Howard Rubenstein

Named on the documents as	Howard Rubenstein, Howard J. Rubenstein and, on the witness lists, Howard Rubinstein with an i. His firm is named Rubenstein Associates Inc.12
What he was to Epstein	Epstein’s publicist. The Palm Beach Daily News called him Epstein’s spokesman; the New York Post called him Epstein’s rep; Epstein’s federal defence counsel called his statement authorized234
The money	Eight payments of $25,000 to Rubenstein Associates Inc., 15 October 2007 to 27 June 2008, $200,000 in all, as tabulated by the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands from Epstein’s JPMorgan account statements. The last is dated three days before Epstein’s guilty plea52
The authorisation	8 November 2007. Kirkland & Ellis, for Epstein, told a federal prosecutor in writing that Epstein’s team had avoided the media, that the only recent comment was Rubenstein’s confirmation to the Palm Beach Daily News, and that that comment was authorized4
A conflict, noticed inside the prosecution	3 June 2008. An Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote that Epstein’s publicist is also the publicist for The New York Post, the paper that had carried a story quoting Epstein counsel’s letter6
The statement	21 July 2008, Page Six. He said of the women suing Epstein that they have lied repeatedly, and in no way shape or form were they victims3
What the Department of Justice did about it	The same afternoon, an Assistant U.S. Attorney asked colleagues whether to tell the victims that the statement directly contradicts Epstein’s agreement. Five minutes later a colleague replied that it was not necessary7
⚠ The conduct allegation, and its tier	In 2023 the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands pleaded that he had also lied for Epstein over MC2 and Jean-Luc Brunel. That is an allegation in a summary-judgment brief. It was never tried, and this page frames it as an allegation every time it appears8
The deposition that did not happen	Noticed for 23 January 2012; cancelled on the day. Epstein’s counsel had been working on a protective order against it since August 20119101112
His own written exit	9 October 2009. In his own words, over his own sender header: Since we are no longer working for Jeffrey13
What no document read for this page shows	That he was ever deposed, or that any court made any finding about him. Eleven search forms returned nothing, against live positive controls14
Died	2020. Many of the people named on this page are living, and the page is written with that in front of it
Covered elsewhere on this wiki	Jeffrey Epstein · The 2008 non-prosecution agreement · Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards · Jack Scarola · Jay Lefkowitz · Marie Villafaña · Darren Indyke · JPMorgan Chase

Howard Rubenstein was the New York publicist whose firm, Rubenstein Associates Inc., was paid $200,000 out of Jeffrey Epstein’s accounts between October 2007 and June 2008, across the months in which Epstein’s federal non-prosecution agreement was signed, contested and performed. He is not in this record as a name on a guest list. He is in it as a paid agent whose statements Epstein’s own federal defence counsel described to a prosecutor as authorized, whose July 2008 statement about the women suing Epstein a federal prosecutor read as contradicting Epstein’s agreement with the United States, and whom a party to the Palm Beach civil litigation tried for five months to put under oath and never did.

⛔ This page carries survivor material at one remove, and it is written under the inverted burden. The best evidence about him sits on sheets that are also about victim notifications, about a defamation claim, and about the women who sued Epstein. No survivor is named, initialled, numbered or described here beyond her role, and where a court document names one this page marks the cut and does not print the name. Nothing about any survivor on this page was taken from anything she did not publish herself.

The money, October 2007 to June 2008

The payments are documented twice over, by two different institutions, and this page rests on both.

In its 2023 litigation against JPMorgan Chase, the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands set out a table of transactions drawn from Epstein’s own account statements:

From October 2007 through June 2008, JPMorgan handled eight payments of $25,000 from Epstein’s accounts to Rubenstein Associates Inc. (relevant transactions identified and summarized in the chart below).⁵

The chart under that sentence gives eight transaction dates, each for $25,000.00, each to RUBENSTEIN ASSOCIATES INC.: 10/15/2007, 10/23/2007, 11/30/2007, 12/21/2007, 1/23/2008, 3/27/2008, 6/5/2008 and 6/27/2008, with a Grand Total row of $200,000.00.⁵

The dates are the argument. The first falls nine days after the Page Six item in which he denied on Epstein’s behalf any business relationship with the MC2 modelling agency, and in the same week that Epstein, by the newspaper’s account, agreed to plead guilty.¹⁵ The last, 27 June 2008, falls three days before Epstein pleaded guilty in Palm Beach Circuit Court on 30 June 2008.²

