Epstein Data Wiki

Elon Musk

Properties2
tagsperson, spacex, tesla, solarcity, little-saint-james, st-barthelemy, correspondence, jpmorgan-chase, usvi-litigation
aliasesMusk, Elon, Eton Musk, Elan Musk, Eon Musk, don Musk, elon musk

95 min read

Named on the documents as”Elon Musk” in the sender field of his own messages and in the To: line of Epstein’s; “Eton Musk”, “Elan Musk”, “Eon Musk”, “don Musk”, “Hon Musk”, “Lion Musk” and ten further renderings where the extraction damages the forename; [email protected] on two automatic replies; “ELON MUSK” on a subpoena issued by the Government of the United States Virgin Islands1234
What a document says he is”Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, Inc., among other companies, is a high-net-worth individual who Epstein may have referred or attempted to refer to JPMorgan”, in the Virgin Islands’ May 2023 motion; “This is Elon’s Twitter bio: Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity & PayPal”, written by a reputation contractor of Epstein’s who was using it as a model for Epstein’s own45
Range of documents cited here26 August 2009 to 25 July 202367
Size of the file1,117 documents on the exact phrase "Elon Musk"; 1,188 over the union of twenty forms established below. The bare surname is not a measure of him: "Musk" returns 1,736 documents, and most of the 619 outside the full-name set are not this man and several are not a person at all89
How much of it is his own writing254 of the 1,117, 23%, carry his name in the top-level sender field of the document’s own first sheet, under the rule published below. Those 254 resolve to between 83 and 95 distinct messages: the release holds up to ten copies of one of them. A further 155 address him without his having written the sheet110
Who he writes to251 of the 254 carry Jeffrey Epstein in a To:, Cc: or Bcc: value on the first sheet, by name or at [email protected] and its damaged renderings. Four of the 254 are addressed to Nicholas J. Pritzker, and all four carry Epstein on a Cc: line, so all four are inside the 251. The date mass is 2012 and 2013, and nothing in the sender set is later than September 2014111
Covered elsewhere on this wikiThe August 2009 message about a physics funding negotiation on which he is a named recipient: Lisa Randall. Epstein’s island weekend with Reid Hoffman and Joi Ito of 28–30 November 2014, which he was invited to and declined12: Reid Hoffman. The 2025 Justice Department questioning in which Ghislaine Maxwell was asked about him: The 2025 Justice Department examination of Ghislaine Maxwell
Not established hereThat he ever set foot on Little Saint James; any payment, investment or introduction in either direction; whether he answered the 2023 subpoena or produced anything under it; anything about his conduct beyond what the documents cited here record

Elon Musk is one of the largest correspondents in the released Epstein files, and the file is not a file of press clippings about a famous name. It is a working correspondence: some ninety messages he sent to Jeffrey Epstein between September 2012 and September 2014, almost all of them short, most of them replies. Across two years Epstein invited him to Little Saint James at least seven times, and nothing read for this page shows that he ever went. What he did do is documented: in February 2013 he offered Epstein a meeting at the SpaceX rocket factory, and his company then required passport scans for security clearance and refused to clear the non-US members of Epstein’s party, who were offered the lobby and told they could not enter the facility; in March 2013 he offered to arrange a SpaceX tour for Leon Black and other financiers Epstein was meeting at the Milken conference; in October 2012 he passed Epstein’s request about solar power for the island and the New Mexico ranch on to SolarCity. In 2023 the Government of the Virgin Islands subpoenaed him in its case against JPMorgan Chase, could not serve him, and obtained an order to serve him through Tesla’s registered agent. Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing. He is not accused of anything, and no document read for this page suggests he knew of any offence.

Identification: the trap is the surname, not the name

Do not key any figure on the surname. "Musk" returns 1,736 documents, of which 619 lie outside the "Elon Musk" set. All 619 were opened, and the matched passage of every one was read, not a sample of them. The residue does not behave like a name at all.9

Three things live in it. Other members of his family: "Kimbal Musk", "Maye Musk" and "Talulah Musk" account for 161 of the 619 between them, and Epstein’s own shorthand for the brothers, “the musk boys”, runs to dozens of copies of two messages. Words that are not names: the single largest cluster in the whole residue is Music rendered Musk: “iTunes Musk Store”, “Universal Musk Group”, “Warner Musk”, “The Sound of Musk”, “soul musk”, “rock musk”, “Beethoven: The Musk And The Life”, and a MySpace navigation bar that prints Music and Musk side by side, “MySpeCe I People I Web I Music I Musk Videos Rags I Video I Events”, the separators rendered as capital I. Close behind is must rendered musk, in bank and courier boilerplate (“We musk hear Pam >au no later than 60 days”, “FedEx musk angy a temporary hel surcharge”, “One sheet musk be established for EACH INDIVIDUAL”), and mark rendered musk, as in “a registered sonic* musk of Visa International”. The scent is there too, in a fragrance article and a cannabis-strain description. And him: schedule lines that give only the surname (“musk 30 overnight”), Epstein’s accounts of his own week (“tonite dinner with musk thiel zuckerburg”, “i had dinner with zuckerburg, musk, thiel hoffman. wild”), and news digests from 2018 and 2025.

The forename is no better. "Elon" returns 1,544 documents, 427 of them outside the full-name set, and that residue carries the West Bank settlement of Elon Moreh, Rabbi Mordechai Elon, Elon University in three tuition schedules, Elon Dershowitz, the writer Amos Elon, and the stock ticker ELON in four screening lists. No count on this page is keyed to either bare token, and the residue is not added to the population.

Twenty forms do reach him, and the biggest of them is one no generator would produce. Each figure below counts documents, not pages or mentions, and each was differenced against the 1,117-document base set.

formdocumentsoutside the "Elon Musk" set
"Elon Musk"1,117(base)
"don Musk"3028
"Eton Musk"1510
"Elan Musk"126
"ebn Musk"55
"Lion Musk"44
"Musk Elon"284
"Eon Musk"53
"Hon Musk"33
"elonmusk"163
"elon@spacex"132
nine forms adding one each9
union of the above1,188

The right-hand column sums to 78 and the union gains 71, because seven documents are reached by two damaged forms at once: the same sheet prints, for instance, both “Lion Musk” and “Doe Musk” in a conference programme. All 71 added documents were opened. Seventy are this subject; one is not, and is disclosed rather than counted: a Twitter digest naming the parody account @BoredElonMusk.2

"don Musk" is the largest single gain, and it is the extraction merging el into a single glyph. That it is him is not inferred from the shape of the letters. It is settled against the twin: a sheet whose To: field reads “Don Musk” carries Epstein’s message of Mon 4/15/2013 4:40:39 PM, “better idea of schedule?”, and the reply to that exact message, on a different sheet, stands under the sender field “Elon Musk”. A second sheet reading “To: Bon Musk” carries “kimball and hods are coming on sun .. are you around?”, whose reply likewise stands under “Elon Musk”. On one sheet the two forms appear in a single sentence: Epstein to Barnaby Marsh, Sun 9/23/2012, “230 for fiero , I have don musk at 130 you are welcome to join elon as well”.13 Sixteen further forms were probed and returned nothing; the nulls are in the footnote, because a null is a measurement. The desk’s ocr_variants.py generates none of the twenty forms that gained documents.2

One caution about the index. FTS5 strips punctuation before matching, so a query written "musk@spacex" is really the token pair musk then spacex, and its one gain outside the base set is a Google+ suggestion card whose extraction runs “Eon Musk SpaceX & Tesla” together. It is not an address form and is not counted as one.2

How much of this file is his own writing

A count of documents naming a person is not a count of what that person did. The rule below is stated completely enough to be reproduced, and a reader who follows only what is printed here must reach 254.

The sender rule. For each of the 1,117 documents take the document’s own first sheet, the row with the lowest page_number for that identifier, and its first sixteen non-blank lines. Find the first line whose start matches a sender label, over a twenty-three-form set covering the damaged renderings of From: this extraction produces (Fran, Frorn, Fromm, Prom and Fro m among them), the label followed by a colon, semicolon or full stop. The sender value is the remainder of that line if non-empty; otherwise the next non-blank line, unless that line is itself a header label, in which case the value is absent and the document is declined. Only the first sender label is used, so a quoted header lower on the sheet can never supply the sender. The full label set is in the footnote.1

And the matching, which on this population is not where the uncertainty lies. The name is matched case-insensitively inside the sender value as e, then l, t or i, then an optional o, then n or h, then at most three non-letter characters, then m, then u or v, then an optional s, then k; or musk followed by at most three non-letters and elon; or elonmusk; or musk@; or elon@. That tolerance changes nothing here. Only fifteen distinct sender values occur across the 254 and every one of them begins with the clean string “Elon Musk”, the variation lying entirely in the barred address that follows it: “Elon Musk <”, “Elon Musk <Min”, “Elon Musk a>”, “Elon Musk [email protected]”. Requiring the exact untruncated string elon musk at the head of the value returns 254 as well. On the page where this desk’s published rule and its own figures came apart, the gap was an unpublished name test; here the name test is published and it is not load-bearing.1

The result: 254 documents, 23% of the population. At a sixteen-line window, 884 of the 1,117 first sheets yield a sender value, 108 carry a sender label whose value is barred or blank, and 125 carry no sender label at all. Of the 884, 254 carry his name. Re-running the same rule at windows of 8, 12, 16, 24 and 30 non-blank lines returns 254, 254, 254, 254, 254. act_rate.py is not cited anywhere on this page and was not run for any figure on it.1

Who those 254 are addressed to, under a rule stated to the same standard. On the same first sheet and the same sixteen-line window, take every line whose start matches To, Cc, CC, Bcc, T o or Tc followed by a colon, semicolon or full stop, with the same inline-or-next-line value rule; a recipient is Epstein if any such value matches, case-insensitively, jeffrey plus at most three non-letters plus e, or epstein, or jeevacation however the domain renders. 253 of the 254 yield a recipient value and 251 of those match. Only two do not, and neither is a document addressed away from him: one has a recipient value of a single double-quote, a wrecked To: block on the 2009 thread described below, and one is a second copy of that same 2009 message whose top-level label the extraction renders T:, which is outside the label set above, so the rule skips it and takes a quoted To: line from lower down the sheet instead. Four of the 254 are addressed to Nicholas J. Pritzker, and all four carry Epstein on a Cc: line, which this rule reads and counts, so all four are inside the 251.11 The name matching here is done in Python over extracted field values and not through the index, which matters on this page more than it looks: FTS5 strips punctuation before matching, so an address written into a phrase query is a token-adjacency test wearing an address’s clothes, while the jeevacation test above is a real string test.11 This is a measurement over extractions and is not a completeness claim about any sheet’s recipients; the producing party’s bars inside To: blocks are deleted by this extraction and the gap closed, a fault demonstrated again at the image on this page, so where a list matters it is rendered and where it is not rendered the open form is used.14

254 documents are not 254 messages. 242 of the 254 yield a parsable top-level date and time; those 242 carry 83 distinct timestamps, and 64 timestamps are shared by 223 documents between them, and one message of 14 December 2013 exists in ten copies. Adding the 12 undatable documents at worst one-for-one, the 254 represent between 83 and 95 distinct messages. Twelve fail to parse because the extraction eats the b out of the month: “Saturday, Decem er”, “Monday, Septem er 24, 2012 2:32 AM”, “Friday, Novem er ,”.10

When. Over the 242 datable sender documents: 2009 two, 2012 101, 2013 125, 2014 fourteen. There is no message from him in the sender set before August 2009 or after 18 September 2014.10

He is not a press subject, and the standard press test misfires on this population in the usual way. Across all 7,618 pages of all 1,117 documents, not merely their first sheets, the news markers return 0 of 1,117 each: SECTION:, BYLINE:, LENGTH: n words, FINAL EDITION, Reprinted, CASE NO. The only marker in the strict set that fires at all is UNITED STATES DISTRICT, at 7 of 1,117, and all seven are filings in the Virgin Islands’ case against JPMorgan Chase, four of them the subpoena papers set out at the end of this page. Restricted to first sheets the same marker gives 3 of 1,117. The pattern that fires heavily is All Rights Reserved, at 422 of 1,117 first sheets, and the narrower copyright -all rights reserved fires on 418 of those same sheets, which is Epstein’s own e-mail confidentiality footer and not a press marker at all. A measurement that reported this population as 38% press-bearing would be measuring a boilerplate signature. This is a correspondence file.15

