributes to her Wikipedia biography, “Fisher however in her Wikipedia biography said ‘her office did not make any decisions related to victim notification, a decision ultimately made by US Attorney’s office’”, and, on the ground that “this presupposed the fact that a US Attorney had an option of not sending out such letters”, to conclude “Thus Fisher’s statement was an untruth”, and to assert that she and Mandelker “were confederates in a plot to subvert justice and concealment was paramount.”37 The words the memorandum reports as hers run the other way from its conclusion, and are reproduced here as its quotation of an encyclopaedia entry, not as hers; that entry is not a source for this page and nothing here rests on it. The memorandum’s closing section is printed under the heading “CONJECTURE”.37

The parenthesis points at a real document and the release contains it. A letter of April 28, 2008 from Kenneth W. Starr of Kirkland & Ellis LLP to “Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice”, signed in ink over his printed name, states: “FAUSA Sloman and AUSA Villafana threatened to send a highly improper and unusual ‘victim notification letter’ to all of the women on their list of alleged ‘victims.’ This letter was only halted by an eleventh hour appeal to AAG Fisher.”38 Author, recipient and substance are as the memorandum gives them; the date is not. The letter carries April 28, 2008, and the memorandum itself prints that date further down the same page, writing that she and Mandelker “were aware that the victim letters had not been sent as of April 28, 2008”.37 A second submission from the same firm, answering point by point a letter of May 19, 2008 from the district’s First Assistant, makes the assertion again in different words: “The eventual transmission of this highly misleading letter was only halted by an appeal to AAG Fisher.”39

So the assertion is sourced, and this page does not dispose of it by saying otherwise. What it is, is Epstein’s counsel’s own characterisation, put twice to the Department in submissions asking the Department to act: a claim by an identifiable party with direct knowledge of what it had itself done, and not a Departmental finding. The next paragraph of the same letter runs in a direction the memorandum does not carry. Its second sentence reads: “Indeed, although in the end this letter was not transmitted to any witnesses in this case, AUSA Villafana has admitted that shortly after Mr. Epstein signed the deferred prosecution agreement (which Ms. Villafana represented would remain confidential), she notified three women on her list of so called ‘victims’ of the general terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, including the terms relating to civil compensation.”38 The government’s own account describes three notifications, on a sheet this page already cites. In the OPR report’s account of the exchange, the First Assistant answered the defence in December 2007: “The three victims who were notified prior to your objection had questions directed to Mr. Epstein’s punishment, not the civil litigation. Those questions are appropriately directed to law enforcement.”40 That the two passages describe the same three notifications is this page’s inference from the two accounts, not something either document says. The government’s answer was in any case made months before the letter and not as a reply to it, and it puts the three victims’ questions on Epstein’s punishment rather than on the civil terms the letter italicises.

The Departmental record beside it is narrower than either account. The OPR report cites the same April 2008 letter one paragraph above the passage quoted earlier on this page, separated from it only by a section heading, and describes it only as a complaint of professional misconduct: “Months later, in April 2008, Epstein’s attorneys complained in a letter to Mandelker that Sloman and Villafaña committed professional misconduct by threatening to send a ‘highly improper and unusual “victim notification letter” to all’ victims.”25 On the request itself the report has the defence directing it to the U.S. Attorney rather than to her: the Starr and Lefkowitz letter “asserted it was ‘wholly inappropriate’ for the USAO to send the proposed victim notification letter ‘under any circumstances,’ and ‘strongly urg[ed]’ Acosta to withhold the notification letter until after the defense was able ‘to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher’”, and the following day the First Assistant answered it, asserted the government’s notification obligations and sent the defence a revised draft.40 Acosta’s answer to Lefkowitz’s letter of November 29, 2007 directed him to the district’s own prosecutors, and she told OPR that she “played no role in” the non-prosecution agreement and did not review or approve it.13 Searches were run for a Departmental record of the halting itself: “eleventh hour appeal” returns two pages, the memorandum and Starr’s letter; “only halted by an” returns eight pages, seven of them copies of the later Kirkland submission and the eighth the April 2008 letter, which carries a different sentence; “halted by an appeal” also returns eight, but only seven are copies of that submission, the eighth being an unrelated document in the same production, a technical text on machine communication that happens to carry the words and has nothing to do with this matter; “Fisher intervened” returns one, the memorandum; “Fisher halted” and “intervened to halt” return nothing; and across the sixteen sheets the OPR report gives to the December 2007 notification letter and to the drafting and sending of the 2008 letters, her surname stands three times, none of them recording an act of hers on those letters: in the defence’s demand that Acosta withhold the letter pending a discussion with her, on the copy line of a defence letter to Acosta of December 5, 2007, and in the “in consultation with” review sentence quoted above.15 This page states the allegation, the document counsel rested it on, and the Departmental record beside them, and resolves none of the three.