JPMorgan’s own transaction narrative records the same last payment, and records that Epstein originated it personally. The bank’s entry for 27 June 2008 describes a wire of $25,000.00 originated by JEFFREY E EPSTEIN and identifies the payee:

[…] Rubenstein Associates Inc, a law firm. Payment details referenced: “Ref.JEFFREY EPSTEIN-Inv N89617”.¹⁶

⚠ Rubenstein Associates was not a law firm, and that error is a finding about the bank rather than about him. The same sheet, in the same format, correctly describes two other Epstein payees: a $10,000 wire of 16 September 2010 to Newgrange Consulting Group, a public relations firm, and $21,000 across two wires in October and December 2012 to Reputation Changer LLC, a reputation management company.¹⁶ The monitoring narrative could classify a reputation-management vendor and a public relations firm correctly, and misclassified the largest and earliest of the three.

The authorisation, 8 November 2007

On 8 November 2007, twenty-four days after the first recorded payment, Epstein’s federal defence counsel at Kirkland & Ellis wrote to Jeffrey Sloman at the United States Attorney’s Office about Epstein’s compliance with the non-prosecution agreement. The letter’s third numbered point is about press:

Third, I want to clear up any confusion regarding the many inaccurate media reports about Mr. Epstein. With the hope of maintaining some semblance of privacy for Mr. Epstein, we have avoided interacting with the media regarding this matter. Indeed, the only recent comment was Howard Rubenstein’s confirmation to the Palm Beach Daily News that this matter had been resolved and would not proceed to a trial. That comment was authorized only out of concern that you might read an inaccurate story and believe, mistakenly, that Mr. Epstein had decided not to proceed under the Agreement.⁴

Read as a claim about the world, that sentence locates the authorisation inside the defence team. Counsel is not reporting what a publicist said; counsel is telling a federal prosecutor that the publicist spoke with permission, and offering the reason the permission was given. The passive voice does not name who gave it. The letter is signed for Epstein’s defence, so the page says only what the sheet says: the comment was authorized, and the letter does not name the person who authorized it.⁴

A conflict, noticed inside the prosecution, 3 June 2008

Forty-eight days before the Page Six statement, someone inside the office prosecuting Epstein wrote it down. A message of 3 June 2008, subject line Additional Info, sent within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, reads in its entirety:

You might want to add that Epstein’s publicist, Howard Rubenstein, is also the publicist for The New York Post where the article quoting Lefcourt’s letter appeared.⁶

The sheet does not name its author. The signature block prints the title Assistant U.S. Attorney and the office tag (USAFLS), and this page attributes the message to no named person.⁶

⚠ What the message asserts about the firm’s client list is the writer’s assertion, not a finding of this page. No document read for this page records a retainer between Rubenstein Associates and the New York Post. The finding is that a federal prosecutor believed it and put it in writing, forty-eight days before the newspaper printed his client’s attack on the complainants.

The statement, 21 July 2008

On 21 July 2008 the New York Post’s Page Six column, under Richard Johnson’s byline, reported that three women suing Epstein had asked a federal judge to quash his plea deal. The last sentence of the item is his:

Epstein’s rep, Howard Ruben stein, said, “The lawsuit has absolutely no merit. They’re just looking for money. These women have lied repeatedly, and in no way shape or form were they victims. They were at his place freely and voluntarily. And one of them showed Epstein a fake ID.”³

⚠ The break in his surname is printed on the sheet and is not repaired here. It is the extraction’s and the scan’s, not his; it is also the single most productive search form for this subject, and it is discussed below.¹ The quotation ends there: the sheet’s next content is an unrelated list of column links.³

This is the document that separates him from the other publicists in the release. Declining comment for a client is not conduct. Putting a named assertion on the record that identified complainants have lied repeatedly, and that in no way shape or form were they victims, eight months after his client’s counsel had told a prosecutor that his comments were authorized, is conduct. And the Department of Justice treated it as conduct, in writing, that afternoon.

What the Department of Justice did about it, the same afternoon

The anchor for this page is a pair of messages inside the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, sent five minutes apart on Monday, 21 July 2008, the day the item ran.

