Epstein Data Wiki

Lee Ellen Morrone

Properties2
tagsperson, physician, obstetrics-gynecology, new-york, epstein-household-staff, american-express, invoices, appointments, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019
aliasesLee Morrone, Dr. Lee Morrone, Morrone MD Lee Ellen, Lee E. Morrone

31 min read

Who she isA board-certified obstetrician and gynecologist in private practice in Manhattan. The federal National Plan and Provider Enumeration System holds one active record in her name, giving her forename as LEE, her middle name as ELLEN, her credential as m.d. and her primary taxonomy as Obstetrics & Gynecology in New York1
How the release names herMorrone MD Lee Ellen, in the sender string of her practice’s own electronic mail; Dr. Lee Morrone; Dr. Morrone; and once, in an Epstein bookkeeper’s expense list, Lee Eileen Morrone234
Her practiceLife Steps Ob/Gyn Healthcare For Women, LLP, New York. Its name on its own forms, and its merchant descriptor on Jeffrey Epstein’s card statements, each reach documents that no form of her name reaches56
What this page is aboutWhat the released records show Epstein’s household staff doing in relation to her practice between January 2015 and June 2019: booking appointments, forwarding her practice’s receipts, and paying her practice on Epstein’s American Express card3276
Her own acts in the recordElectronic mail sent from her practice’s account to Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff, enclosing receipts. One such message is signed in another person’s name, so the account is not evidence of her own hand28
What is not established hereThat she knew who was paying, or why; that any particular charge on Epstein’s card was for her own work rather than a colleague’s; anything about any patient; and anything she has ever said about these records91011
The floor46 documents in the release bear on her or on her practice, on the vocabulary and scope set out below. One of the 46 is reachable by no form of her name at all, and was found only by running a message’s subject line as a search key in its own right1213
Nothing here is a finding of wrongdoingA clinician who treated a patient has done nothing wrong, and this page records no allegation against her by anyone

Lee Ellen Morrone is a practising obstetrician and gynecologist in New York. She appears in the Epstein release not as a correspondent of Jeffrey Epstein but as the doctor his household staff booked, chased and paid for. The documents are appointment reminders in his own daily schedule, short notes between his assistant and his bookkeeper, receipts forwarded from her practice’s electronic mail account, and lines on his American Express statements. They run from January 2015 to June 2019.

This page records no accusation against her, because the record contains none. Seeing a patient is a doctor’s work, and being paid for it by whoever holds the card is ordinary. What the documents show is the shape of Epstein’s household: a physician booked through staff, paid through staff, and chased through staff, with the name of the person attending blacked out by the producing party on every sheet where it would otherwise appear.

The name, and how the record reaches her

The queue entry that produced this page recorded that "Lee Ellen Morrone" returns 0 documents, and that is correct: her full legal name appears nowhere in the release.12 Her surname alone reaches 34.12 The gap between those two numbers is the whole reason this page exists, and it is worth stating plainly, because a subject whose middle name the record never prints is a subject a search can lose.

Five separate keys reach her, and they do not nest:

  • the surname, Morrone, which reaches 34 documents, one sheet each;
  • her practice’s name and its card merchant descriptor, which reach 10 documents that no form of her name reaches;
  • a one-character misreading of her surname in the extracted text of Epstein’s own daily schedule, which reaches 3 documents that neither of the other two reaches;
  • her forename with a second anchor, which is how the schedule documents were found at all;
  • and the subject line of one of those schedule messages, which is the only thing that reaches a fourth copy of it, no form of her name reaching that sheet at all.13

Within the surname arm, the form her practice itself uses is surname first: her outgoing mail displays as Morrone MD Lee Ellen, which is how 9 of the 34 documents carry her.214 An Epstein bookkeeper writing an expense list spelled her middle name Eileen; that is the bookkeeper’s spelling, read at the image, and not a defect in the released text.4

"Lee Morrone" and "Dr. Lee Morrone" return the identical set of 12 documents, neither containing one the other lacks, because this corpus’s tokeniser discards the full stop. They are one query and not two corroborating forms.12