2009: one line in a thread about a physicist

The earliest document in the sender set is not about him. On 26 August 2009, five weeks after Epstein’s release to home detention, John Brockman wrote from “Eastover Farm” to eleven people. No claim is made here about what stands on that sheet, which nobody rendered: the extraction’s own To: block is wrecked, and the names are read off the To: line of Brockman’s message where it is quoted lower down the same sheet. That line, as the extraction gives it, carries ten: “Pritzker, Nick; Elon Musk; W. Daniel Hillis; Jeffrey Epstein; Larry Page; Nathan Myhrvold; Charles Simonyi; Jeff Skoll; Pierre Omidyar; Sean Parker”. The eleventh does not stand on it: “Salar Kamangar;” stands alone on a later line, below Brockman’s letterhead lines and his salutation, carrying the trailing semicolon of the list it was displaced from. The count of eleven rests on the salutation, which reads “Nick, Elon, Danny, JE, Larry, Salar, Nathan, Charles, Jeff, Pierre, Sean,”, and not on a line this page has stitched back together. He wrote that Lisa Randall “needs advice re a possible move from the Harvard Physics Department to either Caltech or NYU”. Nicholas J. Pritzker answered, “with a board of advisors of this caliber, Lisa could be in REAL trouble!! I suspect the consensus would be for Cal Tech”. At 16:52:06 +0000 Musk replied, in full: “I agree”. Randall’s own message to the same group, quoted in full at her page, followed that evening.6

Nothing else in the file is dated between then and September 2012.

September 2012: the introduction, and the first invitation to the island

The relationship begins through his brother. On 21 September 2012 Epstein wrote to Nicholas J. Pritzker, “the musk boys told me you are in town„ come see me”; Pritzker answered, “feel free to bring along elon and kimball”. Two days later Pritzker wrote, “Jeffrey. Elon and talulah WILL come at I. Working on Kimbal”, the sheet printing a capital I where seven twins print a 1; and Musk, writing into the same thread at 12:48 AM, said “I was going to have lunch tomorrow with a friend of mine, Jonah Nolan. He wrote Memento”. After the lunch Epstein wrote to Pritzker, “tell elon that the blonde that walked with me , is a friend of his mothers that tried to set her up with him her name is yfke sturm”, and at 02:31:49 +0000 on 24 September 2012 Musk replied to Pritzker, copying Epstein: “That was indeed a very enjoyable conversation!” That is the first message in the file he wrote himself in which Epstein is a correspondent rather than a name on a list.16

The island was offered within the day. At 3:43 AM on 25 September 2012 Epstein wrote: “IF you find some time , come vist me on my island in the caribean. bring your friend or friends. i will be there most of nov and dec.” At 13:22:31 +0000 the same day Musk answered: “Sounds good, will try to make it.”17

Over the weeks that followed Epstein worked the calendar and Musk answered each time in a line or two. To “kimball and boris are coming on sun .. are you around?”: “I have to be back in CA by then”. To “when do you leave? , any chance you will be in europe in oct?”: “Leaving either late tonight or tomorrow night. Will be in Germany Oct 19-21”. To “will be in paris 17-20 , come, stay, plenty of room and much fun”: “Ok, will try to make it.” To “sorry to hear that you need to revamp your priorities. == come to island in nov? you won’t suffer”: “Late Nov is a possibility. Between now and then, I have to complete the Dragon mission, get Tesla to cash flow positive (at long last) and help execute the SolarCity IPO. Could definitely use a break after that.” Not one of those meetings is shown to have happened.18

Two other things pass through that autumn. On 29 September 2012 Epstein asked, “could you remind me of the AI guy in London that you thought was smart? see you in the carib”, and Musk replied with a name: “Demis Hassabis”.19 And on 4 October Epstein asked, “is there any one at Solar City that my guys can talk to about electriying the caribean island? or the new mexico ranch”. Musk answered, “SolarCity is just in US major markets right now, which might include NM. Will send them a note”, and later the same evening forwarded the request to Peter Rive, under his own two-word question, “Are we in New Mexico?”20 Nothing read for this page shows that any SolarCity work was quoted, contracted or done at either property.

December 2012: St Barth’s, and “the ratio on my island”

By late November the island trip was a booking. On 24 November 2012 Epstein asked, “how many people will you be for the heli to island”. At 00:36:28 +0000 on 25 November Musk replied: “Probably just Talulah and me. What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”21

On Christmas Eve Epstein pressed, and on Christmas Day Musk declined. Epstein: “you are welcome to stay or just come for the day, plenty of rroom i will send heli to get you”. At 6:07:16 AM on 25 December 2012 Musk wrote:

Do you have any parties planned? I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I’m looking for.

Epstein’s answer is the single most striking line in the file. It stands on a different sheet, where Musk’s message is quoted beneath it and Musk’s six-word reply above it, and is attributed there to Dec 25, 2012, at 5:54 AM. The two stamps are not the same clock and no interval is asserted between them: Musk’s 6:07:16 AM is an Outlook Sent: stamp on one sheet, Epstein’s 5:54 AM an Apple Mail attribution on another, neither carrying a zone, and the order rests on the stacking, which is what this page’s own rule requires. It prints on the sheet as: “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, , the ratio on my island might m=ke Talilah uncomfortable”. The = is this production’s quoted-printable damage and stands for one missing character; under the repair rule the word is “make”, and the misspelling of the name is the sheet’s own. At 2:20 PM Musk replied, in six words: “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah”.22 What Epstein meant by “the ratio” is not stated anywhere on the sheet and is not supplied here.

They met instead on St Barthélemy, or tried to. On 28 December Epstein wrote “I will be in st barth tomorrow „ how do I find you?”; Musk offered “drinks on the 30th around 10 or 11”, then “Unfortunately, we are not on St Bart’s tomorrow. Back afternoon of the 30th”, then “Through 2nd”. Epstein’s plans slipped (“due to high winds, we will now arrive on the 31 in the morning”) and Musk proposed “lunch on the 31st”. On 1 January Epstein tried again: “why don’t you consider clearing customs into the states in st thomas , come for lunch with the wife”. Musk: “Logistics won’t work this time around.” A lunch was then fixed for 4 January (“Could meet for lunch. Will be with Talulah and her friend Debs”) and at 13:06:45 +0000 that morning Musk cancelled it: “I’ve been ill all night. Not sure if it is food poisoning or a bug. Either way, Vm not well enough for lunch. Will have to meet another time. Sony about this.” The sheet prints “Vm” for “I’m” and “Sony” for “Sorry”; so does this page.23

February 2013: the SpaceX visit

This is the best-documented episode in the file, and it is documented from both ends.

On 17 February 2013 Epstein asked whether Musk would be at TED. Musk answered at 02:50:40 +0000 on 19 February: “I will be speaking at TED, but not there for very long. If you would like to talk, it would be best to do so at the SpaceX rocket factory, which is quite close to Long Beach.” Epstein’s office moved the same day. At 3:04:03 PM on 19 February Lesley Groff wrote, under the subject “Jeffrey Epstein”: “Hello Elon. Jeffrey would like to meet you at Space X as you suggested. When would be a convenient time for you? Could you also provide and address and phone number for this location?”2425

On 21 February Epstein said who would be coming. At 5:16 AM: “look forward to seeing you. I can either come wtih assistants ( four , ) or alone. They might enjoy the facility if ok with you”. At 16:21:16 +0000 Musk answered, in three words: “Up to you”. The misspelling of “with” is the sheet’s.26

The visit was arranged between the two offices, and SpaceX set the terms. Mary Beth Brown, writing for Musk, confirmed it at 12:58 AM on 22 February: “Confirmed for Mon, Feb 25 at 1.00PM. Visitor parking and main entrance are located along the front of the building. Please confirm Jeffrey is a US Citizen or green card holder. If so, he’ll just need a gov’t issued photo ID for check in at reception.” Lesley Groff answered that Epstein was a US citizen “but he will have assistants with him who are not”. Quoted beneath Groff’s next message, at 10:03 AM, Brown replied: “Yes, I need a scan of everyone’s passport asap for security clearance and original passports must be brought onsite for check in.” The passport scans this page goes on to describe were a rocket factory’s admission requirement, asked for in writing by Musk’s office, and that is what the file says they were for.27

The office collected them the same day. Groff wrote on Fri 2/22/2013 3:20:15 PM, under the subject “I need your passports to make a copy”:

..I need to make a scanned copy of your passports … is having a pedicure downstairs from the apartments…she says she can bring the passports over…but I know you need to come over anyway…

y’all figure it out and just make sure I get the passports quickly so I can get copies off to Mary Beth in Elon’s office.

Read at the image, the whole To: line and every personal name in the body stand under solid black bars, and nothing barred is supplied or described here. The extraction of this sheet deletes all four of the body’s bars and closes the gaps, returning the salutation as an unbroken run: the ninth confirmation of that fault this desk has recorded.14 That sheet only asks. Two further sheets record the doing: at 15:26:45 +0000 Groff told Brown, “I have the girls bringing me their passports in about an hour…I will scan and send to you”, and at 15:59:33 +0000 she wrote, “I have now sent you a copy of all 3 girls passports”.27 “Mary Beth” is Mary Beth Brown, who appears by name on the Cc: line of one of Musk’s own messages the following day.28

That evening SpaceX refused to clear them. Brown’s message of February 22, 2013, 7:21:28 PM MST, under the subject “Foreign Nationals” and opening “Lesley,”, reads:

Unfortunately, at this point, we can’t clear=the foreign nationals (sorry, ▮) to accompany Jeffrey into the facilit= on Monday. They are welcome to come into the lobby area / conference room adjacent to lobby. I’m happy to provide lunch=but they will be unable to enter the main facility.

At 3:32 AM on 23 February that message was forwarded to Epstein, copied to Groff, under the subject “Fwd: Foreign Nationals”, with the covering line: “Shall we accompany you to the lobby ar=a on Monday when you go to spacex? As foreign nationals none of us can be c=eared to enter the facility.” That same morning a member of the party wrote to Lesley Groff, “JE is being JE. He says we will go with him to the lobby. I said I will let ▮ Beth know and he said ‘No! dont say anything’ (in an aggravated voice)”. The bar inside that sentence is the producing party’s, it stands on the sheet this page pins, and nothing is supplied for it. Groff answered that afternoon, “Oh my! It’s not your fault! Well I won’t reply back either. Just leave it. I had no idea security was so tight!” No interval is asserted between any of these stamps and none of them carries a zone. Each = above is printed on the paper, and a clean twin of Brown’s message prints the same sentences without it; the bar inside the parenthesis is the producing party’s and nothing is supplied for it.29 Nothing read for this page shows that Musk himself dealt with any of this: the clearance was asked for and refused by his office, in his company’s name, and he is neither a sender nor a named recipient on any of these four sheets. He is named in the To: line of one sheet in the wider exchange, Groff’s message of 15:59:33 +0000 reporting the scans sent, which was read at the image for this page, and nothing read for this page shows that he read it, answered it or dealt with any of it.

On 24 February Epstein told a third party what the visit was. Writing to Bobby Kotick at 3:44 PM, under a blank subject:

the girls and i are going to see elon musk at space x tomorrow, are you around,

Kotick answered that he was tied up during the day and offered an aircraft: “Do you want my 407 to fly to Hawthorne Airport?” Epstein declined it, “No thanks I’m in longbeach”. Kotick came back, “Want it to take you from Long Beach?”, and Epstein answered, “Thanks , but rather see you . Taking girls after to bel air”; to Kotick’s “Let me know what time”, at 3:34:11 AM on 25 February, Epstein said “will do probably around 330”.30 “The girls” is Epstein’s own word. The office’s own correspondence about the same trip gives their number, three, and one forename; nothing read for this page states an age or a surname for any of them, or shows who any of them was, and this page identifies nobody and makes no claim about them beyond what the sheets print.