Counting the record

The corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions, was searched by phrase on 2026-09-10. “Alice Fisher” returns 190 pages across 96 documents. “Alice S. Fisher” and “Alice S Fisher” each return 62 pages; “Honorable Alice S. Fisher” 18; “Dear Ms. Fisher” 7; “Fisher, Alice” 1; “A. Fisher” 42; “AAG Fisher” 51; “Ms. Fisher” 22; “General Fisher” 187; “Fisher told OPR” 20. The surname alone returns 3,682 pages; that return was not sampled for this page and nothing here rests on it.15

Of the 195 occurrences of her full name within those 190 pages, roughly one in five sits in a passage in which she acts or speaks. The rest are copy lines on other people’s letters, exhibit indexes, the recurring sentence that the district “provided you with 30 days to appeal the decision to the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Alice Fisher”, and the OPR report’s own description of who held which office.15 What the Department’s own account records is an appeal that arrived at her office and was largely handled elsewhere: her Principal Deputy returned the call, the U.S. Attorney answered the letter and held the substantive meeting, the requested meetings with her were not granted, and the decision letter went out over the CEOS Chief’s name with her input.8221411

Searches were run for a decision document issued by her in this matter. The phrases “from Alice Fisher”, “letter from Fisher”, “Fisher to Lefkowitz”, “Fisher to Starr”, “Fisher rejected”, “Fisher determined”, “Fisher decided”, “Fisher approved” and “Fisher denied” each return nothing. The phrase “Sincerely Alice” returns one page, the April 13, 2007 approval described above. The phrase “vested in me by 18” returns 10 pages; two of those were opened at the image for this page, the April 2007 approval and the June 2008 authorization in the same form, and the other eight were not.15 A reader who wants to test the absence should re-run those forms; they are the ones this page ran.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, to “Honorable Alice S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, Criminal Division”, November 28, 2007, marked “VIA FACSIMILE”, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00221287 pp.1-3. No redaction bar appears on the first two sheets, read at the image at 400 dpi. On the third sheet a small opaque black block sits within a case citation, at the position where the “v” of the case name belongs, leaving the following full stop printed. It is an artefact of this scan and not a redaction: a clean copy of the identical sheet at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659878 p.3, read at the image at 400 dpi, prints “such a restitution fund was created in a federal case, U.S. v. Boehm, Case No. 3:04CR00003 (D. Alaska 2004)” with no bar on the line; a connected-component scan of all three sheets at 400 dpi finds this mark to be the only solid block on any of them, 37 px wide by 88 px tall, taller than wide and overshooting the line above and below; and a “v.” in a published case name, sitting between a case name and a docket number that both survive on the line, is not a thing a producing party withholds. The letter carries no redaction bar on any of its three sheets. Re-reading above 400 dpi adds nothing: the embedded raster of every sheet of this document is 812 x 1055 greyscale at 96 ppi, so a higher render is an upscale that invents no pixel. Contact-detail fields in the letterhead are not reproduced here. The letter is signed in ink: the stroke width varies, the mark sits off the baseline and runs past the typed name beneath it. Searched on the phrase “Dear Ms. Fisher”, the first sheet of the same letter returns in six further documents of the release, among them https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00223188, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00223192, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00176092 and https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012656. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. Approval on Criminal Division letterhead, “Office of the Assistant Attorney General”, stamped APR 1 3 2007, to R. Alexander Acosta, “Re: Grand Jury Investigation, Jeffrey Epstein, et al.”, filed as a government exhibit at Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02757227 p.2. Read at the image at 600 dpi. The name of the person to be compelled is covered on the sheet and is not reproduced here; the middle name in the “Attention:” line is likewise covered. The typed name “Alice S. Fisher / Assistant Attorney General” is printed type with no rule and no ink; the ink signature on the sheet sits above the printed block for Bruce C. Swartz. A fax footer, printed upside down, reads APR-16-2007 12:29. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, Investigation into the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida’s Resolution of Its 2006-2008 Federal Criminal Investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, filed as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204-3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.28 (the report’s own folio 2). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The same report stands in the release under DOJ-OGR identifiers as well, and this page cites the EFTA copy throughout because the DOJ-OGR PDFs cannot be fetched: DOJ-OGR-00003177 is absent from the site’s image store and carries 348 pages, as the EFTA copy does. DOJ-OGR-00023013 is absent from the site’s image store and carries 348 pages too. DOJ-OGR-00004298 is absent from the site’s image store and carries 349, being the report behind a cover sheet reading “Exhibit A”, so it is not an identical copy. A fourth identifier, DOJ-OGR-00020385, also absent from the site’s image store, was listed in a desk file as another copy of this report and is not this report at all: it carries 1,523 pages and its first sheet is a Second Circuit docket record in Case 22-1426. Measured on 2026-09-10, the site’s PDF path returns HTTP 404 for each of the four, the EFTA copy cited here returning 200 on the same path. A county name in the paragraph below the one quoted is covered on this sheet. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Jeffrey Epstein to Kathy Ruemmler, Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:28 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02515795 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet prints =atham, quoted-printable damage on the face of the image, and it is reproduced here as printed. Nothing on this sheet is covered. ↩ ↩2

  5. Kathy Ruemmler to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 4:17 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed), body “Indeed.”, carrying beneath it “On Ma= 13, 2017, at 12:03 PM, jeffrey E. … wrote:” and the quoted message “alice fisher fbi would be funny”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02650963 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Part of the sender’s address field is covered. The damaged string On Ma= 13 is on the face of the sheet and is reproduced as printed; the double spacing inside the quoted message is also as printed. ↩ ↩2

  6. Transcript, United States of America v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), conference before Hon. Richard M. Berman, Southern District of New York, July 15, 2019, 10:05 a.m. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00095388 p.23 (transcript page 23), lines 12-25. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The caption, case number, date, time and judge are on p.1 of the same run, read at the image at 300 dpi; on that sheet the names of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys appearing are covered and are not supplied here. A short bar sits beneath the reporters’ imprint at the foot of both sheets. The same passage is in the release at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00079746 p.23, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02810050 p.24 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02824389 p.23. ↩ ↩2

  7. Same statement, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225044 p.13 (the statement’s own page 13 of 58). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The heading “AAG Alice Fisher (now in private practice)” and the sentence “Following AAG Fisher’s rejection” carry no bar. The name inside the quoted entry, after “further review by”, is covered on the sheet, and the sentence is quoted with that bar marked. Nothing on this page is taken from the extraction of this document. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  8. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.120 (folio 94), and footnote 152 carried over to p.121 (folio 95). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The quotation of Lourie’s e-mail is taken from footnote 152 as printed on p.121. The quotation is followed on that sheet by a participial clause identifying the institution, at the end of which one term, a single word-width block, is covered by the producing party; nothing from it is supplied here. The bracketed insertions “[a]” and “[P]” are the report’s own. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. Same letter, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224728 p.3. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The same sheet records that “By October 2007, Mr. Lourie would leave the SDFL to become AAG Fisher’s Chief of Staff”, where the OPR report places the start of that detail in late September 2007; both readings are given here rather than reconciled. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.131 (folio 105). Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing in the passage quoted is covered on this sheet. ↩ ↩2

