Epstein Data Wiki

John de Jongh Jr.

Properties2
tagsperson, us-virgin-islands, governor, correspondent, deposition, 2014-2018
aliasesJohn P. de Jongh Jr., John P. de Jongh, Jr., John de Jongh, John de Jongh, Jr, John deJongh, John deJongh, Jr, John P. deJongh Jr., John P. deJonghJr, John Percy de Jongh, Jr., Governor de Jongh, Governor deJongh, Gov. de Jongh, Gov. deJongh, Delongh

61 min read

OfficeGovernor of the U.S. Virgin Islands for two terms, inaugurated January 1, 2007; his term ended in January 20151
Named on the documents asJohn de Jongh, Jr, John P. de Jongh, Jr, John deJongh, John deJongh, Jr, John P. deJongh Jr., Governor de Jongh, Gov. de Jongh, Governor deJongh, Gov. deJongh, and by extraction as Delongh2
What he signs himselfJohn, and twice Best, John34
⭐ The act this page is built onHis e-mail of Sunday December 27, 2015 to jeffrey E., subject Misc, written while under a criminal Information: he reports the territorial Department of Justice near agreement at $380k “=down from the initial $490k ask)” and then writes “Per our previous conversation, = would like to take you up on your offer and request to borrow =215k.” Read at the image at 700 dpi5
⭐ And the fact carried in the same breathThe criminal charge was not about Epstein. The settlement of it was. The Information alleged he took approximately $490,000.00 from the public fisc for security work at his own home, nothing to do with Epstein; the $490k in his e-mail is that figure65
What happened next, in the same threadEpstein asked “how long do you need the loan for?”; his answer, the same evening, was “18 months.” Read at the image7
His own sworn account of it”He gave us a loan for 200,000”: repaid early, mid-2016, with interest at a rate he said he did not negotiate and could not recall. Read at the image8
⚠ The discrepancy this page reportsDeposed on May 30, 2023, he recalled one e-mail with Epstein, “Nothing of substance. Just thank you”, and answered “That I recall, yes” when asked if that was the only one. The release holds fourteen messages he wrote to Epstein across eighteen document containers, December 2014 – July 2018. ⛔ This is a discrepancy between a witness’s recollection and the documentary record. It is not a finding of perjury and nothing here implies one92
⚠ The hazard on this subjectThe bare surname, with or without a space, reaches his wife two orders of magnitude more often than it reaches him, and Mr. de Jongh on these documents is a different man, an architect. Four other adults bear the surname in this release2
Criminal casePeople of the Virgin Islands v. John P. de Jongh, Jr., Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, No. ST-15-CR-309; Information dated September 2, 2015; charges dismissed with prejudice in January 2016 after a $380,000 payment610
LitigationDeposed as a witness in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-cv-10904 (S.D.N.Y.); two of his e-mails to Epstein were filed in that action under seal1112
Covered elsewhere on this wikiCecile de Jongh, his wife, whose record in this release is far larger than his and is not re-told here · Dawn L. Henry · Great St. James · Epstein’s sex-offender registration in the U.S. Virgin Islands

John P. de Jongh Jr. was Governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands for two terms, from January 2007 to January 2015. He appears in this release not chiefly as a name in other people’s papers but as a first-person correspondent of Jeffrey Epstein’s: he brought Epstein acquisition targets in the territory, worked a port project on his behalf, asked him for a loan to settle a criminal prosecution of himself, thanked him for the use of an apartment, and, nearly four years out of office, canvassed his support for a candidate to head a territorial authority. He answered questions about all of it under oath in 2023.

⚠ THIS PAGE IS SCOPED ON HIS OWN DOCUMENTED ACTS AND ON ONE ENGAGEMENT OF HIS NAMESAKE’S FIRM, MARCH 2010 TO MAY 2023. It is not a biography and it is not his administration’s record. ⛔ Nothing here rests on his having been Governor while Epstein operated in the territory. That he held office in those years is biographical framing and is used only to date his acts against his term. Neither of Epstein’s island purchases falls inside his terms: Little St. James was bought in 1998, two governors earlier, and Great St. James in 2016, after he left office.

⚠ What reaches him, and the four other adults the surname reaches

This is first because a reader who searches the obvious way will get the wrong person. Measured as sheets (rows of extracted page text) and as containers (distinct document identifiers) over the whole released corpus, with an invented control token returning 0 on every population: his name stands in nine printed forms whose union is 297 sheets in 167 containers, of which 297 are distinct normalised texts, largest repeat 1, which is to say there is no replication here at all. This is a body of 297 separate instruments, not one document copied.2

⛔ THE BARE SURNAME MUST NEVER BE USED. Closed up as one word it stands on 687 sheets in 582 containers; spaced, on 8,474 sheets in 7,192 containers. Against his 297, his wife’s own name forms stand on 8,220 sheets in 7,122 containers, about 28 times his sheets and 43 times his containers, and she is the recorded sender on 3,017 containers. A surname route on this couple returns her, not him, in the overwhelming majority of cases, and the single worst form is the honorific.2

⛔ Mr. de Jongh IS A DIFFERENT MAN. That form stands on 8 sheets in 6 containers, and the sheet most likely to be mistaken for an Epstein–Governor telephone channel, an assistant’s note that “Mr. de Jongh just returned your call”, carries the subject line Robert De Jongh - November 17, 2014 and belongs to the architect of the section below. Five sibling sheets in the same November 2014 thread family name Bob de Jongh, and it was the Governor’s wife who arranged the call.13 The surname also reaches Julian De Jongh (5 sheets, and independently the recorded sender on 4 containers), Donna de Jongh, who worked at the architect’s firm, and Jermaine Ruan de Jongh. An extraction form, Delongh, misreads the capital J and stands on 64 sheets, reaching both him and others.2

⚠ It is a FLOOR, not a total. A sheet where a producer marked his name, or where the extraction destroyed it beyond the nine forms read, is invisible to every figure above. Every passage quoted on this page was put through the desk’s copy-divergence screen before use, and each footnote states that span’s own verdict; the verdicts are not interchangeable and are never grouped.14

August 2014: the Governor presses his own officials, and the chain reaches Epstein the same evening

On Wednesday August 27, 2014, at 1:50 p.m., while Governor, he wrote to an official of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office about draft rules and regulations whose subject line reads IBE Rules and Regs.:

The big question:when will you get it to Justice so I can put an urgent on it? I meet with the AG on Friday and would like to give him a heads-up?15

Three minutes later, after the official answered that they hoped to deliver the next day if a named attorney delivered his part:

Please impress upon him.15

At 1:55 p.m. he forwarded the whole chain to his wife. At 7:24 p.m. she forwarded it on to Epstein’s handle, marked Importance: High, with the single word FYI. The chain was produced as an exhibit in the JPMorgan action.15

Documented fact: the sitting Governor pressed his officials to get draft regulations to the territorial Department of Justice so that he could expedite them before a Friday meeting with the Attorney General, and his own words were in Epstein’s inbox within six hours. ⚠ The forwarding is his wife’s act and belongs to her page; it is noted here only because it is why the document is in this release. ⛔ This page does not say what IBE stands for, because the sheet does not. ⛔ The sheet carries government mail addresses and a producer’s mark; none is reproduced, described or supplied from context.

