Epstein Data Wiki

Bryan Bantry

Properties2
tagsperson, new-york, publicist, talent-management, epstein-finances, litigation
aliasesBryan Bantry

31 min read

How these documents describe himHis own screening mailings carry the footer “Bryan Bantry Screenings” over the line “BRYAN BANTRY / on behalf of / FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES”; the verified pleading in which he is the defendant describes him as “an individual residing in New York, New York”; publicist Peggy Siegal, writing to Jeffrey Epstein, calls him “My business manager”1234
Address on his own screening mailing900 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, October 2011 — the street number that also heads the Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. / Peggy Siegal Inc. invoices25
What he sent Epstein about the moneyAn explanation, which he attributes on the sheet to the firms’ accountant, that Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. issues and receives all invoices and pays Peggy Siegal Inc. a commission of “60% of revenue less expenses” — with a single exception: invoices to HBRK Associates Inc., where “100% of revenue is paid to Peggy Siegal Inc.”6
Litigation in Epstein’s fileRobert Felner v. Bryan Bantry, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, Index No. 12826/12 — a partition action over an East Hampton property. His Verified Answer & Counterclaims is dated July 30, 2012 and was served by Eaton & Van Winkle LLP78
How it reached EpsteinA lawyer at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. sent Epstein the Complaint and the Answer on 18 July 2013: “I am working with Peggy Siegal who has asked me to forward the attached documents for your attention.”9
What Epstein wrote about him privately”I think bantry is stealing”, to Richard Kahn, 3 August 2011, sixteen minutes after Bantry’s explanation reached him. That is a belief stated in an email. No document read for this page records any proceeding, finding or claim arising from it10

Bryan Bantry is the other party named in the accounts of the publicity operation that traded under Peggy Siegal’s name: the “BB” of its “PS 60% / BB 40%” line, and the second name in the schedule its accountants headed “ALLOCATION BETWEEN PEGGY SIEGAL AND BRYAN BANTRY”.11 He also corresponded with Jeffrey Epstein directly about that business. The live page Peggy Siegal sets out that operation’s paperwork, being the invoices, the compilation reports and the check register, and records that its accounts divide the profits “PS 60%” and “BB 40%”. This page is about the other side of those five characters: the document in which the 40 per cent share is explained to Epstein in writing, the two years of requests that preceded it, what Epstein wrote to his own accountant sixteen minutes after receiving it, and the Suffolk County lawsuit whose pleadings ended up in Epstein’s files a year later. Nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing by anyone.

The structure, sent to Epstein in August 2011

On 3 August 2011 Bantry wrote to Epstein under the subject line “msg from bryan bantry”, a subject line that recurs on his messages to Epstein in this release. The covering note is four lines: “jeffrey, / further to our conversation see explanation below from our accountant katia goldin. / i am available if you would like to speak. / many thanks, / bryan”.6

Beneath it, set off by angle brackets, is the explanation itself. It is not written in Bantry’s voice and he does not claim it as his own: he attributes it on the sheet to the accountant he names. It reads:6

All invoices for The Peggy Siegal Company are issued by and paid to Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. All expenses for The Peggy Siegal Company are paid for by Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd.

Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. pays a commission fee to Peggy Siegal Inc. The commission fee is equal to 60% of revenue less expenses. The only exception to this is for invoices issued to HBRK Associates Inc. in which case 100% of revenue is paid to Peggy Siegal Inc.

The exception names Epstein’s own accountancy firm. HBRK Associates Inc. is where Richard Kahn wrote from, and it is the firm to which the 2011 invoices in Epstein’s files were addressed.5 On the arrangement as stated, every client’s work was subject to the 60/40 split except the one whose invoices went to Epstein’s accountants, on which Peggy Siegal Inc. received the whole of the revenue.

The rest of the explanation covers the tax mechanics: that Peggy Siegal Inc. “is an S corporation and according to current tax law Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. is not required to issue any tax forms (e.g. 1099) to Peggy Siegal Inc.”; that “Peggy Siegal is the sole shareholder of Peggy Siegal Inc.” and is “required be on payroll which also satisfies health insurance plan requirements”; that “W-2 and a K-1 forms (for distributions over and above payroll) are issued to Peggy Siegal from Peggy Siegal Inc at the end of the each year”; and that “Peggy Siegal Inc submits a monthly invoice to Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. for any incidental business expense reimbursement.”6

Two years of asking

That message was not the first time Epstein had gone to Bantry for the company’s numbers, and an earlier attempt is on the record in Bantry’s own hand.