  11. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.133 (folio 107). Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing in the passages quoted is covered on this sheet. The sheet prints “Petite policy” where the June 2, 2008 letter cited at 18 prints “petit policy”; each is quoted as its own sheet prints it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  12. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.315 (folio 289). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The distinction drawn in the body text is on the face of this sheet: the paragraph quoted stands under the heading “2. Witnesses”, and the preceding heading “1. Subjects” carries the sentence “OPR requested that all five subjects provide written responses detailing their involvement in the federal investigation of Epstein, the drafting and execution of the NPA, and decisions relating to victim notification and consultation.” ↩ ↩2

  13. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.121 (folio 95). Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing in the passages quoted is covered on this sheet. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13

  14. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.185 (folio 159), body text and footnote 233. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing in the passages quoted is covered on this sheet. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  15. Searched by phrase against the corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions, on 2026-09-10, using the FTS5 index and not a substring scan. Page counts: “Alice Fisher” 190 across 96 documents; “Alice S. Fisher” 62; “Alice S Fisher” 62; “Honorable Alice S. Fisher” 18; “Dear Ms. Fisher” 7; “Fisher, Alice” 1; “A. Fisher” 42; “AAG Fisher” 51; “Ms. Fisher” 22; “General Fisher” 187; “Fisher told OPR” 20; “Fisher” alone 3,682. Returning nothing: “from Alice Fisher”; “letter from Fisher”; “Fisher to Lefkowitz”; “Fisher to Starr”; “Fisher rejected”; “Fisher determined”; “Fisher decided”; “Fisher approved”; “Fisher denied”; “Alice Fisher” with “Maxwell”; “Alice Fisher” with “Wexner”; “Alice Fisher” with “Ghislaine”. Returning one page each: “Sincerely Alice”, which is the April 13, 2007 approval; “Alice Fisher” with “Latham”, which is the 2014 exchange. “vested in me by 18” returns 10. The act-versus-mention proportion in the body text was measured by classifying all 195 occurrences of “Alice Fisher” within the 190 returned pages against the recurring passages they belong to: 38 fell in passages in which she acts or speaks, 134 in passages in which she is copied, named as the office, or named as the destination of somebody else’s appeal, and 23 were left unclassified by the pattern set, of which two are further instances of the “in consultation with” passage and the rest are organisation-chart, copy-line and exhibit-index text. For the 2020 allegation, further phrase searches were run on the same index on 2026-09-10: “eleventh hour appeal” returns 2 pages, the memorandum and the letter of April 28, 2008; “only halted by an” 8, of which seven carry the Kirkland response’s “eventual transmission” sentence and the eighth is that letter, carrying a different sentence; “halted by an appeal” 8, of which those same seven carry the Kirkland response’s sentence and the eighth is an unrelated document in the same production, a technical text on machine communication carrying the same four words; “appeal to AAG Fisher” 21, which decompose as six pages carrying the Kirkland response’s “eventual transmission” sentence, six carrying a further occurrence of the phrase on another sheet of the same response, eight carrying the recurring “30 days to appeal the decision” passage and one the letter of April 28, 2008, so thirteen of the twenty-one are copies of the two Kirkland submissions and eight are the recurring passage; “Fisher intervened” 1; “Fisher halted” and “intervened to halt” each return nothing. Separately, the extracted text of sixteen sheets of the OPR report, pp.238-246 and pp.260-266, the sheets its own headings give to the December 2007 notification letter and to the drafting and sending of the 2008 letters, was scanned for the string “Fisher”. It returns on three of the sixteen: p.239 (not a reproduced copy line but the report’s own narrative sentence about the copies, “On December 5, 2007, Starr and Lefkowitz sent a letter to Acosta, with copies to Sloman and Assistant Attorney General Fisher”; read at the image at 400 dpi, where the sentence is verbatim and nothing on the sheet is covered), p.240 (the defence demand quoted above, read at the image at 400 dpi) and p.246 (the review sentence quoted above, read at the image at 400 dpi). The scan of the other thirteen was of the text layer and not of the image, and it is a claim about those sheets only, not about the report as a whole. Counts are of pages whose extracted text matches, so they are counts of what survived extraction and not of what is on the paper; one measured instance of that gap is recorded at 28. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  16. Same report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.130 (the report’s own folio 104), the organisation chart. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The chart prints two columns, “Criminal Division” and “Office of the Deputy Attorney General”; the Criminal Division column runs Alice Fisher, Andrew Lourie, Sigal Mandelker, Andrew Oosterbaan, with an asterisk against Lourie keyed to a box reading “Until late Feb. 2008”. Nothing on this sheet is covered. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Same report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.121 (folio 95). Read at the image at 400 dpi for the body text of the sheet, which carries the November 28 and November 29 material quoted at 13. The report states the departure date flatly on two further sheets, each read at the image at 400 dpi: p.32 (folio 6), whose opening block carries the end of one sentence, “a position in which he served as Chief of Staff to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher”, and then, as the whole of the next sentence, “Lourie left the Department in February 2008 to enter private practice”; and p.88 (folio 62), footnote 102, “He served in that detail until he left the Department in February 2008”, following a sentence in the same footnote placing him in the detail post as “Chief of Staff to the head of the Department’s Criminal Division, Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher”. It states it a third time at p.131 (folio 105), read at the image at 400 dpi, in a paragraph opening “By February 25, 2008”: “Lourie had just then left the Department to enter private practice”, which the sheet prints as a clause of a longer sentence and which is quoted here as the fragment it is. Nothing quoted here is covered on any of the four sheets; p.32 and p.88 each carry bars over other personal names, from which nothing is taken. Each quotation above is on the sheet named for it, and this footnote spans four sheets of one run. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. First Assistant U.S. Attorney, Southern District of Florida, to “Honorable Mark Filip, Office of the Deputy Attorney General”, June 2, 2008, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”, delivery by Federal Express. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224728 p.2. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The sheet prints the CEOS Chief’s surname as “Oosterbahn”, where the OPR report prints “Oosterbaan”; each is quoted as its own sheet prints it. ↩ ↩2

  19. Declaration of A. Marie Villafaña in support of the Government’s response and opposition to petitioners’ motion for partial summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Matthewman, filed as Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-19. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00799605 p.7 (the declaration’s own page 6), paragraph 11. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The witness for whom the request was made is identified in the declaration by pseudonym only, and nothing further about her is taken from this sheet. ↩

  20. Approval in the same form on the same letterhead, stamped JUN 24 2008, to R. Alexander Acosta for the attention of “A. Marie Villafana, Assistant United States Attorney”, same caption, filed as Exhibit B-131. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225102 p.276. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The name of the person to be compelled is covered on this sheet too and is not reproduced here. ↩

  21. Alan M. Dershowitz to Judge Herbert J. Stern, Stern & Kilcullen, LLC, October 16, 2007, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”, sent by e-mail. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01154185 p.4 (the letter’s own page 2). Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The letter’s first sheet, carrying the letterhead, the date, the addressee block and the caption, is at p.3 of the same run, read at the image at 400 dpi; a block within its letterhead is covered and nothing from it is reproduced here. A red manuscript mark sits in the right margin beside the retainer paragraph. ↩ ↩2