December 2014: he opens a channel of his own, still in office

On Thursday December 4, 2014, with five weeks of his term to run, he wrote directly to [email protected] under the subject USVI opportunities. Quoted from the image:

Good afternoon Jeffrey, Just a quick follow-up on our meeting last week. If you can get Andrew to ‘give’ on the amount of debt carried by AYH, then I think it is a worthwhile transaction and allows for some new debt to cover the years of deferred maintenance and capital needs. Right now it cannot handle the current debt, management fees and maintenace/capital needs. The approximately $13.2 million on the property is carrying the debt of other IGY entities (the 2007 acquisitions) and this provided the valuation and means to draw out the cash. As we discussed, I think the need is at a minimum $3-4 million to address the docks and upland and rebranding efforts. I think we can make this work to your benefit and meet EDC requirements. Let me know.3

A second paragraph offered Epstein a second target, “a local conglomerate with companies in insurance, wholesale beverage distribution and real estate ownership & management; total receipts in the area of $60 million” He signed Best, John.3 Epstein’s reply the same afternoon was eight words: “ayh will take time, andrew will not focus until feb”.4

On Tuesday December 23, 2014, still in office:

I thought I had responded to your earlier email.

AYH: if Andrew gives you info before that date let me know and I can start reviewing. I think a re-branded AYH can be the ‘town center’ of Red Hook given the options, traffic and mix of tenants.4

Documented fact: two of his messages to Epstein were sent while he was Governor of the territory in which the asset sits. ⛔ AYH, IGY, EDC and Andrew are the document’s own abbreviations and first name. This page does not expand any of them, and in particular does not supply a surname the document withholds. ⚠ $3-4 million is read from the image: three of the five renderings of this paragraph render the same figure as $34 million or $3.4 million, and the image settles it. The hyphenated form is the document’s.3

2015: he works the acquisition, and then a port

The thread runs on after he leaves office, in short messages of his own. February 13, 2015: “Good morning. Hope all is well. You think Andrew is ready to discuss AYH sale?”16 Monday March 23, 2015: “Just following up on interest in pursuing AYH and whether Andrew is willing to sell?”; Epstein, two hours later, “lets pursue”; and thirty-one minutes after that:

Great.

I suggest that you confirm with Andrew the willingness and next step(s) and I can then work with the individual he designates to work with us.17

May 4, 2015: “Just checking in on this project and anything to be done.” Epstein answered that the man’s father was very sick and he was focusing on that; the reply is one word, “Understandable.”18

Documented fact: across five months and six messages he pursued, on Epstein’s behalf and in the first person, the purchase of a marina in the territory he had governed until January.

December 6, 2015: P&O Ports

Had email =ontact with over the last several days with [a named shipping executive] of P&O =orts and we spoke this morning. Told him of the St. Croix =pportunity in transshipment, cargo activity and Jones Act =tatus. Their focus is solely managing & operating and a =evelopment project is outside their scope and more with the =arent. Ask me to send some info on cruise terminals in the =aribbean.

Let me know =f anything else I should do.19

Read at the image at 400 dpi. ⚠ The = characters are on the document, where they replace the first character of a word; they are not repaired inside the quotation. ⚠ The executive is named on the sheet and is not named here: he is a corporate officer who was approached and declined, not a contracting party, and the desk has not ruled on him. Documented fact: three weeks before he asked Epstein for money, he reported to Epstein on a port opportunity he had canvassed for him and asked for further instructions.

⭐⭐ The prosecution, and the loan, and the two halves must be held together

The charge had nothing to do with Epstein. On September 2, 2015 an Information was filed against him in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, No. ST-15-CR-309, Hon. Michael C. Dunston presiding. His own motion to dismiss, read at the image, states that he “is charged with one count each of violating V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14, § 1662(1) and V.I. Code Ann. tit. 14, § 1663(1)”, that the People accuse him “of stealing approximately $490,000.00 from the public fisc and using the money to add value to his private home”, and that the allegations rest on events of 2007–2008. The defence answer, in the same filing, is that the sum “consists of security costs for the entire eight years that Gov. de Jongh was in office”6

⚠ That filing is defence advocacy and is treated as such here. It calls the case a “sham prosecution”, a “vendetta” initiated by the sitting Governor, and describes its subject as “a good man”; it devotes a long footnote to the sitting Governor’s own spending. Those are counsel’s characterisations, not findings, and this page summarises them rather than adopting them. Its legal argument is that the People’s case “hinges on a matter of remedial English punctuation”: whether an appropriation “for engineering designs, construction, repairs or the resurfacing or roads” reached the work at all. A separate motion to dismiss the charges as time-barred had been filed on September 3, 2015.6

⭐ The settlement of it was about Epstein

On Sunday December 27, 2015, he wrote to jeffrey E. under the subject Misc. The sheet is reproduced here exactly as it prints, including its corruption:

Good afternoon.

As =ou are aware, I was recently contacted by the VI Department of Justice =nd we seem to be near to an agreement on their acceptance of $380k =down from the initial $490k ask). Some details are still in =rocess, however we are trying to put on hold a court-scheduled Motions =earing of January 13thso a final agreement can be =xecuted. They have proposed a January 4th payment date =nd I have countered with a January 15th =ate.

Per our previous conversation, = would like to take you up on your offer and request to borrow =215k.

I really appreciate your =illingness to help.

John5

Read at the image at 700 dpi. ⛔⛔ The = characters are quoted-printable damage baked into the produced page, confirmed at 700 dpi; each one replaces the first character of its word, and none is repaired inside a quotation. ⚠ The run January 13thso is the document’s own: the sheet carries no space there. ⚠ Outside the quotation the sum he asked to borrow is $215,000, and it is stated outside the quotation because the first character is the character the corruption ate. ⚠ Of three renderings of this message, two carry the figure legibly and one carries a further corruption of it; the image governs and the discrepancy is recorded rather than quietly resolved.5

The $490k in his e-mail is the $490,000.00 of the Information. It is the same matter. Documented fact: a former Governor under criminal Information told Epstein the terms on which his prosecution was about to settle, and in the next sentence asked to borrow from him.

What happened next, in the same thread

Epstein’s reply, at 5:45 p.m. by the clock quoted on the sheet, was a single line: “how long do you need the loan for?” His answer, sent at 9:51 p.m., was two words:

18 months.7

A separate message of the same evening answers Epstein’s “lets talk tomorw”: “Ok. Whatever time is best for yo=. I can call”.7 ⚠ The two clocks on this thread differ by five hours, one being a UTC stamp; the order of the messages above is fixed by the quoted nesting the documents themselves carry, not by a clock.

⛔⛔ NO DOCUMENT READ FOR THIS PAGE RECORDS THE LOAN BEING MADE, AND THE ABSENCE IS STATED AT THAT AND NOT ONE STEP WIDER. The release holds his request, Epstein’s question, his answer, and his own sworn evidence years later that the money came. What it does not hold is any instrument of it. Measured name-free and corpus-wide before being intersected with his name: the loan-instrument vocabulary of this release is richly present against an invented control returning 0: promissory note on 1,565 sheets in 825 containers, loan agreement on 791 in 398, note payable on 164 in 118, loan document on 150 in 43, repayment schedule on 79 in 43. Armed in the other direction, the same probe fires hard on other participants in Epstein’s finances, 280 sheets on one and 41 on another. Intersected with the 297-sheet union of his nine name forms it returns two sheets, and both were read: one is a schedule row about other men entirely and one is a bank’s newspaper advertisement.20

⛔ THE WINDOW, MEASURED, AND IT IS WIDE. The carrying series is 2,601 sheets in 1,284 containers, and its continuous prose runs on long past December 2015: 158 of those containers bear a prose date in 2016 or later, with occurrences through 2023. The absence therefore sits inside a live series that runs for years past the event, not at the end of a dying one, which makes it a strong absence rather than a weak one.20 ⚠ It is nonetheless a statement about this release and not about the world. It records that no instrument of the loan appears in what was produced.