Three messages passed on the evening of 14 July 2009, inside thirty-nine minutes of each other, and they did not run in the order the exchange suggests. At 22:06:10 UTC Epstein forwarded to Peggy Siegal a quarter-by-quarter billings analysis for 2006 to the second quarter of 2009, six days after the date the analysis itself carries.12 Three and a half minutes after that, at 22:09:40 UTC, he wrote to Bantry in a thread whose subject line begins “Re: msg from bryan bantry”: “bryan, i have not received anything form the accountants regarding total picture.. P&L .. for 07-09”. Thirty-five minutes later again, at 22:44:59 UTC, Bantry answered over a “Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T” line: “Yes I asked for it again today / Will get it to you shortly / Bryan”, and the same analysis is quoted below both messages on his sheet.13 So the forward to Siegal came before Epstein’s message to Bantry, not after it; and what Epstein told Bantry he had not received was not that analysis but the total picture and the P&L he was expecting from the accountants, which is what Bantry’s reply answers. The author of the analysis is given by neither sheet, both blacking out the sender.13125

The first and last of those three times are zoneless top-of-message Sent: fields, read as UTC by the four-hour test set out at 14; the middle one is Epstein’s own message, which carries an explicit “-0400” offset and reads 18:09:40 Eastern on its face. The order therefore rests on that test: read the zoneless fields as local Eastern time instead and the forward to Siegal falls after Epstein’s message to Bantry rather than before it.

Two years later the request went by telephone first. On 1 August 2011 Epstein wrote to Siegal, “send me bantry number”; fifteen minutes later, “no answer,left voicemail”; and fifty-eight seconds after that, in the next minute rather than the same one, Siegal sent a one-line message reading “Bryan: please call Jeffrey back. Thanks. Peg”, copied to Epstein, whose remaining recipient is blacked out on the image. Both intervals are measured between top-of-message Sent: fields of the same class on the same production rendering, which read 11:43:06, 11:58:36 and 11:59:34 and are UTC on the reading established for that class of field, set out in the note below.151617 Bantry’s written explanation followed two days after that.

What Epstein did with it

Sixteen minutes after Bantry’s message arrived, Epstein forwarded the whole of it to Richard Kahn at HBRK Associates, under the subject “Fwd: msg from bryan bantry”, with this at the top:10

I think bantry is stealing    ..  do not mention this to peggy s people.  this explanation seems goofy,,  he takes the revenue,, does not tell peggy what it is, somehow calulates a 60-40 split.. how often? , what k1 is he talking about, ,

That is Epstein’s belief, written in a private email to his accountant. It is not a finding, and no document read for this page records a claim, proceeding or determination arising from it. Bantry’s answer is on the same two sheets, because Epstein forwarded it: the explanation reproduced above sits directly beneath the accusation, in full, and Epstein’s last question is answered inside the text he was forwarding, since the K-1 the explanation names is the form it says Peggy Siegal Inc. issues to Peggy Siegal for “distributions over and above payroll”, not a form passing between the two companies.106

Three months later Epstein was still pressing the same point, and he set out how he thought it could be settled. On 12 November 2011, in a message headed “Re: peggy siegal/bryan bantry 60/40 split of profits”, he wrote: “He should sit with bryans accts and ask to seeproof any distribution that relates to a 60 40 arrangement. it should take five minutes max. at the end of some period montly yearly quarterly there should be ONE simple payment either way. that will prove if there is i a real 6040 . It should say distribution . or profit partciation etc.. one simple payment ./ ten minutes if they are slow”.18 The day before, he had reported the state of the inquiry: “I spoke to your acct, he is doing nothing but adding up expenses and seeing if they are charged correctly.. he knew nothing about what deal to look for he told me he was checking to see if the numbers added.. i asked if he saw any 60 40 split he had no idea what he was supposed to do”.18 Quoted on the same sheet, and the message Epstein was answering, is Siegal’s own account of the arrangement: “Bryan Bantry is ‘managing’ this company. I need to see all the billing. I need to see the checks that come in. I need to see what he says is expenses and where that money comes from to pay. I need to know how he determines that is the profit and the split. I need to see all paychecks. I need to know what bonus are given out and how that is determined. I need to be kept apprised of all financial activities of the company that has my name on the door.” She adds: “Can I be any clearer?”18 Whether anyone ever produced the single payment Epstein described, or answered any of those requests, is not established by any document read for this page.