Epstein made the visit. A Google Calendar reminder in the office account for Mon Feb 25, 2013 8am reads “remind JE and [a second person]: Everyone must take ID with them to Elon’s at Space X”. The second name is a private individual’s forename and is not reproduced here.31 Epstein wrote to Boris Nikolic the same morning, “Going to see elon leaving at 1215 be back at 5”. On 26 February Epstein wrote to Musk, “thanks for the tour , you would have had fun at xmas”, and Musk replied, in two words: “I see”.3132 Whether anyone but Epstein went past the lobby is not shown by anything read for this page, and the last word the file has on it is his company’s: they “will be unable to enter the main facility”.

March to December 2013: a tour for financiers, Tesla for Israel, and a trip called off

A week later Epstein asked him to do it again, for money men. On 6 March 2013, under a passage the producing party has blacked out, Epstein wrote: “i have been invited to the milken confernce with the ny money people . would you find it amusing to give them a tour of space x? maybe on the sunday before? leon black etc.” At 23:18:25 +0000 Musk answered:

We have no need for funding and won’t IPO for a long time, but if Leon or others have a real interest in space, I will arrange a tour. Not 100% sure that I can be there personally, but I will try.

No document read for this page shows that this second tour took place, and Leon Black does not appear in the file again in this connection.33

In July Epstein put a foreign statesman’s proposition to him. On 22 July 2013, under a subject line the extraction renders “chud barak, former defense minster of israel, former prime minister and head of the munch team”, Epstein wrote that Ehud Barak “would like to discuss taking tesla to israel. he is very clever about many things that you have in the past shown interest in, when you are next on my coast let me know”. At 00:36:11 +0000 on 23 July Musk answered:

Not a week passes without a request from someone important in Israel (and other countries) wanting to bring Tesla there. What they don’t appreciate is that Tesla is production constrained, not demand constrained. When production has increased to the point of addressing the major markets, then we will start shipping to tiny markets.

Nothing read for this page shows that Barak and Musk ever spoke.34

Twice that year Epstein invited him to meet Woody Allen, and the second time he said yes. On 10 April 2013: “april 23 , you are welcome to come to dinner with woody alien and crowd at my house, it will be fun”. Musk: “Thanks. I might be in town for the Time 100. Not sure yet.” Five days later Epstein asked for a “better idea of schedule?” and got a one-word answer, “no”. On 23 November 2013 Epstein wrote, “will you come to caribean this xmas? , woody alien with me, you might enjoy”, and at 14:10:15 +0000 Musk answered, in one word: “Yes”. The misspelling of the film-maker’s name is Epstein’s own on both sheets.35

The most sustained attempt on the island is the last one, and Epstein cancelled it. At 11:35 PM on 13 December 2013 Musk opened a thread headed “Christmas and New Year’s”: “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” Epstein answered the next morning, on a sheet of its own, “Anytime I will be there 28-7th”; then “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you”. Musk, 15 December: “Ok, probably the 1st then.” Epstein, Christmas morning: “the 2 or 3 would be perfect. I will come and get you.” And at 16:35:38 +0000 on 25 December 2013, with Lesley Groff copied:

Actually, I could fly back early on the 3rd. We will be in St Bart’s. When should we head to your island on the 2nd?

Five days later Epstein called it off. “Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York . I was really looking forward to finally spending some time together with just fun as the agenda. so i am very disappointed.” Musk: “No problem”. On 6 January 2014 Epstein wrote, “sorry it didn’t work , out just getting over it. how was your trip?” and Musk’s reply is one word: “Great”. Two days before the cancellation Epstein had written to Richard Branson, “don musk will be on island 2nd 3. you are welcome”.3637

2014 to 2018: the declines, and the Tesla press

In September 2014 Epstein tried once more, and named the company. On 2 September: “spoke to reid hoffman yesterday, are you planning to do st barth again for xmas?”, answered “Don’t know”. An hour later: “you are welcome to the island . reid is coming with joi ito, on the 6 th of dec come vist”, answered “Ok”. On 18 September: “reid and joi will met me in palm beach the eve of the 28th and i will fly them to island. then to boston on the 30th, come”. Musk: “Have to be in London and California on those dates” That weekend, and the aircraft that flew it, are set out at Reid Hoffman. The message of 18 September 2014 is the last document in the file that Musk wrote.12 Epstein answered that decline, and the answer is his own writing. The decline carries Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:36:55 +0000 and the answer Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:48:49 +0000, two explicitly zoned stamps on the same offset and eleven minutes fifty-four seconds apart, and the answer reads in full: “another time of your choosing. just let me know”. The decline stands quoted beneath the answer on the sheet that carries it.38

Epstein went on writing to him on three further days, the last of them in February 2017. On 11 December 2014 he wrote twice, just over a minute apart. The first, Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:09:11 +0000, did not reach him: a Google delivery notice returned it to Epstein’s own account a second later, reporting that the message “was rejected by the server for the recipient domain spacex.com by mta2.spacex.com” and giving, on a line of its own, the error the receiving server returned: “550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.” Sixty-three seconds after the first, at Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:10:14 +0000, he sent it again in different words: “reid was on island last weekend , do you think you might be in carib for holidays?” That sheet is carried here for the question in its second clause and for nothing else; what its first clause asserts about a third party is set out, and tested against the office’s own schedules, at Reid Hoffman. On Christmas morning, Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:17:10 +0000, Epstein wrote one word: “caribean?” And at Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:25:32 +0000, on a sheet carrying no subject line and nothing quoted beneath it, he wrote five words: “sultan is a great guy”. Nothing on that sheet says who is meant, and nothing is supplied here.39

What the file holds after his last message is other people’s writing. Some of it is addressed to him, as above; the rest is his name in other people’s sentences. Epstein to a correspondent, 20 August 2015: “i had dinner with zuckerburg, musk, thiel hoffman. wild”. Epstein to Kathryn Ruemmler, 30 January 2015: “how did musk call go?”. Epstein to Michael Wolff and others, offering introductions: “I will make an introduction . Elo= musk, space -x, Ovitz art , Hollywood , princess of Norway, etc.”, the = again standing for a dropped character.40

In August 2018, while Tesla’s take-private affair was running, Epstein worked the story. On 13 August he wrote to the New York Times financial reporter Landon Thomas Jr., who had asked him for anything on the Saudis and Tesla: “elon said they need less than 10b in cash”. On 16 August he wrote to Juleanna Glover, described to him the previous year by Michael Wolff as “El=n Musk’s DC-based PR person”, the = the sheet’s own: “can you get elon to talk on the record . t=. stewart or landon thomas. so he can explain himself”. The same evening he wrote to Reid Hoffman: “reid the ny times is peparing a not very nice piece =n elon. I am only as a friend trying to mitigate c=rtain bad rumors.” The Times published its Musk interview on 16 August; the next day Richard Kahn sent Epstein the link with the line “Looks like you were left out of the article..”, and Epstein answered, “the big one is sunday”.41

On 20 August the reporter thanked him, and Epstein’s answer is the qualifier. Epstein: “is the tesla thing - put to bed”. Thomas, at 6:02 PM: “I will say though: the Elon get was epic. You delivered! How did =e see it? I thought it worked out pretty well.” Epstein, at 10:04 PM: “I did not speak to him directly , but he cant =ee ,”. Under the repair rule the two damaged words read “we” and “see”. What this establishes is that a New York Times reporter credited Epstein with delivering an interview with Musk, and that Epstein said in the same thread that he had not spoken to Musk himself. Nothing read for this page shows that Musk knew Epstein was doing any of it.42

2020 to 2023: a statement, a subpoena and a deposition

The only public statement by him anywhere in this release is reported at second hand. An FBI confidential-source reporting document on form FD-1023, submitted 22 July 2020, records a source’s claim: “One such example was the photo of Maxwell with ElonMusk, which was part of her con to take photos with prominent people. Musk recentlygave out a statement that he doesn’t know her. If we want more information, Jared Birchall (tel: ▮), who is the right-hand man ofElon Musk, would be able to provide more information.” This is an FBI record of what an informant said, not a finding by the Bureau, and the run-together words are the sheet’s own.43

Ghislaine Maxwell was asked about him under questioning by the Deputy Attorney General in July 2025. She said she first met him at a birthday gathering for Sergey Brin on Jean Pigozzi’s Caribbean island around 2010, “not with Epstein, he was not there”, and again at the Oscars; that she did not think she had met his brother; and, asked whether Epstein knew Musk: “I believe they did. And the only reason I say that is not from my memory, but because I saw — I think I saw — my memory is that in discovery, they were communicating on email.”44

And in 2023 the Virgin Islands subpoenaed him. In Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, Jes Staley’s sworn response to Interrogatory No. 3, which reads “Identify all clients or potential clients that Epstein referred to JPMorgan, and any other individuals or entities that Epstein introduced to JPMorgan”, lists twenty-one names, among them “Kimball Musk” and “Elon Musk”. At his deposition on 10 June 2023, asked about the same list one name at a time, Staley answered “I didn’t know Kimbal Musk” and, to “Elon Musk?”, “Yes.”745

On 28 April 2023 the Government issued a subpoena to Musk for five categories of document, including “All Documents reflecting or regarding Communications between You and Epstein regarding JPMorgan and/or Your accounts” and “All Documents reflecting or regarding Epstein’s involvement in human trafficking and/or his procurement of girls or women for commercial sex”, for the period from 1 January 2002.4 It could not serve him. Counsel’s declaration records that an investigative firm was hired to find an address; that his counsel, who “has waived service on Mr. Musk’s behalf in several recent federal cases filed within the last year”, responded to a first e-mail but “did not respond to a subsequent email or confirm or deny his authority to accept service”; and that a process server attempted service at Tesla’s business address and could not serve him. On 17 May 2023 Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted an order authorising service on Elon Musk “via service upon Tesla, Inc.’s registered agent”.46 Whether he was served, answered, objected or produced anything is not in this release, and nothing on it is claimed here.

What this page does not establish

  • No island visit. He was invited in September 2012, October 2012, November 2012, December 2012, December 2013 and twice in September 2014. Nothing read for this page shows he ever went, and the December 2013 trip, the only one that reached the point of a date and a pickup, was cancelled by Epstein.
  • No admission of the party to the facility, and no sign he dealt with it. SpaceX asked for passport scans for security clearance, and then declined to clear the non-US members of Epstein’s party and offered them the lobby. Nothing read for this page shows that any of them went past it. He is neither a sender nor a named recipient on any of the four sheets that carry the refusal; Lesley Groff’s message reporting the scans sent, read at the image for this page, is addressed to him by name in its To: line; and nothing read for this page shows that he read it, answered it or dealt with any of it.
  • No money. No document read for this page records a payment, an investment, a fee or a donation between them in either direction, or any account opened on any introduction.
  • No completed referral. Staley swore that Epstein referred or introduced Musk to JPMorgan and confirmed it at deposition; the Virgin Islands pleaded only that Epstein “may have referred or attempted to refer” him. Nothing read for this page shows an account, a transaction or a fee.
  • No outcome for the SolarCity enquiry, the Milken tour or the Barak proposition. Each was put and each was answered; nothing read here shows any of them happened.
  • No knowledge. Nothing read for this page shows what he knew of Epstein’s 2008 conviction or his conduct. The word closest to it is Epstein’s own, in December 2012, about “the ratio on my island”, and what he meant by it is not on the sheet.
  • No statement in his own words. The only public statement attributed to him in the release is an FBI informant’s second-hand account of one.

No link below asserts a relationship beyond what the cited sheet shows.

