Epstein Data Wiki

Michael F. McAuliffe

Properties2
tagsperson, prosecutor, palm-beach, state-attorney, community-control, 2009-2010
aliasesMichael McAuliffe, Michael F. McAuliffe, Mike McAuliffe, SA McAuliffe, Michael Maculiffe, McAuliffe, Michael

33 min read

OfficeState Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida12
Named on the documents asMichael McAuliffe, Michael F. McAULIFFE, Mr. McAuliffe, SA McAuliffe, Mike McAuliffe — and, in Jeffrey Epstein’s own hand, Michael Maculiffe and mcaulife, misspelled twice in one thread34
⚠ The capitals are the office, not the manMICHAEL F. McAULIFFE over STATE ATTORNEY is the printed block of the office. On the filings and the letterhead read here it stands above a By: line and the manuscript signature of an Assistant State Attorney52
What he signs himselfMM — two letters, at the end of one e-mail6
The act this page is built onHis own message of Thursday 1 April 2010, 8:31 a.m., refusing to support modification of Epstein’s community control: “I think, as you suggest, the defendant simply needs to finish his sentence as it was agreed to in the initial resolution. Thanks. MM”6
His office refused the defendant three times in seven monthsa filed Notice of Non-Agreement, 11 September 20095 · “We will not agree to any early termination on his community control” to the federal prosecutor’s office, 10 February 20107 · his own decision, 1 April 20106
He commissioned the position paper before he decided”As per your request I am forwarding the following summary” — six days before the decision8
⚠ And the approach came from Epstein’s sideEpstein named him to a private businessman in October 2009 and asked for an approach4; Epstein’s defence team billed for a meeting with him on 8 May 20099; and in January 2012 Epstein asked “should we approach him to help before he leaves??”10
⭐ The resistance test returns the opposite of resistanceNone of this was prised out. The 2009–2010 correspondence is public because it was produced, under a 2019 public-records request and an inter-agency request. No refusal, exemption, privilege claim or missed deadline by his office appears in anything read11
Covered elsewhere on this wikiJack Goldberger, who wrote to his office · Barry Krischer · A. Marie Villafaña · the 2008 non-prosecution agreement

Michael F. McAuliffe was the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. It is the office that had prosecuted the Jeffrey Epstein state case of 2006–2008. He held it after that case was resolved, and the documents released here record what his office did with what it had inherited.

⚠ THIS PAGE IS SCOPED ON SEVEN MONTHS. It is not a career. Between September 2009 and April 2010 Epstein’s lawyers asked the State Attorney’s Office three times to soften the sentence their client was serving, and three times the office said no. The last refusal is his own writing. That is the spine, and everything else here either supports it or cuts against it.

⚠ When he entered the office is not establishable from these documents

This page does not say when he became State Attorney, or from whom, because the released material does not say. That is a measurement, not an impression. The construction is richly present across this release: “elected State Attorney” stands on 33 sheets in 29 documents and “assumed office” on 33 sheets in 30 documents, against an invented control token returning zero. Not one of those sheets also carries his surname. Neither does “State Attorney since”. The single sheet on which “took office” and the surname meet is a magazine digest in which the two phrases belong to two different people, neither of them him.12

⚠ The two names never meet. Krischer and McAuliffe do not co-occur on a single sheet anywhere in this release. The office he held is the office Barry Krischer held during the 2006–08 prosecution, and that much is on the record; but no document read for this page records the handover, dates it, or places the two men in the same sentence. This page therefore states the office and declines to state the succession.12

⚠ One sentence in his file says “my predecessor” and it must not be read as Krischer. It was written by an assistant state attorney about her own predecessor, the sheet does not say whose, and this page does not resolve it.7

The decision of 1 April 2010

At 8:31 on a Thursday morning he answered a question his assistant had put to him six minutes earlier, in two sentences and two initials.

