Epstein Data Wiki

David Stern

Properties2
tagsperson, business, china, asia-gateway, witan-group, informa, jpmorgan, evergrande, epstein-correspondence
aliasesStern, David

38 min read

OccupationBusinessman, based in London and working on China transactions. The release carries his own e-mail address at one company domain in 2011 and at another from 201212
Companies the documents name him inChina Medical Data Services Limited, a Hong Kong company whose disclosure schedule in a 2010 sale agreement names him as its sole shareholder and sole director; its subsidiary Asia Gateway Limited (China); and Witan Group Ltd342
Relationship to EpsteinCorrespondent. The documents cited on this page run from April 2009 to September 2018, and Epstein was reading, and in one exchange drafting, his side of live commercial negotiations567
Scale in the releaseThe release’s derived e-mail-header index counts 4,438 message records whose sender field normalises to “David Stern”, across 3,983 documents, dated between 20 April 2009 and 17 March 2019. That is an index figure and not a count of sheets read at the image; the index is shown below to carry at least one manufactured sender address89
The anchorA binding offer letter of 18 March 2010 from Informa UK Limited to him, for 50.1% of his Hong Kong company at $3m against a stated valuation of about US$50m, and Epstein’s e-mail of 23 March 2010 returning that letter to him under the subject “Re: Offer letter”105
ResponseNone appears in any document cited on this page. No statement by him about this correspondence was found in the material searched for this page, and no search outside the released files was made

David Stern is a London businessman who was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most frequent e-mail correspondents and who used Epstein as an adviser on his own transactions. In March 2010 Informa UK Limited made him a written binding offer for a controlling stake in the Hong Kong company he owned, and within five days that letter was inside Epstein’s mailbox with two of its clauses marked in yellow.105 In February 2011 he forwarded Epstein a message from the chief executive of J.P. Morgan’s investment bank and, two minutes after Epstein answered, wrote back: “OK. [w]ill send a reply as you suggested below.”16 In 2013 he sent Epstein a term sheet under which a vehicle controlled by Dr Richard Merkin would buy a US$5 million senior note in his company, with the words “Please review. Thank you.”1112 In June 2016 an expression of interest from Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited for a British housebuilder, for which the letter gives an indicative enterprise valuation of £650m to £750m, named him as one of two people to contact.13 Appearing in the released files is not evidence of wrongdoing, and nothing on this page is a finding of any.

He is also the correspondent through whom Epstein’s traffic about the Duke of York passed, and that material is framed on its own page rather than restated here: see Cantor Urramoor Asset Management, where the documents for it are cited.

Several of the sheets cited on this page carry transmission damage in the print itself, in which a character is replaced by an equals sign. Where a lost character is supplied here it is in square brackets, and nothing the print actually carries has been altered.

Identification: which David Stern

“David Stern” is a common name, and the release holds more than one man who bears it. The searches run for this page were made against the full-text corpus with FTS5 phrase queries, scoped to the page-text column, and the strings queried are printed here so that the measurement can be repeated.

text_content : ("David Stern") returns 6,294 pages across 6,169 documents. The middle-initial forms, which on other subjects at this desk have returned many times the plain form, do not do so here. Every one of "David A Stern" through "David Z Stern" was run. Three returned anything at all:

  • text_content : ("David J Stern"), 11 pages across 5 documents. Every hit is third-party material about the Florida foreclosure attorney of that name and the Mowat v. DJSP Enterprises class action: a law firm’s newsletters and printed social-media pages.
  • text_content : ("David M Stern"), 3 pages in 1 document. All three are copies of an electronic-filing notice list in United States v. Scott, No. 1:15-cr-00537, where the name stands beside a law-firm e-mail address.
  • text_content : ("David L Stern"), 1 page. A news digest crediting a Washington Post report on the Minsk agreement.

One further man appears under the plain form: a slide in a fund presentation lists “David Stern” against “Fund III” and “4 yrs VC exp, Idealab, Universal, various Bay Area startups”. That is a single page and it is not this subject.14

None of those document sets intersects the subject’s. The set of 3,983 documents whose sender field the header index normalises to “David Stern” was intersected with the document sets returned by each of the three initialled queries. All three intersections are empty.

The famous David Stern is not in these documents. text_content : ("National Basketball") returns 27 documents; not one of them also contains the token Stern. text_content : ("Stern" AND "basketball") returns five documents, and none of the five is about the National Basketball Association or its commissioner.

That last point has a trap behind it, and the trap is not in the documents but in the index built over them. Two rows of the header index carry a sender string of the subject’s name followed by an address at the domain nba.com; two more carry an address at example.com, and a fifth carries an address at stern.com. All five rows come from the index’s derived jmail_extra arm, all five carry an empty subject and an empty recipient list, and no sheet in the release supports any of them. text_content : ("nba.com") returns four pages, in four documents, and all four are copies of one 2016 e-mail about which streaming applications work on an Apple television. text_content : ("David Stern" AND "nba.com") returns nothing. The two sheets behind the two nba.com index rows were read at the image at 700 dpi for this page. On each, every address in the subject’s name position is a redaction bar, and no domain of any kind is printed in it.9 A ranking built on that index would have counted the homograph into the subject’s total; the documents never did.

The positive identification rests on a single sheet. An e-mail of 1 February 2011 prints, in its own sender field, the subject’s name followed by an address at asiagateway.co.uk, addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, under the subject “Fwd: Checking in”; inside it stands a message from “Staley, Jes” at a jpmorgan.com address, over the signature block “Jes Staley | [C]hief Executive Officer| Investment Bank | J.P. Morgan”.1 Name, own address, employer of the correspondent and an act, all on one sheet, read at the image. See Jes Staley and JPMorgan Chase.

Asia Gateway and the Informa offer, March 2010

The business was a Chinese healthcare-data venture. A disclosure schedule annexed to a 2010 sale and purchase agreement sets out its particulars: “China Medical Data Services Limited”, incorporated 29 April 2010, share capital of 5,010 A Ordinary Shares and 4,990 B Ordinary Shares, “Shareholders: - name: David Stern - Shares held: 501 A Ordinary Shares 499 B Ordinary Shares”, “Directors: David Stern”, “Secretary: Metopro Associates Limited”, “Mortgages and Charges: None”, “Subsidiaries: Asia Gateway Limited (China)”. On that sheet the company’s number and its registered office are both blacked out, and this page does not supply either.3

On 18 March 2010 a letter went to him headed “[On Informa UK Notepaper]” and “Strictly Private & Confidential”, and carrying beneath the salutation “Dear David,” the bold heading “Asia Gateway China Joint Venture”. It opens: “Thank you for working hard with us over the past few days to enable us to make a considered binding offer to you.” It values the business “at approximately US$50m” and offers “$3m for the purchase of 50.1% of the entire share capital (issued or under option) of China Medical Data Services Limited or of its wholly owned subsidiary Asia Gateway Limited”, plus “up to $16m of working capital”, half at the outset and half in quarterly instalments through 2011 against milestones. Both tranches are “conditional upon execution of both the contract with central MOHRSS on national standards and the research service contract with central MOHRSS in a form and content approved by us …”, MOHRSS being the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People’s Republic of China. The letter envisages “your ongoing role as being Chairman”, and it binds him for seven weeks: he undertakes not to “initiate, continue, participate in or otherwise facilitate any discussions or arrangements for or anticipating the disposal … of any part of the Business to any entity other than us … from today’s date to Friday 7th May 2010”. It states in terms: “This letter is legally binding on both you and us.”10

The copy in the release was never signed. Read at the image, the last sheet carries “Yours sincerely”, the typed name “Lindsey Roberts” in bold, “For and on behalf of Informa UK Limited”, the word “Agreed”, a dotted rule after “Date:”, a second empty dotted rule, and the printed name “David Stern” beneath it. There is no ink on either rule and no redaction bar anywhere on the sheet, and the addressee block on the first sheet reads “[Address]”, a bracketed placeholder rather than a blacked-out line. What is in the release is the form of the letter as the sender’s word-processor held it, not an executed copy, and this page does not assert that either party signed it.10

Five days later it was in Epstein’s mailbox, and two clauses were marked. An e-mail of “Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:12:57 +0000” from Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, subject “Re: Offer letter”, reproduces the body of the letter. Read at the image, two passages stand under yellow highlighting: the word “nonvoting” in the working-capital clause, and the phrase “options over up to 10% to existing management.” in the condition about the 49.9% he would keep. Nothing in the text layer records that highlighting, and no checker this desk owns can see it. The sheet does not record who applied it, and this page does not say.5

There is a second thing the image settles. The clause as the Informa file copy prints it reads “this will probably be by way of preference shares or loans at a market coupon”; the version carried in the e-mail reads “by way of nonvoting preference shares or loans at a market coupon”.105 Two drafts of one clause are in the release, they differ by one word, and that word is the marked one. The sequence raises the question of which way the word travelled, and no document read for this page answers it.

What Epstein was doing in the correspondence

He was reading the other side’s letters. The Informa e-mail is a reply, subject “Re: Offer letter”, and it is Epstein who sends it.5

He made the introduction to J.P. Morgan, and then worked the follow-up. On 31 January 2011 Jes Staley, then chief executive of J.P. Morgan’s investment bank, wrote to an address of the subject’s at the domain agc-capital.com: “David, How did it go with the Morgan crowd? Best, Jes”. That wording is quoted from the undamaged copy nested inside the reply; the forwarded copy prints “How =id it go” and carries neither the opening “David,” nor the closing “Jes”. On 1 February at 4.00 in the afternoon the subject forwarded it to Epstein. At 16:02 Epstein replied: “I did my best , not to be harsh.. I think there is great [o]pportunity, but it MUST be cloaked with a Chinese face. I [w]as open and direct, and thought emilio , thought at first hestant , at [l]east to my eyes appeared at the end to be receptive/.” At 4.04 the subject answered: “OK. [w]ill send a reply as you suggested below. Thank [y]ou.”16 Two minutes separate those two stamps, neither of which carries a printed zone. The spellings are as printed.

Three weeks later the chain had moved on. On 28 February 2011 he forwarded Epstein a message Staley had sent on 24 February, whose body reads in full: “Gaby, This is the guy I mentioned. Can u or someone on ur team meet him.” His covering note to Epstein reads: “Jes wrote this mail on Thursday morning, now its Monday night in Asia and I have had no reply and or any contact. Should I write Jes to let him know? (I assume it is addressed to: Gaby Abdelnour, Chairman & CEO of JPM Asia-Pacific)”. The recipient’s address on the forwarded header is blacked out, and the parenthesis is the writer’s own assumption on the face of the sheet, not a fact the document establishes.15

Epstein was asked to negotiate a job. On 5 March 2011 a message went to Epstein from an address of his, setting out three numbered options: “1. Witan Group private co with JPM people on board. 2. DS employed by JPM either “CEO Special Situations Group” (can not have word “China” in the name) or “Special Advisor” to Jes?? 3. I think its best: DS reports to Jes, and close contact with both Emilio + Gaby. For JPM political reasons: DS officially based in two offices: London + Hong Kong”. Epstein’s reply carries a message body above a standing confidentiality trailer, and that body reads: “no chance.. jes is head of pb”. The sheet stamps the quoted message “Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM”, with no zone printed, and stamps the reply “Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:25:31 +0000”; the two do not share a printed zone, and no interval between them is asserted here.4 The writer refers to himself in that note by initials, and within the hour came back twice: “But CEO of Special Situations Group can work ?” and then “Or no employment but $3m (or whatever you negotiate) contract with Witan? JPM get board seats + accountant, exclusivity etc and Witan get access to JPM resources ? This would be great for China as it allows me to use JPM brand when useful and not mention it when being a burden.”16 The phrase “(or whatever you negotiate)” is addressed to Epstein.

And for errands. On 20 July 2012 at 14:12 Epstein wrote into the thread: “I need someone in kiev to go to a bank and deposit a 160 us dollars for a visa application, that must be done in person in the ukraine,, ( typical ),,can you help me to organize,”. The answer came back “Confirmed. Will be done in Kiev on Monday. Send me all details.”, then “It will be done in Kiev.” Epstein replied “Thanks best have Karyn’s talk directly to person in odessa”, and Karyna Shuliak wrote into the same thread asking to be sent “the info of the person I should contact on my email once you have it..”. The spacing and the doubled commas are on the sheet.17

He was used as a finder. On 14 September 2010 he wrote to Epstein, under an empty subject line: “The head of Ernesto Bertarelli’s family office has asked me for ideas on Fund of Hedge Funds managers to allocate capital to managers operating in China. They usually do quite big tickets. Not my area especially since those are usually based in Hong Kong or Singapore. Therefore, maybe we can ask JPM ?”18 The double space before “based” is on the sheet. Traffic ran the other way too. On 3 August 2009 Epstein forwarded him, under the subject “Fwd:”, a DP World brief on the London Gateway port project that Sultan Bin Sulayem had sent four days earlier over the line “Just to refresh your mind on our project in London”.19 And on 8 April 2009 Epstein wrote to him introducing Nicole Junkermann: “i spoke to my very good friend/old girlfriend. nicole junkerman,, german,, doing many things in china.. perfect combo for you.”20

A name that is only ever a bar

On 4 May 2011, at 5.41 in the morning by the sheet’s field, a one-line message reached Epstein’s mailbox: “I change the name of my UK company today from “Asia Gateway Ltd” to “Witan Group Ltd”. OK?” Epstein answered “yes” five hours later.21 The message is in the release eight times over. On every one of those eight copies the sender field is blacked out, and no copy prints a display name. This page therefore does not attribute the message, and does not complete the bar from any other copy.

What can be said without attributing it is that the two company names in it are the two that bracket the subject’s own correspondence: the address printed in his sender field in February 2011 is at asiagateway.co.uk, and the address printed for him from January 2012 onwards is at witangroup.com.12 And a further sequence sits oddly against the message’s own date: the name “Witan Group” is already in use, as the name of a proposed company, in the numbered note of 5 March 2011, two months before the rename the message announces.421 No document read for this page resolves that, and nothing here turns on it.

The unwind, January 2012

The Informa transaction did not hold. On 11 January 2012 he wrote to Epstein under the heading “The problem as stated by the other side.”:

Note: CMDS is the Holding Co of which I currently own 49.9% and should get their 50.1% as part of the deal (to make it 100% mine)

Deloitte’s are refusing to support Informa’s proposed treatment in CMDS of the fee for the grant of the licence, as income. Without that, we can’t create distributable reserves in CMDS for it to be able to buy-back Informa’s 50.1% shareholding at the $2,487,500. The buy-back is likely to be challenged, and potentially deemed illegal in Hong Kong.

We are holding those shares with that value as an investment, so if we can’t recover the value (via the buy-back or some similar means) we would have to write-off our investment of $2,487,500. This would be completely unacceptable to the Informa Board (Peter and Adam), so they won’t approve the deal.

The only way to make this work is if Informa receives $2,487,500 in exchange for its shares, and without the buy-back option, that really means we need someone to buy them for that value.

The same sheet carries, quoted beneath, what he had sent earlier: “When can I call you? Need your help please.”2

Two things in that message are worth separating. The first is the voice: the writer labels the whole passage as the other side’s statement of the problem, and then writes three paragraphs in the first person plural of that other side, “we can’t”, “our investment”, “we would have to write-off”. The second is what the last sentence asks for. It does not ask Epstein for an opinion. It states that the deal needs a buyer at a named price, in an exchange he had opened by asking for help: the message quoted two levels down on the same sheet reads “When can I call you? Need your help please.”

The sheet also carries a contradiction this page does not resolve: its own header field reads “Wed 1/11/2012 3:02:09 PM”, the message it quotes is stamped “On 11 Jan 2012, at 14:43”, and the message quoted inside that is stamped “On Jan 11, 2012, at 3:25 PM”, which is later than both. The nesting and the clocks disagree, and no zone is printed on the sheet, so no sequence is asserted here beyond the order of nesting.2 The Informa board members are named on the sheet only as “Peter and Adam”, and this page expands neither.

The Merkin term sheet, July 2013

Eighteen months later he was full owner again and looking for money. On 15 July 2013 at 6.17 in the evening he wrote to Epstein: subject “Fwd: China Medical Term Sheet”, attachments “Term Sheet - China Medical Data Services.docx; Untitled attachment 00431.htm”, body “Please review. Thank you.” Beneath it the sheet prints “Begin forwarded message:” and then stops. The message it announces is not on the document, which is one page long, and this page does not say what it contained.11

The term sheet itself is in the release. It is headed “TERM SHEET” over “Investment in China Medical Data Services Ltd.” and describes terms on which a to-be-formed parent “will issue securities (“Financing”) to a to be identified entity controlled by Dr. Richard Merkin (the “Investor,” …)”. Its first table row records that “China Medical Data Services Ltd., a company registered in Hong Kong, is owned 100% by David Stern (“Stern”)”, and that the company owns all of “Asia Gateway Healthcare Information Technology (Beijing) Co Ltd.” The investor is “A to-be identified entity controlled by Dr. Richard Merkin, resident in California, U.S.A.”; the instrument is “a Senior Note with a face value of US$5 million”; and the money does not move until “there exists a signed agreement between Asia Gateway Healthcare Information Technology and any governmental party under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the P. R. China, having a value of no less than RMB 1 million”. The copy carries no date and no signature, and one of its cells still reads “[Insert description of holding co]”.12

Two days after the covering e-mail, Merkin wrote to him directly, copying a colleague: “David, Looking forward to Friday. I’ve asked one of my team members, Adam Goldston, to join us. I am out of the office and haven’t been able to discuss with him the details of what we are trying to do in China. I did send him the term sheet. Can you please send to him an update what we are trying to accomplish and the history of the company with China? Adam is CCd on this email.” He replied the next morning from the witangroup.com address: “Dear Dick I am now on my way to LA, arriving today (Thursday) early evening. May I suggest to give Adam a call either in the evening or tomorrow morning to fill him in as requested? Adam, what time works for you for a call? All the best David”.22

The order matters. The term sheet reached Epstein on 15 July for review; Merkin’s scheduling note is of 17 July. Whether the copy Merkin had sent his colleague was the copy Epstein had reviewed is not established by any document read for this page. Whether any Senior Note was ever issued is likewise not established by any document read for this page, and nothing in the material searched records a closing.

Evergrande and CALA Homes, June 2016

On 5 June 2016 Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited sent Patron Capital Advisers LLP in London, for the attention of Keith M. Breslauer, an expression of interest headed “Re: Project Move”, for “the potential acquisition of CALA Group (Holdings) Limited (“CALA Homes”)”. The letter puts “an enterprise valuation at a rang of £650m to £750m”, the misspelling being on the face of the sheet; it confirms the offer “is made as principal for our own account and not as a broker or agent”; and it states that the opportunity “has been considered by the Chairman of our Board of Directors and has significant support to move forward, subject to remaining diligence”. Clause XI reads: “Contact: Please contact Liu Yishi and David Stern (contact details below) with any questions regarding this Offer:”. The contact details beneath it are blacked out. Clause XII restricts disclosure to “Legal & General Group PLC (in its capacity as a shareholder of the Company)” and the addressee’s own officers and advisers.13

The letter is signed, and the signatory is not named. Read at the image, the last sheet carries an ink signature over a rule, and under the rule the words “Vice President, for and on behalf of Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited”. There is no printed name, and no redaction bar over that block: the name is simply absent from the form. This page does not read the signature.13

Why a strictly confidential Chinese offer letter for a British housebuilder is in Jeffrey Epstein’s files is not explained by any document read for this page. The search run for this page over the full-text corpus, text_content : ("Project Move") and text_content : ("CALA Homes"), returns the offer letter itself and nothing else that concerns it: no covering e-mail carrying it was located in that search, made on 25 September 2026.

The diary

He is in the office schedules, repeatedly, over years, in New York, London and Paris. The most explicit entry read at the image for this page is for Monday 24 September 2018, on a schedule whose day heading is printed “Mon. Sept. 24, 2108 NY”, a typographic error for 2018 on the face of the sheet. Under it: “Reminder: David Stern will be in NY for the day and use apt [barred] as ‘home base’”, then “11:00am Appt w/David Stern”, and at “3:30pm Appt w/David Stern” again, the second appointment clashing on the same line-time with a “PHONE DATE” entry. The apartment designation is blacked out on the sheet and this page does not supply it. The same day carries breakfast with “Ehud”, a given name the schedule prints with the rest of that entry barred, an appointment with Thorbjon Jagland, one with Stacey Plaskett, and one at 6:30 with Daniel Schmachtenberger.7 See Ehud Barak and Lesley Groff, whose office produced these schedules.

Two appointments in one day, and the use between them of a “home base” the sheet does not identify, is a different kind of access from a name on a copy list.

The royal channel

This page does not restate what the Cantor Urramoor page sets out, which is the 2013 Cantor Fitzgerald joint-venture matter and a November 2013 referral agreement. The documents for both are cited there and not here.

Two dated points belong here because they are his own traffic. On 29 August 2010 he wrote to Epstein, at 11.00 in the morning: “PA wants to know if you spoke to F. during the last couple of days ?” Epstein replied at 17:10:01 +0000: “Five days Ago”.23 Both addresses on that sheet are blacked out; the display names are printed. This page expands neither “PA” nor “F.”, because no document read for this page supplies an expansion for either. The Cantor Urramoor page records the same reticence about the same initials on documents three years later.

On 9 April 2016 Epstein sent him the Dershowitz statement package attaching the Freeh material, over a body beginning “PA might want to use this”. That sheet was read at the image by the Louis Freeh writing pass and the reading is recorded in the desk’s document rulings; it was not re-opened for this page, and the quotation here is taken from that record rather than from an image this page opened.24 On 4 January 2015 Epstein wrote to him “CLINTON was never on the island the story , heli is all a total fiction.”; above the attribution line quoting it, his own message that morning is the single word “Understood”.25 See Bill Clinton.

What the documents cited here do not show

  • No charge, no proceeding, no allegation. No document read for this page names him as a defendant, a subject, a witness or a person of interest in any investigation, and nothing here is a finding against him.
  • No completed transaction. Three instruments in which he is a named party or contact were read at the image for this page. The Informa letter is unsigned. The Merkin term sheet is undated, unsigned, and states on its own face that it “is not intended to be a binding agreement of the signatories hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, except for the provisions contained in Section II”. The Evergrande letter is expressly “Non Legally Binding” except as to confidentiality, and it is the only one of the three that carries ink at all, over a rule whose printed name is absent.101213
  • No response. No statement by him about any of this material appears in the documents cited on this page. No search outside the released files was made for this page, so this is a statement about the release and about nothing else, as at 25 September 2026.
  • The correspondence is much larger than this page. The header index counts thousands of message records; this page cites twenty-eight documents. Anything said here about what the correspondence “does not contain” is bounded by the queries printed above and by nothing wider.

Footnotes

  1. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 4:00 PM”, subject “Fwd: Checking in”, forwarding a message from “Staley, Jes” dated “31 January 2011 21:22:17 GMT”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. The sender field on this sheet prints the subject’s name together with his own e-mail address at the domain asiagateway.co.uk, and the forwarded header prints the recipient address at the domain agc-capital.com. The sheet carries quoted-printable damage throughout, in which a character is replaced by ”=”; the characters supplied in square brackets in the text above are the damaged ones. The corpus extraction renders the signature name as “les Staley”; the image prints “Jes Staley”. No telephone number carried on this sheet is reproduced on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01798533 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  2. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Wed 1/11/2012 3:02:09 PM”, subject “Re:”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. There is no redaction bar anywhere on this sheet; the sender name, the recipient address and the quoted address at the domain witangroup.com are all printed. The block quotation follows the sheet exactly, including “Deloitte’s” and the figure “$2,487,500” at each of its three occurrences. The sheet breaks “write-off” across a line and this page closes it up; nothing else in the passage is altered. The three clock values on the sheet (“Wed 1/11/2012 3:02:09 PM”, “11 Jan 2012, at 14:43”, “Jan 11, 2012, at 3:25 PM”) do not resolve into a consistent order and no zone is printed for any of them; none is converted here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01843781 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Schedule 2, Part A (“The Company”) of a 2010 sale and purchase agreement concerning China Medical Data Services Limited, printed page 23 of the document and numbered 21 on its own face. Read at the image at 700 dpi. The “Number:” field and the “Registered office:” field are both covered by redaction bars, and neither is supplied here. No other field on the sheet is barred. Nothing else in this 33-sheet document is cited here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01122050 p.23. ↩ ↩2

  4. Jeffrey Epstein, “Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 18:25:31 +0000”, subject “Re:”, quoting a message of “Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 10:24 AM”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. Address values on this sheet are not reproduced here. The numbered list is quoted exactly as printed, including the two spaces after “1.” and the doubled question mark. The standing Epstein confidentiality trailer beneath is not quoted here. A second copy of the same list is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01837783 p.1, also read at the image at 700 dpi for this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00905495 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, “Re: Offer letter”, “Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:12:57 +0000”, reproducing the body of the 18 March letter. Sheet 1 read at the image at 700 dpi. The recipient’s address is a redaction bar; the sender’s address is printed. Two passages on the sheet stand under yellow highlighting, the word “nonvoting” in clause 2.1 and the phrase “options over up to 10% to existing management.” in condition 2(i); neither the highlighting nor its extent is present in the text layer, and the sheet does not record who applied it. The clause as printed here reads “nonvoting preference shares”; the Informa file copy at 10 reads “preference shares”. Only sheet 1 was opened; the document carries five. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00747181 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  6. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2011 4:04 PM”, subject “Re: Checking in”, quoting Epstein’s message of “1 Feb 2011, at 16:02”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. Four values on the sheet are barred: three in header or attribution lines at the position an e-mail address occupies, and the fourth in the signature block at the position a telephone number occupies. None is supplied here. The quoted Epstein text prints a double space after “cloaked” and after “harsh..” as given; “hestant” and the terminal “receptive/.” are on the face of the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01798252 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Office schedule covering Sunday 23 September to Wednesday 26 September 2018, printed page 5 of the run, read at the image at 700 dpi. The day heading prints “Mon. Sept. 24, 2108 NY”. About twenty values on the sheet are barred. Eight of them stand in the entries cited above, including the designation in the “home base” reminder, each in the position a telephone number or an apartment designation occupies; the rest stand elsewhere on the sheet and are not all of that class. None of them is supplied here. Nothing else on the sheet is cited on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00285597 p.5. ↩ ↩2

  8. Derived e-mail-header index over the release, email_metadata.db, table emails_merged, column sender_normalized. Query: select count(*), count(distinct efta_number) from emails_merged where sender_normalized='David Stern' returns 4,438 and 3,983; the dated subset of 4,394 rows runs from 2009-04-20 to 2019-03-17. These are index figures. They are not a count of pages read, and the index is a derived artefact rather than a document in the release. ↩