  • Pages that already carried part of this record: Lisa Randall, whose August 2009 message reached him as one of four named recipients; Reid Hoffman, whose island weekend of 28–30 November 2014 Musk was invited to and declined, and who Epstein wrote to about the Tesla press in August 2018.
  • People named on sheets cited here: Jeffrey Epstein (the correspondent throughout); Lesley Groff (collected the passports and was copied on the December 2013 chain); Boris Nikolic; Barnaby Marsh; John Brockman (wrote the 2009 circular); Leon Black (the named beneficiary of the offered SpaceX tour); Ehud Barak (the Tesla-for-Israel approach); Jes Staley (swore the interrogatory response and answered the deposition question); Ghislaine Maxwell (questioned about him in 2025); Michael Wolff and Richard Kahn and Kathryn Ruemmler (correspondents on the 2015–2018 sheets); Tom Pritzker, noting that he is a different Pritzker: the correspondent on the 2012 sheets here is Nicholas J. Pritzker, who has no page.
  • Places: Little Saint James (the island of every invitation); the New Mexico ranch (the second property in the SolarCity enquiry).
  • Entities and topics: JPMorgan Chase (the defendant in the case that subpoenaed him); The 2025 Justice Department examination of Ghislaine Maxwell; Calendars and daily schedules, whose own text notes that an appointment record establishes only that a meeting was scheduled, which is why the February 2013 visit is corroborated here by Epstein’s thank-you and not asserted from the office reminder alone.

Sources

Twenty-six sheets cited below were rendered locally from the released PDF and read at the image; each of those footnotes says so and gives the resolution, and every render was deleted after it was read. Twelve were read for the writing of this page; three more (EFTA00394956, EFTA00394968 and EFTA01761134) were rendered and read for the fix pass of 13 September 2026, which also re-rendered two of the first twelve, EFTA02146398 and EFTA00377496, to settle two bar counts that were wrong; and four more again (EFTA02148244, EFTA02145913, EFTA02602567 and EFTA00628792) for the second fix pass of the same day, which also re-rendered three of the earlier certifications: EFTA00394968, to settle for itself who is named in its To: line; EFTA02563908, to settle a doubled comma inside a quotation; and EFTA01245118 p.2, to settle a capital letter and a parenthesis; and one more again (EFTA02807374 p.2) for the third fix pass of the same day, to settle the subpoena’s direction line at the image rather than asserting it from a text layer that reorders the form’s columns; and six more again (EFTA00678134, EFTA00869486, EFTA00650181, EFTA01003176, EFTA01003577 and EFTA01054428) for the writing pass of the same day that added the four messages Epstein wrote to him after his own last one. Nothing was rendered or written on the site server. Every other identifier is cited from the text layer and marked UNVERIFIED, and no claim about what stands on an unrendered sheet (a bar, a field, a name’s position) is made anywhere on this page. Where a name, address or telephone line is blacked out by the producing party, nothing is supplied in its place, and no signpost is left to what a bar covers. Personal contact values and the identity of private individuals of no investigative bearing are outside this page’s scope.

Damage. This production carries two kinds of damage that this page prints rather than mends. OCR substitutions are reproduced as they stand (“wtih”, “Vm”, “Sony”, “confernce”, “chud barak”). Quoted-printable damage, where a single = stands for nought or one arbitrary character, is reproduced and then glossed in the prose; it is never silently repaired inside a quotation. Two such mends were found on this page by the re-gate of 13 September 2026 and both are now printed as the sheets print them: “=lready” in the reporter’s message of 13 August 2018, confirmed at the image, and “El=n” in the description of a publicist. Where damage is resolved or corroborated from a twin sheet the twin is cited: the hour in “WILL come at I”, the undamaged text of the SpaceX clearance refusal, “I see” for “Isee”, “I’m” for “Vm”, and the reporter’s “already” and the hour of his stamp in August 2018. No redaction is repaired from a twin anywhere on this page: damage may be repaired from a twin, a bar may not.

Clocks. No page-wide zone is assumed and nothing on this page is converted. A time taken from a header carrying an explicit offset is printed with that offset; a time taken from an Outlook Sent: stamp or from a quoting client’s attribution line, neither of which carries a zone, is given exactly as the sheet prints it. Every sequence asserted here rests either on two explicitly zoned stamps, or on one message standing quoted beneath another on the same sheet. Three places where stamps from different clients sit near each other and disagree are glossed where they stand, the Christmas 2012 exchange, the passport messages of 22 February 2013 and the sheets of 18 September 2014, and in none of them is an interval asserted from the clocks that disagree.

Footnotes

  1. The top-level sender measurement described in the body, run 2026-09-12 over the first sheet of each of the 1,117 documents. The full sender-label set, anchored at line start and followed by [:;.], case-insensitive: From, Fromm, Fran, Front, Frorn, Prom, Fram, Frcm, Flom, Fmm, Frem, Frorm, Frnm, F rom, F-om, Frm, Fro m, Froin, Frorrn, Fron, Frota, Ftom, Frbm. A value is declined when the next non-blank line is itself a header label, over the set above plus To, Cc, CC, Bcc, Sent, Date, Subject, Importance, Attachments, Reply-To, Resent-From, Received. The name pattern applied to the sender value, case-insensitive: e, then l, t or i, then an optional o, then n or h, then at most three characters outside A-Za-z, then m, then u or v, then an optional s, then k; or musk (with the s optional) then at most three characters outside A-Za-z then elon; or elonmusk; or \bemusk\b; or musk@; or elon@. Counters at a sixteen-non-blank-line window: sender value present 884, sender label present but value absent or blank 108, no sender label 125; his name in the sender value 254. At windows of 8, 12, 16, 24 and 30 the sender figure is 254, 254, 254, 254, 254. Name-match sensitivity: the 254 sender values take fifteen distinct forms, every one of which begins with the exact string “Elon Musk” — “Elon Musk” (174), “Elon Musk <” (39), “Elon Musk <Min” (12), “Elon Musk a>” (7), “Elon Musk [email protected]” (7), “Elon Musk S.” (4), “Elon Musk [email protected]” (2), “Elon Musk <->” (2), and seven singletons — so a strict test for elon musk at the head of the value also returns 254 and the tolerance adds nothing. act_rate.py was not run for any figure on this page. Addressed but not sending: applying the recipient rule below to the 863 documents outside the 254, at the same sixteen-non-blank-line window, 155 carry his name in a recipient value on the first sheet — 155 on raw rather than non-blank lines and 155 with T added to the recipient label set, but 154 at windows of eight and twelve and 160 at windows of twenty-four and thirty (160 at both with T added as well). That is the one figure on this page the window moves, and the movement is printed in both directions rather than only downward: 154, 154, 155, 160, 160 at windows of 8, 12, 16, 24 and 30. An earlier draft gave the 154 and not the 160. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: this is a measurement over extractions. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Name-form probe, 2026-09-12, each form an FTS5 phrase match, each result differenced against the 1,117-document "Elon Musk" set. Gains outside the base set: "don Musk" 30 documents / 28 outside; "Eton Musk" 15 / 10; "Elan Musk" 12 / 6; "ebn Musk" 5 / 5; "Lion Musk" 4 / 4; "Musk Elon" 28 / 4; "Eon Musk" 5 / 3; "Hon Musk" 3 / 3; "elonmusk" 16 / 3; "elon@spacex" 13 / 2; and one document each from "Bon Musk" (2/1), "Elm Musk" (1/1), "Floe Musk" (1/1), "Doe Musk" (1/1), "flon Musk" (1/1), "Ion Musk" (1/1), "Ekon Musk" (1/1), "Elo Musk" (2/1), "Elon Musks" (3/1) and "Elon Mu sk" (1/1). The columns sum to 78; the union is 1,188, a gain of 71, because seven documents are reached by two forms each — EFTA01820573, EFTA01820641, EFTA02434982, EFTA02435094, EFTA00143287, EFTA00143993 and EFTA00144082. The first of those three is a container row of 15,710 characters rather than a paginated sheet, no page is pinned to it, and it is counted here only as a document the phrase search reaches. All 71 were opened. Seventy are this subject. One is not and is excluded: EFTA02387917 p.4, a Twitter e-mail digest whose only match is the handle of the parody account “BoredElonMusk”. Nulls, each returning 0 documents: "Elon Musl", "Elon Mnsk", "Elon Muck", "Elon Mask", "Elom Musk", "Elon Music", "Eln Musk", "E lon Musk", "Elon Nusk", "Eldn Musk", "Elon Muak", "Eloh Musk", "Efon Musk", "Eton Mask", "Elun Musk", "Elon Miisk". FTS5 folds case and strips punctuation, so forms differing from a tested form only in case or in a non-alphanumeric character cannot be distinguished by this index and are not claimed as separate tests — and for the same reason "musk@spacex" is not an address test at all: it matches the token pair musk, spacex, and its one gain outside the base set is EFTA00701547 p.1, a Google+ suggestion card whose extraction runs “Eon Musk SpaceX & Tesla” together in a list of suggested contacts. It is not counted as a form. ocr_variants.py generates none of the twenty forms that gained documents; its substitution table lacks the el→d, l→t, l→a and E→H pairs that produce them. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Two automatic replies sent from his account to Epstein, Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 12:30 PM, sender field [email protected], subject “Automatic reply:”, body beginning “Due to the high volume of u…”. EFTA02349292 p.1 and EFTA02573896 p.1. Both fall outside the 1,117-document base set — the sheets print the address and not the name — and neither is counted in the 254; they are machine-generated and are not writing. A companion sheet, EFTA01959284 p.1, renders Epstein’s recipient field as “Elon Muskrelon©spacex.com]”. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  4. Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 1:22-cv-10904-JSR, directed “To: ELON MUSK”, dated 04/28/2023, place of production “Hoffman Reporting & Video Service, 206 E. Locust Street, San Antonio, Texas 78212”, date and time 05/12/2023 5:00 pm. Filed 15 May 2023 as Exhibit 1 to Document 143. EFTA02807374, a run of 11 sheets. The AO 88B subpoena form itself, carrying the direction “To: ELON MUSK”, the date “04/28/2023” and the place of production “Hoffman Reporting & Video Service / 206 E. Locust Street / San Antonio, Texas 78212”, is p.2. The definitions of “You”, “Epstein” and “JPMorgan” are on p.6 and the production instructions on pp.7 to 10, of which instruction 5, on p.10, sets the relevant period as “January 1, 2002 to the present”. The five numbered Requests for the Production of Documents are on p.11, the fifth reading in full: “All Documents reflecting or regarding Epstein’s involvement in human trafficking and/or his procurement of girls or women for commercial sex.” The Government’s motion, which carries the sentence quoted in the infobox, is EFTA02807390 p.2. p.2 of the subpoena run was read at the image at 300 dpi for the fix pass 3 of 2026-09-13, and the render was deleted: the AO 88B form prints To: at the left margin with ELON MUSK on the same line, above the italic legend “(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)”, and the place of production stands as three stacked lines inside the “Place:” box, which is what the ”/” separators above stand for. The text layer of that sheet reorders the form’s columns and does not print those tokens in that order, so the direction is quoted here from the image and not from the extraction. Two black bars stand on the sheet, both in the issuing attorney’s signature block; nothing barred is supplied. The other sheets of this run, and EFTA02807390, are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer and were not rendered, and no claim about a bar, a field or a name’s position is made from any of them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. E-mail thread of 3 April 2014 between two contractors working on Epstein’s web presence, quoted on EFTA01752383 p.2: “This is Jeffrey’s Twitter bio: The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation was founded in 2000 by Jeffrey Epstein to sponsor cutting edge science around the world. This is Elon’s Twitter bio: Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity & PayPal”. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. The line is a contractor’s quotation of a public profile, not a statement by or about this subject in any other sense, and it is used here only for what a document in the file says he is. ↩

  6. E-mail, Elon Musk to a group, Subject “Re: Lisa Randall”, Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:52:06 +0000, body “I agree”. EFTA00769427 p.1. The sheet quotes beneath it Nicholas J. Pritzker’s message of Wed Aug 26 09:33:45 2009 and, beneath that, John Brockman’s of Wednesday, August 26, 2009 11:25 AM, whose salutation reads “Nick, Elon, Danny, JE, Larry, Salar, Nathan, Charles, Jeff, Pierre, Sean,” and whose body opens “Lisa Randall needs advice re a possible move from the Harvard Physics Department to either Caltech or NYU”. This sheet’s To: block is wrecked in the extraction and the recipient names quoted in the body above are taken from Brockman’s own quoted header lower on the same sheet, not from the To: field. That header’s To: line gives ten names and stops at “Sean Parker”; “Salar Kamangar;” stands alone on a line five below it, under the letterhead lines and the salutation, with the semicolon of the list still attached. The body prints the ten the line gives, does not stitch the eleventh into them, and takes the figure of eleven from the salutation, which names eleven independently. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: no claim is made here about what bars or fields stand on this sheet. The companion message from Lisa Randall the same evening is cited and rendered at Lisa Randall. ↩ ↩2

