Stacey Plaskett

Named on the documents as	”Stacey Plaskett” in the To field of a 2014 scheduling chain and in the subject line “Meeting with Stacey Plaskett”; “Stacey Plaskett, Esq.” in her own signature block on that chain; “STACEY E. PLASKETT” on the cover and running head of a sworn deposition; “Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett” in a party’s court filing and in an office schedule; “Stacey” alone in several e-mails between other people; “Plasket”, one t, in one paragraph of the same court filing1234
What a document in the release calls her	”the Delegate to the United States House of Representatives from the USVI”, in a party’s statement of facts filed in the JPMorgan litigation3
Range of documents cited here	Dated material from 17 August 2011 to 9 May 2023, across twelve documents read for it52
How she appears in the file	As a correspondent and a scheduling object in other people’s offices, and once at length in her own sworn words. Most sheets here were written by somebody else about her. Four messages in one 2014 chain carry her own typed words; one twenty‑six‑sheet exhibit carries her testimony under oath12
Not the same person as	Dean C. Plaskett, the Commissioner who signs a 2006 coastal‑zone permit read at LSJ, LLC. That sheet and these documents are not about the same person, and nothing on this page concerns him
Covered elsewhere on this wiki	The January 2018 request that a meeting be arranged with a senator, read from the other two sides at Chuck Schumer and Kathryn Ruemmler; the August 2014 arrangement read from her side, and the same January 2018 exchange, at Erika Kellerhals; a September 2018 day schedule at David Stern. This page does not restate any of them

Stacey Plaskett is the Delegate to the United States House of Representatives from the U.S. Virgin Islands. She appears in this release the way a politician appears in a donor’s filing cabinet: in other people’s e-mail about raising money for her, in a scheduling chain fixing a time for her, in a reminder line on an assistant’s daily schedule, and, once, at length and under oath, in her own words, in a deposition taken in the civil action against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. that produced many of the documents on this page.

Measured against the released files as they stood when this page was written, on 21 October 2026, the phrase "Stacey Plaskett" reaches 220 documents across 279 sheets, and the bare token Plaskett reaches 255 documents across 353 sheets, against a release of 1,425,556 documents and 2,925,025 sheets. The reversed phrase returns 5 documents and an invented two-word control returns nothing at all.⁶ Those are counts of sheets carrying a string, not counts of events. A message quoted back inside a reply counts twice, a document produced twice counts twice, and the bare-token figure includes at least one sheet about a different person of the same surname.

What this page is, and what it is not

Sixteen sheets, across five documents, were opened at the page image and read there. The remaining sheets are read from the released text alone, without a page image, and each footnote says which. Where a reading rests on the released text alone the footnote says so, and where that text is damaged this page quotes less rather than more. Seven of the twelve documents read for this page have no local asset at all and could not be opened at the image.⁷ Five further documents are named below as copies or members of a family and were not read; each is marked where it is named. Every sheet of every document read for this page was read, not only the sheets the footnotes pin, so where this page says that no document cited here records something, that is a statement about all of those sheets and not about the release.

The released text of these documents runs straight past places where the paper itself does not, so a passage that reads as continuous prose in the released text is not necessarily continuous on the page. Every quotation below is therefore cut where this page’s own reading stops, and no quotation anywhere on this page is extended by machine beyond what was read.

Where the released text breaks a line inside a sentence, this page treats the break as a wrap and sets the sentence as continuous prose. Where a break falls at a sentence end on a sheet read from the released text alone, the quotation is cut at that point and the fact that the message continues is stated. No two messages, and no question and answer, are ever joined inside one pair of quotation marks anywhere on this page.

Where a producer has barred a sender’s identity, this page does not supply it from context, however obvious the context makes it. One set of sheets below is in exactly that condition and is written accordingly.

An assertion in a party’s court filing is an allegation, not a finding, and is labelled as one every time. The JPMorgan litigation filings cited here are one side’s statement of what it says the evidence shows. A question put by counsel at a deposition is not testimony either: several of the figures below were spoken by a lawyer and the page says so and gives the witness’s actual answer, which in places is narrower than the question.

A scheduled future is not an occurred past. Three of the records below are calendar entries, schedule reminders or meeting arrangements. They establish that something was planned and confirmed. No document cited here establishes that any of those three meetings took place, and this page does not say that they did.

This page does not cover the civil action brought in 2023 by plaintiffs proceeding under a pseudonym, and reproduces nothing from it. Those plaintiffs are complainants; nothing about them, their claims or their circumstances is reproduced or characterised here, and their absence from this page is a deliberate limit on it and not a statement about the record. This page also does not cover the 2025 House censure resolution and vote, Plaskett’s public statements, her committee assignments, or anything outside the released documents. Nothing below is a finding of wrongdoing, and appearing in these files is not evidence of one.

No contact value, identity number, account number or machine identifier of any kind is reproduced anywhere on this page, and this page does not say of any particular sheet whether it carries one or how it is treated there. Several quotations below are cut short, and every cut is disclosed at the point it is made. Where a sheet carries a mark, this page records that nothing has been supplied into it and does not say what it covers.