I think, as you suggest, the defendant simply needs to finish his sentence as it was agreed to in the initial resolution. Thanks. MM6

This is the only extended passage of his own prose in the release, and MM is the only thing on any sheet read that he signs himself.3

⚠ The message is his; the mailbox is not. All three renderings of it are printed from his assistant state attorney’s mailbox, and her name heads the sheet. The header prints in register at the image, reading From: Michael McAuliffe and Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:31 AM, and this page quotes from a rendering that does so.6

What he was answering matters as much as what he wrote, and it is not his prose. Six minutes earlier Assistant State Attorney Barbara Jean Burns had written to him and to Chief Assistant State Attorney Paul Zacks:

This dragon just keeps raising its ugly head! May I tell him to just file his motion to modify with the Court? I don’t know how to convey to him anymore than I already have that his client is a registered sex offender that was fortunate to get the deal of the century, fortunate enough, even as a sex offender, to be granted work release while serving his jail sentences (I am not aware of that ever happening before) and certainly fortunate to plea at a time when it was not required by statute that he be placed on sex offender probation with all of the restrictive conditions that the vast majority of individuals in his similar situation would have been subjected to. Please advise.6

⚠ The sharpest sentences in this file are hers, not his. This page separates them deliberately. What the document establishes about him is narrower and firmer: the question went up to him, and he answered it.

Eighteen minutes later the answer went to the defence, with him copied. Burns wrote to Jack Goldberger: “I shared your latest email with Mr. McAuliffe and we both agree that it is our position that he needs to honor his commitment and complete his community control as agreed.” She added that if a motion were filed she would need time “to get the Det. and victims notified so they can appear for the hearing.”13

Three refusals in seven months

September 2009. Defence counsel submitted a proposed Agreed Order modifying Epstein’s community control on Thursday 10 September 2009. The office did not negotiate it. It filed a Notice of Non-Agreement in State of Florida vs. JEFFREY E EPSTEIN the following day, stating that the Assistant State Attorney “does not agree to Defendant’s request and requests an evidentiary hearing in the event the Court entertains the issue”, and asking the court to “take no action on the Proposed Agreed Order submitted by defense”. His name stands on it as the printed office block; the hand on the page is Burns’s.5

February 2010. A federal prosecutor asked the office for its position on early termination of community control, or transfer to regular probation. The answer, the next day, was flat:

Don’t worry. We will not agree to any early termination on his community control. I have not even been advised of his intent to seek early term. He was never required/ordered to be evaluated.7

⚠ This is the clearest statement of the office’s position in the release, and his name is not on the sheet. It was written by an assistant state attorney, and this page attributes it to the office rather than to him.7 ⚠ Its wording is unique in this release: one rendering only, which means no second copy exists to differ from it. That is a weaker clean than agreement across copies, and it is recorded as the weaker one.14

April 2010. His own decision, above.

He asked for the position paper before he decided

On Friday 26 March 2010, six days before the decision, his assistant sent him a written summary that opens: “As per your request I am forwarding the following summary”. He had asked for it. He did not decide and then paper the decision.8

What the summary told him, on the point that mattered, was unambiguous:

there is no known case where a Sex Offender on Community Contro! has ever been given early termination of Community Control by agreement from our office or DOC8

⚠ Contro! is the extraction’s rendering and is reproduced, not repaired. The summary also recorded that the federal prosecutor’s office had taken no side: its letter language left the question “entirely within the discretion of the State Attorney’s Office and the Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge”. ⚠ That federal sentence is reproduced in eleven documents corpus-wide; it is standard language and not peculiar to his file.8

He followed the paper.

What the inherited file did not contain

On Friday 9 October 2009 Burns escalated to him and to Zacks about the orders the office could not find:

I have scoured the boxes and can find no written no contact orders15

⚠ Other paragraphs of that sheet concern a complainant and are neither quoted nor described here.