January 2016: the result

The charges were dismissed with prejudice. The V.I. Consortium reported on January 22, 2016, under the headline “DOJ Drops Charges Against Former Governor De Jongh After $380,000 Settlement”, that the charges had been dropped permanently and that he had paid the Government of the Virgin Islands $380,000; it quoted him saying that “[w]ith the inclusion of the added amount for the unwanted guardhouse, the payment of $380,000 was agreed to in order to facilitate the final resolution” of the matter without further proceedings.10 ⚠ This disposition is taken from a named, dated public report and not from this release, which carries the case in one container and does not carry its outcome.6

His own sworn account of the arithmetic, given in 2023 and read at the image, is that the government assessed $181,000 on an appraisal of the security work, that he paid it by cheque, that the cheque was returned to him “at 7:30 at night”, that a press conference followed the next day and his arrest “a couple months later”, that negotiations then produced a higher number, and that of a total of “[a]bout 381,000” Epstein provided $200,000.21 Asked what the terms were:

He gave us a loan for 200,000. … That we had to pay it back — we asked him if we could have two years to pay it back. He said, no, a year. So we paid it back early, mid ‘16, 2016, and that was it.8

He said there was interest, that he did not recall the rate, and that he did not know how the rate was negotiated; asked who negotiated it, he said “It would have been between Epstein’s office or Epstein and Cecile”, and asked whether he had been involved in those negotiations, “I was not.”8 ⚠ The question he was answering was about the interest rate. The record also holds his own message of December 27, 2015 answering Epstein’s question about the term of the loan. This page states both and characterises neither.78

He also testified that Epstein’s offer came “unsolicited by me”, through his wife: “Mr. Epstein, unsolicited by me, spoke to Cecile and said, how can I help.”21 ⚠ His own e-mail of December 27, 2015 begins from “your offer” and is addressed by him to Epstein directly. Both statements are set out here and the reader may weigh them; the page draws no conclusion.

⚠ A two-day sequence in late December 2015 is recorded on his wife’s page and is hers, not his. This page notes only that it exists and does not re-tell it.

2017–2018: thanks, an apartment, and a port authority appointment

June 27, 2017, subject Thank You:

Good morning. Hope this finds you doing =ell.

Just wanted to again express my appreciation and thank =ou for the assistance at a very difficult time, it made matters much =asier.

All the best, John22

A message whose header gives Thursday, November 2, 2017 1:29 a.m. and which opens “Good evening”, subject Thanks, read at the image at 400 dpi:

Thanks for the use of the apartment made things a lot easier. Great area re=lly enjoyed it.

Much appreciated, John23

⚠ Whose stay this was is not stated on the sheet. The territory’s response to JPMorgan’s statement of facts in the 2023 litigation records that the 2017 stay in Epstein’s New York apartment was his wife’s, does not dispute that it happened, and disputes its materiality on the ground that neither of them held office by then.23 ⛔ The same paragraph gives a reason for the stay that concerns a living person’s health, and it is neither quoted nor described here.

July 11, 2018, subject Misc., the whole message: “Thank you.”24

December 2018: VIPA

He was asked at his deposition about a message of December 24, 2018 from his wife to Epstein reading in part “John wanted to know whether you would support Carlton Dowe’s bid to go back to VIPA?” Read at the image:

Q. The statement, “John wanted to know,” is that a reference to you? MR. TEAGUE: Objection. Calls for speculation. You could answer. THE WITNESS: I’m going to assume it’s me, yes.25

Asked why, he said he had been “talking to a number of people and inquiring as to whether they would support Carlton’s bid to go back to the Port Authority”, that “[n]othing was specific to Epstein”, that he had appointed the man executive director of the Virgin Islands Port Authority in 2012, and “Because I thought he would be very good at the job.”25 He described VIPA as overseeing “all the airports and the seaports in the Virgin Islands”, and agreed that it oversaw security staff within the airport building.26

Documented fact: nearly four years after leaving office, he canvassed Epstein’s support, through his wife’s channel, for a candidate to lead a territorial authority, and he accepted the attribution under oath. ⚠ The same man appears in the 2007 legislative history recounted in his own motion to dismiss, as the senator who sponsored the appropriation amendment at the centre of the charge against him. This page records both facts and connects them with nothing.625

⭐ The deposition: what he said, and what the release holds

THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN P. DE JONGH, JR. was taken on May 30, 2023, between 9:02 a.m. and 4:46 p.m., at a law office in Christiansted, St. Croix, in Government of the Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.).11 Read at the image at 300 dpi, at transcript page 39:

Q. You don’t recall a single phone conversation with Jeffrey Epstein ever? A. No. Q. What about emails? A. No. Q. You don’t recall a single email with Epstein, ever? A. From Epstein to me? Q. Any kind of email contact. A. Just the one that I mentioned to you. Q. What year was that? A. That would have been late ‘15 or ‘16 — early ‘16. Q. And what was the substance of that email communication? A. Nothing of substance. Just thank you. Q. Thank you for what? A. He had made an offer to Cecile to lend us some money after the arrest that took place in order to settle with the government. Q. And that’s the only email communication that you’ve ever had with Epstein? A. That I recall, yes.9

The release holds fourteen distinct messages he wrote to Epstein, across eighteen document containers, from December 4, 2014 to July 11, 2018, and he twice qualified his answer with recall, saying “Just the one that I mentioned to you” and “That I recall, yes.”29

⛔⛔ WHAT THAT IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT. It is a discrepancy between a witness’s stated recollection, given under oath nearly eight years after the earliest of those messages, and the documents in this release. It is not a finding of perjury, this page makes no such finding, and no sentence here should be read as implying one. A reader may weigh the two; the page sets them side by side and stops.

Other sworn answers

⚠ The excerpts in this release are not continuous. The fullest runs 72 sheets as a single filed container and carries selected transcript pages between 39 and 345; three shorter excerpts carry pages between 25 and 343. The passages below are quoted from the image in every case; a transcript’s line numbers interleave with its words in the extracted text, so a quotation lifted from that text would be a reconstruction.11

On a conflict of interest. Asked whether he had perceived any conflict in approving benefits to Epstein’s companies given that his wife worked for them, over two objections, “No.” Asked whether he had asked counsel for an opinion on any potential conflict, “No.” Asked whether he had asked for any assessment of any kind, “No.” Asked whether he was aware that any investigation of potential conflicts had been undertaken, he began “No, I’m not aware of”. He had also answered “No” to whether he had independently considered the public reporting about Epstein, and “No” to whether he had reached out to his wife about it.27 ⚠ The examiner’s question contains the premise that benefits were approved. The answer addresses the perception of a conflict and nothing else, and this page does not convert the premise into a finding.