The earlier message, timed 3:47 PM and signed by Villafaña, Assistant U.S. Attorney, is mostly about Epstein’s state-court motion for return of property. Its last paragraph turns to victim notifications she was preparing to send, and ends with a question:

Should I include anything about how Mr. Rubenstein’s statement to the New York Post directly contradicts Epstein’s agreement?⁷

The Page Six item is pasted into her message below that question, and in that pasted copy the phrase in no way shape or form were they victims is underlined.⁷

The reply is timed 3:52 PM, five minutes later. The sheet shows it sent by Jeffrey Sloman, the officer to whom Kirkland & Ellis had addressed its letter eight months earlier:⁷⁴

I don’t think it’s necessary to point out the NY Post article to those victims and in the next breath say that Rubenstein’s statement contradicts the agreement. I think our notice to them should give them some comfort over a tabloid story.⁷

A named institution, a decision it made about this material, and the document recording the decision. The prosecutor handling the case read a publicist’s statement as contradicting the United States’ agreement with his client, asked whether the victims should be told, and was answered within five minutes that it was not necessary.

⛔ That sheet is a document about victim notifications and nothing identifying has been carried off it. The two quotations above contain nothing that identifies anyone.

Two days after the plea

Epstein pleaded guilty in Palm Beach Circuit Court on Monday, 30 June 2008. On 3 July 2008 the Palm Beach Daily News reported the plea on page A1 under William Kelly’s byline, and closed with him:

Goldberger would not comment on the case. But Epstein’s spokesman, Howard J. Rubenstein, said in a statement that Epstein has now resolved the criminal case.

“Mr. Epstein accepted responsibility for the charges, relating to conduct that occurred several years ago,” Rubenstein said.²

That is the newspaper the Kirkland & Ellis letter had named eight months earlier as the outlet of his authorized comment.⁴ It is also the last dated statement by him in this record before the payments stop: the final $25,000 is dated 27 June, the plea is 30 June, the statement is 3 July.⁵²

The MC2 denial, and the allegation built on it in 2023

On 6 October 2007, nine days before the first recorded payment, PageSix.com ran an item headed MODEL SHOP DENIES EPSTEIN TIE. Its last line is his:

Epstein’s rep said he was not involved in the agency. “He has no business relationship with them,” said Howard Rubenstein.¹⁵

Fifteen years later that sentence became the basis of an allegation against him by a government. In its memorandum opposing JPMorgan’s motion for partial summary judgment, filed 7 August 2023 in the Southern District of New York, the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands wrote:

JPMorgan knew that at the time of his arrest, Epstein’s lawyers had engaged in a cover-up, discrediting victims when Epstein confessed to the Bank, and paying private investigators to target witnesses and pose as police. Gov’t Mot. at 10-11. JPMorgan knew that Epstein’s other representative, Howard Rubenstein, had also lied for Epstein, claiming Epstein had no relationship with Brunel and MC2 modeling agency when JPMorgan had for years extended a $1 million letter of credit for Epstein to MC2.⁸

⚠⚠ TIER. This is a party’s brief, not a finding. The Government of the Virgin Islands pleaded it; JPMorgan contested the motion it was filed in; no court tried it, and this page never writes that Howard Rubenstein lied. What is documented is the denial, in his own attributed words, on 6 October 2007.¹⁵ What is alleged is that it was false, and the allegation carries the word also, placing him beside Epstein’s lawyers in the cover-up the same paragraph describes.⁸

The deposition that did not happen

Between August 2011 and January 2012 a party to Epstein’s Palm Beach County action tried to put him under oath, and Epstein’s side spent lawyer-hours resisting it. The sequence is documented on four instruments, and the earliest of them is a bill.

12 August 2011. Epstein’s counsel at Fowler White Burnett P.A. recorded two entries on the same day. One attorney billed 5.25 hours including:

Work on Motion for Protective Order regarding Ghislaine Maxwell, A. Dershowitz, […] and H. Rubenstein depositions¹¹

Another billed 3.00 hours, and the entry shows how far up the request travelled:

e-mail communications with Joe Ackerman re: Scarola’s desire to depose G. Maxwell., H. Rubenstein, […] and A. Dershowitz; preparation for telephone conference with Jeffrey Epstein, Darren Indyke, Esquire, Martin Weinberg, Esquire, Jay Lekfowitz, Esquire and Roy Black, Esquire¹¹