The introduction, in her own sworn words

The deposition of Stacey E. Plaskett was taken on Tuesday 9 May 2023 in the civil action numbered 1:22-cv-10904 in the Southern District of New York, and filed in it as a twenty-six-sheet exhibit. The running head on every sheet reads “GOV. OF U.S. vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK”, and the caption block on the first transcript sheet names the plaintiff as “GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”, which the sheet sets on two lines and follows with a comma that is not carried into the quotation here. This page gives both as printed and does not resolve them. Asked when she first met Epstein in person, she answered: “After leaving the Economic Development Authority.” Asked how that first meeting came about:

“Well, I was running for office. I was, as individuals running for office do, looking for contributors, donors. Erika Kellerhals introduced me to Mr. Epstein as a potential donor.”⁸

The next question, which was where the first meeting was, is answered on the same sheet, and a mark on that line covers part of the answer. Nothing is supplied into it here and the answer is not quoted.

On the law firm, the same deposition:

“And when you went to work for the Kellerhals firm, how long did you work there?”

“I don’t recall the time frame, but it would have been 2013.”⁹

Counsel then asked whether she had, while at the firm, done “any work for Epstein or any Epstein-related businesses?” Her answer was “I don’t recall.” Asked next what kind of work she did at the firm, she answered “Predominantly transactional for companies that were in the Virgin Islands and for a few advice related to the economic development.” Asked whether “Epstein and his businesses remained a client of the Kellerhals firm during the time that you were there; is that fair?”, she answered “Yes.”⁹ Those are three different answers and they are given here as the sheet gives them, in the order the sheet gives them: a non-recollection about work for Epstein, her own account of the work she did do, and a confirmation about the firm’s client. The grammar of “a few advice” is the transcript’s.

Erika Kellerhals has her own page here, which carries her side of the 2014 and 2018 material; this page does not restate it.

June 2014: “we would have a friend in Stacey”

On Thursday 19 June 2014, under the subject “Confidential”, Cecile de Jongh wrote to Epstein. The body of that message, as the sheet carries it, reads in part:

“Jeffrey, Your help is needed. We are trying to get Stacey Plaskett elected to Congress. Shawn Malone (current senate president) is running against her in the Democratic primary in August. Shawn is the one who came after you in the senate hearing last week. He is nasty and needs to be defeated and we would have a friend in Stacey. Since this is a federal election, only personal contributions (up to $2,600/person) can be given. She needs to raise about $75K between now and August. Do you think any of your friends would give to her campaign? With warm regards, Cecile”¹⁰

The quotation runs from the salutation to the signature and is not cut. The line breaks inside it are the released text’s line wraps. The sender and recipient fields on that sheet are damaged or withheld and no address is reproduced here. The same message is carried a second time in the release, and this page cites both.¹⁰

This is Cecile de Jongh’s message, not Plaskett’s. Nothing on the sheet shows that Plaskett wrote it, saw it, or knew of it, and no document cited on this page shows that she did.

August 2014: the scheduling chain, in her own typing

Two months later, a chain of replies under the subject line “Re: Meeting with Stacey Plaskett” fixes a meeting. The chain runs to five sheets, carries messages dated from 11 August 2014 to Friday 15 August 2014, and is printed on those sheets in reverse order, latest first. The To field prints “Stacey Plaskett”; Erika Kellerhals, Ann Rodriguez and Cecile de Jongh are copied. Several of the messages carry no legible sender on the sheets, and this page names no sender for any of those.

The arrangement was for a Monday, and the sheets name the day. On 12 August 2014 Plaskett wrote: “Let me know what is convenient for Jeffrey late morning Monday.”¹ Her sign-off follows on the sheet and is not joined to that sentence here. A reply later the same day put a question to both women: “Could you come see Jeffrey on his island at 11:00am on Monday Aug. 18th? Erika, will you be coming as well?”¹

The meeting was first arranged on the island, and then moved off it after Kellerhals asked. On the morning of Friday 15 August 2014 Ann Rodriquez wrote: “I have both of you scheduled to meet at STC office on Monday at 10:30am.”¹ The rest of that message arranges an escort to a dock and a boat over to Little St. James Island for 11:00am, and it names two members of the Epstein operation’s staff; neither name is reproduced here. Kellerhals then asked for the island to be dropped: “I just took a look at Stacey’s schedule for Monday and its looking fairly tight. Is it at all possible to meet with JEE at the office rather than on the island.”¹ The spelling “its” and the full stop closing that question are the sheet’s. The answer was “Erika, Jeffrey says the Office is fine to meet at. Would 2:30pm work? Or 3pm?”, and Plaskett replied “3pm is perfect for me.” and, on the sheet’s next line, “Thanks so much for accomodating us”.¹ The two sentences are set separately because the released text breaks between them at a sentence end. The spelling “accomodating” is the sheet’s, and that line carries no terminal full stop; none is added here. The surname is printed “Rodriguez” in the Cc block of the covering reply and “Rodriquez” on the line introducing the 15 August message, and each is given here as the sheet prints it.

The last of the day’s replies are on the first sheet. Read upward from the bottom, that sheet carries, among them:

“I’ll defer to stacey. 3pm.” — attributed on the sheet to Erika Kellerhals

“My mistake! Jeffrey wants to meet in the morning at STC. Does a certain time work well for you both?” — the sender field for this reply is not legible on the sheet and this page names no sender. The message continues on a further line of the sheet, which is not joined to this quotation

“How about 8:30 or 11:00am?” — signed “Stacey Plaskett, Esq.”