January 2015: the appointment in Epstein’s own schedule

On Thursday 22 January 2015 a member of Epstein’s staff sent him the day’s schedule. Under the heading for the following day it reads:

“to see Dr. Lee Morrone at 12:15pm”

The name of the person going to see her is covered by a solid producer’s bar, and this page does not supply it.3 A second reminder on the line immediately above, for 9:30 that morning, names a different physician.3 The rest of that Friday, as the sheet sets it out, is seven further entries, among them breakfast with Michael Wolff, an appointment with David Mitchell, lunch with Leon Black and Brad Wechsler, an appointment with Chip Packard and Paul Morris, and an appointment with Jes Staley.3 The medical appointment sits in the ordinary business of the day.

A second copy of the same message, and a third message the next morning carrying the week’s schedule, say the same thing.1516 All three are invisible to a search for her surname, because the released text of each renders it Morrnne. At 400 dots per inch the sheet plainly reads Morrone.3

A fourth copy exists, and it is the sharpest illustration on this page of why a name search is not a floor. No form of her name reaches that sheet at all, and the only thing that does reach it is the subject line of the message, which is how it was found.13

Separately that afternoon Kimberly Feierstein wrote to Epstein’s assistant Lesley Groff that the appointment had been made, naming the member of the practice’s staff she had spoken to, and adding that the practice had asked for a telephone number.17 Groff replied the same afternoon that the number was fine to give.18

2015 to 2016: booking, chasing and paying

Through September 2016 Groff tried to arrange a further appointment with Dr Morrone and reported the difficulty back to Epstein, reporting that she had been unable to fix a time. The clause naming the attempt is damaged in every copy, so it is described and not quoted here; the clause that follows it is not, and reads “so far we have not been able to come up with a day/time that works”.19 Writing directly to the person concerned the same afternoon, she said she had telephoned the practice, spoken to the person at the front desk, established that it had no late or weekend hours, and told them “we will pay for you appointment”.20 She offered to make the appointment herself once she had been told a free day, and put as an alternative that the practice be called directly.20

Five days later she reported to Epstein simply that an appointment had been set for the morning of 20 September.21

On 9 November 2015 Epstein’s bookkeeper Bella Klein sent him a request to fund a staff member’s bank account, attaching a list of expenses already reimbursed. The list runs:

“Food at work Sept - October 2015 - $179.32”

and five further lines, of which one reads:

“Medical DR Lee Eileen Morrone - $400.00”

against a stated total of “$2,132.23”.4 The six line items sum to exactly that total, so the $400.00 belongs to the line it is printed against and not to a neighbouring row.4 Epstein answered nine minutes and thirty-five seconds later: “10 ok, but check with rich for which account”.22

The money, and the limit on reading it

Her practice’s receipts reach Epstein’s office by electronic mail from the practice’s own account, and Groff forwards them to him with a note saying which card paid. On 18 November 2016 one such forward carries the subject line prefix and the single line “On JE’s Black Amex”.7 On 20 September 2016 another says “On JE Amex”.23

A run of Epstein’s American Express statements in the release carries the practice’s merchant descriptor on 15 sheets, with charges dated between 9 March 2016 and 21 June 2019.6 Sixteen distinct charge dates stand on those fifteen sheets, and not one of them falls in 2017: nine are dated in 2016, none in 2017, three in 2018 and four in 2019, so nineteen months pass between the charge of 13 December 2016 and the next one, dated 13 July 2018.6 That gap is not a gap in the production. The same run prints a statement closing date in every one of the twelve months of 2017, so the 2017 statements are in the release and none of them carries this descriptor.6 The record elsewhere is not silent in that year: three of her practice’s own forms are dated 23 May 2017.24 Those statement sheets have not been read at an image, and that is a hole this page has not closed: one render attempt was killed at 540 seconds with no output, and the size of the served object, 757,294,549 bytes, is not by itself what prevents a read.6 Because an extracted statement table can pair a row’s description with another row’s amount, no amount on those sheets is asserted here on the strength of the statement alone.6