A request to depose a publicist was escalated the same day to a conference call with Epstein himself and four of his lawyers. The spelling of one of those names is the sheet’s own and is not mended here.¹¹

4 November 2011. Epstein filed a motion asking the court to defer that discovery. Its ninth paragraph names him:

Edwards wants to depose individuals who Epstein believes do not have information bearing on the issues as presently framed. Those individuals are Ghislaine Maxwell, Howard Rubenstein, […] and Alan Dershowitz, who Edwards claims have information regarding victim issues, which allegedly took place before the present litigation. The relevancy of victim issues and extent of discovery into victim issues need to be deferred until Edwards’ Counterclaim withstands a Motion to Dismiss.¹²

2 December 2011. A Notice of Taking Deposition was served by fax and U.S. mail. Under the heading NAME AND ADDRESS it carries one entry, Howard Rubenstein, with no address; under DATE AND TIME, January 23, 2012 and 1:30 […]; under LOCATION, Location to be determined New York City, NY. The examination was to be taken before Esquire Reporting. It is signed by Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley.⁹

23 January 2012, 3:47 p.m. A Notice of Cancellation of Deposition, in the same action and for the same deponent, date and location, was filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court. It is stamped filed on the afternoon of the day the deposition had been set for 1:30. It is signed by Scarola and copied to Esquire Reporting.¹⁰

⚠ It was the noticing side that cancelled, not Epstein’s. The cancellation is signed by the same attorney who signed the notice. What the documents show is that Epstein’s counsel prepared to resist the deposition and that the deposition did not happen; they do not show that the resistance caused the cancellation, and this page does not assert it.¹¹⁹¹⁰

⚠ RESISTANCE IS INFORMATIVE, AND SO IS THE NULL. No document read or returned for this page records that Howard Rubenstein was ever deposed in any Epstein matter. Eleven forms were searched, none of them drawn from this page’s own vocabulary: Deposition of Howard Rubenstein, Deposition of H Rubenstein, Rubenstein deposition, Rubenstein testified, Howard Rubenstein being first duly sworn, Q. And you are Howard Rubenstein, Rubenstein errata, Videotaped Deposition of Howard, subpoena to Howard Rubenstein, APPEARANCES On behalf of Howard Rubenstein, and EXAMINATION OF HOWARD. All returned nothing for this subject; the last returned one document, a Ninth Circuit opinion about a different Howard. The same instrument returned 140 documents for a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, 597 for MR DERSHOWITZ and 115 for CERTIFICATE OF OATH, and nil for two invented forms. So the null is a measurement and not a broken tool. ⚠ It is scoped to these forms and this index, and it is not an assertion that he was never deposed anywhere.¹⁴

His own written exit, 9 October 2009

He is an author in this release. On the evening of Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 11:08 PM, George Rush of the New York Daily News wrote to him:

Howard:

We’re working on a story for our Sunday column about Jeffrey Epstein. I thought I might send my questions to you tonight, so you’d have them first thing tomorrow.¹³

The next morning, at 7:26:54 AM Pacific time, he answered by forwarding it away, over his own sender header, in his own words:

Hi Darren:

I hope you are well.

Since we are no longer working for Jeffrey, I’m forwarding this Daily News request to you so you can handle it as you see fit.

Many thanks,

Howard¹³

Darren is Darren Indyke, Epstein’s lawyer. Indyke forwarded the chain to Epstein at 12:32 PM. Epstein forwarded it at 4:43:25 PM to Jack Goldberger and Robert D. Critton Jr., and at 5:19:34 PM to Mortimer Zuckerman, then a proprietor of the newspaper whose reporter had asked the question. No text from Epstein is printed above the forwarded chain on the sheet sent to Zuckerman.¹³

Eighteen hours and eleven minutes separate a Daily News reporter’s questions from their arrival at the desk of a Daily News owner, and the publicist is the first link in that chain. ⚠ The elapsed figure is taken from the two outermost stamps, which carry no time zone; the one stamp on the chain that does carry a zone is his, and it is Pacific.¹³ ⛔ One message in that chain is withheld by the producing parties on a claim of privilege, and nothing from it is reproduced on this page.¹³

After Epstein, and before him

January 2013. Someone wrote to Epstein asking whether he had a view on engaging a crisis-management adviser, and named him:

Knowing that you have worked with him in the past, do you have any thoughts about him?¹⁷