On law enforcement. He testified that public newspaper accounts had “educated me to what he was accused of doing when he got convicted in ‘8 or ‘9”, that he was Governor at the time, and then, read at the image:

Q. Did you contact USVI DOJ about Epstein? A. No. Q. Did you contact Florida police about Epstein? A. No. Q. Did you contact Florida law enforcement? A. No. Q. Did you contact New York law enforcement? A. As governor? No. Q. Did you contact the FBI? A. No. Q. Did you direct anyone on your staff to do any kind of investigation into Epstein? A. I would not do that. Q. Why not? A. My assumption will be that the Department of Justice, any of the entities dealing with Jeffrey Epstein would have done that.28

He said he appointed the territorial Attorney General with the advice and consent of the legislature, and that he had never asked the Attorney General to look into Epstein.28

On the airport. Asked whether he was aware of allegations that Epstein was bringing women in and out through the territory’s airport, he asked whether the question was about “2014 during my term” or “2018 and ‘19”; told to answer both, he said “No” as to 2014 and “Yes” as to 2018.26

On the 2014 solicitation. Asked whether he had solicited $15,000 from Epstein for his final State of the Territory reception, he answered “Cecile solicited 15,000”, said that what he would usually do was “sign letters asking for contributions for various affairs” and that “I probably signed a letter to him, but I didn’t specifically ask her to go to Mr. Epstein.” Asked whether he would have signed the letter to Epstein requesting the funds he answered “Yes.”; counsel objected to the form; and the witness then answered “Possibly. Like I said, I’m not sure who the letters were sent to, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he wasn’t one of them.” The sequence (the answer, the objection, the softened answer) is read from the image and is reported in that order.29 ⚠ The transcript renders the budget figure in the underlying e-mail as $30K. Seven renderings of that e-mail read $35K, and the figure as her page prints it is the correct one; the transcript is the artefact. It is recorded here so that no later pass “corrects” a page that is right.30

On the 2009 parole document. He testified that a document had been sent to him which he “couldn’t open”, that he “guess[ed]” he had received it on a second transmission, that he believed he had e-mailed it to the territorial Attorney General, that he did not know what was in it, and that it was “[n]ot very unusual” for him to forward a document on the strength of its subject line. He placed it in 2009 and agreed it concerned “the transfer of parole from Florida to USVI”, and said “I always recommended that Cecile and her attorneys talk directly to Vincent.”31 JPMorgan’s statement of facts records, in a sentence identical across its two renderings, that “First Lady Cecile de Jongh testified that she never spoke to the Attorney General about it but that the Governor did and relayed to her how Epstein should proceed as to the parole request.”32 The bank’s brief characterises the territorial witnesses’ evidence on this as “conflicting accounts, again requiring credibility determinations.”32

⚠ Tier, precisely. That he gave the answers above is documented, and read at the image. What his wife testified is reported here only as a litigant’s characterisation of her evidence, at the credible-allegation tier, and her testimony itself is hers and is not re-told. ⛔ A third account of the same episode appears in this release under a treatment that is not uniform between copies of the same paragraph. Under the standing rule, where a producer’s treatment differs between copies the material is withheld entirely and no copy’s state is described. It is withheld here, nothing is supplied from context, and the page quotes around it.

The architecture firm

Documented fact, and it is primary. On March 2, 2010 the principal of the deJongh Group, the architect Robert deJongh, sent a Fee Proposal “for preparing the 4 Schematic Design sets for the buildings you stated below”, covering a pool building, a cottage, a piano room and an ATV building, for a Coastal Zone Management submittal. Epstein’s man Gary Kerney forwarded it to Epstein the same morning: “Attached is the CZM Dejongh proposal for $56,807.69 ,5 weeks Ok to execute?” Epstein replied that afternoon: “Seems very high what do you think ad it merely schematics”.33

Credible allegation, and the tier matters. The New York Times, in an article of August 2019 reproduced as an exhibit in the JPMorgan action, reported that Epstein “had also hired an architecture firm owned by Mr. de Jongh’s uncle for work on his private islands, records show”, sourcing the kinship to unnamed records. The documents read for this page name the firm and its principal and nowhere state the relationship. The same article records that “[e]fforts to reach the de Jonghs were unsuccessful.”34

⚠ The architect is named here because the desk has ruled that he should be: he contracted with Epstein in a professional capacity, he is of age, he is not a survivor, and naming him is the remedy for the conflation that makes Mr. de Jongh read as the Governor. ⛔ A mail handle for the firm prints on these sheets and is not reproduced. A second name on the first message of the thread is a colleague at the firm and is not used.

⛔ A bracketed identification that is not in the document

The most quotable filings in this release insert his name into a quotation of somebody else’s e-mail. JPMorgan’s briefs quote a message of May 15, 2011 as:

“[t]his needs to be settled by Thursday because J [Governor John de Jongh] goes away for a week and AG [Vincent Frazer] needs to submit by June I.”35

Four renderings of the underlying e-mail carry only J and AG. So do the bank’s own statements of facts, in two further renderings, which quote the same sentence with no insertion at all. Five renderings of the briefs carry the expansion.35

➡ A litigant’s bracketed expansion is that litigant’s attribution, not part of the quotation. ⛔ This page does not present J as Governor John de Jongh as though the e-mail said so, and no claim on this page rests on the expansion. ⚠ The e-mail itself is his wife’s and its subject matter is covered elsewhere; it is cited here only for the shape of the insertion.

⛔ What this page does not establish

  1. ⛔ No quid pro quo, and the record read here supports none. What it supports is a sequence: a chain pressed and forwarded in August 2014, a marina pitched in December 2014 while he was still Governor, a port canvassed in December 2015, a loan asked for and a term negotiated in December 2015, a prosecution settled in January 2016, thanks in June and November 2017, and a port-authority appointment canvassed in December 2018. The sequence is the finding. The inference is not, and this page does not draw it.
  2. ⛔ Nothing read records the loan being made, measured as above.20 His own sworn evidence is that it was made, and that is where the page puts it.
  3. ⛔ Nothing read for this page records a reply to his message of July 11, 2018. ⚠ Whether that message is the last he sent has not been measured, and no claim is made that it is: an absence of later messages could only be established name-free and corpus-wide, and that was not done.
  4. ⛔ The discrepancy at the deposition is a discrepancy and nothing more. It is not a finding of perjury and this page makes none.
  5. ⛔ The uncle relationship is a newspaper’s assertion. The primary documents read here name the firm and the man and are silent on the kinship.
  6. ⛔ There is no documented Epstein–Governor telephone channel in this release. The sheet that looks like one is about the architect.13
  7. ⚠ Whether this release discusses him without any form of his name, as “the Governor” unqualified, has not been measured. That construction is not name-scoped and would have to be screened against every officeholder in the release. I could not look.
  8. ⚠ What was said at the meeting of late November 2014 that his first message follows up on is not recorded on any sheet read for this page.

⚠ What belongs to his wife’s page, and what is new here

Already carried by Cecile de Jongh and deliberately not re-told: her employment and offices; the January 24, 2014 fundraising for his final State of the Territory reception and the $15,000 that answered it; the November 2014 meeting with the Governor at Southern Trust; the December 2015 Deutsche Bank Exhibit P payment; her forwarding of draft sex-offender registration language; her own deposition; and the 2023 allegations against her. ⚠ Where press reporting of the 2023 litigation refers to a “DeJongh” by surname alone, the named subject of that reporting is the First Lady and the material belongs to her page. Its substance is neither quoted nor described here and no part of it attaches to him. ⛔ That is the conflation this page’s first section exists to prevent, and the sheets carrying it are deliberately absent from every citation above.