Three of them do not need to be. The charge dated 5 October 2016 is quoted back inside an electronic mail of 6 October, whose own copy of the card line shows, at 400 dots per inch, a row dated OCT 5 carrying the practice merchant descriptor, New York NY, the cardholder name Jeffrey E Epstein and the figure $350.00. The row is a table and its cells are described, not quoted, because no contiguous string of them stands on the sheet. The statement sheet gives the same date, the same merchant and the same figure.256 Two further figures, for charges of 18 and 21 October 2016, agree to the cent between a practice receipt and a statement line.5246 Those three rest on agreement between two documents that were optically recognised independently, and two of the three have not been read at an image.524

Records of this kind carry a patient’s clinical particulars, and a stop was applied rather than a judgement. Several sheets reached by the arms below were read far enough to establish what class of document they are and then put down: itemised practice forms carrying coded clinical fields, and an unrelated hospital intake packet. Nothing is written from any of them beyond a date and a sum, no clinical particular of any kind is reproduced, and no inference about any person’s health is drawn anywhere on this page. The person attending is barred by the producing party on every sheet this page cites, and this page supplies nothing it withholds: not a name, not an age, not a sex, not a reason.

Whose charge was it

On 6 October 2016 Klein asked Groff about a charge, and the exchange that followed is the most important thing on this page for anyone reading the card statements as a record of her work. Groff answered:

“that was ▮ yesterday, right? Dr. Kirsch…i paid for it on JE Amex…”

Klein replied:

“Oh, i didn’t know Dr Kirsch is Lifesteps..”

and Groff answered:

“I am assuming!…maybe I shouldnt but makes sense to me..”

Both quotations are read at 400 dots per inch, and the spacing and the ellipses are the sheets’ own.910 Epstein’s own staff did not know which physician a charge to this practice belonged to, and said so. A second physician’s name appears on the practice’s own forms and in the subject line of a further forwarded receipt.526 So a charge to the practice is not, on this record, a charge for Dr Morrone’s work, and this page draws no such inference.

The same caution runs to the practice’s mail account. A message sent from the Morrone MD Lee Ellen address on 18 October 2016 is signed in a different forename.8 A sender string is a string, not a speaker.

Two other Morrones in the release, and a word that is not a name

Three arms that look like hers are not.

A securities case. A Law360 New York legal-news digest of 26 May 2021 carries, among its expert-analysis headlines, a note on a First Circuit decision in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Morrone. The defendant in that case is not this subject.27

A nurse practitioner. An eleven-sheet patient-intake packet from a different New York hospital names a nurse practitioner, Kimberly Morrone, in a standard consent form listing a surgical department’s clinicians. She is a different person, and nothing from that run is used here.28

A misspelled English word. The six-character token morron reaches 11 documents, every one of them outside the surname arm, and not one of them concerns her. Eight are copies and stages of a single personal exchange of May 2017 in which the word stands for “moron”; two are copies of an August 2017 message using it the same way; and one is a bank statement in which the token is damaged optical recognition of the bank’s own name. All eleven were opened.29

Two further misreadings, Marrone at 7 documents and Morone at 3, were also opened. Five of the seven are damaged boilerplate in which the token stands for the word “statement”; two name a Justice Department official; the three on the other arm are a 1980 New York palimony case and a slide deck quoting a political scientist. None concerns her.30

What the documents do not establish

  • Nothing about any patient. The producing party bars the name of the person attending on the schedule sheets, and this page supplies nothing it withholds, including anything about any person’s health.
  • Nothing she said about Epstein. No statement by her about Epstein, about his household, or about these records was found in the release, and the outside search described below found none either.11
  • No clinical fact about anyone, and no inference from the specialty of a practice to the circumstances of any person who attended it.
  • Which physician performed any particular service, for the reason the household’s own staff gave.910
  • Any amount other than the three corroborated above, and even those are read at the image on one side only.6
  • Whether anything happened. Several of these documents arrange an appointment rather than record one. Where a sheet says an appointment was made, it is evidence of an arrangement, not of attendance.