The Suffolk County partition action

In 2012 Bantry was sued in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, by Robert Felner, under Index No. 12826/12. The release holds his side of the pleadings: a twelve-sheet Verified Answer & Counterclaims, filed for him by Eaton & Van Winkle LLP and addressed to Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP as attorneys for the plaintiff, dated at New York on July 30, 2012.78 Everything in the next three paragraphs is what Bantry, through his attorneys, alleged. A pleading is a party’s assertion; it is not a court’s finding, and no order, decision or judgment in this action was read for this page.

The property is an East Hampton house. On the answer’s account, Bantry “purchased the house and real property” on or about August 24, 1989 “with his own personal funds, plus financing, secured by a mortgage upon the Property”, the plaintiff contributing nothing to the purchase, and the two men “agreed that plaintiff would have an undivided twenty-five percent (25%) interest in the Property, as tenants in common”, conditional on his covering a quarter of the costs.3 Bantry pleads that he “assumed primary or sole responsibility for the management and operation of the Property with plaintiff’s knowledge and consent”, and lists ten heads of that responsibility, lettered (a) to (j). They open with “researching and hiring rental agents” and “vetting prospective tenants”; “paying bills, including payroll expenses, insurance, brokerage fees and property taxes” is head (h), not the last of them, and “collecting rental income” and a catch-all for “all of the other tasks normally associated with the ownership, development, management and operation of a high-end luxury rental residential property” follow it.19

The money claims are large and are pleaded as estimates. Bantry alleges that he “advanced to plaintiff or caused to be advanced to plaintiff an aggregate amount well into the millions of dollars, and paid or caused to be paid numerous personal expenses on his behalf, in anticipation of future profits”, and that to carry the losses he “obtained one or more loans or replacement loans, secured by mortgages upon the Property”.20 Two of the figures are given “upon information and belief”: that the accumulated net loss on the property “well exceeds $12 million, plaintiff’s twenty five percent (25%) share of which well exceeds $3 million”, and that the advances and personal expenses “well exceeds $500,000”.21 The second counterclaim, for unjust enrichment, asks for judgment “in an amount to be determined at trial, but believed to be in excess of $3.5 million”.22

Six affirmative defences precede the counterclaims. The third describes the house as “a multi-acre, high-end luxury home with unique features and a current value believed to be well in excess of $10 million, and which defendant is actively attempting to sell”, and argues that a forced sale would fetch “dramatically less”; the sixth argues that partition under Article 9 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law requires “a current right of possession of the real property at issue”.233

The last sheet answers the question the caption raises. It is a Verification, sworn in New York County: “BRYAN BANTRY, being duly sworn deposes and says: I am a defendant in the above-referenced action and have read the attached Verified Answer and Counterclaims, and know the contents thereof to be true to my own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true”. Above his typed name is a manuscript signature, and beneath it a notary’s jurat, “Sworn to before me on the ___ day of July, 2012”, over a notary public’s signature and stamp. The pleading was verified, and it was verified by Bantry himself.24

The pleadings arrive in Epstein’s file, July 2013

The Answer is in Epstein’s records because a lawyer put it there, a year after it was served. On 18 July 2013 Lauri F. Rasnick of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. emailed Epstein under the subject “Felner v. Bantry — Peggy Siegal”, attaching two files named Complaint.pdf and Answer_&_Counterclaims.PDF: “Dear Mr. Epstein, / I am working with Peggy Siegal who has asked me to forward the attached documents for your attention. / Please let me know if you have any questions.”9 The message carries an explicit +0000 offset, so it is timed in UTC on its own face. The Complaint referred to in that sentence was not located in the release for this page.

An earlier question inside Epstein’s office

Eight months and twenty-four days before those pleadings were forwarded, Epstein’s accountant put a question about Bantry to him. On 24 October 2012 at 14:11:30 UTC, Richard Kahn wrote to Epstein from HBRK Associates: “Is this the same Bryan Bantry that Peggy was having problems with?”, over a single link to a New York Post story.25 Half an hour later, at 14:41:58 UTC, Epstein’s whole reply was one word: “yes”.26

The linked article was not retrieved for this page and this page does not say what it reported. What the two sheets establish is the path of the link and the date. The link’s own address ends local/hamptons_battle_hits_home_..., and the Suffolk County partition action over the East Hampton property was then a little under three months past the date on Bantry’s answer.258 Whether that is what Kahn had found is a question these documents raise and do not settle.