New here, and on no other page of this wiki: the August 27, 2014 internal chain in his own words · the December 2014 marina pitch and the two messages sent while he was Governor · the February–May 2015 pursuit of the sale · the December 6, 2015 P&O Ports report · the December 27, 2015 loan request read at 700 dpi · Epstein’s question about the term and his “18 months.” · the January 2016 disposition from public record · the June and November 2017 thanks and the apartment · the July 2018 message · the December 2018 VIPA canvassing and his admission of it · the whole of his May 30, 2023 deposition · the measured absence of any instrument of the loan · the bracketed identification and the fact that the same litigant quotes the sentence both ways · the March 2010 fee proposal and Epstein’s reaction to it.

Named in documents

DocumentDescriptionRelevance
EFTA02808308E-mail chain, August 27, 2014, filed as Exhibit 73IBE Rules and Regs.; “The big question:when will you get it to Justice”
EFTA01002876His e-mail to Epstein, December 4, 2014Opens the channel; the marina and a second target
EFTA00709600His e-mail to Epstein, December 23, 2014”the ‘town center’ of Red Hook”; carries Epstein’s December 4 reply
EFTA00864549His e-mail to Epstein, February 13, 2015”You think Andrew is ready to discuss AYH sale?”
EFTA00667013, EFTA00666972His e-mails to Epstein, March 23, 2015Epstein’s “lets pursue”; “I can then work with the individual he designates to work with us”
EFTA00631343, EFTA00698714His e-mails to Epstein, May 4, 2015”Just checking in on this project”; “Understandable.”
EFTA02478314His e-mail to Epstein, December 6, 2015P&O Ports; “Let me know =f anything else I should do.”
EFTA02352296His e-mail to Epstein, December 27, 2015, subject MiscThe $380k/$490k report and the request to borrow
EFTA01801392His e-mail to Epstein, December 27, 2015”18 months.”, carrying Epstein’s “how long do you need the loan for?”
EFTA01801317His e-mail to Epstein, December 27, 2015Answers “lets talk tomorw”
EFTA02815589, EFTA02815592Exhibits 237 and 238, filed under seal, August 14, 2023Renderings of the December 27, 2015 thread and the June 27, 2017 thanks
EFTA01042292, EFTA02646276His e-mails to Epstein, June 27, 2017”thank you for the assistance at a very difficult time”
EFTA00968097, EFTA02573108His e-mails to Epstein, November 2, 2017”Thanks for the use of the apartment”
EFTA02600402His e-mail to Epstein, July 11, 2018”Thank you.”
EFTA01074706Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Information, No. ST-15-CR-309; an 88-sheet containerThe charge, the $490,000.00 alleged, and the defence answer
EFTA02813607Deposition excerpt, Exhibit 224, filed August 7, 2023; a 72-sheet container of selected transcript pagesHis recollection of one e-mail; the loan terms; VIPA; conflict of interest
EFTA02810149, EFTA02814528, EFTA02815061Three further deposition excerpts, filed July and August 2023Law enforcement; what he knew and when
EFTA02814815, EFTA02815448JPMorgan statements of facts; 21-sheet and 86-sheet containersThe parole paragraph; the sentence quoted without insertion
EFTA02812684JPMorgan brief; a 45-sheet container”conflicting accounts, again requiring credibility determinations”
EFTA02814983The territory’s response to JPMorgan’s statement of facts; an 18-sheet containerThe 2017 apartment stay; that his e-mails post-date his term
EFTA01824017, EFTA01780840E-mail chain, March 1–2, 2010The deJongh Group fee proposal and Epstein’s reaction
EFTA02809631, EFTA02809628New York Times article filed as an exhibitThe uncle assertion; “Efforts to reach the de Jonghs were unsuccessful”
EFTA00910984, EFTA01777326, EFTA02808356, EFTA02813860Four renderings of the May 15, 2011 e-mailEach reads J and AG and carries no bracketed identification
EFTA01749234Assistant’s note to Epstein, November 17, 2014The wrong man: its subject line reads Robert De Jongh

Coverage

  • V.I. Consortium, January 22, 2016: Ernice Gilbert, “DOJ Drops Charges Against Former Governor De Jongh After $380,000 Settlement.”10
  • The New York Times, August 2019: the article reporting that Epstein had hired an architecture firm the paper described as owned by his uncle, preserved in this release as a litigation exhibit.34

Footnotes

  1. His term dates are used on this page only to date his own acts against his time in office. The release itself states them: the New York Times article filed as an exhibit records that “[f]rom January 2007 to January 2015 … the governor was John P. de Jongh Jr.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02809631 p. 3. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for that sheet. The same dates are carried in the infobox of Cecile de Jongh from his official biography, and his own motion to dismiss refers to “the entire eight years that Gov. de Jongh was in office.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01074706 p. 2. ⛔ No date of birth, residence or other identity detail is taken from any released document. ↩