“Jeffrey would like to do 11 am at STC!” — sender not legible; no sender is named

“That’s fine with me. Thanks so much for your assistance with his.” — signed “Stacey Plaskett, Esq.”¹

The spelling “with his” is the sheet’s and is not corrected here. The lower-case “stacey” is the sheet’s. Each quoted reply ends where the sheet ends it; no two replies are joined, and nothing between them is elided inside a quotation.

This is the earliest document cited here that carries words typed by Plaskett herself, and four of its messages are hers. It establishes that a meeting with Epstein was arranged for Monday 18 August 2014; that it was first arranged on his island and then moved to “STC” after Kellerhals asked whether they could meet at the office instead; that the time moved from 3 pm to 11 am in the course of 15 August 2014; and that she accepted the 11 am. It does not establish that the meeting happened, and no document cited on this page does. The 11 am is named because the chain’s own later message settles it, not because this page picks one of the two times she offered.

Asked at her deposition about the island, she answered:

“Did you ever meet him on Little Saint James?”

“No.”¹¹

The question is counsel’s and the answer is hers. They are given as two utterances and are not joined.

November 2016: a call she made

On Friday 4 November 2016 Cecile de Jongh wrote, in a chain whose subject line is “Re: Democrati[c]” and which also carries Richard Kahn and Erika Kellerhals:

“Stacey Plaskett just called me and said that Erika told her to contact me re her conversation with JE and his support for the Dem Party. I’m assuming that this is to come from STC, right?”¹²

Earlier in the same chain, Kellerhals wrote “Any thoughts on this? Stacey is hounding me.”, and a reply from an account signed “jeffrey E.” reads “i already forwarded it to office with a yes , of course”. Kahn’s answer on the first sheet is two lines: “yes stc” and “thank you”.¹² The spacing before the comma in “with a yes , of course” is the sheet’s. Every quoted span ends where the sheet ends it.

The act attributed to Plaskett here is attributed by de Jongh, in de Jongh’s own account of a telephone call. It is a report of a call, not a record of one, and no sheet cited on this page carries Plaskett’s own account of it.

July 2018: a line on a daily schedule

A schedule circulated to Epstein’s own account on Thursday 19 July 2018 carries, among its reminders:

“Reminder: 3-5:00pm Rece tion in honor of Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett in NY”⁴

The gap in the middle of “Rece tion” is in the released text of the sheet, and is left exactly as that text gives it. The same schedule carries a further reminder line in which a traveller’s name is damaged, and nothing is supplied into it.

This is a reminder on a schedule, which is to say a plan. It shows that the reception was in Epstein’s operating schedule for that afternoon. It does not show that it was held, that Epstein attended, or that Plaskett did.

September 2018: a house off Lexington Avenue

The deposition returns to a visit Plaskett made to Epstein’s New York home. Asked to describe it, she answered:

“I remember it being off of Lexington Avenue. I recall going to the address, ringing the bell, someone coming from outside which I assumed to be a security person.”

and, continuing:

“Someone opening the door, coming into a large foyer area, meeting Lesley Groff, telling me that he would be with me. Walking through an even larger foyer stairwell area to a room immediately there that would appear to be a dining room, where he was sitting at a very long table having a conversation with another gentleman. Wrapping up the conversation, that person leaving — making introductions, that person leaving, and me sitting down and having a conversation with him.”

Asked who the other person was, she answered “I don’t recall the person’s name.” Asked “Were there any women present in the home when you visited?”, she answered “Other than Ms. Groff, no.”¹³

The two quoted spans are consecutive answers interrupted by counsel’s “Uh-huh.”, which is why they are set as two blocks and not joined. The double hyphen is the transcript’s. Lesley Groff has her own page here.

The deposition sheet quoted here does not date this visit. The month in the heading above comes from a day schedule for a Monday in September 2018 that places an appointment with Plaskett among others, which is read at David Stern; this page does not re-derive that reading. A schedule entry is a plan, and no document cited here shows which day the visit she describes fell on.

The DCCC solicitation, and what the witness actually confirmed

On the same day’s testimony, counsel asked about a contribution to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee:

“Yes. I believe I’m instructing Jerome to send it to Erika and to let her know about the conversation I had with him about it.”

That answer was given to a question about a message concerning Epstein. Counsel then asked whether that was “With the idea that she would then reach out to Mr. Epstein to arrange the contribution?” and she answered “Yes.” Asked whether she recalled “that the DCCC rejected Mr. Epstein’s contribution”, she answered “Yes,” and then:

“To the best of my recollection, I recall that I was informed by my chief of staff that the DCCC informed him that Mr. Epstein’s contribution would not be accepted by the DCCC.”¹⁴

On the reason:

“Do you recall what you learned was the reason why the DCCC would not accept Mr. Epstein’s contribution?”

“Yes.”

“What was that?”

“That he had not passed their vetting.”

“What did you understand that to be a reference to?”