  7. Third-Party Defendant James E. Staley’s Responses and Objections to the Government of the United States Virgin Islands’ First Set of Interrogatories, filed 25 July 2023 as Exhibit 172 in 1:22-cv-10904-JSR. EFTA02811664. Interrogatory No. 3 is printed on p.7 and reads “Identify all clients or potential clients that Epstein referred to JPMorgan, and any other individuals or entities that Epstein introduced to JPMorgan.”; the response runs over onto p.8, where it lists twenty-one bulleted entries, of which the eighteenth and nineteenth are “Kimball Musk” and “Elon Musk”. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩ ↩2

  8. Corpus counts measured 2026-09-12 against /mnt/d/dump/AI-investigator/Epstein-research-data/full_text_corpus.db, over pages_fts joined to pages, counting distinct efta_number values and never pages. All figures are FTS5 phrase matches; LIKE is not used anywhere. "Elon Musk" 1,117; "Musk" 1,736; "Elon" 1,544; the union of the twenty forms tabulated in the body, 1,188. ↩

  9. Bare-token residue census, 2026-09-12. Every one of the 619 documents matching "Musk" outside the "Elon Musk" set was opened — the matching page was fetched and the text within 130 characters either side of every match was read — and so were all 427 outside-set documents matching "Elon". This is a census, not a sample. Classification of the 619 by what stands beside the token: a damaged rendering of his forename, or an unambiguous reference to him by surname alone, 224; another member of his family named in full (Kimbal/Kimball/Umbel Musk, Maye Musk, Talulah/Taluleh Musk), 161; not a personal name at all, 107; and 127 the automated rules left unassigned, which were then read individually and fall into the same three classes without changing the shape of the result. The three named contaminant families, with the strings that produce them: Music → Musk (“iTunes Musk Store” and “Musk Store” 347 matches across the residue, “Universal Musk Group”, “Warner Musk”, “The Sound of Musk”, “County Musk”, “Beethoven: The Musk And The Life”, “Musk for Airports”, “soul musk”, “rock musk”, “Cuban musk”, “Institute for Musk & Brain Science”, a MySpace navigation bar printing Music and Musk side by side, “MySpeCe I People I Web I Music I Musk Videos Rags I Video I Events”, “SPOTIFY MUSK SUBS”); must → musk (“Electronic Funds Transfers … musk to the Hank”, “We musk hear Pam >au no later than 60 days”, “FedEx musk angy a temporary hel surcharge”, “Failure to report can musk in a dull MANN”, “One sheet musk be established for EACH INDIVIDUAL”); and mark → musk (“a registered sonic* musk of Visa International”, “any action, claim or demote of any person as a musk of Deutsche Bank Alex. Browns receipt”). The scent accounts for a handful (“a musk, but she didn’t like how it smelled”, “cannabis strains that smell of musk or clove”, “musk-scented massage oil”). In the "Elon" residue the named non-subjects are the West Bank settlement Elon Moreh, Rabbi Mordechai Elon, Elon University (three tuition schedules and a deposition reading them back), Elon Dershowitz, the writer Amos Elon, and the NASDAQ ticker ELON in four stock-screening lists. No count on this page is keyed to either bare token and neither residue is added to the population. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: this is a measurement over extractions and no sheet was rendered for it. ↩ ↩2

  10. Duplicate and date analysis over the 254 sender documents, 2026-09-12, taking the first Date: or Sent: value on the first sheet and normalising it to (year, month, day, hour, minute) without applying or assuming any zone. 242 parse; 83 distinct timestamps; 64 timestamps are shared by 223 documents; the largest group holds ten copies — the message of 14 December 2013 16:17 quoted in the body. With the 12 unparsed documents added at worst one-for-one the 254 represent between 83 and 95 distinct messages. Year tally over the 242: 2009 two, 2012 101, 2013 125, 2014 fourteen. The twelve that fail to parse do so because the extraction drops a character from the month name or truncates the stamp: “Saturday, Decem er”, “Monday, Septem er 24, 2012 2:32 AM”, “Friday, Novem er ,”, “Sunday, Decem er ,”, “Wednesday,January ,”, “Thursday, ayPI.”, “Mon 9/2412”, “Monday, A)…”, “Wed nesday,”, “Friday, December 28,”, and two sheets carrying no date field at all. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. Recipient rule and tally over the 254 sender documents, 2026-09-12. On the same first sheet at a sixteen-non-blank-line window, take every line whose start matches To, Cc, CC, Bcc, T o or Tc followed by [:;.], with the same inline-or-next-line value rule and the same header-label decline as the sender rule. Epstein is matched inside any such value, case-insensitively, as jeffrey then at most three characters outside A-Za-z then e, or epstein, or jeevacation however the domain renders (jeeyacation, jeevacation©gmail.com, jeevacationftmaitcom, Jeffrey Epsteinfieeyacation©gmail.com] all match). Counters: recipient value present 253, absent 1, no recipient label 0; Epstein matched 251. The two that do not match: EFTA00769427 p.1, whose only recipient value is a single double-quote — the wrecked To: block of the August 2009 thread; and EFTA02436030 p.1, a second copy of that same 2009 message, whose own top-level recipient label the extraction renders T:, outside the label set above, so the rule passes over it and takes instead the first label it does recognise, a quoted To: John Brockman • from Nick Pritzker’s forwarded header lower on the sheet. The published sender rule forbids a quoted header from supplying the sender; the published recipient rule carries no such bar, and on this one sheet it did substitute a quoted recipient for the real one. That asymmetry is in the rule as printed and is disclosed here rather than patched out. Adding T to the recipient label set does not cure it: the count stays at 251. The rule then does reach that sheet’s own top-level recipient value, which the extraction gives as eevaca ion gmal .com eevaca ion gmai .com , for [email protected] — but that value fails the Epstein test printed above, whose jeevacation arm needs the local part, and here the local part has lost its j and prints a space where the t should be. 252 is reachable only by making two departures from the printed rule at once — adding T and loosening jeevacation to accept eevaca ion — and neither is the rule above. Measured 2026-09-13 over the same 254: as printed 251; T added with the test as printed 251; the test loosened without T 251; T added and the test loosened 252. An earlier draft of this footnote printed 252 beside the single change, which is exactly the class of fault — a number beside a rule that does not produce it — that this footnote exists to avoid. The four documents addressed to “Nicholas J. Pritzker” — EFTA00689859, EFTA01889436, EFTA02560528, EFTA02701687 — all carry Jeffrey Epstein on a Cc: or CC: line, which this rule reads, and all four are counted inside the 251; a fifth sheet naming Pritzker, EFTA02015020 p.1, carries [email protected] in the same To: value and matches on that line alone. The variations that do not return 251 are published too, because the number is only as good as the rule beside it: stopping at the first recipient line returns 247, and reading To while ignoring Cc returns 247. Neither is the rule printed above. Subject tally over the same 254, under the same field rule applied to Subject: Re: 141, RE: 52, Re: Christmas and New Years 24, Re: Christmas and New Year's 12, RE: Re: 11, Fwd: Re: Fwd: 5, Christmas and New Year's 5, Re: Lisa Randall 2, one long subject line beginning “chud barak, former defense minster of israel”, and one document with no subject label. These figures reproduce the commissioning brief’s sampled subject counts exactly. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. Nothing in this note is a claim that any sheet’s printed recipient list is complete; this extraction deletes producer’s bars from To: blocks and closes the gap, and the footnote on the passport message demonstrates it again at the image. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. E-mails of 2 and 18 September 2014. “spoke to reid hoffman yesterday, are you planning to do st barth again for xmas?” / “Don’t know” is at EFTA00649662 p.1, Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 16:09:33 +0000. “you are welcome to the island . reid is coming with joi ito, on the 6 th of dec come vist” / “Ok” is at EFTA00996372 p.1, Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 17:11:09 +0000. “reid and joi will met me in palm beach the eve of the 28th and i will fly them to island. then to boston on the 30th, come” / “Have to be in London and California on those dates” is at EFTA00678134 p.1, Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:36:55 +0000, with a twin at EFTA02376136 p.1. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer, save EFTA00678134 p.1, which was rendered and read at the image at 400 dpi for the writing pass of 13 September 2026; that render was deleted. The weekend those messages refer to, and the aircraft that flew it, are set out and rendered at Reid Hoffman. ↩ ↩2

  13. The "don Musk" identification, settled against twins rather than inferred. EFTA01895676 p.1 prints “To: Don Musk / From: Jeffrey Epstein / Sent Mon 4/15/2013 4:40:39 PM / better idea of schedule?”; the reply to that message, Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 4:46 PM, subject “RE:”, body “no”, stands under the sender field “Elon Musk” at EFTA01758452 p.1 and quotes it back. EFTA01892788 p.1 prints “To: Bon Musk / From: Jeffrey Epstein / Sent Wed 10/3/2012 9:37:10 PM / kimball and hods are coming on sun .. are you around?”; the reply, Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 01:35:35 +0000, “I have to be back in CA by then”, stands under “Elon Musk” at EFTA00673759 p.1 and quotes the same sentence with “boris” for “hods”. The single-sentence case is EFTA01885936 p.1, Epstein to Barnaby Marsh, Sun 9/23/2012 2:55:25 PM: “230 for fiero , I have don musk at 130 you are welcome to join elon as well”. Eight further copies carry Epstein’s message to Bobby Kotick of 24 February 2013 with the forename rendered “don”, “ebn” or “Ion” where the copy at EFTA01901154 renders it “elon”. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer, save EFTA01901154, which was rendered. ↩

  14. E-mail, Lesley Groff, Subject “I need your passports to make a copy”, Sent: Fri 2/22/2013 3:20:15 PM. EFTA02146398 p.1. Re-rendered and read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass of 2026-09-13. On the image the To: field runs to two lines and is entirely covered by black bars, and four further bars stand inside the body — two on the salutation line and two on the line below it. The extraction of this sheet deletes every one of those bars and closes the gap, returning “Hello” and then running straight on to ”..I need to make a scanned copy of your passports”. Nothing barred is supplied, described or signposted here. An earlier draft of this footnote said three body bars; the sheet carries four, and a bar count is a claim about pixels. The same message is quoted back inside later sheets of the same thread — EFTA02147160 p.1 and EFTA02147234 p.1, which are replies to it and not further copies of it, UNVERIFIED from the text layer. ↩ ↩2

  15. Press-marker tally, 2026-09-12, run over all 7,618 pages of all 1,117 documents, coverage stated for every pattern: SECTION: 0 of 1,117; BYLINE: 0 of 1,117; LENGTH:\s*\d+\s*words 0 of 1,117; FINAL EDITION 0 of 1,117; Reprinted 0 of 1,117; CASE NO 0 of 1,117; UNITED STATES DISTRICT 7 of 1,117. Restricted to first sheets the same seven patterns give 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 and 3. The seven are all filings in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.: EFTA02807374, EFTA02807385, EFTA02807390, EFTA02807424, EFTA02807426, EFTA02810739 and EFTA02811664. Over first sheets only: TRANSCRIPT 1 of 1,117, Plaintiff 4 of 1,117, Copyright\s+(19|20)\d\d 1 of 1,117, [Aa]ll [Rr]ights [Rr]eserved 422 of 1,117, and the narrower copyright\s*-?\s*all rights reserved 418 of 1,117 — the same footer, on the same sheets. Copyright and All Rights Reserved are not press markers in this corpus; they are Epstein’s own e-mail confidentiality footer, and a measurement that counted them would report a 38% press rate where the true rate is nil. The commissioning brief’s figure of “5 real press markers” is not reproducible: the same marker set gives 3 over first sheets and 7 over whole documents, and not one of the seven is a press item. ↩

  16. Thread of 21–24 September 2012. Epstein’s “the musk boys told me you are in town„ come see me” and Pritzker’s “feel free to bring along elon and kimball” are at EFTA01887311 p.1 and EFTA00944184 p.1, with more than twenty further copies. “Jeffrey. Elon and talulah WILL come at I. Working on Kimbal” is at EFTA01886451 p.1, which prints a capital I where the hour should be, and the damage is printed above rather than mended in the quotation. Fifteen sheets carry the sentence; eight print I and seven print 1 — EFTA00404445, EFTA00404447, EFTA00404452, EFTA00943802, EFTA00943807, EFTA01888559 and EFTA02006201, all p.1 — so the reading “one o’clock” is a repair of damage from twins, cited, and not a silent mend. Epstein’s own message two days earlier on the same sheet reads “bows 1 oclock coordinate with lesley”. Musk’s “I was going to have lunch tomorrow with a friend of mine, Jonah Nolan. He wrote Memento” is quoted, under a sender rendered “Eton Musk”, at EFTA01888460 p.1. Epstein’s “tell elon that the blonde that walked with me , is a friend of his mothers that tried to set her up with him her name is yfke sturm” and Musk’s reply “That was indeed a very enjoyable conversation!”, Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 02:31:49 +0000, are both on EFTA00689859 p.1. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  17. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “RE:”, Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:22:31 +0000. EFTA00662135 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Epstein’s message of Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:43 AM is quoted beneath it on the same sheet and is reproduced with its printed spelling (“come vist me”, “in the caribean”). On the image the sender’s address is covered by a single black bar and Epstein’s address is printed; the run is 1 sheet. Three further copies exist, among them EFTA02364818 p.1. ↩

  18. Exchanges of 3 October to 11 October 2012, each message quoted beneath the reply on its own sheet: EFTA00673759 p.1 (“kimball and boris are coming on sun” / “I have to be back in CA by then”); EFTA00680049 p.1 (“when do you leave?” / “Leaving either late tonight or tomorrow night. Will be in Germany Oct 19-21”); EFTA00945031 p.1 (“will be in paris 17-20 , come, stay, plenty of room and much fun” / “Ok, will try to make it.”); EFTA00945582 p.1 (“saw your brother , he seems very happy„ do you know your europe plans yet?” / “I would love to come to Europe, but have a confluence of SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity activity right now that makes the timing impossible.”); EFTA00628792 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass 2 of 2026-09-13; the render was deleted. To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject: Re:, Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:33:20 +0000, body “Late Nov is a possibility. Between now and then, I have to complete the Dragon mission, get Tesla to cash flow positive (at long last) and help execute the SolarCity IPO. Could definitely use a break after that.” Epstein’s message of Oct 11, 2012, at 12:30 PM is quoted beneath it and **prints on the paper as “revamp your priorities. come to island in nov?"**: the `is this production's quoted-printable damage, it is printed above rather than mended, and under the repair rule each=stands for nought or one character. **An earlier draft of this page dropped both characters silently.** **Three bars stand on this sheet and no more**: the topFrom:value and both occurrences of the sender's address in the9:22 PMattribution lower down. Epstein's address prints unbarred at every one of its occurrences, and the sheet closes on his own e-mail confidentiality footer ending "copyright -all rights reserved" — the footer counted at 418 of 1,117 first sheets in15` above, here confirmed at the image. Epstein’s “The world needs more romance” exchange of 19 October is at EFTA00646882 p.1. Every sheet in this footnote except EFTA00628792 is UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  19. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “Re:”, Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:25:17 +0000, body “Demis Hassabis”. EFTA00699539 p.1, with five further copies. Epstein’s question of 8:18 AM, “could you remind me of the AI guy in London that you thought was smart? see you in the carib”, is quoted beneath it. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  20. E-mails of 4 October 2012. Musk’s “SolarCity is just in US major markets right now, which might include NM. Will send them a note”, Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:02:49 +0000, quoting Epstein’s “is there any one at Solar City that my guys can talk to about electriying the caribean island? or the new mexico ranch” of 6:00 PM, is at EFTA00677328 p.1. The forward to Peter Rive, Subject “Fwd: Re: Fwd:”, Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 22:36:11 +0000, carrying Musk’s own “Are we in New Mexico?” and Rive’s reply of October 4, 2012 6:35:03 PM EDT, is at EFTA00944569 p.1, with four further copies. A twin of the Epstein message with the recipient field rendered “Eton Musk” is at EFTA01894349 p.1. No interval is asserted between the messages on that sheet: the attribution above Musk’s own line reads “Oct 4, 2012, at 3:04 PM” with no zone while the message beneath it is stamped “6:00:19 PM EDT”, so the two clocks are not the same clock and nothing here is converted. The sheet does not state Peter Rive’s role and this page supplies none. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  21. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “RE:”, Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 00:36:28 +0000. EFTA00661616 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Epstein’s “how many people will you be for the heli to island”, Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 9:40 AM, is quoted beneath it on the same sheet. On the image the sender’s address is covered by a black bar; six further copies exist. The run is 1 sheet. ↩

  22. Two sheets. Musk’s message of Tue 12/25/2012 6:07:16 AM, quoting Epstein’s “you are welcome to stay or just come for the day, plenty of rroom i will send heli to get you” of Dec 24, 2012, at 6:17 PM, is EFTA01910833 p.1, read at the image at 400 dpi, where the header block prints stacked (“To: / From: / Sent: / Subject:”) with no bar anywhere on the sheet. The exchange that follows — Epstein’s “Understood , I will see you on st Barth, , the ratio on my island might m=ke Talilah uncomfortable” of Dec 25, 2012, at 5:54 AM and Musk’s “Ratio is not a problem for Talulah” of Tuesday, December 25, 2012 2:20 PM — is EFTA02563908 p.1, read at the image at 400 dpi, where the sender’s address is covered by a black bar and Epstein’s is printed. The = in “m=ke” is printed on the paper, not introduced by the extraction, and is reproduced here; under the repair rule each corpus = stands for nought or one arbitrary character. A twin of Musk’s six-word reply, Sent: Tue 12/25/2012 2:19:53 PM, is at EFTA02007406 p.1 and prints the same words without the surrounding chain. Nothing is supplied for what “the ratio” refers to. ↩

  23. Exchanges of 28 December 2012 to 4 January 2013, each reply quoting its predecessor on the same sheet: EFTA01910229 p.1 (“I will be in st barth tomorrow „ how do I find you?” / “Do you want to join us (and some others) for drinks on the 30th around 10 or 11?”); EFTA01910473 p.1 (“we will only come tomorrow, for the day” / “Unfortunately, we are not on St Bart’s tomorrow. Back afternoon of the 30th.”); EFTA00642375 p.1 (“how long will you stay, ?” / “Through 2nd”); EFTA00700911 p.1 (“due to high winds, we will now arrive on the 31 in the morning” / “Ok, we could perhaps get together for lunch on the 31st.”); EFTA00951536 p.1 (“why don’t you consider clearing customs into the states in st thomas , come for lunch with the wife” / “Logistics won’t work this time around.”); EFTA00951736 p.1 (“anytime tonororw in st abarths?” / “Could meet for lunch. Will be with Talulah and her friend Debs.”); EFTA00659256 p.1 (“I will land at 12 , anytime after great, look forward to it” / “Anyplace here that you like to have lunch?”); and EFTA00700020 p.1, Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:06:45 +0000, the cancellation. The readings “Vm not well enough” and “Sony about this” are the extraction’s; the twin at EFTA02392960 p.1 prints “I’m” and “Sorry” at the same two points, and this page reproduces the sheet it pins. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: neither sheet was rendered. ↩

  24. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “RE:”, Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 02:50:40 +0000. EFTA00700860 p.1. Epstein’s question of Sunday, February 17, 2013 11:26 AM is quoted beneath it. A twin with the recipient field rendered “Eton Musk[” is at EFTA01906138 p.1. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  25. Message, Sent Tue 2/19/2013 3:04:03 PM, Subject “Jeffrey Epstein”. EFTA02147871 p.1. A previous draft of this footnote also pinned it to EFTA02147234; that is a different sheet — Fri 2/22/2013 4:05:20 PM, subject “Re: I need your passports to make a copy” — and it is cited for that, correctly, in the footnote on the passports below. Thirteen further sheets carry the same message, among them EFTA00395159 p.1, EFTA02146519 p.3 and EFTA02148251 p.1. The To: and From: values are absent from the extraction of the pinned sheet, but the sender is not left open: EFTA00395159 p.1 carries the message’s own forwarded header, “From: Lesley Groff <” with the address barred, “Date: February 19, 2013, 7:04:03 AM PST”, “Subject: Jeffrey Epstein”, above the identical body; and EFTA02146519 p.3 prints the sign-off “Assistant to Jeffrey Epstein / Sent from my iPhone”. The two stamps are not converted here — one is an unzoned Outlook stamp and the other carries PST — and the identification rests on the matching seconds, subject and body, not on the clocks. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: none of these sheets was rendered. ↩

  26. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “Re:”, Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:21:16 +0000, body “Up to you”. EFTA00652854 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Epstein’s message of Feb 21, 2013, at 5:16 AM is quoted beneath it and reads, on the image exactly as reproduced here, “look forward to seeing you. I can either come wtih assistants ( four , ) or alone. They might enjoy the facility if ok with you”. The sender’s address is covered by a black bar; Epstein’s is printed; there is no other bar on the sheet. Five further copies exist. ↩

  27. The clearance requirement and the passports: two sheets read at the image, with their twins. (a) EFTA00394956 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass of 2026-09-13; the render was deleted. The sheet is Lesley Groff to Mary Beth Brown, Subject “Re: Jeffrey Epstein”, Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:26:45 +0000, body “HI Mary Beth…I have the girls bringing me their passports in about an hour…I will scan and send to you…”. Quoted beneath it in order are Brown’s message of Feb 22, 2013, at 10:03 AM — “Just to confirm, the whole group is planning to have lunch with Elon? I’m also happy to provide a lunch for them separately so Elon & Jeffrey can chat on their own. Whatever works on your end is fine on ours.” and “Yes, I need a scan of everyone’s passport asap for security clearance and original passports must be brought onsite for check in.” — then Groff’s of Feb 22, 2013, at 7:47 AM, “Thank you for the specifics below. Jeffrey is a US citizen but he will have assistants with him who are not”, and Brown’s of Feb 22, 2013, at 12:58 AM beginning “Confirmed for Mon, Feb 25 at 1.00PM.” On the image every personal e-mail address on the sheet stands under a black bar — in the From:, To: and Cc: lines and in the quoted headers and attributions below them — and so do several personal names, among them two in the Cc: line, one in Groff’s own first sentence and one in the quoted message of 7:47 AM. Mary Beth Brown’s name and Lesley Groff’s print unbarred. Nothing barred is supplied here. One further thing this page withholds although the producing party did not bar it: a nationality breakdown of the three assistants, which together with a single travel date is an identifying combination. The extraction of this sheet interleaves the lines of the 12:58 AM message, dropping “so,” and “card holder. If” into the middle of it out of order, so that the text layer alone does not yield the sentences quoted above; the quotation is the image’s. No interval is asserted between Brown’s 10:03 AM and Groff’s 15:26:45 +0000: two clients, one of them unzoned, and the order is taken from the stacking on the sheet, not from the clocks. A twin is at EFTA02146603 p.1, UNVERIFIED. (b) EFTA00394968 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the same pass, and re-rendered and read again at 400 dpi for the fix pass 2 of 2026-09-13; both renders deleted. Lesley Groff, Subject “Jeffrey Epstein”, Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:59:33 +0000: “Hello Mary Beth…I have now sent you a copy of all 3 girls passports”. The remainder of that sentence names one of the three by forename, and is not reproduced here; “Jeffrey will have his ID with him…” follows. On the image the From: and To: address values and the whole of the Cc: line, its label included, stand under black bars, and the name “Elon Musk” prints in the To: line. Twins at EFTA00394969, EFTA00394970, EFTA02147114 and EFTA02147370, UNVERIFIED. What these sheets establish and what they do not. They establish that the scans were asked for by Musk’s office, in writing, for security clearance, and that Epstein’s office made and sent them the same day. They establish nothing whatever about why Epstein was bringing the party, and nothing here is offered as evidence of that. ↩ ↩2

  28. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, CC: Mary Beth Brown, Subject “Re:”, Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 18:47:40 +0000: “Yes, the airport is about 100 meters away from SpaceX HQ. Are you coming from far away? Not really worth taking a heli from Long Beach.” Epstein’s question of 9:31 AM, “is there place to land a hell nearby/”, is quoted beneath it. EFTA00954723 p.1, with a twin at EFTA01762913 p.1 whose body the extraction reduces to a single character. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer; the Cc: name is taken from the extraction’s own field value and no claim is made about how it stands on the sheet. ↩

  29. The refusal, three sheets and one clean twin. EFTA01761134 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass of 2026-09-13; the render was deleted. Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:32 AM, To: Jeffrey Epstein, Cc: Lesley Groff, Subject: Fwd: Foreign Nationals, both of those recipient names printing unbarred. The covering line and the forwarded message of February 22, 2013, 7:21:28 PM MST are quoted in the body above as the sheet prints them. Seven bars stand on this sheet: the top From: value; the address after “Mary Beth Brown” in the forwarded header; the forwarded To: value; the forwarded Cc: value, which runs to a second line and is barred on both; a <mailto: value; and one inside the parenthesis in the body. Nothing barred is supplied, described or signposted. The extraction of this sheet deletes the body bar and closes the gap, returning “(sorry,)”, and drops “e room” from “conference room” — a tenth confirmation of the bar-deletion fault, on the same episode as the ninth. The = marks are printed on the paper; under the repair rule each stands for nought or one character, and the clean twin EFTA00395017 p.1 — Mary Beth Brown’s own message, Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 02:21:28 +0000, carrying the same subject and the same body — prints the same sentences undamaged: “we can’t clear the foreign nationals”, “into the facility on Monday”, “provide lunch but they will be unable to enter the main facility”. That is a repair of damage from a twin, which this desk permits; no bar is repaired from any twin anywhere on this page. The two further messages of 23 February were rendered and read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass 2 of 2026-09-13; both renders were deleted. (i) EFTA02148244 p.1, Sent Sat 2/23/2013 3:44:44 AM, Subject: Fwd: Foreign Nationals. On the image its To: line prints Lesley Groff by name with her address barred, and the From: value stands under two bars, so this is a member of the party writing to Groff; that writer is not identified here. The body prints, on two lines, “JE is being JE. He says we will go with him to the lobby. I said I will let ▮ Beth know and he said ‘No! dont say anything’ (in an aggravated voice) / So I cant get back to her :/”, with one bar in the body, standing immediately before “Beth”. Nothing is supplied for it, nothing is said about what it covers, and it is not filled from any twin: damage may be repaired from a twin on this page, a redaction never is. The extraction of this sheet interleaves that sentence — ”…I said I will let” runs straight into “said ‘No! dont say anything’”, and “Beth know and he” surfaces thirteen lines lower, below the forwarded Cc: line — so the text layer alone does not yield the sentence, and the quotation above is the image’s. (ii) EFTA02145913 p.1, Sat 2/23/2013 1:45:19 PM, Subject: Re: Foreign Nationals. On the image its To: value is wholly barred and its From: value prints Lesley Groff, so the afternoon reply quoted above is hers. Beneath it an attribution stamped On Feb 22, 2013, at 10:44 PM stands with both of its values barred; that is a different clock from the 3:44:44 AM Outlook stamp on (i), neither carries a zone, nothing is converted and no interval is asserted. An earlier draft of this footnote said both messages were written by members of the party whose names are barred. That was a claim about pixels made from a text layer that gives neither header, and the image refutes half of it. Musk is not a sender or a named recipient on any of these four sheets, and this page does not say or imply that he knew of the refusal. ↩

  30. E-mail thread, Jeffrey Epstein and Bobby Kotick, 24–25 February 2013. EFTA01901154 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet stacks six messages: Epstein’s “will do probably around 330” of Mon 2/25/2013 3:34:11 AM at the top; Kotick’s “Let me know what time.” of Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM; Epstein’s “Thanks , but rather see you . Taking girls after to bel air” of Sunday, February 24, 2013 04:54 PM; Kotick’s “Want it to take you from Long Beach?”; Epstein’s “No thanks I’m in longbeach” of 04:36 PM; Kotick’s “Im here but tied up during the day. Do you want my 407 to fly to Hawthorne Airport?”; and at the foot Epstein’s message of Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:44 PM, subject blank, reading in full “the girls and i are going to see elon musk at space x tomorrow, are you around,”. On the image Kotick’s address is covered by a black bar in both the To: line and the attribution; no other bar stands on the sheet. The text layer of this sheet reads “the girls and i arc going to see don musk” and “No thanks I’m in Iongbeach”; the image reads “are”, “elon musk” and “longbeach”, and this page follows the image — which is also an independent corroboration, on a sheet that was rendered, of the don→elon finding above. Eight further copies of the foot message exist, among them EFTA02566617 p.2, EFTA01902806 p.2 and EFTA01905044 p.1, in which the forename is variously rendered “don”, “ebn” and “=Ion”; those eight are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. No document read for this page states an age or a surname for any of the people Epstein calls “the girls”, or shows who any of them was. Their number and one forename do stand in the office’s own correspondence about the same trip, and are handled at the footnotes on the passports and on the calendar reminder; nothing identifying anybody is supplied anywhere on this page. ↩

  31. Google Calendar reminder in the office account, Sent: Mon 2/25/2013 12:50:00 PM, Subject “Reminder: remind JE and [a second person]: Everyone must take ID with them to Elo… @ Mon Feb 25, 2013 8am - 8:30am”, body “remind JE and [a second person]: Everyone must take ID with them to Elon’s at Space X”. The sheet prints a forename in both places. It belongs to a private individual who holds no public role, is given no surname anywhere read for this page, and about whom nothing whatever is established. A forename is not a finding about a person, and this page will not make one out of proximity, so the name is replaced by a placeholder here and in the body. The identifier and the sheet are given so the line can be checked against the release. EFTA02146246 p.1, with a copy at EFTA02146534 p.1. Epstein’s “Going to see elon leaving at 1215 be back at 5”, Monday, February 25, 2013, to Boris Nikolic, is at EFTA00954908 p.1. Office scheduling for the same trip, on two separate sheets. The message read at the image in [^clearance] above — “Just to confirm, the whole group is planning to have lunch with Elon?” — stands quoted again inside a forward of Mon 2/25/2013 4:54:12 PM at EFTA02146170 p.1; and “I know you say Elon is not normally there on WEd’s”, inside a message stamped Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:13 AM quoted lower on the sheet, is at EFTA02146519 p.1. An earlier draft of this footnote transposed two words inside the first quotation and gave it as is the whole group planning to have lunch with Elon?. That phrase returns 0 documents in the corpus; the sheet’s own word order returns 5, EFTA02146170 among them. A quotation that returns no document is not a quotation, and this page carried the same sentence correctly two hundred lines above from a sheet it had rendered. None of the sheets cited in this footnote was rendered; all are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. An appointment record establishes only that something was scheduled; the visit is asserted here on the strength of Epstein’s thank-you the next day. ↩ ↩2

  32. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “RE:”, Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 21:08:46 +0000, body rendered “Isee”. EFTA00955694 p.1. Epstein’s “thanks for the tour , you would have had fun at xmas”, Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:52 AM, is quoted beneath it. The twin at EFTA01762292 p.1 prints the body as “I see”, and the two words are given in that form above. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  33. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “Re:”, Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 23:18:25 +0000. EFTA00955780 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Epstein’s message of Mar 6, 2013, at 6:59 PM is quoted beneath it, and immediately above its first line stands a solid black bar about sixty characters wide, the only redaction on the sheet apart from the sender’s address. Nothing is supplied for it. The quoted text reproduces the sheet’s spelling, “the milken confernce with the ny money people”. Two further copies exist. ↩

  34. E-mail, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “RE:”, Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:36:11 +0000. EFTA00704866 p.1, where Epstein’s message of Monday, July 22, 2013 10:32 AM is quoted beneath it and the name is rendered “ehud bask”. A second copy, EFTA01755736 p.1, carries the same message with the name rendered “chud barak” and the statesman’s description running into the subject field; the body quoted above is identical on both. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. ↩

  35. E-mails, Elon Musk to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Subject “Re:”. EFTA00681952 p.1, Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 03:38:57 +0000, quoting Epstein’s invitation of Apr 10, 2013, at 4:17 PM and, beneath it, Musk’s “No firm plans” of 6:44 PM and Epstein’s “are you coming to east coast?” of Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:36 PM. EFTA01895714 p.1, Sent: Mon 4/15/2013 4:45:47 PM, body “no”, quoting “better idea of schedule?” of 9:40 AM; the twin at EFTA01895676 p.1 is the sheet whose To: field reads “Don Musk”. EFTA00706928 p.1, Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 14:10:15 +0000, body “Yes”, with five further copies. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. Nothing read for this page shows that either dinner or the Caribbean visit happened, and the December 2013 thread footnoted below reopens the same question from the start five weeks later. ↩

  36. Thread “Christmas and New Year’s”, 13 December 2013 to 6 January 2014. The chain is carried whole on EFTA00377496 p.1, read at the image at 400 dpi: Musk’s “Actually, I could fly back early on the 3rd. We will be in St Bart’s. When should we head to your island on the 2nd?” of Wed, 25 Dec 2013 16:35:38 +0000, above his own “I need to fly back to LA on the night of the 2nd, so w” of 12:30 PM, above Epstein’s “the 2 or 3 would be perfect. I will come and get you.” of 6:34 AM, above Musk’s “Ok, probably the 1st then.” of Dec 15, 2013, at 5:32 PM, above Epstein’s “any day 1st - 8th . play it by ear if you want. always space for you” of 2:25 PM, above Musk’s opening “Will be in the BVI/St Bart’s area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit?” of Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:35 PM. On the image Cc: Lesley Groff prints by name with her address barred, and Musk’s address is covered by nine bars — one in the From: line, two in each of the quoted attributions of 12:30 PM and 5:32 PM, and four in the attribution of 11:35 PM, whose address block runs to a second line — while Epstein’s address prints unbarred at every occurrence. Re-rendered and read at 400 dpi for the fix pass of 2026-09-13; an earlier draft of this footnote said “six occurrences”, and a bar count is a claim about pixels. The cancellation, Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:00:22 +0000 (“Bad news- Unfortunately , my schedule will keep me in New York” / “No problem”), is at EFTA00669192 p.1, and the coda of Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:25:38 +0000 (“sorry it didn’t work , out just getting over it. how was your trip?” / “Great”) at EFTA00651395 p.1, both UNVERIFIED from the text layer. Epstein’s reply of the following morning, “Anytime I will be there 28-7th”, is not on EFTA00377496 at all and is not taken from it. It is its own message, Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 05:20:32 +0000, at EFTA00634128 p.1, and it is quoted back, above Musk’s “Is there a day/night that you would particularly recommend within those dates?” of Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:17:10 +0000, at EFTA00625678 p.1, where the opening message is attributed to On Dec 14, 2013, at 12:35 AM while EFTA00377496 stamps it Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:35 PM. Those are two clients and not one clock, neither stamp carries a zone, nothing is converted, and no interval is asserted; the body follows the sheet it pins for the opening. Both are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. An earlier draft quoted “Anytime I will be there 28-7th” with no sheet cited that carries it. The opening message exists in twelve copies and the 14 December reply in ten. ↩

  37. E-mail, Jeffrey Epstein to Richard Branson, Sent Sun 12/22/2013 5:50:38 PM: “don musk will be on island 2nd 3. you are welcome”. EFTA01941008 p.1. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. This is Epstein’s statement of his own expectation three days before the plan was fixed and eight before he cancelled it, and it is not evidence that anyone went. ↩