  2. The forms of his name, the other bearers of the surname, and every count in that section were established by this desk’s own reading of the released material. No query form and no retrieval route is published. Units and populations, stated per figure: sheets (rows of extracted page text) and containers (distinct document identifiers), over the whole released corpus, measured as a capped count over a bounded result set — never as a distinct-count over an unbounded match — with an invented control token returning 0 on every population. The nine printed forms: full name 126 sheets / 93 containers; with middle initial 61 / 31 (the form with and without a full stop after the initial return identically — the index strips the stop, so that is one form, not two); name with the suffix 37 / 37; title plus surname 70 / 28; abbreviated title plus surname 20 / 3; honorific plus surname 8 / 6; full name with the surname closed up 34 / 34; title plus closed-up surname 10 / 8; abbreviated title plus closed-up surname 8 / 8. Union of the nine: 297 sheets / 167 containers. ⚠ The last of those nine is reachable from none of the other eight, and a union of the other eight returns 289 / 161 — so omitting it understates the subject by 8 sheets in 6 further containers. Replication, measured as distinct normalised texts per sheet across the union: 297 distinct texts / 297 sheets, largest repeat 1 — none. ⛔ The bare surname is never used on this page: closed up as one word it stands on 687 / 582, spaced on 8,474 / 7,192, and both conflate him with his wife, whose own forms stand on 8,220 / 7,122 and who is the recorded sender on 3,017 containers. The extraction form misreading the capital J stands on 64 / 60 and conflates as well. Four other adults bear the surname: the architect, as Robert deJongh 32 / 27, Bob de Jongh 17 / 16 and Robert de Jongh 3 / 3; Julian De Jongh 5 / 5, independently the recorded sender on 4 containers; Donna de Jongh 1 / 1; and Jermaine Ruan de Jongh 4 / 4. ⚠ An eponym screen was run on all nine forms against 26 venue words as adjacent phrases and returned 0 sheets on every form; it was armed on two live eponyms of other territorial governors in this same corpus, which returned 20 and 16 sheets in the identical query shape, so the screen demonstrably fires and does not fire on him. ⚠ A fifth candidate bearer was found in the extraction’s sender field and read: it is an artefact, the extractor having stitched one man’s forename to another person’s surname across a header. It is recorded here so that no later pass counts a sixth person. His own first-person correspondence: the extraction records a form of his name as sender on 22 containers; three of those are mass-mailing newsletters from the Office of the Governor that reached Epstein’s office because a member of his staff was on the distribution list, and one is the August 2014 internal chain his wife forwarded. The remaining 18 containers carry 14 distinct messages he addressed to Epstein, December 4, 2014 to July 11, 2018, and each of the 18 is cited by identifier in the table above. ⚠ Every figure here is a FLOOR, not a total: a sheet where a producer marked his name, or where the extraction destroyed it beyond the forms read, is invisible to all of them. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01002876 p. 1 — his e-mail to the handle, Subject: USVI opportunities, Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:53:58 +0000, signed Best, John. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI, and the whole quotation is taken from that image. The container is a single sheet. December 4 fell on a Thursday in 2014, and he was Governor. ⚠ The image settles a figure the extraction renders three different ways across the renderings of this paragraph: the sheet prints $3-4 million. Divergence screen: Just a quick follow-up on our meeting last week agrees across 11 copies; I think we can make this work to your benefit and meet EDC requirements agrees across 11 copies. ⛔ A producer’s mark stands on the sender line and nothing about it is described. ⛔ The abbreviations and the forename in the body are the document’s own and are not expanded; a surname the document does not give is not supplied. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00709600 pp. 1–2 — his e-mail to "Jeffrey E.", Subject: Re: USVI opportunities, Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 17:07:25 +0000, carrying beneath it Epstein’s reply of December 4, 2014 and his own message of that date. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for this sheet. December 23 fell on a Tuesday in 2014, and he was Governor. Divergence screen: can be the 'town center' of Red Hook given the options, traffic and mix of tenants agrees across 2 copies. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02352296 p. 1 — his e-mail to 'jeffrey E.', Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 8:52 PM, Subject: Misc, signed John. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 700 DPI, and the whole quotation above is taken from that image. The container is a single sheet. ⛔⛔ The = characters are quoted-printable damage on the produced page itself, confirmed at 700 dpi, and each replaces the first character of its word. None is repaired inside a quotation. The run January 13thso is the document’s own. ⚠ The sum asked for is stated outside the quotation as $215,000 because the corruption has eaten the character that would carry it inside the quotation. Two renderings of this message carry that figure legibly — this sheet at the image and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815589 p. 2 — and a third, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01801392 p. 1, carries a further corruption of the same figure; the 700 dpi image governs and the discrepancy is recorded rather than quietly resolved. Divergence screen: would like to take you up on your offer and request to borrow agrees across 6 copies; we seem to be near to an agreement on their acceptance of agrees across 5 copies. ⚠ The date and time are taken from the sheet’s own Sent: line; the corpus date field is not used anywhere on this page. ⛔ A producer’s mark stands on this sheet; nothing about it is described, located or supplied from context. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. People of the Virgin Islands v. John P. de Jongh, Jr., Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, Case No. ST-15-CR-309, Hon. Michael C. Dunston presiding — Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Information, moving against the Information dated September 2, 2015. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01074706 pp. 1–4. p. 1 VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI; pp. 2–4 read from the text layer. ⚠ This identifier is an 88-sheet container holding the motion and its exhibits, not a single page; the pins above are to the sheets read, and nothing is rested on the container as a whole. ⚠ The filing is DEFENCE ADVOCACY. Its characterisations of the prosecution are counsel’s and are summarised rather than adopted; its long footnote on the sitting Governor’s own spending is neither quoted nor relied on, and concerns a different person. ⚠ The heading cites one subdivision of the rule and the body another; the heading is followed here and the inconsistency is recorded. ⚠ A court received-stamp appears on the sheet and no date is derived from it; every date above is from continuous prose. ⛔ Counsel’s street line, post box and telephone print on the face of every sheet in this container and none is reproduced. Divergence screen: hinges on a matter of remedial English punctuation, security costs for the entire eight years that, from the public fisc and using the money to add value to his private home and one count each of violating are each UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean, which is why p. 1 was read at the image before any of them was quoted. The legislative history of the 2007 appropriation, including the senator who sponsored the amendment, is the motion’s own account at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01074706 p. 4. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01801392 p. 1 — his e-mail to jeffrey E., Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 9:51 PM, Subject: Re: Misc, body 18 months., carrying beneath it Epstein’s message of the same day timed 5:45 PM, how long do you need the loan for?, and his own original. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI. His further message of the same evening, answering lets talk tomorw, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01801317 p. 1, read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for that sheet, and is rendered again at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815589 p. 2. ⚠ The two clocks on this thread differ by five hours, one being a UTC stamp, and the renderings of the same message differ by a minute; the order stated on the page is fixed by the quoted nesting the documents carry and not by a clock. Divergence screen: how long do you need the loan for agrees across 5 copies. ⛔ Producer’s marks stand on this sheet and are not described. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript page 297. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI, from the same 72-sheet container. Lifted from the image and re-cut, with the internal question and the objection marks omitted at the ellipsis. Divergence screen: He gave us a loan for 200,000 agrees across 2 copies; the sheet is rendered again in the shorter excerpt at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815061, a 15-sheet container, read from the text layer only. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript page 39, lines 1–24. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI, and the quotation is cut from that image line by line. ⚠ A quotation of this passage lifted from the extracted text would be a reconstruction, because the line numbers sit between the words; the extracted text also drops the dash the image carries at “late ‘15 or ‘16 — early ‘16.” Divergence screen: That I recall, yes is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean, and read at the image for that reason. ⛔⛔ His two recall qualifiers are carried in the same sentence as the discrepancy, on the page and here. The finding is a discrepancy between recollection and record; it is not a finding of perjury. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. Ernice Gilbert, “DOJ Drops Charges Against Former Governor De Jongh After $380,000 Settlement,” V.I. Consortium, January 22, 2016. https://viconsortium.com/vi-vic_news/doj-drops-charges-against-former-governor-de-jongh-with-prejudice-after-380000-settlement ⚠ This is press and is cited only for what the publication reported. It is used because the disposition of a criminal charge against a living man must not be left to a corpus that does not carry it: this release holds the case in one container and does not hold its outcome, and ⛔ no outcome is inferred from that silence. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. THE ORAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN P. DE JONGH, JR., taken May 30, 2023, 9:02 a.m. to 4:46 p.m., at a law office in Christiansted, St. Croix, in Government of the Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 22-cv-10904-JSR (S.D.N.Y.), with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. as third-party plaintiff against James Edward Staley. Caption at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 p. 2, read from the text layer. Four excerpts are in this release: that 72-sheet container (Exhibit 224, filed August 7, 2023), and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815061 (15 sheets), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814528 (8 sheets) and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02810149 (6 sheets). ⚠ None is continuous. The fullest carries selected transcript pages between 39 and 345; the others carry pages between 25 and 343. The transcript therefore ran to at least page 345 and this release holds a minority of it. ⛔ The caption page carries the reporter’s post box and a telephone line; the venue is given as the office, never the address, and no contact value is reproduced. ⛔ Only the excerpts’ own sheets are cited; nothing is said about what the unproduced pages contain. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815589 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815592 — Exhibits 237 and 238 in the JPMorgan action, each filed under seal on August 14, 2023, their cover sheets reading FILED UNDER SEAL. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. Each is a rendering of a message already in this release outside the seal — the December 27, 2015 thread and the June 27, 2017 thanks respectively — and this page quotes those messages from the unsealed renderings and cites these two only for the fact and date of the sealing. ⚠ That two of his fourteen messages to Epstein were filed under seal in that action is recorded as a fact about the litigation. Nothing is inferred from it. ↩