  22. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.122 (folio 96), body text and footnote 153. Read at the image at 400 dpi. A former United States Attorney’s name is covered in the block quotation of Acosta’s letter higher on the same sheet; nothing from that block is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  23. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.125 (folio 99), body text and footnote 156. Read at the image at 400 dpi. One name is covered in the paragraph listing the attendees of the December 14, 2007 meeting; nothing from that list is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2

  24. Letter, R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, December 19, 2007, its own page 3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209047 p.40. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The paragraph quoted, the signature and the copy line are on this sheet; the manuscript signature runs over and past the printed name below it. A name is covered by the producing party in each of the other two entries of the copy line, and neither is supplied from this sheet; in one of the two the bar covers the whole of the name. The addressee is not printed on this sheet and is not supplied here. ↩ ↩2

  25. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.246 (the report’s own folio 220). Read at the image at 400 dpi. Both passages quoted from this sheet are on it, in adjacent paragraphs: the sentence beginning “Months later, in April 2008” is the whole of the paragraph immediately preceding the heading “F. January – June 2008”, and the “in consultation with” sentence stands in the paragraph immediately following that heading, so the heading is all that separates them. Nothing on this sheet is covered. ↩ ↩2

  26. Andrew G. Oosterbaan, Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to Jay Lefkowitz. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224768 p.7 (the letter’s own page 5), carrying the end of the closing paragraph, the signature and the copy line. Read at the image at 400 dpi. That paragraph begins at the foot of p.6 (the letter’s own page 4), read at the image at 400 dpi, under an italic run-in heading “Conclusion.”, and the sentence quoted above runs across the sheet break: p.6 ends “as well as the arguments concerning the general propriety of a federal case against Mr. Epstein on these” and p.7 opens “facts, we conclude that federal prosecution”. A pin checker will not resolve a quotation that spans the two sheets. The letter is signed in ink over the printed name and title, and p.7 carries two fax banners, 05/16/2008 11:17 FAX and 05/16/08 FRI 11:10 FAX. Nothing on either sheet is covered. Its date of May 15, 2008 is taken from the OPR report at 11; the letter’s own first sheet, at p.3 of the same run, was not opened at the image for this page. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  27. Sealed order authorising disclosure of grand-jury material for the response, second and last sheet, which dates the response: “To the extent that [name barred]s May 10, 2019 Response to OPR’s written questions and any drafts thereof disclosed any material that arguably referred to matters occurring before the grand jury, this Order is entered nunc pro tunc”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225378 p.103 (registered SUPPRESSED, which permits citation). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The dating line reads “Done and Ordered in West Palm Beach, Florida, this”, then a blank rule with the day written into it by hand and crossed by the judge’s signature, then “day of May, 2019”; the possessive “s” after the barred name prints, and is given above. The sheet is signed in ink over the printed block “DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE”, and carries a clerk’s certification stamp whose date field, 5/31/19, is also written in by hand. The manuscript day is legible at the image as two digits with a superscript ordinal, and agrees with the certification stamp’s date field, which the page prints; the embedded raster is 819 x 1063 greyscale at 96 ppi, so rendering above 400 dpi adds no information. The Assistant U.S. Attorney’s surname is covered wherever it stands on this sheet, including in the “Certified Copies Furnished to:” block, and is not supplied here; the name of the attorney to whom disclosure was authorised is printed. ↩

  28. Written statement in response to written questions from the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, headed “STATEMENT OF A. [name barred] IN RESPONSE TO APRIL 2, 2019 LETTER FROM [name barred]”, 58 pages. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00225044 p.9 (the statement’s own page 9 of 58). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The producing party bars personal names on this sheet. The four references to her by name or title, “AAG Alice Fisher”, “AAG Fisher’s Chief of Staff”, “AAG Fisher’s written response” and “AAG Fisher’s Office”, carry no bar, and the sentences quoted above are given with every bar marked. Nothing on this page is taken from the extraction of this document. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  29. Memorandum to file, “FROM: DARREN K. INDYKE”, “RE: WRONGDOING BY ATTORNEYS IN THE EPSTEIN CRIMINAL MATTER”, dated September 25, 2008, headed “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-WORK PRODUCT”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00727491 p.4, item 6.C. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The heading block, the “FROM” line and the date are on p.1 of the same four-page run, read at the image at 300 dpi. Nothing on either sheet is covered. ↩ ↩2