His own business

Bantry’s screening operation ran under his own name and out of the same street number as the Siegal invoices. A mailing of 13 October 2011, addressed to Epstein’s own email address rather than forwarded to him, opens “BRYAN BANTRY / on behalf of / FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES / invites you and a guest to / MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE”, with the screening set for that evening at the AMC 19th Street Cinema and the warnings that “THIS INVITATION IS ABSOLUTELY NON TRANSFERABLE” and “RSVP by telephone only”.1 The foot of the second sheet reads “Bryan Bantry Screenings / Bryan Bantry / 900 Broadway / New York, NY 10003”.2 The invoices reproduced on the Siegal page give the Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. / Peggy Siegal Inc. address as 900 Broadway, Suite 400, New York City 10003.5

Peggy Siegal’s own description of how he worked, sent to Epstein in December 2010 and some seven months before Epstein wrote that he thought Bantry was stealing, is of a man running a separate business and pricing it himself. Weighing a booking she feared would anger another of her clients, she wrote that Bantry “has no such allegiance” to that client, that “Bryan charges every other studios more”, and that when she tried to talk him out of the job “he says stay out of it. It’s about money. He is running a business.” That is her characterisation, in a message to Epstein, and this page gives it as hers.4

What these documents do not show

  • They do not show any reply from Bantry to what Epstein wrote about him on 3 August 2011. Epstein’s instruction on that sheet was “do not mention this to peggy s people”, and no message from Bantry answering the accusation was found in any document read for this page.
  • They do not show the outcome of Felner v. Bantry. Searches of the full-text index for “Felner”, for the index number “12826/12”, for “Eaton & Van Winkle” and for “Meier Franzino” returned the Answer and its covering message and nothing else in the action; no complaint, motion, order, decision, judgment or discontinuance was located.
  • They do not show whether the single “distribution” payment Epstein described in November 2011 was ever produced, or what any accountant concluded.
  • They do not show who wrote the 2006-to-2009 billings analysis. The sender’s address is blacked out on both sheets that carry it, and this page attributes it to no one.
  • They do not show what the New York Post reported in October 2012, and this page does not supply it.
  • Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing by any person or company named on it.

How this page was searched

The full-text index was queried by phrase through its FTS5 tables, never by scan. “Bryan Bantry” returns 99 documents and 108 pages; “bantry” alone 129 documents and 140 pages; “Waggingtail” 89 and 98; “Bryan Bantry Screenings” 2 and 2. “Felner” returns 9 documents and 12 pages, of which only the Answer and its covering message concern this action: six of the other seven pages are copies of one social message naming a different person, “Eric Felner”, and the seventh is a telephone-billing legend on which the string is optical-character noise. This page does not conflate them. “Rasnick”, “Meier Franzino” and “12826/12” each return a single document. This page is built on documents Bantry writes, signs or is the formal subject of, plus the messages in which Epstein and his accountant discuss him.

See also

Notes

Footnotes

  1. “screening 13 october,” 13 October 2011, two sheets, addressed to Epstein’s own email address and not forwarded to him. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02031041 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:32Z. The invitation’s own text is quoted; the sender of the covering message is named on the sheet but given no title there, and no role is supplied here. A Cc: line and the RSVP telephone number are blacked out on the image; email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2