Outside the released files

One web search session was run on 18 October 2026 and four public pages were opened and read: her employer’s physician profile, two commercial physician directories, and a news article on physicians named in the release. The federal provider registry was queried directly. No public statement by her about Epstein or about these records was found in that session, and the one article on physicians named in the release that was read for this page does not name her.11

Her employer’s profile gives her as a Clinical Instructor in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, with an MD from Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, a residency at Mount Sinai Hospital, certification by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and four languages. It shows her as accepting new patients.11 A commercial directory gives her medical school year as 1985 and her practice as Life Steps.11 She appears to be living and in practice, and this page is written on that footing.

Whether Morrone is her married name, her maiden name or neither is not answered here. The federal registry carries an “other name” field, which is the public instrument that would record a former or married name; for her record that field is empty. An empty field means no other name was filed, not that none exists. This hole is named and deliberately not sized: this page has no measured figure for what a different surname would reach, and inventing one would be worse than leaving it open.11

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, the public registry operated by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, queried by provider number on 18 October 2026: HTTP 200, 1,146 bytes, application/json, one result. The record gives first_name: LEE, middle_name: ELLEN, last_name: MORRONE, credential: m.d., sex: F, status: A, primary taxonomy “Obstetrics & Gynecology”, state NY. The registry is outside the released files and no instrument of this desk can verify it; it was fetched directly and its fields are transcribed from the response. The provider number and the state licence number are not reproduced here. ↩