Two weeks later the same gap went to the other side in writing, on his letterhead. A letter of 24 October 2009 to Goldberger, under the office’s printed block with his name on it, tells defence counsel that orders of no victim contact were never reduced to writing and filed with the clerk, and encloses an order for approval: “If you agree that it is correct please have your client sign and date the order and return to me for presenting to the Court and filing with the Clerk’s office.”2

⚠⚠ A PHYSICAL NOTE IS STUCK TO THAT LETTER, AND THE TEXT LAYER HIDES IT. At the image a yellow adhesive note sits across the first paragraph, carrying three words in manuscript: “Needs. written / no contact / orders.” It physically covers part of two lines, which is why the extraction returns that sentence broken. An earlier reading of this sheet recorded the break as damaged OCR. It is not damage. It is a note somebody in the office stuck on the page, and this page does not attempt to reconstruct the words underneath it.2

⚠ That the predecessor’s file lacked written no-contact orders is what these two documents record. Whose fault that was, they do not say, and neither does this page.

The approach from Epstein’s side, October 2009

On 7 October 2009 Epstein wrote to David J. Mitchell of Mitchell Holdings, a New York businessman, and named the sitting State Attorney, getting the surname wrong. Quoted exactly, including Epstein’s own parenthetical and his own punctuation:

david,, the local D.A. who has little to do with me currently, but can either be a hindrance or a help is named Michael Maculiffe. ,, ( jew) I’m told he is close to Danny Abraham.. if you feel comfortable, would you ask danny to put in a good word . this guy want to be governor , it is silly not to be on my side.4

⚠ Four things about that sentence, because it is the most quotable thing on this page and the easiest to misuse.

First, the ethnic parenthetical is Epstein’s. It is in the original, it is reproduced rather than dropped, and it is Epstein’s word about the State Attorney, not this page’s and not the record’s.

Second, “I’m told he is close to Danny Abraham” is Epstein’s hearsay and nothing else. It is prefaced “I’m told”. It establishes that Epstein believed, or said he believed, in a connection. It establishes nothing whatever about Danny Abraham, who is named in this message as a supposed route and who is not recorded anywhere read as having done anything.

Third, “this guy want to be governor” is Epstein’s characterisation of the State Attorney’s ambitions. ⚠ No document read for this page supports or contradicts it. It is carried because it is Epstein’s stated reason for thinking the man worth approaching.

Fourth, the surname is misspelled, and that is how the document stayed hidden. Maculiffe is reachable by no spelling of the real name. The best document on this subject is one that a search for his name does not return.3

The thread ran on through that evening. Mitchell offered “do you want me to arrange a meeting at Danny’s house”; Epstein declined the meeting and asked for something smaller: “no, it would just be helpful if danny would tell the guy , im not a sicko and do a lot for israel”; and a reply in the thread reads “Consider it done”. ⚠ This page does not say who sent that reply. In a later message Epstein wrote that he had not had “any power figures call him”, “for fear it would become public and misinterpreted”.4

⚠ The ordering above follows the nesting of the quoted messages, which is what the document itself fixes. It does not follow the clock. The timestamps on this sheet print in more than one convention and cannot be sequenced against each other. All of it is 7 October 2009.4

⛔ What is unrecorded is narrower than it looks

It is not true that nothing answers the approach: the thread itself answers it. The intermediary replied, and the reply says the thing was done.

What no document read for this page records is whether the approach ever reached the State Attorney, and whether anything came of it. There is no message to him, from him, or about him on the point. ⚠ Three weeks later his office was still writing to defence counsel about the unwritten orders, and five months later it was still refusing modification, which is consistent with the approach having come to nothing. That is a reading of a sequence, not a record of one.

January 2012: a second approach, proposed and not recorded as made

In January 2012 a correspondent sent Epstein a Palm Beach Post headline: “McAuliffe won’t seek re-election as state attorney; plans to join Oxbow Carbon”. Epstein replied, copying his own defence counsel, “should we approach him to help before he leaves??” The answer came back: “Perhaps. I am stiil trying to learn whether he intends to stay for the last year of his term.”10

⚠ stiil is the extraction’s rendering and is reproduced inside the quotation, not repaired. ⚠ The extraction also mangles the newspaper’s own name on this sheet; the name is given correctly above because it stands in this page’s voice and not inside a quotation. ⚠ The sheet’s own date fields are damaged; this page gives the month and not the day. ⚠ Nothing read records any approach being made.