  2. The same mailing, second sheet, carrying the screening details and the footer “Bryan Bantry Screenings / Bryan Bantry / 900 Broadway / New York, NY 10003.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02031041 p.2. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:34Z. The RSVP telephone number is blacked out on this sheet too; an email address appears in the unsubscribe line and is not reproduced. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. The same pleading, fifth and sixth affirmative defences and the opening of the counterclaims, including paragraph 29 (“Defendant, Bryan Bantry, is an individual residing in New York, New York”), paragraph 31 (the purchase on or about August 24, 1989) and paragraph 32 (the twenty-five per cent interest as tenants in common). https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.4. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:30Z. A residential street address appears on this sheet. Home addresses are a class this wiki does not reproduce, and it is not reproduced here. The house is identified on this page only by its town and county, and otherwise only in the pleading’s own words on its third affirmative defence, which are quoted in the body and pinned at 23. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Peggy Siegal to Jeffrey Epstein, 22 December 2010, two sheets: “My business manager Bryan Bantry has accepted a job for me for a lunch on Jan. 11th at the Four Seasons for the entire cast of ‘The Social Network’ for $20,000 that he says we need.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02022057 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:45Z; the machine text of this sheet renders the figure as “520,000” and the image gives it as $20,000. The description is Siegal’s, in a message to Epstein, and is given here as hers. The rest of that message is her own account of her trade and of her dealings with Bantry and with another of her clients, and the passages on Bantry’s fee conduct and commercial independence quoted in the body above are taken from it; some of what she says there runs in his favour. No reply from Epstein to this message was found in any document read for this page; the full-text index was queried by phrase for “My business manager Bryan Bantry” and for “no such allegiance”, and each returns this sheet and no other page in the index, so no second copy of the message carrying a reply beneath it was located. The remaining material — her dealings with that other client, and social arrangements — is not used here. ↩ ↩2

  5. The invoices, the accounts, the check register and the “PS 60% / BB 40%” division are set out on Peggy Siegal, which cites them to their own sheets. This page does not restate them. That page also carries the accountant’s signature block reading “Katia Goldin / Accountant / Bryan Bantry, Inc / Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd,” and gives the invoice address as 900 Broadway, Suite 400, New York City 10003; the two 2011 invoices there are addressed to “HRBK Associates … ATTN: Rich Kahn,” which is the spelling those invoices use for the firm that spells itself HBRK Associates Inc. on its own correspondence. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. Bryan Bantry to Jeffrey Epstein, “msg from bryan bantry,” 3 August 2011, a single sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01994205 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:29Z. The angle-bracketed block beneath Bantry’s four-line note is introduced by him as “explanation below from our accountant katia goldin,” and this page attributes its wording to that accountant rather than to Bantry. The sheet’s top-of-message Sent: field reads “Wed 8/3/2011 12:18:32 PM” and carries no zone on its face; see 14 for how the zone was established and why this page gives it as UTC. Email addresses appear on this sheet and are not reproduced here. Contrary to the desk note that scoped this page, the recipient block on this sheet is not redacted; the sender’s own address is simply absent rather than blacked out. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Robert Felner, Plaintiff, against Bryan Bantry, Defendant, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, Index No. 12826/12, “Verified Answer & Counterclaims,” twelve sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:29Z. The document is filed in the release under the identifier of its first sheet; its later sheets carry their own consecutive production stamps, so that the twelfth sheet is stamped EFTA00292558. Sheet 1 carries the caption, the appearance “Defendant, Bryan Bantry, by his attorneys, Eaton & Van Winkle LLP,” and the numbered answers to paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Complaint. ↩ ↩2

  8. The same pleading, subscription sheet: “Dated: New York, New York / July 30, 2012 / EATON & VAN WINKLE LLP … Attorneys for Defendant, Bryan Bantry,” addressed “TO: Meier Franzino & Scher, LLP / Attorneys for Plaintiff, Robert Felner.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.11. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. A manuscript signature sits on the “By:” rule above the typed names of two attorneys of the defendant’s firm; the rule is signed, not empty and not redacted. Both firms’ street addresses and telephone lines are printed on this sheet as business contact details and are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Lauri F. Rasnick, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., to Jeffrey Epstein, “Felner v. Bantry — Peggy Siegal,” 18 July 2013, a single sheet, attaching “Complaint.pdf” and “Answer_&_Counterclaims.PDF.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00387258 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:29Z. The head carries an explicit offset, “Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 16:21:53 +0000.” One addressee besides Epstein and one Cc: recipient are blacked out on the image — two people, each with display name and address barred separately, which is the four bars in those two lines — as are the sender’s own address line and parts of the firm’s footer, and none of them is supplied here. The machine text of this sheet closes the gap and drops the second To: line altogether, so the count is taken from the image. Nothing read for this page connects the law firm’s name to Jeffrey Epstein. ↩ ↩2

