Gary Kerney

⚠ what this page is about, and what it is not

The man who ran construction on Epstein’s island: budgets, architects, and the Coastal Zone Management permit submissions. No allegation against him was found anywhere in the release, and none is made here. ⚠⚠ The page quotes what he and Epstein wrote about permit drawings and characterises it as nothing.

Who	Gary Kerney, running construction and permitting for Epstein in the U.S. Virgin Islands1
In the release	5,608 documents2
His own messages	2,341 sender rows under his own name, running to April 20122
⭐ The act	On 2 March 2010 he put an architect’s CZM proposal of $56,807.69 to Epstein for approval, defended the fee against Epstein’s objection with a costed table of four island buildings, and set out how the permit package would be prepared3
⚠ What Epstein wrote back	”he cannot desin,, these are only throw aways for czm purposes..”3

Gary Kerney is the client-side construction manager for Little Saint James. He instructs architects, prices buildings, argues fees with Epstein, and handles the submissions to the territory’s Coastal Zone Management authority.

The CZM fee thread, 2 and 3 March 2010

The whole exchange is on one sheet, read at the image.³

Kerney opens: “Jeffrey / Attached is the CZM Dejongh proposal for $56,807.69 ,5 week / Ok to execute? / Gary”. Epstein, ninety minutes later: “Seems very high what do you think ad it merely schematics”.

Kerney answers with a table. He sets a benchmark, “Normal archectual fees for schematic design are 20% of the construction costs. The proposed fees are below 20%”, and prices four buildings against the adviser’s quote:

building	area	rate	construction cost	at 20%	quoted
cottage	2,700 sq ft	$500	$1,350,000	$27,000	$16,230.77
pool	1,800 sq ft	$1,000	$1,800,000	$36,000	$16,230.77
piano	1,600 sq ft	$750	$1,200,000	$24,000	$12,984.62
ATV	1,050 sq ft	$400	$420,000	$8,400	$11,361.54

“what little he’s over on the ATV is covered by what he’s under on the rest. comments?”³

⚠⚠ What was said about the permit drawings

Epstein replied the next morning:

he cannot desin,, these are only throw aways for czm purposes..

Kerney agreed, and explained why the cost stood anyway:

correct, I talked to Bob and he explained the plans still need to look like real plans, floor plans, with square footages, and elevations as well as perspectives to convey images that the CZM staff can visualize. The package will require the same amount of effort whether they are real or not.Dejongh has been our adviser on CZM submittals and knows their requirements and knows the plans are for permit only and will be changed after intitlements.

⚠⚠⚠ THE PAGE REPORTS THIS AND CHARACTERISES IT AS NOTHING. What is documented is that two men described drawings destined for a regulator as “throw aways for czm purposes”, as needing to “look like real plans”, and as “for permit only” and to “be changed after intitlements.”

⚠ That is their language, not this page’s. ⚠ Revising a design after entitlement is ordinary in construction, and no document read for this page shows what was submitted, what was permitted, or what was built. The page does not allege permit fraud, does not say the regulator was misled, and does not know whether anything improper occurred. It records what they wrote.

⚠ “Bob” and “Dejongh” are given as written. The desk did not establish who either is, and ⚠⚠ specifically did not assume any connection between the surname “Dejongh” and any similarly-named public figure in the territory. Guessing across a shared surname is the homograph error this desk has recorded repeatedly.

What the 5,608 documents are

⚠⚠ A STANDING DESK NOTE SAID THIS SUBJECT WAS NOT COMMISSIONABLE, AND IT WAS WRONG.⁴

• The note described him as “overwhelmingly a RECIPIENT, the shape of a staffer on distribution lists”, with an act rate of 15%, and said the count “overstates him by four times.”
• He is the sender of 2,341 rows under his own name. His subject lines are “CZM”, “flagpole”, “flagpole pool”, “Fwd: LSJ”. He instructs a Gensler principal, prices buildings and asks Epstein for authority to execute contracts.
• ⚠ That is a principal, not a name on a distribution list.

⚠ The desk did not re-derive the note’s own percentages and does not say how they were computed; what it says is that the characterisation they were used to support does not survive reading his messages.

What this page does not say

No allegation against him was found anywhere in the release.⁵

⚠ Nothing here connects him to Epstein’s offences. He appears as a construction manager doing construction management. ⚠ Nothing here says any building was used for anything, and the documents read for this page are about drawings, fees and square footages.

Related

• Little Saint James
• Zorro Ranch

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. Identification. ⚠ No document read for this page states his title or employer. The page describes him from what he does in the documents: he holds the client’s authority to execute an architect’s contract, sets design outlines, says he “will do structurals here”, and directs the CZM submittal process. That is the least the documents support. ↩

2. The measurement. "Gary Kerney" returns 5,608 documents. ⚠ The hinge is page scope: a document counts when any one of its pages carries the phrase. In the e-mail metadata store, 2,341 rows are under the exact sender string Gary Kerney, with a further 160 under Garykerney and small numbers under OCR variants; his dated rows run to 24 April 2012. ⚠ No doc_type split is quoted on this page: the desk measured that classifier at 100% on email.header but 5% on court.plea_agreement and 52% on financial.equity_swap, and the rule recorded in _desk/TOOLS.md is that any label other than email.header must be spot-checked before it is printed. ⚠ No deduplicated message total is stated. ↩ ↩²

3. 2 and 3 March 2010. EFTA00635963 p.1, read at the image at 700 dpi, carrying the chain: Kerney Mar 2, 2010, at 9:42 AM; Epstein Tue 3/2/2010 11:01 AM; Kerney Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:30 PM with the fee table; Epstein Wed 3/3/2010 7:28 AM; Kerney Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:36:21 +0000. ⚠ All spellings, doubled commas, missing spaces and the run-on “not.Dejongh” are as printed and are not repaired: “desin”, “ad it merely schematics”, “archectual”, “intitlements”. ⚠ No e-mail address from this sheet is reproduced here. ⚠ The figures in the table are as printed, including the row where the quoted fee exceeds twenty per cent. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. The block, and why it is struck. _desk/SUBJECT_GAP.md line 638 carried “DO NOT COMMISSION ON THIS EVIDENCE” for this subject, on the ground that he was “overwhelmingly a RECIPIENT, the shape of a staffer on distribution lists” and that “the count overstates him by four times.” ⚠⚠ Reading his messages refutes the characterisation: 2,341 rows under his own name, instructing architects and holding authority to execute contracts. ⚠ This is the second block struck today whose stated reason turned out to be false, the first being Southern Financial, LLC, which a government certificate refuted. A stated reason is not a checked one. ↩

5. Absences, each scoped. No allegation against him was found in the release read for this page. ⚠⚠ This is a narrow check against 5,608 documents and is stated as one: the desk read his subject lines and opened one thread. It ran no systematic adverse sweep, searched none of the six derived stores, and opened none of the construction or permitting files. ⚠ What was submitted to the CZM, what was permitted and what was built are all unestablished here, and a deeper pass is owed. ↩