⚠ What cuts the other way

A page that reads this office as having held the line has to carry the facts that point elsewhere, in the same breath.

Epstein’s defence team billed for a meeting with him. An invoice of 1 June 2009 from Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. to Jack Goldberger, headed “Regarding: Epstein, Jeffrey”, carries a line for 8 May 2009 reading “Meeting with client and Jack Goldberger; meeting with Michael McAuliffe; meeting with Jack Goldberger”, billed at 2.80 hours and $1,400.00.9

⚠ The figure is for the whole line, which covers three meetings, not for the meeting with the State Attorney. ⚠⚠ And a meeting is not a favour. The invoice records that a meeting was billed. It says nothing about what was said at it, who asked for it, or what it produced, and no other document read records it at all: not a calendar, not a note, not a memorandum.

He had met the other side too. A message of April 2009 between the federal prosecutor’s office and civil plaintiffs’ counsel records that “Bob and Evelyn Sheehan, one of our colleagues working on the case who will soon be an AUSA, met with SA McAuliffe, ASA Barbara Bums and Chief ASA Paul Zacks on Monday.” ⚠ Bums is the extraction’s rendering of Burns and is reproduced, not repaired. ⚠ The sheet does not resolve which of the people named is “one of our colleagues”, and this page does not either.16

And he was running a public-corruption initiative in the same period. A South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial of 3 August 2010 records that “State Attorney Michael McAuliffe recently announced the creation of a Public Corruption Task Force that would investigate elected officials suspected of criminal activities.”17 A Palm Beach Post editorial of 10 June 2009, “Bust the driver license ring”, quotes him from an interview about a driver-licence fraud task force led by his office. The pull-quote set beside the text reads “The investigation is very active and focused, so you’ll see a second round in a timely manner.”18 ⚠ Neither is Epstein material, and neither is offered as any kind of character evidence. They are here because a page that argued the office was captured would have to account for them.

His office had notice of the move to unseal

On 2 June 2009 a federal prosecutor recorded that a hearing on the Palm Beach Post’s motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement was set for 10 June, and that “We have been given notice of that hearing, along with Michael McAuliffe from the State Attorney’s Office.”19 He was on the service list for the newspaper’s motion.20

Identification, and the spellings

Seven forms of his name are printed in this release, and they do not all reach him by the same route: Michael McAuliffe, Michael F. McAULIFFE, Mr. McAuliffe, SA McAuliffe, Mike McAuliffe, and Epstein’s Michael Maculiffe and mcaulife, misspelled twice in one thread.3

⚠⚠ TWO FURTHER “SPELLINGS” WERE PUT TO THIS PAGE AND NEITHER SURVIVED THE IMAGE. A reading of the extraction had added a form of the surname beginning with the letter-pair Nl, taken from a Palm Beach Post attribution line, and a form spelled MacAuliffe. At 300 dpi the newspaper prints his surname correctly; the Nl belongs to the extraction and not to the page that was printed. And MacAuliffe is the surname of an unrelated civil litigant in a case that has nothing to do with this one. ⚠ Both are recorded here because a count of spellings is a claim, and two of its members were wrong.318

⚠ The surname is dangerous to shorten. Most of the people this surname reaches in this release are not him: among them a national party chairman, an Australian lawyer, a Georgia solicitor general, a line on a county property roll and a precast-concrete supplier. Dropping a letter from the end of the surname returns the concrete supplier, not the prosecutor.3

No signature of his, and now that is tested

His name reaches the filings as the office’s printed block over an Assistant State Attorney’s By: line. The triage that preceded this page recorded that no manuscript signature of his appears anywhere in the set, and recorded it as untested, because no sheet had been opened at an image.