Epstein replied six minutes and one second later, in one line, about the firm rather than the man: Steven Rubinstein now runs it, to very well. The damaged word and the spelling of the surname are the sheet’s own and are not mended here. ⚠ No document read for this page establishes the relationship between the two men, and this page asserts none.¹⁷

⚠ The correspondent is not named here, and nothing else in that message is reproduced on this page.¹⁷

June 2002. The earliest dated appearance of his name in this release is not an Epstein matter at all. A Washington Post column of 21 June 2002, forwarded inside the WJC wjc custodian’s file, ends:

Monday’s New York Daily News reported that Naomi Campbell was seen “snuggling” with a new man at Serafina. We have it on good authority that the man was Band. Campbell’s publicist, Howard Rubenstein, told us the two are “just friends.” Unfortunately Band did not respond to a message we left yesterday, and there was no comment, none at all, from the Clinton camp.¹⁸

That is the ordinary shape of his business, and it is why counting mentions of his name is not a way to measure his involvement with Epstein.

Identification, and why the obvious search understates the file by more than a third

⚠⚠ THE EXACT PHRASE Howard Rubenstein REACHES 102 DOCUMENTS, AND THAT IS NOT THE FILE. Fourteen spelling and spacing forms of his name and his firm’s return documents from the full-text index, each run as an exact phrase and counted as distinct documents; twenty-six further real-looking forms and four invented ones return nothing. The union of the ten forms a name-only screen would reach is 166 documents; adding the split-surname form takes it to 174. Seventy-two of those 174, 41%, are outside the base phrase.¹

The productive form is the surname broken by a space. Howard Ruben stein reaches 8 documents, every one of them outside the base phrase, and they carry the Page Six statement, which is the most substantive thing he says anywhere in this record.¹³ Two further damaged forms were found only by searching role phrases rather than the name, and each reaches a document outside that union of 174: the Palm Beach Daily News plea story reaches the index as Howard 3. Rubenstein, the scan’s reading of his middle initial, and one further copy of the Page Six item truncates the surname to Howard Ruben.¹²

⛔ THE BARE SURNAME IS USELESS AND NOTHING ON THIS PAGE IS ATTRIBUTED FROM IT. Rubenstein alone reaches 661 documents. The overwhelming majority are other people: David M. Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group, Ellis Rubenstein, Joanna Rubenstein, Keith Rubenstein, and the Columbus law firm Schwartz, Kelm, Warren & Rubenstein, which is cited on Les Wexner for reasons that have nothing to do with him.¹ Howard Rubinstein with an i is this subject. Rubenstien, with the transposition, is not: all seven documents are David Rubenstein.¹

⚠ The forms reported here are the forms that were tried, and they are not exhaustive. Two of them were found only after the count had first been closed, and they were found by searching role phrases rather than the name. Assume a fifteenth.¹

What this page does not establish

• That he was ever deposed, charged, sued or found against. No such document was read or returned.¹⁴
• That Rubenstein Associates was retained by the New York Post. One Assistant U.S. Attorney wrote in June 2008 that it was. No retainer, invoice or engagement letter to that effect was read for this page.⁶
• Who inside Epstein’s defence authorised his November 2007 comment. The letter says the comment was authorized and does not say by whom.⁴
• That the $200,000 bought any particular statement. The payments and the statements are separately documented and the page sets them in date order. No document read here connects a payment to a statement.⁵¹⁶
• What the engagement was for, or what it produced. No retainer agreement, scope of work, invoice or account of services by Rubenstein Associates was read or returned for this page.