  30. Kathy Ruemmler to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 2:30 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed), carrying the earlier message beneath it as quoted text under an O= Oct 19, 2014, at 10:27 AM line. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02342919 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Part of the sender’s address field is covered; nothing from it is reproduced here. The top-of-message Sent: field reads 2:30 PM and the quoted header line below it reads 10:27 AM for the message it quotes, which the standalone copy at 4 stamps 2:28 PM; no field on either sheet names a zone, so no interval is computed on this page. On this copy the export damage falls on ,=she and the firm name prints whole; on the copy at 4 it falls on the firm name. Nothing is withheld in either rendering of that sentence; the difference there is export damage, not redaction. ↩ ↩2

  31. Kathy Ruemmler to Jeffrey Epstein, Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:15 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed), the third message of the same day’s chain. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02338021 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Parts of two address fields are covered; nothing from them is reproduced here. The damaged strings It=s, hi=h, crimina= and R=no are on the face of the sheet and are reproduced as printed. ↩

  32. Darren Indyke to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: Search for next FBI director moves ahead quickly”, Sent: 5/15/2017 5:43:08 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed), Importance: High. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025643. Read at the page image fetched read-only from the site server, 2550 x 3369. Telephone, telecopier, mobile and e-mail fields in the signature block are covered by the producing party and are not reproduced here. The one field on this sheet that names its zone is the forwarded newsletter’s own Date: May 15, 2017 at 1:40:32 PM EDT; no interval is computed on this page from the unlabelled fields, which on the reply sheet at 34 disagree with the quoted header line by two hours. ↩

  33. The forwarded item, “SmartBrief on Business & Politics”, May 15, 2017, under the section heading “NATIONAL PULSE”. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025644. Read at the page image fetched read-only from the site server, 2550 x 3369. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The extraction of https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025656 carries the same newsletter text; that sheet was not fetched for this page. ↩

  34. Jeffrey Epstein to Darren Indyke, “Re: Search for next FBI director moves ahead quickly”, Sent: 5/15/2017 5:47:57 PM (unlabelled field, no zone printed), body “i know”, carrying the forward beneath it as quoted text. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025655. Read at the page image fetched read-only from the site server, 2550 x 3369. The quoted header line on this sheet reads “On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 7:43 PM”, two hours later than the unlabelled Sent: field of the message it quotes; that discrepancy is the reason no interval is stated in the body text. Contact fields in the quoted signature block are covered. ↩ ↩2

  35. The covering letter, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681961 p.2. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sender’s name is printed at the head of the sheet and a bar covers the line beneath it; the addressee’s name is covered in the salutation and a bar covers the line above the office address. The sheet is signed with a blue manuscript mark and carries “enc.” at the foot. A yellow adhesive note in the upper right, in blue manuscript, is partly covered by a bar; the words quoted here are the ones that stand clear of it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  36. The memorandum’s first sheet, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681961 p.3, headed “NON PUBLIC” above the title “RECENT DOJ REPORT OF FORMER US ATTORNEY ALEX ACOSTA ACTIONS IN THE EPSTEIN, CO-CONSPIRATOR CASE PROVIDES YET ANOTHER LAYER OF CONCEALMENT”. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on this sheet is covered; a manuscript “1” is written in the upper right. ↩