“I did not know the specifics of what that vetting was.”¹⁵

Counsel’s next question, which was whether she assumed it related to his status as a sex offender, drew an objection to form, and the witness answered “I was not sure of the totality of the circumstances.”¹⁵ The speaker labels above are the transcript’s, and the question-and-answer pairs are given with the speakers separated. No ellipsis in this section spans a change of speaker.

The donor figures: who said them

The campaign-finance totals that have been widely quoted from this deposition were spoken by counsel, in questions. They are given here with the witness’s actual answers, which are not all confirmations. On the sheet reading transcript pages 304 and 305:

What counsel put to the witness	What the witness answered
that Epstein “appears as a donor, and that his lifetime total to your campaigns for the 2014 through 2020 campaign cycles was $8,100 personally, correct?"	"I see that number, yes.”
that Lesley Groff “also donated to your campaign?” and “she donated 2,600"	"Yes.” / “Yes, I see that.”
that Darren Indyke, “who we saw was the person who presented on behalf of FTC, seeking a tax — extension of tax breaks from the development authority while you were there, gave $10,700 to your campaign.” Then, on a line of its own: “Do you see that?"	"Yes.”
that “Mr. Kahn, who is also associated with Mr. Epstein, gave $10,700 to your campaign as well.” Then, on a line of its own: “Do you see that?"	"Okay. I see.”
that “Bella Klein, who is described in this document as Darren Indyke’s administrative assistant, also donated $2,600 to your campaign?"	"I see that."
"So across those five people, there’s total donations in excess of $30,000, correct?"	"I’m adding that up. That sounds correct.”

¹⁶

The six rows carry seven answers. The last of them is a confirmation of the arithmetic. Five of the other six either say that she can see a figure on a document put in front of her, or answer counsel’s separate question “Do you see that?”, or do both. The remaining one is her plain “Yes.” to the question whether Lesley Groff also donated to her campaign. The distinction is on the sheet and it is not a small one, and this page states it rather than flattening the exchange into a table of agreed figures. Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn have their own pages here.

May 2019: an arrangement, and what it does not show

On Wednesday 15 May 2019 Erika Kellerhals wrote, under the subject “Meeting for Stacey Plaskett Friday morning”:

”- can you please see if JEE has any availability to meet with Stacey between 9am and 11 am on Friday?”

and, on the sheet’s next line, in the same message:

“She arrives in STT at 8am and have to be at the University by noon. Thanks.”¹⁷

The two sentences are set separately because the released text breaks between them at a sentence end and this sheet was not read at the image. The leading hyphen and the grammar are the sheet’s. The salutation preceding that line is not legible and no addressee is named here. A reply the same afternoon asks “Hi Erika…Did Jeffrey answer you on this? If not I will follow up!”; its sender field is empty on the sheet and no sender is named here. The internal ellipsis is the sheet’s.¹⁷

Forty-two minutes later a forwarding message carries a single line of answer:

“You are confirmed to meet with Stacey at STC on Friday at 10am”¹⁸

The sheet prints no terminal full stop on that line and none is added. The sender field on that sheet is empty and no sender is named here; two further names appear in its header fields and are not reproduced, one of them damaged.

This is a confirmation of an arrangement. Both messages are dated Wednesday 15 May 2019, so the Friday they name is 17 May 2019. No document cited on this page shows that the meeting took place.

27 February 2019: a thread whose other party the producer barred

Two sheets in the House Oversight production carry a message thread pulled from a device, covering the morning of 27 February 2019. Each message is set out as a block: a Sender line, a Time line, and the message text, together with several machine fields that are not reproduced here.

On every message in that thread not sent from Epstein’s account, the Sender field is covered by a mark. This page read both sheets at the image and confirms it there. Nothing is supplied into those marks. The messages are therefore quoted below without any attribution of the other party.

From the first sheet, in order as it prints:

“Thanks!” — sender barred¹⁹

From the second sheet:

“Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets” — from Epstein’s account

“RONA??” — sender barred

“Quick I’m up next is that an acronym” — sender barred

“Thats his assistant” — from Epstein’s account²⁰

The hyphen in “RONA - keeper of the secrets” is the sheet’s and is not an en dash. “Thats his assistant” carries no terminal full stop on the sheet and none is added here. The thread continues past the foot of the second sheet and this page does not reproduce or reconstruct what follows, which is on a sheet not read here.

The House Oversight sheets print clock times with no timezone field, and this page makes no claim about what zone those stamps are in.

The tier, stated plainly, because this is the part of the record most often reported loosely. That the thread exists, and that one side of it was sent from an account in Epstein’s name, is a documented fact: the two sheets print it. That the other party was Stacey Plaskett is not established by any sheet cited on this page, and these are the sheets the reporting rests on. The attribution was made outside the released files, by matching the message times to a televised congressional hearing held the same morning, and it is what put this thread on this page at all. This page records that attribution as an attribution, does not adopt it as a finding, and does not set out the reasoning that would support it. What the sheets establish on their own is an exchange, in real time, between an account in Epstein’s name and a correspondent whose identity the producer withheld.

What JPMorgan’s filing asserts, and the tier it belongs to

Everything in this section is one litigant’s statement of facts in a civil case. It is an allegation supported by cited exhibits and deposition pages. It is not a court finding and nothing here was adjudicated. The sheets below were read at the image.