---

Footnotes

1. Counts are of distinct documents in the full-text index of the release, each form run as an exact phrase against the page text and counted as count(distinct efta_number). Measured 2026-09-30, fourteen forms returning documents: Howard Rubenstein 102 documents / 118 pages; Rubenstein Associates 29 / 31; Rubenstein Associates Inc 24 / 25; Howard Rubinstein 11 / 11; Howard Ruben 9 / 12; Ruben stein 9 / 12; Howard Ruben stein 8 / 11; Howard J Rubenstein 7 / 7; Rubenstien 7 / 7; The Rubenstein 7 / 7; H Rubenstein 3 / 3; Steven Rubenstein 3 / 4; rubenstein com 3 / 3; Howard 3 Rubenstein 1 / 1. The bare token Rubenstein returns 661 documents / 748 pages. Union of the ten forms a name-only screen would reach: 166 documents; with the split-surname form, 174. Howard Ruben and Howard 3 Rubenstein each reach one document outside that union, and Ruben stein reaches a third that this page has not adjudicated and does not rely on. Controls: twenty-six further real-looking forms returned nothing, among them Rubenstein Howard, Rubinstein Associates, Rubenstein Communications, Rubenstein Public Relations, Howard Rubenstien, Howard Robenstein, Rubensteln, Rubenst ein, Ho ward Rubenstein and Howard Rube nstein; and the four invented forms Howard Rubenzzstein, Howard Zzuben stein, Rubenstein Zzassociates and Howard Zzuben returned nothing, so a zero here is a measurement and not a failed query. The contamination on the bare surname was ranked by the token preceding each hit over one snippet window per page; that is a shape and not a census, and it undercounts pages carrying more than one hit. ⚠ These are the forms that were tried. Two of them were found only after the count had first been closed, by searching the role phrases Mr Rubenstein, spokesman Howard and rep Howard instead of the name. Assume a fifteenth. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

2. Palm Beach Daily News, EPSTEIN PLEADS GUILTY, GIVEN 18 MONTHS IN JAIL, by William Kelly, 3 July 2008, A1, printed from Factiva on 7/10/2008 and filed as an exhibit in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Document 239-22, filed 07/25/23, ECF pages 6 and 7 of 11, production stamps JPM-SDNYLIT-00003030 and -00003031. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02811217 pp. 6-7. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, both sheets. The quoted passage is the last content on the first sheet; I read on to the second, which begins a new subject, so the quotation is complete. The article records that Epstein pleaded guilty on the Monday before its Thursday publication. The plea date of 30 June 2008 is separately established on the 2008 non-prosecution agreement and Jay Lefkowitz from the Office of Professional Responsibility’s report, and this page follows those pages rather than inferring the date from a weekday. One name in the article is blacked out. The scan renders his middle initial as a numeral, which is how the document reaches the search index. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

3. New York Post, Page Six, Richard Johnson with Paula Froelich, Bill Hoffmann, Corynne Steindler and Marianne Garvey, BID TO BURN EPSTEIN PLEA, July 21, 2008, printed from http://www.nypost.com/seven/07212008/gossip/pagesix/bid_to_burn_epstein_plea_120770.htm on 7/25/2008. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01689527 p. 40. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The surname prints as Howard Ruben stein on this sheet and is reproduced as printed. The names in the item are set in bold by the newspaper’s own house style and no emphasis is added here. I read one line past the quotation: it closes with the words quoted, and the next content on the sheet is a list of column links. The item’s own phrasing elsewhere, including its characterisation of a complainant, is deliberately not reproduced. The sheet’s Bates stamp and its document identifier differ. The same item reaches the release in further copies, one of which truncates the surname further; none of those copies was opened. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

4. Kirkland & Ellis LLP to Jeffrey Sloman, November 8, 2007, page 2 of the letter. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013698 p. 2. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The sheet’s Bates stamp and its document identifier differ by one. ⚠ This document classifies in the corpus as a plea agreement. It is not one; it is a letter, and nine copies of it are in the release, at EFTA00013698, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00176105, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00176798, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00189922, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214863, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214866, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00230208, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01659907 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01729176. Only the copy cited was opened at the image; the other eight are UNTESTED and this page takes nothing from them. The same letter’s second point records that Epstein could plead and be sentenced at any point before January 4, 2008, which did not happen. See Jay Lefkowitz and the 2008 non-prosecution agreement. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

5. Government of the United States Virgin Islands’ statement of undisputed facts, ¶ 237 and the chart beneath it, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Document 285-2, filed 08/15/23, ECF page 90 of 149, internal page 89. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815839 p. 90. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The footnote to that paragraph states that the charts contain summaries of information from the account statements of one of Epstein’s JPMorgan accounts. The sheet’s Bates stamp and its document identifier differ. Nothing on the sheet outside the paragraph and chart quoted is used here. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

6. Message within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, subject Additional Info, dated Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:12:00 +0000, importance Normal. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013882 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The sentence quoted is the whole body of the message; the salutation before it and the signature block after it are all that else is printed. The sheet prints the title Assistant U.S. Attorney and the office tag (USAFLS), and this page attributes the message to nobody. Two further copies of the same message are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214426 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00180159 p. 107; neither was opened and neither is relied on. The letter the message refers to is Gerald Lefcourt’s, not Jay Lefkowitz’s. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