  37. The memorandum enclosed with the letter of December 18, 2020, third sheet of its text; its covering letter is at 35 and its title sheet at 36. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01681961 p.5 for the passage quoted, read at the image at 400 dpi; nothing on that sheet is covered, and a manuscript “3” is written in its upper right. The underlined heading “CONJECTURE” stands on p.6 of the same seven-page run, read at the image at 300 dpi. This is a correspondent’s submission, not a government finding, and it is set out here as such. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  38. Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, to “Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice”, April 28, 2008, marked “BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS”, filed as Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 403-7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02757306 p.4 (the letter’s own page 3) for both passages quoted; read at the image at 400 dpi, and nothing on that sheet is covered. The two passages are in different paragraphs, and the page says so: the first closes the first full paragraph on the sheet, and the second is the second sentence of the paragraph following it. The letter sets the closing clause of that second sentence, from “she notified three women” to “civil compensation”, in italics; the emphasis is the writer’s own and is not reproduced in the quotation above. The letterhead, date and addressee block are on p.2 of the same nine-sheet filing and the signature on p.5, each read at the image at 400 dpi: p.2 carries the date “April 28, 2008”, the marking “BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS”, the addressee block and the salutation “Dear Ms. Mandelker:”; p.5 reads “Respectfully submitted,” above an ink signature (the stroke width varies and the mark runs past the name beneath it) over the printed name “Kenneth W. Starr”, with no rule, and “Attachment” at the foot. The filing carries two letters, not one: pp.2-5 are the letter of April 28, 2008 quoted here, and pp.6-9 are the earlier submission it says is “attached for your convenience”, a letter of April 8, 2008 from the same writer to the same recipient. Anything cited to this identifier must say which. The two letters share a letterhead, an addressee block and a salutation, so those strings stand on p.6 as well as on p.2; a quotation of any of them is a quotation of both sheets unless it says which. The extraction of p.5 reads Respgctfully submitted, where the image prints “Respectfully submitted,”, so a pin checker will not resolve that quotation on this sheet; the image governs. Part of the firm’s street address is covered in the letterhead; the contact-detail fields there are not reproduced here. The sheet prints “Villafana” without the tilde the OPR report uses, and each is quoted as its own sheet prints it. This document was not cited anywhere on this wiki before this page; a cross-page check found it cited in no other page, published or not. ↩ ↩2

  39. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, “Response to Letter by FAUSA [name barred] Dated May 19, 2008”, filed as Exhibit B-37. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00224814 p.3 (the document’s own page 3) for the sentence quoted; read at the image at 400 dpi, and the surname of the First Assistant is covered at every occurrence on that sheet; no name is taken from this document. The heading sheet, which dates the letter it answers and describes the document’s purpose, is at p.1 of the same run, read at the image at 400 dpi; the same surname is covered there. The document is undated on the sheets read for this page and answers a letter of May 19, 2008. Searched on the phrase “only halted by an” on 2026-09-10, this sentence returns on seven pages of the release; the phrase returns on an eighth, the letter of April 28, 2008 at 38, which carries a different sentence. A search on “appeal to AAG Fisher” reaches only six of those seven, because on the seventh a name bar falls inside that phrase itself and the extraction closes it, so the text layer reads “appeal to AAG” and runs straight on into the sentence that follows; the count of that sentence is therefore a count of what survived extraction. A cross-page check re-run on 2026-09-10 no longer holds: overlap_check.py EFTA00224814 returns this document cited on one other published page of this wiki, people/jay-lefkowitz, three times, and that page also cites p.1 of the same run. ↩

  40. OPR report, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02830776 p.240 (the report’s own folio 214). Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet carries the Starr and Lefkowitz letter’s demand, the First Assistant’s answer of the following day asserting the government’s notification obligations under the VRRA, the sentences quoted above about the three victims already notified, and his forwarding of a revised draft notification letter to the defence for comment. Nothing on this sheet is covered. The letter answered here is the one of December 5, 2007, which the report dates in the sentence beginning at p.239. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks