Epstein Data Wiki

Doug Band

Properties2
tagsperson, clinton-office, clinton-global-initiative, teneo, gatekeeper, scheduling, united-states
aliasesDouglas Band, Douglas J. Band, Band, Doug, DougBand, Doug Bands, D. Band

40 min read

What this page does not contain

The files that carry this subject’s name also carry deposition transcripts, raw flight manifests, pages of a seized contact book, and a first-person account of abuse. Nothing from any of them appears here in any form: not quoted, not summarised, not characterised, not counted. No passenger row is reproduced and no fellow passenger is named. The page is built instead on the paper a gatekeeper generates: messages he sent and received, the schedule he circulated, the introductions he made and was made, the signature block he used, and the filings in which other people later recorded what they thought he knew.

Where a producing party has covered something on a sheet cited here, this page does not go to any other document to recover it, and says nothing about what any mark covers.

WhoBill Clinton’s personal aide, and later the president of Teneo Holdings
Title as he gave itHis own signature block of 8 April 2004 gives his name and, on the line beneath it, “Counselor to President Clinton”1
The officeHe wrote from an account the producing party tags (WJC wjc), the same account Bill Clinton’s post-presidential office used2
How the channel openedNot by him. On 17 September 2001 Philip Levine sent Ghislaine Maxwell a message headed “Ghislaine:” whose only other line reads “Doug Band’s contact info:“3
The act most often repeatedArranging who met whom. Dinners, manifests, guest lists, introductions, and a forward schedule
Named in two disclosuresA plaintiff’s Rule 26 disclosure in Giuffre v. Maxwell lists him as a witness; a later exhibit in the same action gives his Teneo title and states that he was present on flights with Epstein, Maxwell and Clinton and may have knowledge45
Named by the GovernmentA United States Attorney’s letter of 11 October 2021 names him in a notice of evidence the Government might offer at Maxwell’s trial. It alleges no conduct by him6

Doug Band ran the access. He was Bill Clinton’s personal aide through the years in which the former president’s office, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein overlapped, and the documents in this release that carry his name are overwhelmingly documents about arrangements: who was coming to dinner, who was on the aircraft, who should meet whom, and when the principal was free. Of the 300 documents this page was scoped on, his name stands in a sending or receiving field on 170 of them.7

Two things about that record are worth stating at the top, because they shape everything below. The first is that he did not open the channel himself: the earliest sheet read for this page is a third party handing Maxwell his contact details, before any message between the two of them that this page found.3 The second is that in April 2002 he directed the correspondence off the account his office used.8 What the documents then show him doing, until the record here stops in October 2004, is the ordinary work of a gatekeeper, conducted through Ghislaine Maxwell, and the page sets out that work and nothing beyond it.

The introduction, September 2001

The first sheet in this page’s record is not his. On Monday 17 September 2001 Philip Levine wrote to Maxwell. The message carries no subject. Its body, in full, is two lines:

Ghislaine: Doug Band’s contact info:

The sheet was read at the page image at its native resolution of 96 pixels per inch. The body ends there; the sheet carries nothing after the colon, and this page supplies nothing.3

That is seventeen days before the earliest dated message in the tagged office account, and it precedes the first exchange between the aide and Maxwell that Bill Clinton sets out, which is of 9 December 2001.2 The relationship this page is about began with somebody else’s introduction, and the only name attached to that act on the paper is Levine’s.

The island, December 2001

On Wednesday 19 December 2001 at 10:22 p.m., under the subject line “RE: Forwarded Mail”, the account sent one sentence:

is your house the only one on the island? amazing, i told my boss and he was quite intrigued.

The sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch, where it carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01281067 and prints the sender display name “DougBand”.9 The released text of that sheet carries the same sentence, and the image and the released text agree on it.

The sheet names neither the island, nor the boss, nor its recipient, and this page resolves none of the three. Ten days earlier the same account had asked Maxwell to reach Prince Andrew “to play golf with me and my boss”, and her reply that day told the aide that Andrew “will ring Clinton”; that exchange, and the reasoning that resolves its referent, are set out on Bill Clinton and are not repeated here.2 What this sheet records on its own face is that the aide reported his principal’s reaction to a house, and that the reaction was interest.

April 2002: off the office account

On Sunday 21 April 2002 the office account wrote to Maxwell. The message opens:

Email it to my reg email

and closes:

You are a peach. Are you here and are we having lunch?

The sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch and carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01278092. On its face the sending field is tagged (WJC wjc). The same message is quoted back in a reply headed “At 10:03 AM 4/21/2002 -0400”, which places the send at 10:03 in the morning, Eastern.8

Four months later the same point is made again in the aide’s own words, to the same correspondent: “you dont call, you dont write… always easier to get me on the other email, fyi”.10

Neither message explains why. This page records that the aide twice directed the Maxwell correspondence away from the account his office used, and draws no inference about the reason.

The gatekeeper in public, 2002

Twice in the spring and summer of 2002 the Washington Post’s Reliable Source column described him doing the job in front of reporters, and on both occasions the column reached the office account by forward from Mary Morrison, who was then working there.

The column of 25 April 2002 reported that a C-SPAN cameraman, Richard Hall, had been stopped while filming Clinton at a book party. It records what the man who stopped him said:

“The president is a private citizen and doesn’t want cameras on him all the time,” Doug barked. Hall assumed he was a Secret Service agent and complied.

and what happened afterwards:

Then an apparently angry Clinton gave Doug hell. Nevertheless, Hall said, when he resumed videotaping, Doug came up and shut him down again.

and then identified him:

It turns out that Doug Band is Clinton’s personal aide, not a Secret Service agent, and had no authority to stop C-SPAN’s camera. We hear he’s now remorseful, but Clinton press secretary Julia Payne declined to produce him. “It’s well known all over the world,” she said, “that Doug has left many a cameraman in his wake.”

The forward carrying that column into the office account bears a two-word comment above it: “How silly”. The sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch, where it carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01277974.11 One sentence of the column as it prints on that sheet is missing a verb, and this page does not quote it or supply the missing word.

The column of 20 June 2002 described the same thing at a fundraiser. It reported that a Washington Times reporter, Jabeen Bhatti, had walked toward Clinton with a notebook when Band blocked her path. It gives her account of what he said, “It’s inappropriate to ask any questions”, and then, in the column’s own words rather than his, places the exchange at an event held to celebrate a free and unfettered press. The column’s own characterisation of him is “former president Bill Clinton’s personal aide, who is so stern and strapping that he’s often mistaken for a Secret Service agent”.12

These are newspaper reports and this page carries them at that weight. What is documented rather than reported is the forwarding: the office account received both columns and answered the first with two words.

Errands, 2002 to 2004

Between those dates the correspondence is a long run of small arrangements, and the pattern in them is consistent: a request goes one way, a name or a time comes back.

24 August 2002. Maxwell: “Doug - any news on Peter Mandelson proposal? Let me know”. The reply is that there is no news, and a note about the address.10 Peter Mandelson has his own page here; no document read for this page says what the proposal was.

14 September 2002. David Slade of Clinton’s scheduling office circulated a message under the subject line “Updated Africa Plane Manifest”, copying the aide’s account. Four days earlier the same office had sent Maxwell the first version of that manifest, which is set out at Bill Clinton and at Casey Wasserman. This page reproduces no manifest and names no passenger. It records only that the president’s scheduling office circulated a revised passenger list and copied the aide.13

23 August 2004. The aide asked Maxwell for Tom Barrack’s contact details and she supplied them, over a sign-off from her assistant; in the same reply he added “Need full info for bruno, name mailing etc”. The traffic runs in both directions. The aide is as often asking Maxwell for access to somebody as giving it.14

Maxwell also used him as a business contact. A pitch letter she signed, proposing to supply a hotel chain with private-label water, carries a copy line reading “Cc: Douglas Band” above a second name; and in April 2004 he asked her “Did you get the info back to stuart in order for him to make a proposal?”1516 In the same message he closed: “Say hi to jeeeeeeefffffffrey”.16

The schedule, September 2003

On Thursday 25 September 2003 the aide sent a message carrying an attachment named DOUG.DOC. The body is one line:

november schedule and when i say november, i dont just mean part of it…

The message’s own thread topic, which prints on the forward, is “Asia Schedule w/o $$”. That forward is Maxwell sending the aide’s message onward, with his message quoted inside it.1718

This page has not opened the attachment and takes no position on what was in it. What the two sheets record is that the principal’s forward schedule left the aide’s hands, reached Maxwell, and was sent on from there.

Attias, and the Clinton Global Initiative

The documents date the beginning of the Richard Attias relationship precisely, and it did not start with Maxwell.

Saturday 7 February 2004, 8:16 p.m. Eastern. The aide to Maxwell:

So huma calls me and says should I go have a drink with richard attias? Totally out of the blue He spoke to her when we were at davos Small world

Maxwell answered:

Am good - I am back in the states - will be in NY Wed and Thursday - I would love to get together. I will talk to Attias Mon and set it up for you - you should meet w/him.

and then, in a second message the same evening, pressed the case:

I imagine au contraire - he should be all over you - you I think give him what he wants and you could get a good deal too. He does only run the event side of that business though - not the invites etc - at least that is my understanding - But he has been involved w/Davos for large no of yrs so he is probably one if not the only person for you to talk to. + I think there is big money to be made from an possible assoc w/him

Maxwell’s first message is stamped 19:42:11 +0000 on 7 February 2004; her second is stamped 7:50:03 PM on its own sheet, in a different field and with no offset printed; and the aide’s own message is dated only by a quoted header in a third form. No interval between any two of the three is derived here, because no two of them are shown to be the same clock.192021

Monday 9 February. The aide reported back: “Nothing / He said he wanted to get together / I just got off the phone quickly”.22

On 20 March 2004 he forwarded Maxwell a message from Attias. Two of its lines read:

PS: Mary is a very interesting person. Thank you for the introduction.

The introduction was his.23 What followed, including the aide’s March 2004 request that Maxwell help raise a job offer for a former Clinton staffer to $250,000 and the $1 million wire instruction that came back through Maxwell seven months later, is set out in full at Bill Clinton and is not repeated here.

Richard Attias ran Publicis Events, which organised Clinton Global Initiative meetings. The sequence the documents establish is that an approach reached the aide from inside the Clinton orbit, that Maxwell brokered the meeting and framed it to him as a personal money opportunity, and that he then made an introduction of his own into it.

Press management, April 2004

On Thursday 8 April 2004 at 8:15 p.m. he wrote to Maxwell:

It would be good to keep chelsea out of the article should that be possible Thx

and signed it:

Douglas J. Band Counselor to President Clinton

The sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch and carries the printed Bates stamp EFTA_R1_01279076.1 It is the only sheet read for this page on which he gives himself a title, and he gives it while asking a private correspondent to keep the principal’s daughter out of an article. No document read for this page identifies the article or records what came of the request.

Access to Epstein, October 2004

The last fortnight of the correspondence in this page’s record is the clearest statement of the arrangement, because in it the direction reverses: Maxwell is scheduling the aide to see Epstein.

Monday 11 October. Maxwell: “Am here in NY - would love to het together. JE did not leave for Paris so he is here too and wants to see you too solo - so popular you are. Let me know”. The aide: “Could see him tommorrow afternoon”.24

Wednesday 13 October, 2:36 a.m. Maxwell, at the foot of a message: “What day works best for you Mon/Tues to meet JE + what time”.25

Wednesday 13 October, 7:04 p.m. Maxwell: “Je says mon night at 6 his house - does that work for you”. The aide answered the same evening: “Perfecto”.26

That is the latest exchange of its kind in this page’s record. Whether the meeting happened is not recorded on any sheet read for this page.

The gap, and February 2013

Between 16 October 2004 and 16 February 2013 the files read for this page carry no message between him and Maxwell or Epstein. That interval is eight years and four months, and Epstein’s Florida conviction falls inside it. The gap is stated here as a property of the material this page read, not as a claim about what the release holds.7

What sits on the far side of it is a single sheet. On Saturday 16 February 2013 a message reached Epstein’s own account under the subject line “Hello”:

I just spoke to Doug Bands, he is at airport in teterboro he’s going to Florida to play golf,,,,he told me tell you hello and best regards.

The sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch; the four commas are what the paper prints. Its sending field is covered by the producing party, and this page supplies nothing from it and names no sender.27

This is a third party’s report of what he said, not his own writing, and it is carried at that weight. What it documents is that in February 2013 somebody thought his regards to Epstein were worth passing on, and passed them on.

Named in the litigation

He appears in two disclosures filed by the plaintiff in Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), and they are not the same document.

The earlier is a disclosure under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed through Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. His entry reads in full:

Doug Band Address unknown at this time Telephone number unknown at this time Knowledge of Defendant’s conduct that is the subject of this action.4

The later is Exhibit C to a document filed on 22 March 2016. By then the plaintiff had both his title and his reason:

Doug Band President of Teneo Holdings, 601 Lexington Avenue, 45th Floor, New York, NY 10022

Was present on flights with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and President Clinton and may have knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s sexual trafficking conduct and interactions with minors.

That sheet was read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch.5 The words are the plaintiff’s and the claim is one of possible knowledge. “May have knowledge” is the filing’s own hedge and this page carries it; the disclosure makes no allegation of conduct against him, and no court made any finding about him. No deposition of him appears in the files read for this page, and no answer from him appears either.28

Separately, a declaration filed in the Florida litigation sets out why the declarant had noticed a deposition of Clinton. Two of its reasons concern the aide. The first:

the flight logs for the relevant years 2002 - 2005 showed Clinton traveling on Epstein’s plane on more than 10 occasions and his assistant, Doug Band, traveled on many more occasions

and the second:

Epstein’s personal phone directory from his computer contains e-mail addresses for Clinton along with 21 phone numbers for him, including those for his assistant (Doug Band), his schedulers, and what appear to be Clinton’s personal numbers. Based on this information, I believed that Clinton might have relevant information to provide in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and accordingly provided notice of a possible deposition.29

A filing in the Rothstein proceeding puts the same point in a single parenthesis describing Epstein’s seized journal: (Bill Clinton phone numbers listed under “Doug Bands”).30

That parenthesis is the gatekeeper finding in its shortest form. What the filing records is that in Epstein’s own index of people, a former President of the United States was to be found under the name of his aide. The characterisation is the filing’s; this page has not opened the book, prints no number from it and names no page of it.

The Government’s notice, October 2021

On 11 October 2021, in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, No. 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York wrote to Maxwell’s counsel to say what it might put in evidence. The letter opens:

We write to notify you that the Government may seek to introduce certain evidence at trial. In particular, the Government may offer certain exhibits at trial that demonstrate that, in addition to the defendant’s conduct with Jeffrey Epstein, the defendant took steps to please other influential men by providing them with access to women she selected for them.

Later in the same paragraph it gives an example:

In another email, the defendant told Doug Band that she was arranging a dinner for him

The quotation stops there because the sheet does. What follows on the paper is covered by the producing party, and this page neither reads it, supplies it, nor describes it. The second sheet sets out the Government’s legal theory, that the material was “admissible as direct evidence of the crimes charged and, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 404(b)”, and records that the letter is itself designated “confidential” under the case’s protective order. It is signed over the printed block of the United States Attorney, by a typed s-signature rather than in ink. Both sheets were read at the page image at 96 pixels per inch.6

Three things need saying plainly about that letter.

It is the Government’s own filed words, and the category it describes is a category of Maxwell’s conduct. He is named as somebody she arranged something for. The letter alleges nothing against him, he was not a defendant in that case, and no document read for this page shows him charged, called as a witness, or asked to respond.

It is a pretrial notice of what the Government might offer, written by an advocate. Whether any of it was offered, admitted or tested is not established by anything read for this page.

And it is the only document in this page’s record in which a prosecuting authority names him at all.

What these documents do not establish

  • No document read for this page alleges any criminal conduct by him, and this page makes no allegation and records none.
  • The flights are other people’s assertions, not this page’s. A plaintiff’s filing says he “was present on flights”; a declaration says he “traveled on many more occasions” than the principal. This page has read neither the logs nor the plaintiff’s tabulation of them for this purpose, and reproduces no passenger row.
  • “My boss” is not resolved on the sheets where it appears here. The December 2001 island message says “my boss” and nothing more. The referent is argued on Bill Clinton from a different sheet, and this page does not carry that argument over.
  • The reason he moved the correspondence off the office account is not recorded, on either of the two sheets that show him doing it.
  • Nothing here establishes what he knew about Epstein’s conduct. Two filings say he may have known something. Neither says what, and no answer from him appears in the files read for this page.
  • Teneo is named here only as the plaintiff’s description of him in 2016. This page sets out no history of that firm and reads no Teneo document.
  • Much of what the release carries under his name is other people writing about him, in newspaper columns, in filings, and in correspondence between third parties. On the measurement below that is 130 of 300 documents.7

Timeline

DateEventSource
17 September 2001Philip Levine sends Maxwell “Doug Band’s contact info:“EFTA005807563
19 December 2001”is your house the only one on the island? amazing, i told my boss and he was quite intrigued.”EFTA023342209
21 April 2002”Email it to my reg email”EFTA023323278
25 April 2002Washington Post reports him stopping a C-SPAN cameraman twice; forwarded to the office account with the comment “How silly”EFTA0233225611
20 June 2002Washington Post reports him blocking a reporter at a fundraiserEFTA0233226312
24 August 2002”any news on Peter Mandelson proposal?”; “always easier to get me on the other email”EFTA0057849710
14 September 2002Clinton’s scheduling office circulates an “Updated Africa Plane Manifest”, copying himEFTA0233438813
25 September 2003He sends the November schedule, attachment DOUG.DOC; Maxwell forwards it onwardEFTA0057894217 · EFTA0058167218
7 February 2004”So huma calls me and says should I go have a drink with richard attias?”; Maxwell: “I will talk to Attias Mon and set it up for you”EFTA005823591920
20 March 2004Attias, forwarded by him to Maxwell: “Thank you for the introduction.”EFTA0233268123
7 April 2004”Did you get the info back to stuart in order for him to make a proposal?”; “Say hi to jeeeeeeefffffffrey”EFTA0233277216
8 April 2004”It would be good to keep chelsea out of the article should that be possible Thx”, over a signature block giving his name and the line “Counselor to President Clinton”EFTA023328361
23 August 2004He asks Maxwell for Tom Barrack’s contact detailsEFTA0057915614
11 October 2004Maxwell: Epstein “wants to see you too solo”; he offers the next afternoonEFTA0057920224
13 October 2004”Je says mon night at 6 his house”; “Perfecto”EFTA0057946926
8 April 2011A filing records that Epstein’s journal listed Clinton’s telephone numbers under the misspelled form of his nameEFTA0008118030
16 February 2013A message to Epstein’s own account passes on his regards from TeterboroEFTA0067148727
22 March 2016Exhibit C gives his Teneo title and states that he was present on flights and may have knowledgeEFTA027807185
14 November 2017Epstein to Michael Wolff: “you should suggest to SB that they talk to Doug band re uranium 1”EFTA0095768631
11 October 2021The United States Attorney’s notice of evidence names himEFTA000801346

How this page is scoped

A name in these files is not one string, and this one is not two. Searching the released files for "Doug Band" returns 216 documents. Adding the inverted index form "Band, Doug" adds 8 documents that the first form does not reach at all; "Douglas Band" adds 9 and "D. Band" adds 1, for a union of 234 documents.

That union is a floor, and six further forms break it. The display-name form "DougBand" returns 51 documents, a form built on his office address handle returns 11 genuine ones, the misspelling "Doug Bands" returns 27, "Bands Doug" 2, "Douglas J. Band" 3 and "Mr. Band" 1. Taken together the ten forms return 305 documents across 360 sheets, and five of those were removed by reading: on them the matched token is a thermostat setpoint, bank statement boilerplate, scanner noise, and the word “broadband” split in two by a transmission artefact. The population this page was scoped on is 300 documents.7

The misspelling matters more than its size suggests. "Doug Bands" is the form a plaintiff’s tabulation uses, the form a court filing quotes from Epstein’s journal, and the form in which the February 2013 message reached Epstein’s account. A page built on the correct spelling alone would not hold its own last document.

The act split was measured from the sheets’ own header fields and not from this project’s document-type labels, which are unreliable. His name stands in a sending field on 56 documents, in both a sending and a receiving field on 51 more, and in a receiving field only on 63. On the remaining 130 it appears in neither: those are documents about him. The four buckets sum to 300.7

The number of acts this page can show is far smaller than 107. Those 107 documents are largely copies of one another; deflated on each sheet’s own top-of-message timestamp they resolve to 94 distinct stamps, of which 91 carry a real date. About twenty of those are set out above, and they are the ones this page rests on.

Two forms were tested and discarded on the bearer, not on the count. "Doug Hand" returns 5 documents, four of which are a New York Post story about a different man, an attorney of that name; the fifth is a rendering of the subject’s own surname inside a quoted header on a document already in the population. "Doug Rand" returns 5 documents, every one a congressional hearing schedule naming a policy researcher who has nothing to do with this record. Neither widened the population by a single document.

Where a sheet carries a printed Bates stamp, this page gives it. Four of the sheets read at the page image print one at the foot, and those strings belong to a different numbering series from the identifier that addresses the document: neither is derivable from the other, and the printed stamps have no entry of their own in the search index. They are given because they are what a reader will see on the paper. Where a rendered sheet’s foot band is blank, this page says so and cites the document and its served page instead, and no stamp is derived anywhere.

The bare surname was not mined and could not be. "Band" on its own returns 3,427 documents, and the token is an ordinary English noun: it reaches wristbands, rubber bands, bandwidth, musical bands and the replacement strap for a wristwatch. One of the leads this page tested resolved, on reading, to an online order for a watch strap.32

Notes

Footnotes

  1. “Doug Band” to “Ghislaine Maxwell”, Sent: Thur 4/8/2004 8:15:49 PM. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; the printed Bates stamp reads EFTA_R1_01279076. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332836 p.1, a single-sheet item. Marks on this sheet cover spans of it; nothing under any of them is read, supplied or described here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. The custodian tag (WJC wjc) and the 493-document tagged set it identifies, the dating of that set, and the December 2001 exchange in which Maxwell’s reply resolves “my boss”, are set out and sourced at Bill Clinton. This page re-derives none of it and relies on that page for the identification of the tagged account. Two of the sheets read for this page carry the sender display name and were read at the page image: see 9 and 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Philip Levine to Ghislaine Maxwell, Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:15:04 +0000, no subject. Read at the page image at the served file’s native resolution of 96 pixels per inch, confirmed from the file itself. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00580756 p.1, a single-sheet item. The body is quoted in full above. The foot of the sheet was rendered and carries no printed Bates stamp, so this footnote cites the document and its served page and derives no stamp. Both address values in the header are covered by the producing party; nothing under either is read, supplied or described here. The negative control for this fetch route returned HTTP 403 at 111 bytes in the same call; this document returned HTTP 200 with a %PDF- header. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. A disclosure under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [plaintiff] v. Ghislaine Maxwell, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Its caption is set over three printed lines and is not quoted here, because the released text of the first of them ends in a comma where a possessive is meant and this page does not complete a word it has not read on the paper. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01079085 p.2 of a seventeen-sheet run. The entry quoted above is quoted whole. Nothing is taken from any other entry on that sheet, and no other person listed on it is named, described or counted here. The caption names the plaintiff’s counsel as Sigrid S. McCawley of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. ↩ ↩2

  5. Exhibit C to Document 65-3, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), whose electronic filing header reads “Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 65-3 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 21” and whose foot prints the exhibit’s own page number 2. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch, from the local copy, which the three-way asset test shows is a regular file and not an alias. The filing header quoted above prints cleanly on the paper and is damaged in the released text of that sheet, so it is given from the image and a later reader should not correct it to the released form. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02780718 p.3. The entry quoted above is quoted whole apart from a telephone number, which is not reproduced. Nothing is taken from any other entry on that sheet, and no other person listed on it is named, described or counted here. Further printings of the same list are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02780835, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02781079, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02792927 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02794377; none was opened, none is relied on, and no comparison between copies was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Letter, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York to counsel for the defendant, 11 October 2021, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN), headed “BY ELECTRONIC MAIL”. Both sheets read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00080134 pp. 1 and 2, a two-sheet item whose second sheet prints its own folio “Page 2”. The first quotation above is the opening of the letter’s first paragraph, quoted whole. The second is a separate span from later in that paragraph, and it is broken at the producing party’s mark rather than carried across it; nothing under that mark is read, supplied or described here. The intervening example in the same paragraph concerns a different man and is not reproduced, summarised or characterised here. The second sheet’s quoted spans are its first paragraph and its closing notice. The signature block carries a typed s-signature, not ink, above the printed block of the United States Attorney; the names beneath it are covered by the producing party and are not read, supplied, described or counted here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. How the searches were run. All figures are counts over the full-text index this project maintains over the released files, taken against a known-positive control returning 371 documents and 885 sheets and a nonsense control returning none, both printed in the same run as every figure below; the size of the search index was checked before any query was issued. Documents are counted by the explicit sheet-suffix strip; sheets are counted on the composite key of identifier and sheet number, because an identifier alone is not a sheet key in this index. Single-form returns: "Doug Band" 216 documents / 253 sheets · "Band, Doug" 42 / 45 · "Douglas Band" 11 / 12 · "Douglas J. Band" 3 / 3 · "D. Band" 1 / 2 · "DougBand" 51 / 51 · the office address handle 16 / 16 · "Doug Bands" 27 / 29 · "Bands Doug" 2 / 2 · "Mr. Band" 1 / 1. The union of "Doug Band", "Band, Doug", "Douglas Band" and "D. Band" is 234 documents, and adding "Douglas J. Band" to those four makes 235; the union of all ten is 305 documents across 360 sheets, and after five were removed on reading as a different bearer of the handle token the population is 300. Measured form by form against the union of all the others, the forms exclusive to themselves are: "Doug Band" 155 · "DougBand" 47 · "Douglas Band" 9 · "Doug Bands" 9 · "Band, Doug" 8 · the handle 8 · and one each for the remaining four. Act split, measured from each sheet’s own header fields and not from this project’s document-type labels: name in a sending field 56 · in both a sending and a receiving field 51 · in a receiving field only 63 · in neither 130. Those four sum to 300. Deflating the 107 sending-field documents on each sheet’s own top-of-message timestamp gives 94 distinct stamps, of which 91 carry a real date and 3 carry a placeholder year; that is an approximation of the number of distinct messages he sent in this population and not an exact count, because a timestamp is a property of a sheet rather than of a message. Tested and returning nothing: "Band, Douglas J.", "Band, Douglas", "Douglas Band Jr.", "Doug Band Jr.", "D. J. Band", "Band DJ", "Band Douglas", and fifteen damaged spellings of the forename and surname. Tested and discarded on the bearer: "Doug Hand" 5 documents and "Doug Rand" 5 documents, both resolving on reading to other men. Not read: of the 300 documents, twenty-nine are deposition or hearing transcripts and none is cited here, because a transcript cannot be read for what he did without reading testimony about other people; six are flight records, three are raw passenger manifests and three are pages of a seized contact book, and none of those twelve is cited either. Those forty-one documents are untested, not cleared. Nothing was excluded from this population by its document-type label. Every sheet that matched any form was collected and read, and those forty-one were set aside after reading them rather than before, which is why no document-type figure is relied on anywhere above. No test was run for whether any two of these documents are printings of one piece of paper, and none is asserted to be. The remaining documents not cited above are further printings of the messages that are. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  8. Message of 21 April 2002, Sent: Sun 4/21/2002 2:03:27 PM, sending field tagged (WJC wjc). Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; the printed Bates stamp reads EFTA_R1_01278092. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332327 p.1, a single-sheet item. The two quoted spans are the first and last lines of the body, and the quotation is broken between them rather than carried across the line between. The same message is quoted the same message back under the header “At 10:03 AM 4/21/2002 -0400”, which is the source of the Eastern time: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02335034 p.1, released text only. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. Message of 19 December 2001, Sent: Wed 12/19/2001 10:22:26 PM, subject “RE: Forwarded Mail”, sender display name “DougBand” printed on the sheet. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; the printed Bates stamp at the foot right reads EFTA_R1_01281067. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02334220 p.1, a single-sheet item. The released text of this sheet carries the quoted sentence in full, and the image agrees with it; no word of the quotation is supplied, completed or repaired. The recipient value is covered by the producing party; nothing under it is read, supplied or described here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. “DougBand” to “G Max”, Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:30:52 +0000, answering Maxwell’s message of the same day. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00578497 p.1. The sheet prints “no news be it is so far from now”; the second word of that clause is not repaired here. Maxwell’s own message is carried on https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00580695 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Forward into the office account, Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:02:04 PM, subject “Fw: W.Post Piece 4/25”, carrying the Washington Post Reliable Source column of 25 April 2002, forwarded in turn from Mary Morrison. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; the printed Bates stamp reads EFTA_R1_01277974. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332256 p.1, a single-sheet item. The sending and receiving values and Morrison’s address value are covered by the producing party, so the two-word comment is attributed here to the office account and not to any individual; nothing under any mark is read, supplied or described. One sentence of the column as printed on this sheet lacks a verb and is not quoted above and not completed. The column is a newspaper report and is carried at that weight; Julia Payne’s words are quoted as the column quotes them. ↩ ↩2

  12. Forward into the office account, Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:14:55 PM, subject “Fw: The band plays on”, carrying the Washington Post column of 20 June 2002, forwarded from Mary Morrison. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332263 p.1. The remainder of that column concerns the subject’s private life and is not reproduced, summarised or characterised here. ↩ ↩2

  13. David Slade to one recipient, copying “DougBand”, Sent: Sat 9/14/2002 9:53:15 PM, subject “Updated Africa Plane Manifest”. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02334388 p.1, a single-sheet item. No part of the manifest itself is quoted, summarised or counted here, and no passenger is named. The earlier manifest of 10 September 2002 is cited and set out at Bill Clinton and Casey Wasserman. ↩ ↩2

  14. “Doug Band” to Maxwell, Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:01 +0000 GMT, subject “Re: Tom Barrack’s contact information”, quoting her message of the same day. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00579156 p.1. The contact details her message supplies are not reproduced here. Her message is signed by an assistant. ↩ ↩2

  15. A letter signed by Ghislaine Maxwell proposing private-label bottled water to a hotel chain, whose closing block prints “Cc: Douglas Band” above a second name. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332953 p.2 of a two-sheet item. This footnote establishes only that he was copied; no document read for this page records what came of the proposal. ↩

  16. “Doug Band” to Maxwell, Sent: Wed 4/7/2004 2:04:07 AM. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332772 p.1. The message’s other lines are personal and are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. “DougBand” to one recipient, Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:10:44 +0000, the released text of which also prints [-- Detached Attachment: "DOUG.DOC" --]. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00578942 p.1, a single-sheet item. The attachment is not among the documents read for this page and nothing is asserted about its contents. ↩ ↩2

  18. Maxwell forwarding that message onward, subject “Fwd:”, the forwarded block carrying the original’s thread topic “Asia Schedule w/o $$” and its body. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00581672 p.1, a single-sheet item. The forwarding address value is covered by the producing party and is not read, supplied or described here; this footnote establishes that the message was forwarded and nothing about where it went. ↩ ↩2