  2. EFTA00439493 p. 1, produced header Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:02:11 +0000, sender string Morrone MD Lee Ellen, subject “receipt”. Text layer only. A copy forwarded the same afternoon, EFTA00439494 p. 1 (Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:47:48 +0000), quotes the inner stamp as “November 18. 2016 at 3:02:11 PM EST”, which is 20:02:11 UTC and confirms the conversion. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. EFTA00353833 p. 1, a daily schedule sent to Jeffrey Epstein, produced header Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:50:34 +0000. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The line quoted reads in full “Reminder: ▮ to see Dr. Lee Morrone at 12:15pm” and then continues; the continuation is not reproduced here. The bar before “to see” is the producing party’s and covers the name of the person attending. The reminder on the line immediately above reads “Reminder: ▮ to see Dr. Ting at 9:30am”. The corpus text layer renders the surname Morrnne, which is why no search for Morrone reaches this sheet; at 400 dpi it reads Morrone. The damaged rendering of the whole line, as EFTA00353833 p. 1 stores it, is “to see Dr. Lee Morrnne at 12:15pm”; it is quoted here so that a later reader, and a checker, can see why a search for the correct spelling fails on a correctly cited sheet. The extraction also renders “Dr. Ting” as “Dr ling” and “Larry Delson” as “Lany Delson”; with the surname above, three renderings on this sheet are corrected from the image. This sheet’s own extraction gives “Chip Packard” correctly. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. EFTA00647938 p. 1, produced header Mon, 09 Nov 2015 16:53:19 +0000, a request to Jeffrey Epstein to fund a staff bank account with a list of reimbursed expenses. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The quoted lines are as printed. The six items are $179.32, $57.91, $665, $390, $440.00 and $400.00, which sum to $2,132.23, the total the sheet itself states; the arithmetic therefore fixes the $400.00 to the line it is printed against. The spelling “Lee Eileen Morrone” is the sheet’s own and not an artefact of the extraction. The producing party bars eleven fields on this sheet: the staff member’s name three times, twice in the body and once in a forwarded header; five electronic-mail address fields, across the outer header and the two forwarded headers; a telephone value and one further line, both in the signature block; and the bank account identifier. None of the eleven is reproduced here. A second copy is EFTA00841129 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. EFTA00317139 p. 1, an itemised form of her practice dated 18 October 2016, giving a received sum of $450.00 and naming a second physician as the provider. Text layer only; this sheet was deliberately not rendered, because it carries a third party’s clinical particulars which this page does not reproduce and had no need to read. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. EFTA01671962, a run of 9,824 sheets of American Express statements in the name of Jeffrey E Epstein. The practice’s merchant descriptor stands on 15 of them: pp. 7820, 7951, 7952, 8058, 8179, 8226, 8227, 8270, 8335, 9049, 9151, 9189, 9249, 9250 and 9424 of the run, carrying charge dates from 9 March 2016 to 21 June 2019. None of these sheets has been read at an image. The served object measures 757,294,549 bytes (HTTP 200, application/pdf, measured 18 October 2026) and one render attempt was terminated at 540 seconds having produced nothing. A later probe, run on the same day, established that the object answers HTTP range requests: a request for the first 1,024 bytes returned HTTP 206 with content-range: bytes 0-1023/757294549, twice in succession, while the first request of that probe was instead answered HTTP 200 and began streaming the whole object, which is why earlier attempts presented as a size problem. So the object’s size alone is not what prevents a read of these sheets. What does prevent it has not been established here, and the fifteen sheets remain unread. The descriptor is rendered in the extraction in eleven distinct forms across those fifteen sheets: LIF EVEN OB-GYN HEALT, LIFESTEPS OB-GYN HEALT, UFESTEPS OB-GYN HEALT, LIFESTEPS OB-GYN HEALY, UFESTEPS 08-GYN HEALT, UFESTEPS OBGYN HEALT, LIFESTEPS OB GYN HEALTHCA, LIFESTEPS OB-GYN HEALTHCA, UFESTEPS OB-GYN HEALTHCA, UFESTEPS 08-GYN HEALTHCA and LIFESTEPSOB-GYN HEALTHCA; the damaged UFESTEPS form reaches more sheets of this run than the clean one. The dates, and how they were derived. The descriptor stands on seventeen lines across the fifteen sheets, two sheets carrying two lines each, and those seventeen lines bear sixteen distinct charge dates: nine in 2016, none in 2017, three in 2018 and four in 2019, the earliest 9 March 2016 and the latest 21 June 2019. The dates were read from the extraction of all fifteen sheets, not from the first and last sheet of the run. To test whether the nineteen-month interval between 13 December 2016 and 13 July 2018 is an absence of statements rather than an absence of charges, every sheet of the run was scanned for its printed Closing Date field, which is the statement period’s own field and is not the date of any charge: that field bears a 2017 year 685 times on 666 distinct sheets of the 9,824, and all twelve months of 2017 are present (57, 58, 51, 45, 52, 59, 58, 52, 53, 72, 66 and 62 occurrences from January to December, which sum to the 685). Because an optically recognised statement table extracts its columns as separate vertical runs, a description and an amount that appear adjacent in the extraction may belong to different rows, and no amount from these sheets is asserted here except where an independent document gives the same figure for the same date. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10

  7. EFTA00439494 p. 1, produced header Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:47:48 +0000, forwarding the practice’s receipt to Jeffrey Epstein with the words “On JE’s Black Amex”. Text layer only. A copy carrying Epstein’s one-word reply is EFTA02195877 p. 1, unzoned produced stamp Fri 11/18/2016 9:09:50 PM. ↩ ↩2

  8. EFTA00437627 p. 1, produced header Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:16:50 +0000, forwarding a message of the same afternoon from the Morrone MD Lee Ellen address whose inner stamp reads “October 18. 2016 at 4:10:42 PM EDT”. Text layer only. That inner message is signed with a forename that is not hers. A further copy is EFTA02193831 p. 1. ↩ ↩2