⚠ Eight sheets have now been opened at the image for this page, and the four that would carry a signature if any sheet did were opened at 400 dpi. On all four the finding holds and the mechanism is visible: on the Notice of Non-Agreement and on the October 2009 letter, MICHAEL F. McAULIFFE / STATE ATTORNEY is typeset, and the ink on the page is Barbara Jean Burns’s signature; the office’s own badge in the letterhead carries his name as part of the seal. On the two e-mail sheets his name prints in a header field and nowhere else. ⚠ Four sheets is four sheets. The claim is tested on those and remains untested across the rest of the set, which was read from the extraction only.526

⭐ The resistance test, and it comes back inverted

This desk’s standing practice is to treat what an institution refuses to release as a finding in its own right. Applied here, the test returns the opposite of resistance, and that is worth stating plainly.

The vocabulary of withholding is everywhere in this release and nowhere near him. Measured name-free and corpus-wide first: “exempt from disclosure” stands on 4,021 sheets in 3,066 documents, “privilege log” on 4,334 sheets in 1,174 documents, “motion to quash” on 1,284 sheets in 651 documents, “withheld pursuant to” on 412 sheets in 111 documents and “declined to produce” on 19 sheets in 17 documents, against an invented control token returning zero. Intersected with his surname, every one of the five returns nothing at all.11

The reason his file is readable is printed on the sheets themselves. The April 2010 thread carries a 2019 public-records request number in its footer; the September 2009 filing and the October 2009 letter carry an inter-agency request number and a 2019 production date. ⭐ His office’s Epstein correspondence is public because somebody asked for it and his office handed it over. No refusal, no exemption claimed, no privilege asserted, no deadline passed, no non-production appears in anything read.11

What is not in the record

  1. ⛔ Nothing read records his office moving to revisit, reopen, re-charge or set aside the 2006–2008 disposition, as distinct from defending its terms against the defendant’s attempts to soften them. Established the same way: “motion to vacate” stands on 163 sheets in 94 documents corpus-wide, “reopen the investigation” on 35 sheets in 28, “set aside the plea” on 8 sheets in 7, control zero; intersected with his surname, all three return nothing.11
  2. ⛔ Nothing read records the October 2009 approach reaching him, or any response from him to it.
  3. ⛔ Nothing read records what was said at the meeting his opponents billed for on 8 May 2009.
  4. ⛔ Nothing read dates his entry into the office, and nothing read names the person he took it from.12

⚠ He left the office before the end of his term. A reported appellate opinion, in a securities case having nothing to do with this one, records in a footnote that “At the time the Governor issued the executive order, Michael McAuliffe served as the State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Shortly thereafter, McAuliffe resigned and the Governor appointed Peter Antonacci to serve as the State Attorney for the remainder of the term.” ⚠ The footnote dates the resignation only as “shortly thereafter”, and this page assigns it no date.1

Footnotes

  1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00208583 p. 1, footnote 3 of a reported appellate opinion in an unrelated securities matter. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The quoted span is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE on the divergence screen — the weaker clean. ⚠ This is the only document read for this page that states the fact of his departure rather than reporting it, and it dates it only as “shortly thereafter”. ⚠ The document is typed in the corpus as a court filing and is an appellate opinion. ↩ ↩2