A statement of facts filed on 14 August 2023 asserts, at numbered paragraphs:

• ¶195: “Over multiple election cycles, Epstein donated $5,400, the maximum amount allowed, to the campaign of Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate to the United States House of Representatives from the USVI.”
• ¶196: “Congresswoman Plaskett previously worked for the USVI Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) and for a law firm that represented Epstein related to his USVI businesses.”
• ¶197: “Cecile de Jongh asked Epstein to donate money to Congresswoman Stacey Plasket.” The single t is the filing’s and is left as printed.
• ¶198: “Cecile de Jongh asked Epstein to donate $13,000 to the Democratic Party on behalf of Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett.”
• ¶199: “Congresswoman Plaskett also asked Epstein to donate the maximum amount to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (“DCCC”), which was approximately $30,000.”
• ¶200: “Epstein attempted to donate $30,000 to the DCCC, but the donation was returned after Epstein failed to meet the DCCC’s vetting requirements.”
• ¶201: “Epstein requested that Congresswoman Plaskett’s campaign keep his donations anonymous.”
• ¶203: “Epstein requested, through Cecile de Jongh, that his employees and other individuals donate to Congresswoman’s Plaskett’s campaign.” The doubled possessive is the filing’s and is left as printed.
• ¶204: “Epstein and his employees donated over $30,000 to Congresswoman Plaskett’s campaigns across three congressional election cycles.”
• ¶205: “On June 23, 2014, Erika Kellerhals emailed Cecile de Jongh with the subject “help!!” “I need to raise $20k by Wednesday for Stacey. Think I can ask JEE? Anyone else you can think of?” Cecile de Jongh replied “I asked him already.""
• ¶206: “On October 24, 2014, Cecile de Jongh wrote to Epstein to confirm “that STC will send $13k to the Democratic Party for the benefit of Stacey Plaskett.""³

Each paragraph is quoted whole or cut at a sentence end; the internal quotation marks are the filing’s, quoting exhibits this page has not opened. A mark covers a block at the head of both sheets and nothing is supplied into it.

¶200 is the one a reader is most likely to meet in a shortened form. The filing’s own sentence is that the attempted $30,000 was returned after the vetting failed. A characterisation that Epstein gave $30,000 to the DCCC for her does not survive the paragraph it comes from.

The witness’s answers bearing on these paragraphs are earlier on this page, and the filing’s own citations point at them. For their support ¶196, ¶199, ¶200 and ¶204 each cite one exhibit at transcript page ranges: pages 14 to 15 and page 86 for ¶196, pages 219 to 221 for ¶199, pages 226 to 227 for ¶200, and pages 303 to 305 for ¶204.³ The filing does not say which document that exhibit is. Transcript pages 86, 226, 227, 304 and 305 of the deposition are quoted above: her account of the work she did at the Kellerhals firm and her “I don’t recall” about work for Epstein; her evidence that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee refused the contribution, for a vetting whose specifics she said she did not know; and the donor table, whose figures were spoken by counsel.

On transcript page 221, on the line after the last line ¶199 cites, counsel asked:

“Did Mr. Epstein ever ask for anything from you?”

“No.”²¹

The question is counsel’s and the answer is hers. They are given as two utterances and are not joined.

The apparatus around her

Two sheets in the same litigation set out, as the same litigant’s assertions, the machinery the Virgin Islands tax-benefit programme ran on. They are given here because they are the setting for everything above, and because they are assertions about other people, not about Plaskett:

• that Governor Albert Bryan “was the Chairman of the EDC” when one Epstein company’s benefits were renewed in 2012 and when another’s were approved in 2014;
• that “Through the EDC program, the EDC granted over $300 million in tax breaks” to those two companies;
• that “When Governor de Jongh approved the award of EDC benefits to STC, his wife Cecile de Jongh was an employee of EDC”;
• and, at ¶374: “On June 30, 2009, while Epstein was incarcerated in Florida, Cecile de Jongh signed a certification related to FTC’s benefits received from the EDC stating that Epstein was a bona-fide resident of the USVI.”²²

The hyphen in “bona-fide” is the filing’s. These are assertions in a brief, and the certification itself is cited there to an exhibit this page has not opened.

That certification was not a private matter for long. On 19 August 2011, a list of written questions from the journalist Wayne Barrett, addressed to the Governor, was forwarded into Epstein’s own mail. Its second question begins: “Your wife certified a stockholder affidavit on file with the lieutenant governor’s office re FTC. That document indicates that Mr. Epstein is a bona fide resident of the VI and is signed by him. It is dated June 30, 2009, when he was incarcerated in the state of Florida.”⁵ A reply in the chain, attributed on the sheet to Michael Wolff, advises: “It would appear that this is mostly focused on VI. I would suggest a response come through the Governor’s press office. It should be kept as brief and as general as possible. I will call you later.”⁵

Those questions were put to the Governor. They are not about Plaskett, they do not name her, and the sheet shows no request directed to her. It is recorded here because this page’s own sources include it, and because a reader meeting the 2011 scrutiny elsewhere should know where it was aimed. Michael Wolff has his own page here.