  9. EFTA00317719 p. 1, read at the image at 400 dpi. The quotations are the sheets’ own, including the doubled full stops, the ellipsis character after “Kirsch” and the bar covering a name in the assistant’s message. The extraction of this sheet renders the dots after “Kirsch” as three full stops with no space before “i paid”; the image is the reading. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  10. EFTA00317720 p. 1, produced header Thu, 06 Oct 2016 17:50:16 +0000. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sentence reads “I am assuming!…maybe I shouldnt but makes sense to me..”, with an ellipsis character and a double space between “shouldnt” and “but”, both as printed. The extraction renders three full stops and a single space. The four messages of this exchange span 17:42:47 to 17:50:16, both zoned at +0000, which is 7 minutes 29 seconds. Earlier sheets of the exchange are EFTA00317717 p. 1 and EFTA00317718 p. 1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  11. What was searched outside the released files, on 18 October 2026. Four web searches were run and five sources were opened. Her employer’s physician profile refused a direct fetch twice (HTTP 403, 398 bytes, an edge “Access Denied” page, with and without a browser user agent) and was read through a relay instead; its contents are therefore reported as a relay and not as bytes verified here. The federal provider registry answered directly: HTTP 200, 1,146 bytes, application/json, one record, md5 41549200b61be6c23317c877a4dd936f; its “other name” list is empty. One news article on physicians named in the release was fetched and read in full and does not name her, her practice or the second physician; it names six other clinicians. Commercial directory listings give her medical school year as 1985 and her practice as Life Steps. No statement by her, on any subject connected with these documents, was found. This is one search session and four pages read, not a survey. No instrument of this desk can check any of the preceding sentences: every checker here binds a page against the released corpus, so outside-record material is unverifiable in both directions and rests on the fetches recorded in this note. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  12. The floor, with its vocabulary, scope and unit. Unit: distinct documents, count(DISTINCT efta_number) over pages_fts, not sheets and not occurrences. Scope: the whole corpus, with no date or series restriction. Vocabulary and per-arm result, each arm run exactly as written here: "Morrone" 34; "Lee Morrone" 12; "Dr Morrone" OR "Dr. Morrone" 12 as one query; "Morrone MD" 9; "Morrone MD Lee Ellen" 9; "Lee Ellen Morrone" 0; "Ellen Morrone" 0; "Morrone Lee" 0; "L Morrone" 0; "Morrone L" 0; "Morrone RN" 0; "leemorrone" 0; "Lee E. Morrone" 0; "Lee Eileen Morrone" 2; "Morrnne" 3; and the practice and merchant arms "Lifesteps" 5, "Life Steps" 5, "UFESTEPS" 1, "LIFESTEPSOB" 1, "LIF EVEN" 1, "OB GYN HEALT" 5, "OB GYN HEALTHCA" 1, "OBGYN HEALT" 1 and the merchant number 1, whose union is 10. Three further forms of the practice’s name as the infobox above gives it were run and add nothing to the floor: "Healthcare For Women" 6, of which five are inside that union of 10 and the sixth is a differently named medical-records vendor appearing in an unrelated Florida litigation expense schedule; "Healthcare For Women LLP" 5 and "Life Steps Ob/Gyn Healthcare For Women" 3, both wholly inside it. And the subject-line arm "Schedule Jan 23-31, 2015" 2, of which 1 lies outside every other arm. Negative controls "Morronezzz", "Eileen Morronezzz", "Lee Morronezzz", "Lifestepszzz" and "UFESTEPSZZZ" each return 0. "Lifesteps" and "Life Steps" each return 5 and the two sets are disjoint, so the matching figures are not the same five documents. The union of the surname arm, the Morrnne arm and the practice and merchant arms is 47 documents; adding the one document reachable only by a subject line makes 48; two of the 48, the news digest and the hospital packet noted above, concern other people, which leaves a subject-bearing floor of 46. A container screen was run over every arm by sheet size: the largest sheet in the name union measures 3,852 characters and the largest in the practice arms 2,481, so no aggregate row is in play; one sheet reached by the Morone arm measures 464,137 characters and is an aggregate, and nothing is taken from it. One sweep was attempted and did not finish, and the floor is weaker for it. An exhaustive metric sweep of the corpus vocabulary, taking every token of 5 to 10 characters at Damerau-Levenshtein distance 2 or less from the surname, was launched and killed after 82 minutes with no output on either of its two surfaces. So the misreading arms above come from a generator and from reading, not from an exhaustive metric, and a form the generator does not offer and no document happened to show could still be out there. Morrnne, the arm that mattered most, is exactly such a form: the generator did not offer it and only reading found it. 46 is a floor on reach, not a count of events, and many of the 46 are duplicate copies and stages of the same exchange. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_001585 p. 1, a single sheet carrying the same “Schedule Jan 23-31, 2015” message, with a produced date line reading Friday, January 23 2015 10:17 AM. No form of the subject’s name reaches this sheet, and it was found only by running the message’s subject line as its own arm. Nothing is taken from this sheet here beyond that search fact. Neither the electronic-mail address field nor the street address this sheet carries is reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  14. EFTA00318550 p. 1, produced header Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:39:12 +0000, a message from the Morrone MD Lee Ellen address under the subject “Re: receipt”. Text layer only. It is cited here because the page prints that sender string, and a string a page prints should not lead a reader to a document the page has not named. ↩