  10. Jeffrey Epstein to Richard Kahn, “Fwd: msg from bryan bantry,” 3 August 2011, two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01859212 pp.1-2. Read from the page images by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:30Z. Epstein’s own text is the four lines at the top of sheet 1; everything below the “Forwarded message” rule is Bantry’s message of the same morning, reproduced in full and running onto sheet 2. The quotation is given as the image prints it, including the doubled commas and the spelling “calulates”; the run of spaces after “stealing” is as printed. One character was settled at the image before it was published: the machine text of this sheet reads “what kl is he talking about,” with a lowercase L, and the glyph was re-rendered at 400 dpi and compared with the digit “1” in “2011” and with the lowercase “l” in “talking,” both on the same sheet; it matches the digit, and the quotation is given as “k1”. Two addresses in the header blocks are blacked out on the image and are not supplied here. Email addresses appear on these sheets and are not reproduced here. The top-of-message Sent: field reads “Wed 8/3/2011 12:34:38 PM”; see 14. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. The two accountants’ sheets on which the lead’s five characters and its heading are printed. “PS 60%” and “BB 40%” sit on consecutive lines at the foot of a Waggingtail Entertainment Ltd. “Profit & Loss by Class” for January through March 2011: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00601818 p.2; the full-text index puts the same pairing on that document’s printed pages 4 and 6 as well, which were not rendered for this page. “ALLOCATION BETWEEN PEGGY SIEGAL AND BRYAN BANTRY” is the heading of a Peggy Siegal Inc. “SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2011,” a sheet stamped DRAFT: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01077269 p.5. Both were read from the page images by the writer at 2026-09-09T21:19Z. The “PS 60% / BB 40%” of the body is a compression of two consecutive lines and is not a contiguous string on either sheet. The figures on both sheets are set out on Peggy Siegal and are not restated here. Personal names appear on the first of the two sheets and are not reproduced here. ↩

  12. Jeffrey Epstein to Peggy Siegal, “Fwd: msg from bryan bantry / … co billings 2006 to 2nd Q 2009,” 14 July 2009, a single sheet, top-of-message field “Tue 7/14/2009 10:06:10 PM.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01829415 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T21:19Z. That field carries no zone on its face and is read as UTC by the test at 14. The forwarded head beneath it reads “Date: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:32 PM” and is the source of the 8 July date; it is a quoted line, its zone is not established here, and no clock time on this page is taken from it. The sender of the forwarded analysis is blacked out on this sheet as well, and Siegal’s address in the To: line is blacked out; neither is supplied or inferred here. The figures in the analysis are not restated on this page; Peggy Siegal gives them. ↩ ↩2

  13. Bryan Bantry to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: msg from bryan bantry / … co billings 2006 to 2nd Q 2009,” 14 July 2009, two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02439897 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:32Z. Epstein’s quoted message beneath it carries an explicit offset, “Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:40 -0400,” and is the source of the “total picture.. P&L” quotation. A name is blacked out on the image in the subject line and again in the heading of the quoted billings analysis, and the sender of that analysis, quoted as “On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:32 PM,” is blacked out as well; none of the three is supplied or inferred here. The figures in the analysis are not restated on this page; Peggy Siegal gives them from the copy Epstein forwarded to her. ↩ ↩2

  14. How the clock on these sheets was read. The production renders times in at least three ways and the position of the field, not its typography, tells them apart. (i) The four-line To: / From: / Sent: / Subject: block at the head of a sheet carries no zone. (ii) An RFC-style From: / To: / Subject: / Date: head carries an explicit offset. (iii) Times quoted inside a message body follow whatever client wrote them. The zone of class (i) was established from one message that appears in both class (i) and a quoted original-message block: Epstein’s message to Peggy Siegal of 1 August 2011 has a top-of-message field reading “Mon 8/1/2011 11:43:06 AM” on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01857043 p.1, and is quoted on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01857128 p.1 as “Sent: Mon Aug 01 07:43:06 2011”. The difference is four hours to the second, which is the Eastern daylight offset for that date, so the top-of-message field is UTC. The same test runs a second time on the reply: its top-of-message field on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01857128 p.1 reads “Mon 8/1/2011 11:58:36 AM,” and it is quoted on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02015751 p.1 as “Sent: Mon Aug 01 07:58:36 2011” — four hours again, to the second. The first two sheets were read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:33Z and the third at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. Two cautions. First, the machine text of both sheets prints the seconds wrongly — 11:43:08 and 11:58:38 against the 11:43:06 and 11:58:36 the images show — and it is precisely those digits that the four-hour test turns on, so this note rests on the images. Second, a third rendering on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01859212 p.1 quotes Bantry’s message as “Date: Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM,” two hours away from the same message’s own top-of-message field; the zone of that quoted line is not established here and no clock time on this page is taken from a quoted line. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  15. Jeffrey Epstein to Peggy Siegal, 1 August 2011, “send me bantry number,” a single sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01857043 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:33Z. Siegal’s address in the To: line is blacked out on the image and is not supplied here. ↩