  19. Quoted inside Maxwell’s reply of the same evening under the header “At 08:16 PM 2/7/2004 -0400”, which is the source of the Eastern time. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00582359 p.1. The forename in the first line is quoted as the sheet prints it and no surname is supplied here. ↩ ↩2

  20. Maxwell to “Doug Band”, Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 19:42:11 +0000. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00582359 p.1; a second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00581687 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  21. Maxwell to “Doug Band”, stamped Sent: Sat 2/7/2004 7:50:03 PM as this sheet prints it. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02333187 p.1. The quotation stops at “an possible assoc w/him”; the message continues with a line about a third party’s travel which is left out deliberately and not because the sheet ends. ↩

  22. “Doug Band” to Maxwell, Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:38:15 +0000, answering her message of the previous evening. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00579558 p.1. ↩

  23. “Doug Band” to “Ghislaine Maxwell”, Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 03:10:59 +0000, subject “Fw: Hello”, forwarding a message signed in the body as its author and dated the same day. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332681 p.1; a second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00578979 p.1, whose quoted header renders the recipient’s surname as “Hand”. The attribution of the forwarded message to Richard Attias rests on its content and on the February 2004 exchange above, not on any name printed in its sending field. ↩ ↩2

  24. “Doug Band” to “Ghislaine Maxwell”, Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:52:47 +0000 GMT, subject “Re: Booboo”, quoting her message of the same morning. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00579202 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  25. Maxwell to “Band, Doug”, Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 02:36:24 +0000. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00579535 p.1. The quoted line is the last of the message; the lines above it are personal and are not reproduced here. ↩

  26. Maxwell to “Band, Doug”, Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:04:05 +0000, and his reply, which quotes her message inside it, stamped Sent: Wed 10/13/2004 7:24:36 PM on its own sheet. The two stamps are in different fields and no interval between them is derived here. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00579469 p.1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02333113 p.1. The same exchange is cited at Bill Clinton. ↩ ↩2

  27. Message to Epstein’s own account, Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:14:15 +0000, subject “Hello”, Importance: Normal. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00671487 p.1, a single-sheet item. The foot of the sheet was rendered and carries no printed Bates stamp, so this footnote cites the document and its served page. The sending value is covered by the producing party and is not read, supplied or described here, and this page does not identify the author. The body is quoted exactly as the paper prints it, four commas included. ↩ ↩2

  28. A search of the released files for "deposition of Doug Band" and for "depose Doug Band" returns nothing, and a proximity search pairing his surname with “deposition” inside a twenty-five-word window, run inside the subject’s own document population, likewise returns nothing. The control for those searches is the identical proximity form pairing his surname with “subpoena”, which returns 9 documents in the same run, so the query shape would have found such a thing had the files carried one. That is a statement about what these searches returned, not about what the release holds. ↩

  29. Declaration filed in the Florida litigation, setting out the declarant’s reasons for noticing a deposition of Clinton. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01104320 pp. 9 and 10 of a nineteen-sheet run; a second printing at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01187465 pp. 9 and 10. The two passages quoted above are quoted whole from their own clauses. The other reasons set out in the same list concern complainants and are not read, quoted, summarised, characterised or counted here, and their positions in the list are not given. ↩

  30. Filing in the Rothstein proceeding. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00081180 p.11 of a forty-sheet run. The filing header on that sheet is damaged in the released text, which is a fault in the released text and not a withholding by anyone, and this page quotes none of it; the case number “Case 09-34791-RBR” and the filing date “Filed 04/08/11” are taken instead from a further printing of the same sheet at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02755289 p.11, where both print cleanly, and the document number on that printing is damaged and is not reproduced. A third printing is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00188608 p.267. The parenthesis is quoted whole. The citation it sits inside points at a page of the journal, and that page reference is not reproduced here; no page of that book is cited anywhere on this page and no value from it is printed. ↩ ↩2

  31. Jeffrey Epstein to Michael Wolff, Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:58:17 +0000. Released text only; not read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00957686 p.1, a single-sheet item. The two initials in that sentence are printed as the sheet prints them and no name is supplied for them. A second copy at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02568165 p.1 renders the subject’s surname with a trailing transmission artefact. ↩

  32. The surname on its own returns 3,427 documents across 4,613 sheets, and the population was not partitioned by bearer because the token is an ordinary English noun in this corpus rather than a rare name: it reaches wristbands and watch straps, rubber bands, bandwidth, musical bands and scanner artefacts. One candidate lead tested for this page, pairing the surname with a watch brand, returned an online order confirmation for a replacement watch strap. Every surname-only signal tested here was therefore anchored on a forename, an initial, an index form or an address handle, and the bare token was used for nothing. ↩

Backlinks