The shape of the record, read as a whole

Across twelve documents and roughly twelve years, the pattern the sheets support is narrow and it is consistent:

1. She is introduced to Epstein as a donor, by a lawyer, while running for office. This is her own sworn evidence and the sheet was read at the image.
2. Other people raise money for her from him and from people around him, and the e-mails doing so are written by Cecile de Jongh and Erika Kellerhals, not by her.
3. She corresponds directly about meetings: in 2014 in her own typing, in 2016 by a call another person reports, in 2019 through an intermediary.
4. Her name sits in his operating schedule as a reception, an appointment and a confirmed meeting slot.
5. She solicited a contribution for the DCCC and it was refused: she says so herself, and the refusing party’s reason, as she understood it, was a failed vetting whose specifics she said she did not know.

What the sheets do not carry is any instruction to her, any benefit conferred by her, or any document in which she does anything for Epstein. The documents cited here show money and access moving in one direction and scheduling moving in both. No document cited on this page shows Plaskett taking an official act on Epstein’s behalf, and this page does not suggest one.

What these documents do not settle

• Whether any of the three arranged meetings took place. August 2014, July 2018 and May 2019 are each a plan or a confirmation of a plan on these sheets, and nothing cited here closes them.
• Who the barred party in the February 2019 thread was. The producer withheld it; this page does not supply it.
• What she knew, and when. Her deposition answers on this are a series of non-recollections and a narrow confirmation, and no other sheet cited here speaks to it.
• Anything about the Economic Development Authority’s decisions while she was its general counsel. The filing asserts only that she “previously worked for” it. No document cited on this page records any act of hers at that body, and the absence of one here is a limit on this page’s twelve documents, not a statement about the record.
• What a sheet’s marks cover. Nothing is supplied into any of them.

Related

• Erika Kellerhals: the attorney who, on Plaskett’s own evidence, introduced them, and who arranges the 2014, 2016 and 2019 contacts
• Chuck Schumer and Kathryn Ruemmler: the January 2018 request, read from the other two sides
• David Stern: a September 2018 day schedule that carries her name among others
• Lesley Groff, Darren Indyke, Richard Kahn: the three Epstein-office names counsel put to her at the deposition
• Michael Wolff: the reply in the August 2011 chain
• Denise George: the Virgin Islands attorney general who brought the action against the Epstein estate; this page does not cover that litigation or her removal from office
• LSJ, LLC: the 2006 permit signed by Dean C. Plaskett, a different person

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. “Re: Meeting with Stacey Plaskett”, Friday 15 August 2014 — EFTA00364326 pp. 1-5. The document runs to five sheets and all five were read for this page. p. 1 carries the covering reply and the replies of 15 August down to the header of the 11:19 message, whose text begins on p. 2; p. 2 carries the rest of the 15 August messages and the question of 12 August about the island; Plaskett’s message of 12 August is introduced on p. 2 and its text is on p. 3; pp. 3-5 carry the earlier messages of 11 and 12 August together with confidentiality boilerplate. The line introducing her message of 12 August is damaged in the month; the date is taken from the undamaged lines introducing the messages immediately above and below it, both of which read 12 August 2014. The surname of the writer of the 8:06 am message is printed “Rodriquez” on the line introducing it and “Rodriguez” in the covering reply’s Cc block, and each is given above as the sheet prints it. Every sender and recipient address on these sheets is damaged or blank and none is reproduced; where a message’s sender is not legible this page names no sender. Four messages are attributed to Plaskett on the sheets themselves, by the line that introduces each of them and, for three of the four, by a signature block reading “Stacey Plaskett, Esq.”; they are attributed to her on that basis alone. “with his”, “its”, “accomodating” and the lower-case “stacey” are the sheets’. Two members of the Epstein operation’s staff are named in the message of 8:06 am and neither is reproduced, being unnecessary to the reading. Two further copies of the same chain are in the release at EFTA00364305 and EFTA00364315, five sheets each, and nothing above is sourced to either. EFTA00365419, two sheets, is not a copy of this chain: it is a separate exchange of 11 and 12 August 2014 under the subject line “Re: Appt for JE”, named here because it belongs to the same family of scheduling messages, and nothing above is sourced to it. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸

2. Videotaped deposition of Stacey E. Plaskett, Tuesday 9 May 2023, No. 1:22-cv-10904 in the Southern District of New York, filed 23 May 2023 as Document 158-10 — EFTA02807627, twenty-six sheets. Each sheet prints the court’s filing header “Page N of 26” and the transcript’s own page number, and the pins below give both. No Bates stamp is printed on the face of these sheets, so they are named here by the two numbers the sheets do print. The reporter is named on the sheet and is not reproduced here. Sheets at pp. 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25 were read from the page images at the asset’s native resolution. The caption sheet, p. 3, carries the filing header “Page 3 of 26” and the transcript page number 1, and prints the case number as “1:22-cv-10904-UA” where the filing header above it prints “1:22-cv-10904-JSR”; this page cites the number without either suffix for that reason. ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. Statement of facts, filed 14 August 2023 as Document 284-5 in No. 1:22-cv-10904-JSR — EFTA02815448 pp. 47-48, filing headers “Page 47 of 86” and “Page 48 of 86”, the filing’s own printed pagination 264 and 265, paragraphs 191 to 206. Both sheets read from the page images, where a solid mark covers a block at the head of each and nothing is supplied into it. The page images settle several points the released text of these sheets garbles, among them the dollar signs in “$30,000” and “$20k” and the spelling “de Jongh”. The forms quoted above are the forms on the paper. Exhibit numbers cited in the filing refer to exhibits this page has not opened. This document is one party’s assertion of what it says the evidence shows. It is an allegation, not a finding. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