  2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02728790 p. 1, letter of 24 October 2009 from the Office of the State Attorney to Jack Goldberger, under the printed block OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY / FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT / IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY / MICHAEL F. McAULIFFE / STATE ATTORNEY, signed in manuscript by Barbara Jean Burns, Assistant State Attorney. A second rendering at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02728823 p. 1. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. ⚠⚠ A yellow adhesive note is physically affixed across the first paragraph, carrying the manuscript words “Needs. written / no contact / orders.” It obscures part of two lines. The words beneath it are not reconstructed here, and the first sentence of the letter is therefore described rather than quoted. ⚠ An earlier reading recorded the break as damaged OCR; at the image it is an adhesive note, and that correction is recorded rather than quietly fixed. ⛔ The letter carries a street line, a telephone extension, a footer address, a telephone number, a production date stamp and request numbers; all are excluded. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. The forms of his name, and the other people the surname reaches, were established by the desk’s own reading of the released material rather than by any document that says so. No query form or retrieval route is published. ⚠ Seven printed forms reach him, two of them by routes that a list of correct spellings does not touch; the October 2009 thread, which is the most substantial document about him in the release, is reachable by none of them. ⚠ A longer list of spellings was put to this page and two of its members were wrong: one is an extraction artefact that the printed page does not carry, and one belongs to a different person. Both are set out in the body rather than quietly dropped. ⚠ Most of the surname’s occurrences in this corpus are other people, among them a national party chairman, an Australian lawyer, an American solicitor general, a line on a county tax roll, an academic citation and a construction supplier. ⚠ Truncating the surname by one letter returns a different man entirely. ⚠ Nothing in the him-set was read at an image except the sheets marked as verified above; the rest is UNTESTED, not cleared. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00740396 p. 1, Jeffrey Epstein’s thread with David J. Mitchell of Mitchell Holdings, 7 October 2009, with the quoted sentence completing on p. 2. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, both sheets. Every quotation is reproduced exactly, including Epstein’s own punctuation, his spelling of the surname, and his parenthetical, none of which is repaired. ⚠ The earlier text-layer transcription of this passage rendered Epstein’s doubled commas as a single typographic character and stopped the sentence a sheet early; both are corrected here against the image. The spine spans clear the divergence screen by agreement across five copies, and the continuation likewise across five; the later segment about “power figures” is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — the weaker clean. ⚠ The timestamps on this sheet print in more than one convention; the order given on the page is the order of the quoted nesting, which the document fixes, and not a clock sequence. ⚠ One reply in the thread is not attributed to a sender by this page. ⛔ A street line, a telephone number and a facsimile number print on this sheet and are excluded. Four further renderings of the thread exist. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  5. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02728836 p. 1 — NOTICE OF NON-AGREEMENT, State of Florida vs. JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, case nos. 2006CF009454AMB and 2008CF009381AMB, Division “W”. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The day of the month is handwritten in the certificate of service and reads 11th; the extraction renders it as loose characters, so the date of filing is established at the image and not from the text layer. The signature block prints MICHAEL F. McAULIFFE / STATE ATTORNEY in type, above By: and the manuscript signature of Barbara Jean Burns, Assistant State Attorney. Four further renderings exist. The quoted spans clear the divergence screen by agreement across five copies. ⛔ Defence counsel’s address, a bar number, a court accommodations contact and the production stamps are on this sheet and are excluded. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  6. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00033147 p. 5 — his e-mail of Thursday 1 April 2010, 8:31 a.m., subject “RE: Epstein”, carrying beneath it the 8:25 a.m. message of Assistant State Attorney Barbara Jean Burns to him and to Chief Assistant State Attorney Paul Zacks, and beneath that defence counsel’s message of Wednesday 31 March 2010. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. The header prints in register: From: Michael McAuliffe, Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 8:31 AM, To: Barbara Burns. ⚠ The sheet is printed from his assistant’s mailbox and is headed with her name: the message is his, the account is not the source. ⚠ The sheet’s own footer stamp is not the addressable container identifier; the citation is to the addressable one and no mapping between the two is derived here. ⚠ A second rendering at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02728854 p. 3 and a third at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02857384 p. 5; the third prints its header column-shuffled and is not the rendering quoted. The quoted span and the span of the question put to him each agree across three copies on the desk’s divergence screen. ⛔ Defence counsel’s contact details print on this sheet and are excluded. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  7. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00207139 p. 1, an assistant state attorney in his office writing to a federal prosecutor, 10 February 2010. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. ⚠ The sheet carries no form of his name and was recovered by a name-free route; it is the clearest statement of the office’s position in the release. ⚠ The quoted sentence is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE on the divergence screen: one rendering only, so there is no second rendering against which the span could be tested at all. That is the weaker kind of clean and is carried as the weaker kind. ⚠ The sentence continues “A decision made by my predecessor — not something I would have let slide.” It is the writer’s own predecessor; the sheet does not say whose, and this page does not resolve it. ⚠ This page attributes the refusal to the office and not to the State Attorney personally. ⛔ Contact values on the sheet are excluded. The federal enquiry it answers, of 9 February 2010, is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00207086 p. 1, and is described on this page rather than quoted. ⛔ Contact values on that sheet are excluded. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  8. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02728859 p. 1, Burns to him, Friday 26 March 2010, 9:02 a.m., subject “FW: Confidential”; a second rendering at https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00033147 p. 8. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The opening span clears the divergence screen by agreement across two copies and the “no known case” span across three — a third rendering of the latter stands in a document already cited elsewhere on this page; the federal sentence quoted inside it clears across eleven. ⚠ An earlier note here gave two for both. A count is a claim, and understating corroboration is still misstating it. ⚠ The federal sentence is a quotation of a federal letter reproduced inside the e-mail, and is cited as that letter’s words. ⚠ Other passages of this summary relay third-hand allegations about uninvolved people and are neither quoted nor described here. ⛔ A federal e-mail address prints on the sheet and is excluded. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00722333 p. 1, invoice no. 127 of 1 June 2009 from Bruce E. Reinhart, P.A. to Jack Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, headed “Regarding: Epstein, Jeffrey”. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi, which is why the figures are given: the date, staff initials, description, hours, rate and charge print in register across the row, and the pairing is read from the image and not from the extraction, which returns this table column by column. ⚠ The 2.80 hours and $1,400.00 are the line’s total and the line records three meetings. ⚠ The invoice exists in one rendering; its name-free neighbours each return the weaker unique clean on the divergence screen, so no copy family exists to test the row against — the image is what settles it. ⚠ The document is typed in the corpus as a memorandum and is an invoice. ⛔ A letterhead street line and further billing lines naming uninvolved people are excluded. ↩ ↩2