  9. Same index. Five rows carrying the subject’s name in the sender string append an address at a domain that no sheet supports: two at nba.com, two at example.com, one at stern.com. All five carry the source tag jmail_extra, an empty subject and an empty recipient list. Full-text queries run for this page on 25 September 2026: text_content : ("nba.com") returns 4 pages in 4 documents, all four being copies of one 2016 message about streaming applications on an Apple television; text_content : ("David Stern" AND "nba.com") returns 0; text_content : ("National Basketball") returns 27 documents, none of which also contains the token Stern. The sheets behind two of the five index rows were read at the image at 700 dpi in the course of this pass and print a redaction bar in the sender’s address position. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02305541 p.1; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02401330 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  10. Letter from Informa UK Limited to David Stern, 18 March 2010, “Asia Gateway China Joint Venture”, five sheets. Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 4 read at the image at 700 dpi for this page; none of the four carries any highlighting, and none carries a redaction bar. Sheet 1 is headed “[On Informa UK Notepaper]” and carries “[Address]” under the addressee’s name: both are bracketed placeholders in the sender’s own draft, not redaction bars, and there is no bar anywhere on any of the four sheets read. Sheet 4 is the signature page: “Lindsey Roberts” is a typed name, the “Date:” rule and the signature rule above the printed name “David Stern” are both empty dotted rules, and nothing is written on either. The footer on every sheet prints the drafting path ending “Ltr - L Roberts To D Stern (Clean RJ) 180310 (2) (2) (2).Docx”. The corpus extraction renders “Informa” as “lnforma” on sheet 1 and the addressee’s surname as “Stem” on sheets 1 and 4; the image prints “Informa” and “Stern”, and the image is the reading. Sheet 5 is an appendix of consent matters and was not opened for this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00761618 pp.1-4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  11. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Monday, July 15, 2013 6:17 PM”, subject “Fwd: China Medical Term Sheet”, attachments “Term Sheet - China Medical Data Services.docx; Untitled attachment 00431.htm”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. The sender’s address is a redaction bar; the display name is printed. The sheet ends on the words “Begin forwarded message:” with nothing beneath them, and the document is one sheet long, so the forwarded message it announces is not in this document. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02673727 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  12. “TERM SHEET / Investment in China Medical Data Services Ltd.”, sheet 1 read at the image at 700 dpi. Undated and unsigned on its face; one table cell reads “[Insert description of holding co]”. The document carries five sheets and only the first was opened for this page. A second copy of the same instrument is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01147594. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02674224 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited to Patron Capital Advisers LLP, 5 June 2016, “Re: Project Move”, four sheets, all four read at the image at 700 dpi. The extraction is wrong twice on this run and the image is the reading both times: sheet 1 prints the addressee’s postcode as “W1J 0AH” where the extraction renders “W11 0AH”, and sheet 2 prints “£650m” where the extraction renders “f 650m”. “rang” for “range” is on the face of sheet 2 and is not an extraction fault. On sheet 4 the contact details under clause XI are covered by a redaction bar, and the telephone and fax values in the Chinese-language footer are barred; the signature block carries an ink signature over a rule with the words “Vice President, for and on behalf of Evergrande Real Estate Group Limited” beneath and no printed name. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00620135 pp.1-4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  14. Single slide in a fund presentation listing team members against fund numbers, including “David Stern - Fund III” and “4 yrs VC exp, Idealab, Universal, various Bay Area startups”. Not read at the image for this page; identified by full-text search and quoted from the corpus text layer, which renders the dashes inconsistently. The document does not appear in the set of documents whose sender field the header index attributes to this subject. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02005667 p.42. ↩

  15. David Stern to two Epstein addresses, “Sent: Mon 2/28/2011 10:04:31 AM”, subject “Fwd: China”, forwarding a message from “Staley, Jes” dated “24 February 2011 14:15:00 GMT” and, beneath it, the header of an earlier message from David Stern to Staley, “Sent: Thu Feb 24 09:08:41 2011”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. The sender field prints the name with no address after it. Three values are barred, all of them addresses in the forwarded headers. The parenthetical identification of “Gaby” is the writer’s own stated assumption on the face of the sheet and is quoted as such. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01987283 p.1. ↩

  16. Two further messages in the same thread, “Saturday, March 5, 2011 6:39 PM” and “Saturday, March 5, 2011 6:47 PM”, both to Jeffrey Epstein and both quoting the “no chance.. jes is head of pb” reply beneath. Not read at the image for this page; quoted from the corpus text layer, which for these two sheets prints the sender field as empty. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01790794 p.1; https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01790749 p.1. ↩

  17. Message chain of 20 July 2012 ending with Karyna Shuliak to David Stern, “Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 6:27 PM”, subject “Re:”, carrying five earlier messages nested beneath it. Read at the image at 700 dpi. Every e-mail address on the sheet is a redaction bar, in the subject’s attribution lines and in the sender field alike, and one telephone number in the body is barred; none of them is supplied here. The display names “David Stern”, “Karyna Shuliak”, “Jeffrey” and “Jeffrey Epstein” are printed. The double spaces, the doubled commas and the lower-case place names are on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02305541 p.1. ↩

  18. David Stern to Jeffrey Epstein, “Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:20:05 +0000”. Read at the image at 700 dpi. The “Subject:” label is printed with nothing after it: the subject line is empty, not redacted. Both addresses are barred; both display names are printed. The double space before “based” is on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00756752 p.1. ↩

  19. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, subject “Fwd:”, “Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:29:23 +0000”, forwarding a message from Sultan Bin Sulayem of “Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:43 AM” that opens on the line “Dear Jeffrey” and, beneath it, “Just to refresh your mind on our project in London”, and sets out the London Gateway case in bullets. The corpus extraction renders “our project” as “ow project”; the image prints “our” and the image is the reading. Sheet 1 read at the image at 700 dpi for this page. The recipient’s address and the forwarded sender’s address are both redaction bars and neither is supplied here; both display names are printed. The document carries two sheets and only the first was opened. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00883642 p.1. ↩

  20. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, “Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:42:52 -0400”, subject “Re: location idea”, surviving inside a reply to Jeffrey Epstein of “Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:08:30 +0000”. Sheet 1 read at the image at 700 dpi for this page. In the quoted header the recipient’s address is a redaction bar and the display name is printed. The telephone number after “call her” is barred, and this page quotes nothing beyond “perfect combo for you.” The sender field of the top message on the sheet is a redaction bar and this page does not attribute that message. The double space after “girlfriend.” and the two separate commas after “junkerman” and after “german” are on the sheet, and the one-n spelling of the surname is Epstein’s own. The corpus extraction of this sheet diverges from the image twice and the image is the reading both times: it renders “old girlfriend” as “old irlfriend”, and it closes each pair of separate commas into a single double-comma ligature. Nothing is repaired here. The document carries two sheets and only the first was opened. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00748642 p.1. ↩

  21. One-line message to Jeffrey Epstein, “Sent: Wed 5/4/2011 5:41:13 AM”: “I change the name of my UK company today from “Asia Gateway Ltd” to “Witan Group Ltd”. OK?” Read at the image at 700 dpi. The whole of the “From:” field is a redaction bar and no display name is printed for it. The reply, “yes”, stands on a sibling copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01866164 p.1, whose own attribution line for the quoted message is likewise barred; that sheet was not opened at the image for this page. A search of the full-text corpus for the phrase, text_content : ("I change the name of my UK company"), returns eight documents, and on none of the eight does the corpus text carry a display name in the sender position. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01870065 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  22. Message chain, printed page 3 of a larger run, read at the image at 700 dpi: Richard Merkin to David Stern, “Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:36:08 -0700”, copied to Adam Goldston; beneath it the reply sent from the address at the domain witangroup.com, opening “Dear Dick”; and above both, a message of “Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:08 AM” to “Adam Goldston; Richard Merkin M.D.” whose sender field is not on this sheet and which is not attributed here. Seven values on the sheet are barred, all of them e-mail addresses in header lines, together with one short line beneath “Noon Pacific works”. The double spaces inside Merkin’s message are on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01966525 p.3. ↩

  23. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, “Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:10:01 +0000”, subject “Re:”, quoting a message of “Aug 29, 2010, at 11:00 AM” from David Stern. Read at the image at 700 dpi. Two values are barred, both addresses; both display names are printed. The body reads, in order on the sheet, “Five days Ago”, “Sent from my iPhone”, the attribution line, and then the quoted question. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00779101 p.1. ↩

  24. E-mail from “jeffrey E.” to David Stern, “Sat, 09 Apr 2016 15:51:27 +0000”, attaching AD_Statement_Package.pdf, body beginning “PA might want to use this”. Not opened at the image for this page. The image reading is the Louis Freeh writing pass’s, at 400 dpi, and is recorded in the desk’s document rulings; the quotation above is taken from that record and not from a sheet this page opened. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01186698 p.1. ↩

  25. David Stern to “jeffrey E.”, “Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 8:31:36 AM”, subject “Re:”, quoting Epstein’s message of “4 Jan 2015, at 08:23”. Sheet 1 read at the image at 700 dpi for this page. The sender’s address is covered by a redaction bar and is not supplied here; no other value on the sheet is barred. His own message above the attribution line is the one word “Understood”, and the standing Epstein confidentiality trailer carried beneath the quoted message is not quoted here. The sheet prints “heli” where the corpus extraction reads “hell”, as the desk’s document rulings settle at the image; the image is the reading. The sheet breaks “total fiction.” across a line and this page closes it up; nothing else in the passage is altered. The rest of the quoted message concerns an accuser’s credibility and is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747912 p.1. ↩

Backlinks