  13. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01749234 p. 1 — an assistant’s note to Epstein, Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 7:20:31 PM, whose subject line reads Robert De Jongh - November 17, 2014 and whose body reports that Mr. de Jongh just returned your call. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for this sheet. Five sibling sheets in the same thread family, all of 13–17 November 2014, name the caller in full: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01748127 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747903 pp. 1–2, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747857, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01747678 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01748273 p. 1, the last of which records that it was the Governor’s wife who arranged the call. ⚠ That last sheet is hers and is flagged to the desk rather than used here. Divergence screen: just returned your call. His cell does not work at his desk is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean — and the sheet is cited only to establish which man the honorific reaches, never for anything the page asserts about the subject. ⛔ A telephone value is withheld on the face of that sheet and nothing about it is described or supplied from context. ↩ ↩2

  14. Every span quoted on this page was put through the desk’s copy-divergence screen in span mode before use, and the verdict for each is given in its own footnote. The screen was confirmed immediately before use on both of the desk’s standing reference anchors, which reproduced exactly. Thirty-two spans were screened and no span returned a withhold. ⚠ The verdicts are of three different strengths and are never grouped: “agree across N copies” is the strong clean; “UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE” means one rendering exists, so no copy family could differ, which is a weaker clean and is carried as the weaker one; “NOTHING MEASURED” means the anchor matched nothing and the span was verified at the image instead. ⚠ A span that lies across two transcript lines cannot be anchored at all, because the line numbers sit between the words; every such span on this page was read at the image and is marked as such. ↩

  15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02808308 p. 2 — a chain of six messages of Wednesday August 27, 2014, forwarded by Cecile de Jongh to Epstein’s handle at 7:24 p.m. marked Importance: High with the body FYI, filed as Exhibit 73 in the JPMorgan action on June 14, 2023. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI. All times and the date are from the sheet’s own prose attribution lines; August 27 fell on a Wednesday in 2014. Divergence screen: Please impress upon him agrees across 2 copies; would like to give him a heads-up agrees across 2 copies; the opening anchor of his 1:50 p.m. message returned NOTHING MEASURED because the sheet prints two of its words run together, which is why that line was read at the image before it was quoted and is quoted with the document’s own missing space. ⛔ Government mail addresses print on this sheet and a producer’s mark stands on another address; none is reproduced, located or supplied from context. ⚠ Two further individuals are named in the chain — an official of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and an attorney — and are described by office rather than named, because neither identity bears on anything this page finds. ⛔ The subject line’s abbreviation is reproduced as printed and is not expanded, because the sheet does not expand it. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  16. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00864549 p. 1 — his e-mail to "'jeffrey E."', Subject: RE: USVI opportunities, Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 14:40:21 +0000. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for this sheet. Divergence screen: is ready to discuss AYH sale is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean, and it is reported as such. ↩

  17. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00667013 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00666972 p. 1 — his e-mails of Mon, 23 Mar 2015 12:37:05 +0000 and 13:08:47 +0000, the second carrying Epstein’s reply lets pursue timed 8:38 AM on the same sheet. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. ⚠ The header stamps are UTC and the quoted reply line is local; the order is fixed by the quoted nesting, not by a clock. Divergence screen: I can then work with the individual he designates to work with us is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean. ⛔ The second sheet prints a personal telephone line beneath his signature and it is not reproduced. ↩

  18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00631343 p. 1 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00698714 p. 1 — his e-mails of Mon, 04 May 2015 09:37:20 +0000 and 10:58:38 +0000, the second carrying Epstein’s reply. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. Divergence screen: Just checking in on this project and anything to be done agrees across 3 copies. ⚠ Epstein’s reply concerns a third party’s family illness and is described rather than quoted. ↩

  19. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02478314 p. 1 — his e-mail to 'jeffrey E.', Sent: Sunday, December 6, 2015 4:52 PM, Subject: P&O Ports, signed John. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI, and the quotation is taken from that image. The container is a single sheet. December 6 fell on a Sunday in 2015. ⚠ The = characters are on the document and replace the first character of a word; none is repaired. ⚠ The named executive is replaced by a bracketed description, which is this page’s own substitution and is marked as such; it is not a quotation of the document, which gives his name. Divergence screen: in transshipment, cargo activity and Jones Act and Ask me to send some info on cruise terminals in the are each UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean, which is why the sheet was read at the image before quotation; anything else I should do agrees across 8 copies. ⛔ A producer’s mark stands on the sender line and is not described. ↩

  20. This absence was built name-free and corpus-wide before it was intersected with his name, and it is stated at the instrument and not one step wider. Units: sheets and containers over the whole released corpus, each figure measured as a capped count over a bounded result set, with an invented control token returning 0 on every population. Loan-instrument vocabulary present in the release: promissory note 1,565 sheets / 825 containers; loan agreement 791 / 398; note payable 164 / 118; loan document 150 / 43; repayment schedule 79 / 43. Armed in the other direction as well: the same probe, intersected with two other participants in Epstein’s finances, returns 280 sheets and 41 sheets, so it fires. Intersected with the 297-sheet union of his nine name forms it returns two sheets, and both were read: one is a payments-schedule row concerning other men entirely and one is a commercial bank advertisement on a newspaper page. ⛔ THE WINDOW, MEASURED: the carrying series is 2,601 sheets in 1,284 containers, and 158 of those containers bear a prose date in 2016 or later, with date occurrences running through 2023. The absence sits inside a series that runs for years past December 2015, which makes it strong rather than weak. ⚠ An absence measured this way is a statement about this release and not about the world. It records that no instrument of this loan appears in what was produced. It is not a claim that no instrument existed, and his own sworn evidence is that the loan was made. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  21. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript page 296. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI. ⚠ The identifier is a 72-sheet container of selected transcript pages; the pin is to the sheet read. ⚠ This is a TRANSCRIPT: line numbers interleave with the words in the extracted text, so the quotation is cut from the image and not from that text. Divergence screen: unsolicited by me, spoke to Cecile and said, how can I help crosses two transcript lines and returns NOTHING MEASURED, which is why it was read at the image. ↩ ↩2

  22. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02646276 p. 1 — his e-mail to Jeffrey E., Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 12:22 PM, Subject: Thank You. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for this sheet. A second rendering is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01042292 p. 1 and a third, filed under seal as Exhibit 238, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815592 p. 2. The = characters are the document’s own and are not repaired. June 27 fell on a Tuesday in 2017. Divergence screen: thank you for the assistance at a very difficult time, it made matters much easier agrees across 4 copies. ↩

  23. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02573108 p. 1 — his e-mail to J E, Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 1:29 AM, Subject: Thanks, opening Good evening. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 400 DPI, and the quotation is taken from that image. A second rendering is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00968097 p. 1, whose header gives the same instant as a UTC stamp. ⚠ The header and the greeting disagree because the stamp is UTC; the date on the page is the date the sheet prints, and the divergence is recorded rather than quietly resolved. ⚠ The = in re=lly is the document’s own and is not repaired. Divergence screen: Thanks for the use of the apartment made things a lot easier agrees across 4 copies. The litigation record on the 2017 stay is the territory’s response to JPMorgan’s statement of facts, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814983 p. 5 — an 18-sheet container — read from the text layer; I could not look at the image. Divergence screen on that passage: stay in Epstein's New York apartment in 2017 is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, the weaker clean, and it is reported as such. ⛔ The same paragraph states a medical reason for the stay. It concerns a living person and is neither quoted nor described here. ⛔ A producer’s mark stands on the sender line of the second rendering and is not described. ↩ ↩2