4. “Schedule”, Thursday 19 July 2018 — EFTA01006168 p. 1, a day’s reminders and appointments addressed to an account in Epstein’s name. The gap in “Rece tion” is in the released text of the sheet and has not been repaired here. A further reminder line on the same sheet carries a damaged traveller name and nothing is supplied into it. The quoted line is one reminder and is not joined to any other. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩ ↩²

5. “Re: suggestions?”, Friday 19 August 2011, attributed on the sheet to Michael Wolff, carrying within it a list of written questions dated Wednesday 17 August 2011 and signed “Wayne Barrett” — EFTA00640384, two sheets. Both quotations above are on p. 1; the remaining numbered question areas run on to p. 2 and are not reproduced. The questions are addressed “Governor,”; the To and Cc fields of the inner message are damaged on the sheet and no recipient is supplied. Both quotations end at printed full stops. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩ ↩² ↩³

6. Search of the released files run for this page on 21 October 2026, each query matched as an exact ordered phrase against the released text of every sheet: "Stacey Plaskett" 220 documents / 279 sheets; the bare token Plaskett 255 documents / 353 sheets; the reversed phrase "Plaskett Stacey" 5 documents / 5 sheets; an invented two-word control 0 documents / 0 sheets; a firing positive control in the same invocation returned 6,892 documents. The release searched holds 1,425,556 documents across 2,925,025 sheets, counted in the same session. A document may run to many sheets, and a copy of a message is not a second event. The search treats a full stop or a slash as a word break, so a name written as part of an address is matched too. Every figure here is an upper bound on mentions, not a measure of the person. The figures carry a date because they measure the release at one moment. ↩

7. Asset availability checked for all twelve documents read for this page on 21 October 2026, by a three-state test distinguishing a symlinked alias, a regular file and an absent path, across all four local stores. Five documents are held locally and were rendered: three on the EFTA route and two on the HOUSE_OVERSIGHT route. Seven are absent from every local store and no sheet of them was rendered, against a positive control that resolved to a real regular file and a negative control that returned absent. None of the five is a symlinked alias, so no sheet pin here required an offset computation. The rendered EFTA assets carry their text in an invisible overlay — the only render mode present is the invisible one — so the visible content on those sheets is the page itself; their native resolution is 96 ppi and they were extracted at that resolution rather than upsampled. The HOUSE_OVERSIGHT sheets are 300 dpi JPEGs. For the seven documents with no local asset, “this cannot be settled without the image” is the state of every reading, and it is reported as a limit rather than left to be assumed. ↩

8. EFTA02807627 p. 6 — filing header “Page 6 of 26”, transcript page 72. Question and answer as printed, speakers separated. A mark covers part of the answer to the next question on that sheet, which was where the first meeting was; that answer is not quoted and nothing is supplied into the mark. The last answer printed on that sheet carries no mark. Read from the page image. ↩

9. EFTA02807627 p. 9 — filing header “Page 9 of 26”, transcript page 86. The four exchanges are given with counsel’s questions and the witness’s answers separately attributed; none is joined. Counsel’s “Okay.” before “And when you went to work” is not carried into the quotation, and the grammar of “a few advice” is the transcript’s. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩²

10. “Confidential”, Thursday 19 June 2014, attributed on the sheet to Cecile de Jongh — EFTA00640324 p. 1. A second, single-sheet copy of the same message is in the release at EFTA01917563; it is named here and was not read, and nothing above is sourced to it. The sender and recipient fields are damaged on the sheet and no address is reproduced. Declarative and interrogative in its last sentence; the quotation runs salutation to signature and is not cut. The same message is described, and quoted in part, in a litigant’s filing at EFTA02815448 p. 48 ¶202, which was read from the page image. The message itself is quoted from the released text; no page image of it was available to check it. ↩ ↩²

11. EFTA02807627 p. 7 — filing header “Page 7 of 26”, transcript page 73. Counsel’s question and the witness’s answer, each its own quoted span and not joined. The question is set on two lines of the transcript and the break falls inside the sentence, so it is given here as one sentence. Two marks on that sheet cover part of a question and part of a different answer; neither is quoted here and nothing is supplied into either. Read from the page image. ↩

12. “Re: Democrati” [the subject line is truncated on the sheet], Friday 4 November 2016, four sheets — EFTA01737944 pp. 1-2. The two sheets above are the sheets this page quotes; pp. 3-4 carry confidentiality boilerplate and a further message of 31 October 2016 about payments to Democratic clubs, which is not reproduced here. The first sheet carries a reply attributed to Richard Kahn and, quoted within it, two messages attributed to Cecile de Jongh timed 13:58 and 14:24; the second carries a forwarded message attributed to Erika Kellerhals and a reply from an account signed “jeffrey E.”. A business street address appears on this document and is not reproduced, being unnecessary to the reading. The spacing in “with a yes , of course” is the sheet’s. A second identifier appears on each sheet in the released text; this page cites the document by the identifier under which it is served, and makes no claim about what is printed on the paper. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩ ↩²