  15. EFTA00655341 p. 1, a second copy of the same message, same produced header. Text layer only; not read at an image. ↩

  16. EFTA00353841 p. 1, “Schedule Jan 23-31, 2015”, produced header Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:17:32 +0000, carrying the same two reminders for the Friday. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Its extraction spells the surname Morrnne while spelling the other physician’s name Ting correctly, and it renders “Chip Packard” as “Chip Packani”; the sheet reads “Chip Packard”. ↩

  17. EFTA00353831 p. 1, produced header Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:28:03 +0000, subject “Appointment”. Text layer only, save for the redaction state, read at the image at 400 dpi. The producing party bars five fields on this sheet: two electronic-mail address fields, the name of the person attending, a street address and a telephone value. No contact value and no personal name from this sheet is reproduced here. A second copy of this message, EFTA02085790 p. 1, carries an unzoned produced stamp reading Thur 1/22/2015 9:28:03 PM, which is 21:28:03 and therefore identical to the zoned copy’s UTC time; the pair is one of the proofs that this production’s unzoned Sent: stamps are UTC. ↩

  18. EFTA00353832 p. 1, produced header Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:32:40 +0000, Kimberly Feierstein’s own reply. Text layer only. Groff’s message stands inside it under a quoted preamble which gives its own send time in a different form from the produced headers and without a zone, and reading that time as UTC would put Groff’s reply before the message it answers, so no interval is derived here. ↩

  19. EFTA00319472 p. 1 and EFTA00665653 p. 1, two copies of one message to Jeffrey Epstein, produced header Thu, 08 Sep 2016 21:30:39 +0000. Text layer only. The clause reporting the attempt is damaged in the released text of every copy, so it is not quoted here; the quotation given in the body is taken from the two copies cited for it, whose released text carries the quoted words identically. A third copy, EFTA01781588 p. 1, carries an unzoned produced stamp of Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:31 PM. ↩

  20. EFTA02043910 p. 1, unzoned produced stamp Thur 9/8/2016 4:57:38 PM, a message from Lesley Groff. Text layer only. The quoted wording is as the extraction gives it, and the only names taken from this sheet are Lesley Groff’s and the doctor’s. ↩ ↩2

  21. EFTA02450738 p. 1, unzoned produced stamp Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:09 PM, subject naming the 20 September appointment. Text layer only. This sheet prints an Apple date-received integer, 1473808157, which converts to 2016-09-13 23:09:17 UTC and so matches the produced stamp’s 23:09 exactly. That is a zone oracle printed on the sheet itself, and it establishes that the unzoned produced stamps in this production are UTC rather than local. ↩

  22. EFTA00841129 p. 1, produced header Mon, 09 Nov 2015 17:02:54 +0000, Epstein’s reply. Text layer only. 17:02:54 minus 16:53:19, both zoned at +0000, is 9 minutes 35 seconds. ↩