  16. Jeffrey Epstein to Peggy Siegal, “Re: bryan bantry,” 1 August 2011, “no answer,left voicemail,” two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01857128 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:33Z. The interval of fifteen minutes is taken from the two top-of-message Sent: fields, which are the same class of field on the same production rendering; see 14. The one-line message Siegal sent between them is redacted to a bar on this sheet and its content is not supplied here. ↩

  17. Peggy Siegal, “Re: bryan bantry,” 1 August 2011, two sheets, top-of-message field “Mon 8/1/2011 11:59:34 AM”: “Bryan: please call Jeffrey back. Thanks. Peg.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02015751 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. The To: line carries Epstein’s address twice and a third recipient who is blacked out on the image; the addressee is identified here only from the word the message itself opens with, and no withheld address is supplied. This sheet also carries the same 1 August chain quoted below it, and its “Sent: Mon Aug 01 07:58:36 2011” line is the second of the two matched pairs described in 14. ↩

  18. Jeffrey Epstein to Peggy Siegal, “Re: peggy siegal/bryan bantry 60/40 split of profits,” two sheets. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00923674 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:32Z. The head carries an explicit offset, “Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 10:29:44 +0000,” so this message is UTC on its own face. The second quotation is from Epstein’s earlier message of 11 November 2011, quoted in an original-message block on the same sheet. The third is from Siegal’s message of the same 12 November, quoted immediately beneath Epstein’s reply over the line “On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM”; the sheet prints double quotation marks around the word “managing” and they are given here as single marks inside the quotation. The remainder of that message deals with her family’s private affairs and with a third party addressed by first name only, and none of that material is used or described here; recipient addresses on the sheet are blacked out on the image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  19. The same pleading, paragraphs 33 to 37, including the ten listed heads of responsibility. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.5. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. ↩

  20. The same pleading, paragraphs 38 to 42. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.6. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:30Z. ↩

  21. The same pleading, paragraph 42 continued and paragraph 43, both pleaded “upon information and belief.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.7. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:30Z. ↩

  22. The same pleading, second counterclaim (unjust enrichment), paragraphs 48 to 51. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.8. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. ↩

  23. The same pleading, second, third and fourth affirmative defences, paragraphs 22 to 26. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.3. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:40Z. ↩ ↩2

  24. The same pleading, twelfth and last sheet, headed “VERIFICATION” under the same caption and index number, and stamped EFTA00292558. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00292547 p.12. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:29Z. The signature above the typed line “BRYAN BANTRY” is a manuscript signature and not an empty or redacted rule; the jurat beneath it is completed with a notary public’s signature and stamp, and the day of the month written into “the ___ day of July, 2012” is not legible at the resolution read. The notary’s name and commission number are printed on the stamp and are not reproduced here. ↩

  25. Richard Kahn, HBRK Associates Inc., to Jeffrey Epstein, 24 October 2012, “Is this the same Bryan Bantry that Peggy was having problems with?” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00946594 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:32Z. The head carries an explicit offset, “Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:11:30 +0000,” so the time on this message is UTC on its own face. The message body is that one sentence and one hyperlink to nypost.com; the linked article was not retrieved and is not characterised here. The sender’s own email address is blacked out on the image, as are two lines beneath the firm’s name in his signature block and the telephone, facsimile and cellular lines below them; none of them is supplied here. ↩ ↩2

  26. Jeffrey Epstein to Richard Kahn, 24 October 2012, “yes.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00946596 p.1. Read from the page image by the writer at 2026-09-09T20:32Z. The head carries an explicit offset, “Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:41:58 +0000.” The reply is lower-case on the image. Kahn’s message is quoted beneath it in full, with the same link. ↩

Backlinks