13. EFTA02807627 p. 12 — filing header “Page 12 of 26”, transcript page 217. Two consecutive answers, set as two blocks because counsel speaks between them. The double hyphen in “leaving — making introductions” is the transcript’s. Read from the page image. ↩

14. EFTA02807627 p. 21 — filing header “Page 21 of 26”, transcript page 226. Declarative answers; each quoted span ends at a printed full stop. Read from the page image. ↩

15. EFTA02807627 p. 22 — filing header “Page 22 of 26”, transcript page 227. The exchange is reproduced with every speaker label the transcript gives, including counsel’s objection; no ellipsis anywhere in it spans a change of speaker. Read from the page image. ↩ ↩²

16. EFTA02807627 pp. 24-25 — filing headers “Page 24 of 26” and “Page 25 of 26”, transcript pages 304 and 305. The left column of the table above is counsel’s words, put as questions; the right column is the witness’s answers. The Indyke question runs across the join between the two sheets, beginning on p. 24 and ending on p. 25; it is given here as the one sentence it is on the paper, and nothing inside it is cut. On p. 25 counsel’s “Do you see that?” is printed on a line of its own after the Indyke sentence and again after the Kahn sentence, and the table above gives both: the answer beside each of them is an answer to that question and not to the sentence before it. The figures are therefore counsel’s, read by counsel from a document marked at the deposition and not reproduced here. Both sheets read from the page images, where “$10,700”, “$2,600” and “$30,000” are printed with a dollar sign that the released text of the sheet renders as a letter in places. The forms above are the forms on the paper. ↩

17. “Re: Meeting for Stacey Plaskett Friday morning”, Wednesday 15 May 2019 16:33 — EFTA00494822 p. 1, carrying within it the message of 11:54 the same day attributed on the sheet to Erika Kellerhals. The sender field of the covering reply is empty on the sheet and this page names no sender. The salutation line of the inner message is damaged and no addressee is named. The leading hyphen, the ellipsis inside the sentence and the grammar of “have to be at the University” are the sheet’s. A law firm’s business address appears on this document and is not reproduced, being unnecessary to the reading. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩ ↩²

18. “Fwd: Meeting for Stacey Plaskett Friday morning”, Wednesday 15 May 2019 17:15 — EFTA00494836 p. 1. The sender field is empty on the sheet and this page names no sender. Two personal names appear in the header fields of that sheet, one of them damaged, and neither is reproduced. The single quoted line carries no terminal full stop and none is added. A third sheet in the same family, EFTA00494834, is named here and was not read. The inner message forwarded on this sheet is quoted on this page only from the copy in the previous footnote, which is the copy this page read it on; nothing is quoted from this sheet but the single line above. Quoted from the released text; no page image of this document was available to check it. ↩

19. Message thread pulled from a device, 27 February 2019 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025430, a single sheet printing its own identifier in the lower right corner. Read from the page image, a 300 dpi JPEG served verbatim, where the Sender field of each message not sent from the single account named throughout the thread is covered by a solid mark. That account is referred to on this page only as “Epstein’s account” and its identifier is not reproduced. The quoted message is given as printed; the thread continues above and below it and neither end is reconstructed, and the other messages on this sheet are not reproduced. ↩

20. Message thread pulled from a device, 27 February 2019 — HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025432, a single sheet printing its own identifier in the lower right corner. Read from the page image, same route and resolution, same treatment of the Sender field. “Cohen brought up RONA - keeper of the secrets” is printed with a hyphen. “Thats his assistant” carries no terminal full stop and is the last message whose text is printed on this sheet; a further message’s header begins below it and its text is not on this sheet. It is not quoted, reconstructed or characterised here. ↩

21. EFTA02807627 p. 16 — filing header “Page 16 of 26”, transcript page 221. Counsel’s question and the witness’s answer, each its own quoted span and not joined. Counsel’s “Okay.” before the question is not carried into the quotation, and the question is set on two lines of the transcript with the break inside the sentence. The question begins on the line after the last line of the passage the filing cites for ¶199. Read from the page image. ↩

22. Statement of facts, filed 7 August 2023 as Document 271-4 in the same action — EFTA02814836 p. 13, filing header “Page 13 of 19”, the filing’s own printed pagination 297, paragraphs 371 to 377. Read from the page image, where a solid mark covers a block at the head of the sheet and a second mark covers part of the sentence carried over from the previous sheet; nothing is supplied into either, and the carried-over sentence is not quoted. The paragraphs about Governor Bryan’s chairmanship (¶¶365-366) and the aggregate tax figure (¶370) are on the preceding sheet, EFTA02814836 p. 12, filing header “Page 12 of 19”, printed pagination 296, which was also read from the page image; there too a solid mark covers a block at the head and nothing is supplied into it. The page image settles the dollar sign in “$300 million”, which the released text of that sheet garbles. The form quoted above is the form on the paper. One party’s assertions, not findings. ↩