7. Two messages within the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, Monday, July 21, 2008, timed 3:47 PM and 3:52 PM, subject Epstein and RE: Epstein. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00190318 p. 261. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The sheet carries the internal page number 251 and its Bates stamp differs from its document identifier. The 3:52 PM message is Sloman’s; his departmental address prints on the sheet and is not reproduced here. The 3:47 PM signature block prints Villafaña and Assistant U.S. Attorney. The 3:47 PM message also reports a state-court motion for return of property and eleven victim notifications then being prepared; nothing about those notifications or the people they concern is carried onto this page. The underlining of one phrase inside the pasted newspaper excerpt was verified at 400 dpi as a separate assertion from the wording. Further copies of this thread are at EFTA00190318 p. 263 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00193199 pp. 319, 321 and 324; none was opened and none is relied on. See Marie Villafaña. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

8. Government of the United States Virgin Islands’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), Document 266, filed 08/07/23, caption at ECF page 1 and the passage at ECF page 24 of 32, internal page 19. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813393 pp. 1, 24. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, both sheets. Nothing in the passage is emphasised on the sheet and no emphasis is added here. Nothing on the sheet outside the passage quoted is reconstructed here. Everything quoted from this document is an allegation by a party in a contested motion. The same allegation is repeated in the same litigation at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02812502, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814855, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815793 and EFTA02815839 p. 31; none of those was opened. ↩ ↩² ↩³

9. Notice of Taking Deposition, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG, certificate of service this 2nd day of December, 2011, signed by Jack Scarola of Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley and copied to Esquire Reporting. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082097 pp. 5-6. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, both sheets. The address column beside his name is empty, not withheld. The cut in the quoted time is marked rather than filled in. Under the differing-copies rule, from this instrument’s caption and signature block this page takes only the court, the case number, the deponent, the dates, the reporting service and the signing attorney with his firm. Nothing else from either is carried, and neither copy’s treatment of either is described. See Jack Scarola. ↩ ↩² ↩³

10. Notice of Cancellation of Deposition, same court, same case number, same deponent, date and location, signed by Jack Scarola and copied to Esquire Reporting; clerk’s stamp 2012 JAN 23 PM 3: 47, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, CIRCUIT CIVIL 3; the copy in the release is watermarked NOT A CERTIFIED COPY. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02770453 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The day in the certificate of service is handwritten and is not certified here; the clerk’s file stamp is. ⚠ This instrument and its twin are entered in the desk’s register as SUPPRESSED, which permits citing and quoting them and withholds them from the dump. Under the differing-copies rule, from this instrument’s caption and signature block this page takes only the court, the case number, the deponent, the dates, the reporting service and the signing attorney with his firm. Nothing else from either is carried, and neither copy’s treatment of either is described. ↩ ↩² ↩³

11. Fowler White Burnett P.A. statement of services to Jeffrey Epstein, reference LAS-23869-080743-463407, September 8, 2011, page 4, entries dated 08/12/11. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01075090 p. 4. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The spelling of one attorney’s surname in the second entry is the sheet’s own and is reproduced rather than mended; the same name is spelled correctly in an entry on the same sheet. One name in each of the two quoted entries is not reproduced on this page. A second statement carrying an equivalent entry is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01118553 p. 4 and a third at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01075113 p. 3, which records unilateral Notices of Taking Deposition of the same four people and Epstein himself under the date 12/14/11; neither was opened at the image. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

12. Epstein’s motion for clarification of discovery, ¶ 9 running from page 3 onto page 4, certificate of service dated the 4th day of November, 2011, signed by Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. of Fowler White Burnett, P.A. for Jeffrey Epstein as plaintiff, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMB, Division AG. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00592983 pp. 3-4. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, both sheets. The sentence quoted runs across the page break and the quotation is carried across it in full rather than stopped at the foot of page 3. One name in that list is not reproduced on this page. Five further copies of the same motion are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00613622, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01111284, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01112374, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01112378 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02770197; none was opened. See Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards. ↩ ↩²