  23. EFTA00318549 p. 1, produced header Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:32:22 +0000, forwarding a paid invoice with the words “On JE Amex”. Text layer only. Two further sheets of the same morning, EFTA00318551 p. 1 and EFTA00318552 p. 1, record a further appointment being set for 10 November; both quote the inner stamp as “September 20, 2016 at 11:39:12 AM EDT”, which is 15:39:12 UTC. ↩

  24. EFTA00317140 p. 1, an itemised form of her practice dated 21 October 2016, giving a received sum of $625.00. Text layer only; deliberately not rendered, for the reason given at the preceding note. Three further forms of the same kind, dated 23 May 2017, are EFTA00313691 p. 1, EFTA00313698 p. 1 and EFTA00313699 p. 1; nothing is written from them here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  25. EFTA00317719 p. 1, produced header Thu, 06 Oct 2016 17:44:36 +0000. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The card line reproduced inside the message is a table row whose cells give the date OCT 5, the practice merchant descriptor, New York NY, the cardholder name and the figure $350.00. The city and the cardholder name overlap in the rendering. No cell of it is quoted here, because a contiguous string of the row stands on no sheet and an interleaved table row reassembled into a quotation is a fabrication. The producing party bars nine fields on this sheet: four electronic-mail address fields, in the header and in the two quoted attribution lines; two telephone values and two further lines, one of each in the two signature blocks; and the name in the body which the quotation above marks with a bar. None of the nine is reproduced here. ↩

  26. EFTA00437862 p. 1, produced header Fri, 21 Oct 2016 15:18:47 +0000, forwarding a receipt from the Morrone MD Lee Ellen address under a subject line naming a second physician. Text layer only. ↩

  27. EFTA00025231 p. 4 of a 6-sheet run whose p. 1 is a Law360 New York news digest dated 26 May 2021. Text layer only. The Morrone on this sheet is the named party in a First Circuit securities decision and has no connection to this subject. ↩

  28. EFTA00308055 p. 11 of an 11-sheet patient-intake packet from a New York hospital, whose p. 1 is a demographic form. Text layer only. The Morrone on p. 11 is a nurse practitioner named in a departmental consent form and is a different person. The run concerns a patient’s medical care and nothing is written from it here. ↩

  29. The eleven documents on the morron arm, all opened at the text layer: EFTA01046294 p. 1, EFTA01046300 p. 1, EFTA01046302 p. 1, EFTA01046304 p. 1, EFTA01046309 p. 1, EFTA02649806 p. 1, EFTA02649819 p. 1 and EFTA02651648 p. 1, which are copies and stages of one private exchange of 13 May 2017; EFTA01037496 p. 1 and EFTA02639716 p. 1, two copies of a message of 20 August 2017; and EFTA01503795 p. 1, a bank statement. In the first ten the token is a misspelling of the English word “moron”, written by a correspondent whose other messages are composed in an Italian-language mail client. In the eleventh it is damaged optical recognition of the bank’s own name, which the same sheet also carries undamaged. None of the eleven was rendered; in the first ten the word stands in a grammatical English sentence after an indefinite article, where a surname cannot stand, and in the eleventh it sits inside a block of unreadable recognition noise. The private exchange is not described further here. ↩

  30. The Marrone arm, 7 documents: EFTA00160275 p. 7 and EFTA01655747 p. 7, two copies of one congressional letter naming a Justice Department official; and EFTA01270954 p. 155, EFTA01274941 pp. 219 and 279 (both aggregate rows, of 11,015 and 11,024 characters, on which no confirmation rests here), EFTA01283216 p. 11, EFTA01504981 p. 1 and EFTA01511504 p. 1, in all of which the token is damaged recognition of the word “statement” inside bank boilerplate. The Morone arm, 3 documents: EFTA01121261 p. 4, a New York case-law excerpt citing a 1980 palimony decision of that name; EFTA01123234 pp. 41 and 77, a slide deck quoting a named political scientist, whose same material also stands on HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020824 p. 1, an aggregate row of 464,137 characters from which nothing is taken. All read at the text layer; none rendered; none concerns this subject. ↩

Backlinks