  10. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00708822 p. 1, a January 2012 exchange in which a correspondent forwards Epstein the Palm Beach Post headline and Epstein replies, copying his defence counsel. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01999290 p. 1 carries the same forwarded headline, and that sheet only: Epstein’s question and the reply to it are on the first sheet and not on the second. Both read from the text layer; neither verified at the image. The headline span clears the divergence screen by agreement across two copies; Epstein’s question and the reply are each UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — the weaker clean. ⚠ The first sheet’s own date fields are damaged. A header block on the second dates the forwarding of the headline to 17 January 2012; a header is not continuous prose, so it is recorded here and not relied on, and the page gives the month alone. ⚠ Epstein’s message opens with a clause about a birthday whose referent the sheet does not settle; it is not quoted. ⚠ The person Epstein proposes to approach is not named in his sentence. The only officeholder under discussion in the thread is the departing State Attorney, and this page reads “him” as him — a reading, marked as one. ⛔ The correspondent’s mail handle is on the sheet and is excluded. ↩ ↩2

  11. Both absence claims were established name-free and corpus-wide first and only then intersected with the subject. The withholding vocabulary and the reopening vocabulary are each richly present across the corpus against an invented control token returning zero, and each intersects with his surname at nothing. ⚠ An absence measured this way is a statement about this release and not about the world: it records that no such instrument appears in what was produced. The production stamps that make his file readable print on the sheets themselves — a 2019 public-records request number on the April 2010 thread and an inter-agency request number with a 2019 production date on the September 2009 filing and the October 2009 letter, all four seen at the image. The numbers themselves are not reproduced here. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  12. The absence was established name-free and corpus-wide before being intersected with the subject, which is the only form of absence claim this desk accepts. The constructions that would date an entry into office are richly present in the corpus and an invented control token returns zero; intersected with his surname they return nothing. The one sheet on which “took office” and the surname meet was register-screened and opened, and is a magazine digest in which the phrase belongs to a head of state and the surname to a different American. ⚠ This is a measurement that his entry is not datable from this corpus. It is not a claim that he was not elected, and it is not a claim about who preceded him. ⚠ A live page on this wiki describes him in a relational phrase that no sheet in this release supports; the discrepancy is recorded here and its remedy belongs to that page, not to this one. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  13. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00033147 p. 1 — Burns to Jack Goldberger, 1 April 2010, 8:49 a.m., Cc: Michael McAuliffe. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 400 dpi. Both quoted spans clear the divergence screen by agreement across copies. ⛔ Contact details on the sheet are excluded. ↩