  24. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02600402 p. 1 — his e-mail to Jeffrey E., Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 7:05 PM, Subject: Misc., the whole body being Thank you. Read from the text layer; I could not look at the image for this sheet. July 11 fell on a Wednesday in 2018. ⚠ A two-word message carries no quotable span long enough to anchor a divergence screen, so none was run and the sheet is cited for the fact of the message and its date. ↩

  25. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript page 128, lines 1–25. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI, and the quotation is cut from that image. From the same 72-sheet container; the following transcript page carries his reasons. Divergence screen: wanted to know whether you would support Carlton agrees across 6 copies. ⚠ The December 24, 2018 message he was shown is his wife’s and is quoted here only as the examiner read it to him. Its own treatment is a matter for her page and is not re-told. ⚠ The named senator is a public officeholder acting in a public capacity and is named on that footing. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  26. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript pages 130 and 131, and the same transcript page 131 rendered again in the 8-sheet excerpt at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814528. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images for these two sheets, and the airport answers are therefore summarised rather than quoted at length. ⚠ The examiner’s questions on the airport contain premises the witness repeatedly disputed and the objections are recorded on the sheets; the page reports the questions and the answers and nothing else. ↩ ↩2

  27. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript pages 162 and 163. Transcript page 162 VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI; page 163 read from the text layer. From the same 72-sheet container. ⚠ Both questions on this sheet were objected to and the second was objected to as privileged in part; the objections are on the sheet and are reported on the page. ⚠⚠ The examiner’s question carries the premise that benefits were approved. The answer addresses the perception of a conflict alone, and this page does not convert the premise into a finding about what he approved. ⚠ The answers are short enough that each is given as the single word the sheet prints; no span long enough to anchor a divergence screen exists in them, and the image was read instead. ↩

  28. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02810149 — deposition excerpt, Document 226-24, filed July 24, 2023, a 6-sheet container; transcript pages 30 and 31. Transcript page 31 VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 250 DPI, and the quotation is cut from that image. Transcript page 30, carrying his evidence about the newspaper accounts, is read from the text layer. ⚠ This is a TRANSCRIPT and the quoted block is re-cut from the image; the objections and the examiner’s intervening remarks on transcript page 30 are not reproduced. ↩ ↩2

  29. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript page 102, lines 1–21. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE AT 300 DPI. ⭐ The image settles a question the text layer leaves open: the sheet prints the answer Yes., then counsel’s objection to the form, then the witness’s Possibly. and his qualification. The order on the page is the order on the sheet. From the same 72-sheet container. ⚠ The solicitation itself, the sum, and the account it was paid from are his wife’s acts and are carried on her page; only his own answers about his own signature are reported here. ↩

  30. The e-mail the transcript was read from is rendered in this release at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01938493 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01939342 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01939478 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01940225 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01940515 p. 2, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02808127 p. 2 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813680 p. 2. All read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. Every one of those seven renderings carries the same budget figure, and it is not the figure the transcript carries. ➡ The figure as her page prints it is correct and the transcript is the artefact. Divergence screen: final State of the Territory reception on Monday agrees across 8 copies. ⚠ This note exists so that no later pass “corrects” a page that is right; the e-mail’s own content is hers and is not re-told here. ↩

  31. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813607 — deposition excerpt, transcript pages 227, 228, 229 and 242. All four read from the text layer; I could not look at the images for these sheets, and every answer above is therefore summarised, with only short phrases quoted. ⚠ The examiner’s questions on these sheets quote from a document that is not his, and the witness twice corrected the premise; the objections are on the sheets. ⚠ The territorial Attorney General of the period is named by the witness and is named here on the footing that he is a public officeholder acting officially. ↩

  32. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815448 p. 59 — JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s statement of facts, ¶ 263, in an 86-sheet container; the same paragraph is rendered at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814815 p. 13, a 21-sheet container. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. The paragraph quoted above reads identically on both renderings. Divergence screen: relayed to her how Epstein should proceed as to the parole agrees across 2 copies. The bank’s characterisation of the accounts as conflicting is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02812684 p. 36, a 45-sheet container, read from the text layer; divergence screen: witnesses gave conflicting accounts, again requiring credibility determinations agrees across 2 copies, and said he emailed the request to the Attorney General and told the First Lady to speak directly agrees across 2 copies. ⚠⚠ This is a litigant’s pleading, advocating a position in an action that settled without any court testing it. It is cited for what the bank asserted and for its characterisation of the witnesses’ evidence, never as a finding. ⛔ A further account of the same episode stands in this release under a treatment that is not uniform between renderings of the same paragraph. Under the standing rule that where a producer’s treatment differs between copies the material is withheld entirely, it is withheld: it is not quoted, not described, not compared, and nothing is supplied from context. This page quotes around a passage a producer has marked. ↩ ↩2

  33. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01824017 pp. 1–2 — Gary Kerney to Epstein, Tue 3/2/2010 2:42:41 PM, Subject: FW: CZM, forwarding the architect’s message of the same morning and Kerney’s own request of Monday March 1, 2010. Epstein’s reply of Tuesday, March 2, 2010 4:02 PM is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01780840 pp. 1–2, which carries the same chain beneath it. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images for these sheets. Divergence screen: had also hired an architecture firm owned by relates to the newspaper passage below, not to these; for this chain the quoted spans are short and each was checked in the chain’s own renderings, which agree. ⚠ The spelling of the firm and of the architect’s name is reproduced as each sheet prints it, including the closed-up form, and is not normalised inside a quotation. ⛔ A mail handle for the firm prints on both sheets and is not reproduced. ⚠ A second person at the firm is addressed by forename on the first message of the chain; she is not named here and nothing is said about her role. ⚠ The buildings listed are structures on Epstein’s own islands, which are public landmarks and may be named. ↩

  34. The New York Times, August 2019, reproduced as an exhibit in Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02809631 p. 3, with the article’s opening at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02809628 p. 2. Both read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. Divergence screen: had also hired an architecture firm owned by agrees across 2 copies — both of which are renderings of this same article. ⚠⚠ TIER. That the newspaper published the sentence is documented. The kinship it asserts is the newspaper’s, sourced to unnamed “records”, and is a credible allegation and not a documented fact: the primary documents read for this page name the firm and its principal and are silent on any relationship. ⚠ The same article records that efforts to reach the de Jonghs were unsuccessful, and that answer sits beside the assertion on the page rather than in a section below. ⛔ Other passages of the article concern Epstein’s crimes and other people and are neither quoted nor described here. ↩ ↩2

  35. The underlying e-mail, in four renderings, each reading J and AG with no bracketed identification: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00910984 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01777326 p. 1, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02808356 p. 2 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02813860 p. 2. The bank’s statements of facts quote the same sentence with no insertion, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02814815 p. 13 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815448 p. 59. The bracketed expansion appears in the bank’s briefs, at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02807815 p. 13, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02808454 p. 13, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02809262 p. 13, https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02812684 p. 36 and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02815181 p. 37. All eleven read from the text layer; I could not look at the images. Divergence screen: This needs to be settled by Thursday because agrees across 5 copies, and goes away for a week and was screened in the same pass. ➡ A bracketed expansion inside a quoted document is the quoting party’s attribution and not the document’s words. The same litigant quotes this sentence both ways in the same action, which is why the distinction is visible at all, and no claim on this page rests on the expansion. ⚠ The e-mail is his wife’s; it is cited here for the shape of the insertion and its subject matter is not re-told. ↩ ↩2

Backlinks