13. Two sheets from House Oversight’s production, each a single image, carrying the same forwarded chain inside two different outer messages of 9 October 2009: https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030999 and https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031005. BOTH VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE; the renderer’s resolution flag does not apply to this series and it says so. The outer message on the first is Jeffrey Epstein to Jack Goldberger and Robert D. Critton Jr., Sent 10/9/2009 4:43:25 PM; on the second it is Jeffrey Epstein to Mortimer Zuckerman, Sent 10/9/2009 5:19:34 PM, with no text printed above the forwarded chain. The inner chain on both is Darren Indyke to [email protected], Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 12:32 PM; Howard Rubenstein, October 9, 2009 7:26:54 AM PDT, subject FW: Daily News story on Jeffrey Epstein; and George Rush, Thursday, October 08, 2009 11:08 PM, subject Daily News story on Jeffrey Epstein. The two messages quoted in the body are quoted from the first sheet. ⛔ Indyke’s covering note is not reproduced on this page. Rush’s message continues past the foot of the sheet and is quoted only as far as it is printed there. ⚠ Only his stamp carries a time zone. The elapsed figure in the body is computed from the two outermost stamps, which carry none, and is stated on that basis. See Darren Indyke, Jack Goldberger and Mortimer Zuckerman. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

14. Absence test run 2026-09-30 against the full-text index, each form an exact phrase counted as distinct documents. Forms returning nothing for this subject: Deposition of Howard Rubenstein, Deposition of H Rubenstein, Rubenstein deposition, Rubenstein testified, Howard Rubenstein being first duly sworn, Q. And you are Howard Rubenstein, Rubenstein errata, Videotaped Deposition of Howard, subpoena to Howard Rubenstein, APPEARANCES On behalf of Howard Rubenstein. EXAMINATION OF HOWARD returned one document, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00314991 p. 17, a United States Court of Appeals opinion concerning the forensic examination of a man named Howard Cotterman, and it is not this subject. Positive controls in the same run: Deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell 140 documents, MR DERSHOWITZ 597, CERTIFICATE OF OATH 115. Negative controls: Deposition of Zzoward Zzubenstein 0, Zzubenstein testified 0. None of the forms was drawn from this page’s own wording. ⚠ The claim is bounded to these forms and this index. This page does not assert that he was never deposed in any proceeding anywhere. ↩ ↩² ↩³

15. MODEL SHOP DENIES EPSTEIN TIE, PageSix.com Staff, October 6, 2007, 9:00am, printed from http://pagesix.com/2007/10/06/model-shop-denies-epstein-tie/. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011944. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE; House Oversight sheets are one image per page and the renderer’s resolution flag does not apply to them, which the tool states aloud. The sentence quoted is the last line of the article and I read to the foot of the sheet. The rest of the item consists of anonymous industry sourcing about MC2, Jean-Luc Brunel and Gerald Marie, including a characterisation of a minor, and none of it is reproduced here. Further copies of the same sentence are at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01480951, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599855 p. 37 and ten others; none was opened. See MC2 Model Management. ↩ ↩² ↩³

16. JPMorgan Chase transaction narrative, same action, Document 285-6, filed 08/15/23, ECF page 9 of 10, bearing the production stamp JPM-SDNYLIT-W-00038407. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02816080 p. 9. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The entry quoted is the last on the sheet. The two comparator entries quoted in the body, for Newgrange Consulting Group, a public relations firm and Reputation Changer LLC, a reputation management company, are on this same sheet. Reputation Changer is covered at Reputation Changer. ↩ ↩² ↩³

17. Inbound message to Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>, Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:46:46 +0000, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00559204 p. 1, and Epstein’s reply, Mon 1/7/2013 11:52:47 PM, subject Re:, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01908395 p. 1. BOTH VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The interval between the two stamps is six minutes and one second and both are on the same clock. The one sentence quoted from the inbound message is the whole of what this page takes from it; the correspondent is not named here and nothing else in that message is reproduced. Epstein’s one-line reply is quoted with its damage intact; the surname in it is spelled with an i on the sheet. ↩ ↩² ↩³

18. The Washington Post, The Band Plays On, 21 June 2002, forwarded the same day at 3:14:55 PM inside a message in the WJC wjc custodian’s file, printed with the source link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20811-2002Jun20.html. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02332263 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The passage quoted is the last paragraph of the column as printed on the sheet and I read to the foot of it. This is the earliest dated document in this subject’s file and it concerns a different client entirely. ↩