  14. Every passage quoted on this page was put through the desk’s copy-divergence screen in span mode before it was used, and the tool was confirmed against both of its known references first. Verdicts are reported individually in the notes above and are of three kinds: agreement across a named number of copies, UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — one rendering, meaning no copy family exists to differ, which is the weaker clean — and, where an anchor is absent from the extraction, nothing measured, which is a fact about the extraction and not about the passage. ⚠ Where the extraction and the image disagreed, the image governed and the disagreement is recorded rather than quietly corrected. ↩

  15. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01248886 p. 1, Barbara Jean Burns to him and to Paul Zacks, Friday 9 October 2009, 10:25 a.m. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The quoted span is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE on the divergence screen — the weaker clean. ⚠ Other paragraphs of this sheet concern a complainant and are neither quoted, described nor characterised here. ⚠ His position on this sheet is a recipient address field; he is nowhere on it in a complainant or victim position. ↩

  16. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00212044 p. 1, a message of April 2009 between the federal prosecutor’s office and civil plaintiffs’ counsel. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The quoted span is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE on the divergence screen — the weaker clean. ⚠ The meeting is placed only as “on Monday”, and the message’s own date sits in a header block timestamped in Coordinated Universal Time, which falls on a different calendar day from the local one. The precise dates an earlier reading gave for the meeting and for the message are derivations from that single header, not records, and this page gives the month. ⛔ A street line and a telephone number are on the sheet and are excluded. ↩

  17. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00189828 p. 19, South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial “It takes real partners to battle public corruption”, dated 3 August 2010 in the article’s own dateline. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The quoted span is UNIQUE IN THIS RELEASE — the weaker clean. ⚠ Press, not record, and unrelated to this case. ↩

  18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00259898 p. 45 — a container row, read at the image and not rested on its text layer — The Palm Beach Post, page 8A, Wednesday 10 June 2009, the editorial “Bust the driver license ring”, on a driver-licence fraud task force led by the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office. VERIFIED AT THE IMAGE at 300 dpi. ⚠ Unrelated to this case; carried only as evidence that he held the office and was publicly active in it. ⚠⚠ AND IT OVERTURNS A FINDING PUT TO THIS PAGE. The desk was told that this clipping prints his surname with the letter-pair Nl in place of the M. It does not. At the image the attribution line under the pull-quote reads MICHAEL McAULIFFE, correctly, and it is a pull-quote attribution and not a photograph caption. The mangled form is the extraction’s artefact, and treating an extraction artefact as a form of a man’s name is the error this page exists to avoid. ⚠ The sheet is a whole broadsheet page of 16,542 characters and its text layer interleaves unrelated columns; the quotation above was taken from the image, not from the extraction. ↩ ↩2

  19. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00014173 p. 1, a federal prosecutor’s numbered status note of 2 June 2009. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The quoted span clears the divergence screen by agreement across two copies. ↩

  20. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02729648 p. 12, the service list on the newspaper’s motion to unseal, naming him and an assistant state attorney for the State Attorney’s Office. Thirteen further renderings exist across the same production. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. ⚠ No name-free span exists on this line to put through the divergence screen, so the page states only that he was on the list and quotes nothing from it. ⛔ These sheets are dense with street lines and facsimile numbers; none is reproduced. ↩

Backlinks