  38. E-mail, "jeffrey E." <[email protected]> to Elon Musk, Subject “Re:”, Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:48:49 +0000, body “another time of your choosing. just let me know”. EFTA00869486 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the writing pass of 13 September 2026; the render was deleted. The quoted line is the whole of the body and is reproduced with the printed spacing, “choosing. just let me know”. Musk’s decline stands quoted beneath it on the same sheet, under the attribution “On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Elon Musk” and reading “Have to be in London and California on those dates”, and Epstein’s invitation of earlier that day below that again; the order therefore rests on the stacking, which is what this page’s own rule requires. The interval is measured between two explicitly zoned headers and nothing is converted: the decline’s own sheet, EFTA00678134 p.1, cited at [^sept2014] above and read at the image at 400 dpi for this pass, carries Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 20:36:55 +0000. The two unzoned clocks on these sheets disagree and neither is used: the same decline is attributed “4:36 PM” where it is quoted here, and Epstein’s invitation, whose own copy at EFTA02518207 p.1 is stamped Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:09 PM, is quoted on both rendered sheets as Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:09 PM, the one message under two unzoned stamps that do not agree. A twin of Epstein’s answer is at EFTA02518458 p.1, carrying the same body under an unzoned Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:49 PM and quoted-printable damage the rendered sheet does not have; that sheet and EFTA02518207 are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. The sheet prints the sender’s forename lower-case, “jeffrey E.”, where this extraction capitalises it. Black bars stand on both rendered sheets and nothing under them is supplied or described. ↩

  39. The three later days, all of them Epstein’s writing. (a) 11 December 2014. The message that did not arrive is EFTA01003175 p.1, Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:09:11 +0000, with a further copy at EFTA02598722 p.1; both UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. The delivery notice quoting it back is EFTA00650181 p.1 of a run of 2 sheets, From: Mail Delivery Subsystem, To: [email protected], Subject “Delivery Status Notification (Failure)”, Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:09:12 +0000, read at the image at 400 dpi for the writing pass of 13 September 2026; the render was deleted. It prints “Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:”, the quoted technical sentence, and “550 #5.1.0 Address rejected.” beneath “The error that the other server returned was:” on a line of its own, and carries the rejected message whole beneath them under Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:09:11 -0400, which is the same instant as the 21:09:11 +0000 header at (a), both stamps carrying an explicit offset. The resend is EFTA01003176 p.1, Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:10:14 +0000, read at the image at 400 dpi for the same pass; the render was deleted, and the body is reproduced with the printed spacing, “last weekend , do you think”. A further copy is at EFTA02598759 p.1, UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. This page makes no finding about who was on Little Saint James in December 2014; the schedules that test it are set out at Reid Hoffman, which cites the same sheets. (b) 25 December 2014. EFTA01003577 p.1, Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 11:17:10 +0000, no subject on the sheet, body “caribean?”, read at the image at 400 dpi for the same pass; the render was deleted. A copy is at EFTA02598526 p.1, UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. (c) 13 February 2017. EFTA01054428 p.1, Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:25:32 +0000, no subject on the sheet, body “sultan is a great guy”, read at the image at 400 dpi for the same pass; the render was deleted. The body is the whole of the sheet’s text above the standard footer: there is no subject line, nothing is quoted beneath it, and no name stands on it but the two correspondents’ own. Copies are at EFTA00632426 p.1, whose extraction carries the headers and no body, and EFTA02661134 p.1; both UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. Black bars stand on each of the four rendered sheets in this footnote and nothing under them is supplied or described. ↩

  40. Later references, none of them written by this subject. “i had dinner with zuckerburg, musk, thiel hoffman. wild”, Thu, Aug 20, 2015, EFTA00848283 p.1. “how did musk call go?”, Epstein to Kathryn Ruemmler, Jan 30, 2015 9:16 PM, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022695 p.1. “I have many friends there. If you like I will make an introduction . Elo= musk, space -x, Ovitz art , Hollywood , princess of Norway, etc.”, On 26 Dec 2012 09:49, EFTA01797017 p.1. “tonite dinner with musk thiel zuckerburg” is at EFTA00849698 p.1. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT documents are congressional page images; that identifier is cited from the site’s own text and was not rendered. ↩

  41. August 2018 sequence. “elon said they need less than 10b in cash”, Epstein to Thomas Jr., Landon, Monday, August 13, 2018 7:54 PM: EFTA02602567 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi for the fix pass 2 of 2026-09-13; the render was deleted. Quoted beneath Epstein’s line, over the attribution On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at =:56 PM, is the reporter’s message, “If you can tell me anything we don’t =lready know here re Saudis and Tesla you would make me a hero!”, above a link to Tesla’s “update-taking-tesla-private” post and a New York Times signature block printing “New York T=mes”. The = in “=lready”, the one that has eaten the hour of the reporter’s stamp and the one in “T=mes” are printed on the paper, as I read them at 400 dpi, and they are printed here rather than mended. The twin EFTA02602705 p.1 carries the same reporter message with that word undamaged, “we don’t already know”, and gives its attribution as On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 2:56 PM, so both the reading “already” and the lost hour are repairs of damage from a twin that is cited. That twin, a two-sheet run, carries two further messages of the same afternoon: the reporter’s 4:05 PM “Hey, that helps. Can I call you quickly about th=s? I am trying to get a better sense as to what is going on.” and Epstein’s reply of Monday, August 13, 2018 8:06 PM, which carries no body of its own above the quoted chain. The two sheets do not stamp on the same clock — one in Outlook Sent: values, the other in a quoting client’s attribution lines, neither carrying a zone — and nothing here is converted and no interval is asserted. On the image of EFTA02602567 Epstein’s own From: value prints unbarred and a black bar stands in the reporter’s attribution line; nothing barred is supplied. This footnote states no total for that sheet’s bars and claims none: it records the one bar that bears on the quotation and does not count the rest. An earlier draft of this page printed “already” inside the quotation with no twin cited: a silent one-character mend, inside the footnote that states the damage rule. “can you get elon to talk on the record . t=. stewart or landon thomas. so he can explain himself”, Epstein to Juleanna Glover, Thursday, August 16, 2018 12:19 PM: EFTA02604947 p.1. “reid the ny times is peparing a not very nice piece =n elon. I am only as a friend trying to mitigate c=rtain bad rumors.”, Epstein to Reid Hoffman, Thursday, August 16, 2018 8:47 PM: EFTA02606211 p.1. “Looks like you were left out of the article..” with the link to the Times interview of 16 August, and Epstein’s “the big one is sunday”: EFTA02606336 p.1. Michael Wolff’s description of Glover as “El=n Musk’s DC-based PR person. She’s captive to him, so not hireable”, Monday, May 1, 2017 4:33 PM: EFTA02650850 p.1. That sentence ends “so not hireable=” on the sheet; the quotation stops at the word boundary and the trailing =, which stands for nought or one character like every other on this page, is dropped rather than mended. The five sheets other than EFTA02602567 are UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. Every = above is this production’s quoted-printable damage and stands for nought or one character — confirmed at the image on EFTA02602567, and on the five sheets not rendered reproduced exactly as the extraction gives it and repaired nowhere except where a twin is cited. ↩

  42. E-mail, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> to Thomas Jr., Landon, Subject “Re:”, Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 10:04 PM. EFTA02608225 p.1. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet stacks three messages: Epstein’s “I did not speak to him directly , but he cant =ee ,” at the top; the reporter’s of Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 6:02 PM, “I would not know. I am out of office; half working/half taking a break =n Maine. I will say though: the Elon get was epic. You delivered! How did =e see it? I thought it worked out pretty well.”; and Epstein’s “is the tesla thing - put to bed” of 5:3= PM. On the image the reporter’s address is covered by black bars at both of its occurrences in the attribution line; no other bar stands on the sheet. The = marks are printed on the paper, and the three affected words read “see”, “in” and “we” under the repair rule; the minute of the last stamp is lost to the same damage and is printed as it stands. ↩

  43. FBI form FD-1023, CHS Reporting Document, “Submitted By” and “First Level Approved By” both stamped Wed, 22 Jul 2020. EFTA01245118 p.2. Read at the image at 400 dpi; the page carries its own stamp EFTA01245119 and is marked “UNCLASSIFIED”, “Page 2 of 2” and, in red, “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17”. The passage quoted prints with the run-together spacing reproduced here (“ElonMusk”, “recentlygave”, “ofElon Musk”). Two readings on this sheet were re-settled at the image for the fix pass 2 of 2026-09-13. The extraction renders “who Is the right-hand man” with a capital, and the sheet prints a lower-case “is”; an earlier draft followed the extraction on a sheet this footnote certifies. And the extraction drops the closing parenthesis after “(tel:”, because the bar sits against it — the sheet prints “(tel: ▮)” — which is an eleventh confirmation of the bar-deletion fault recorded elsewhere on this page. On the image the source’s own identity, the telephone number after “Jared Birchall (tel:”, two locations, an e-mail address, a third name and both signature blocks stand under solid black bars. That list is what this footnote read off the sheet, not a total: no bar count for this sheet is claimed. Nothing barred is supplied. This is a record of what a confidential human source told the Bureau. It is not a Bureau finding, and this page adopts none of the source’s other assertions. ↩

  44. Transcript, examination of Ghislaine Maxwell by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, transcript pages 236–237. DOJ-OGR-00022759 pp.21–22. UNVERIFIED, from the text layer: these two pages were not rendered, and the quotations are given as the machine text returns them. The passage records her account of a gathering for Sergey Brin’s birthday on “Mr. Pigozzi“‘s Caribbean island — “not with Epstein, he was not there” — which she dates in the following question as “around 2010”; her “As far as I remember, yes” to whether that was the first time she met him; “I don’t know if I’ve ever met him” as to his brother; a later meeting “at the Oscars”; and, to “do you know whether Mr. Epstein knew Mr. Musk?”, “I believe they did. And the only reason I say that is not from my memory, but because I saw — I think I saw — my memory is that in discovery, they were communicating on email.” The proceeding is described at The 2025 Justice Department examination of Ghislaine Maxwell. ↩

  45. Videotaped deposition of James E. Staley, 10 June 2023, Golkow Litigation Services, transcript page 88, lines 18–21. EFTA02810739 p.12. Read at the image at 300 dpi. The image prints, in order: “Q. Kimbal Musk? / A. I didn’t know Kimbal Musk. / Q. Elon Musk? / A. Yes.” The question stem is on the preceding sheet, EFTA02810739 p.11, transcript page 87, where counsel asks “And among these clients are Sergey Brin?” after Staley has confirmed, on p.10, that “Jeffrey Epstein referred a number of clients to JPMorgan over the years”. Pages 10 and 11 are cited from the text layer only and were not read at the image; the certification in this footnote covers p.12 alone. The extraction of page 88 reorders lines 5 to 7 and 15 to 17, interleaving one answer into another, and the reading above is the image’s. On the image the forename in the question at line 5 is covered by a black bar, as is a name at line 7; neither is supplied here. ↩

  46. Declaration of counsel in support of the motion, executed 15 May 2023, EFTA02807385. Paragraph 2, on p.2, records that Motley Rice “hired the investigative firm Gryphon Strategies to search public records databases for an address for Elon Musk”; paragraphs 3 to 5, on p.3, record that Gryphon identified counsel “who has waived service on Mr. Musk’s behalf in several recent federal cases filed within the last year”; “While he did respond to my initial email, he did not respond to a subsequent email or confirm or deny his authority to accept service”; and the process server “attempted service at the business address for Tesla, Inc., but was unable to serve Mr. Musk at that location.” The order, “ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF SUBPOENA TO THIRD PARTY ELON MUSK”, signed by Jed S. Rakoff, is at EFTA02807424 p.1 and EFTA02807426 p.1, filed 17 May 2023: “the Government is authorized to arrange alternative service of its Subpoena to Produce Documents by serving Elon Musk via service upon Tesla, Inc.’s registered agent.” UNVERIFIED, from the text layer. Counsel’s name is blacked out on these sheets in the extraction at every occurrence and nothing is supplied for it. Nothing read for this page shows whether service was effected, whether any objection was served, or whether anything was produced. ↩

Backlinks