Epstein Data Wiki

Todd Blanche

Properties2
tagsperson, justice-department, deputy-attorney-general, grand-jury-secrecy, unsealing-litigation, sdny, sdfl, 2025
aliasesTodd Blanche, Todd Wallace Blanche, Blanche, Todd, Todd B. Blanche, Deputy Attorney General Blanche

38 min read

What this page does not contain

In July 2025 the Deputy Attorney General of the United States questioned Ghislaine Maxwell over two days in Florida, and in the same month he put his name to a series of filings asking two courts to unseal grand jury transcripts. Nothing any complainant said appears on this page in any form: not quoted, not summarised, not characterised, not counted. Nine of the fifty-six documents this page was scoped on are classed in this project’s index as transcripts or as an FBI review, and not one of them was opened for this page. Three more were set aside after reading established what they are. That is a refusal, not a finding about their contents, and it costs a reader nothing here: the examination itself is set out at the 2025 examination of Ghislaine Maxwell, which this page does not repeat. One further document in this set attaches correspondence submitted to a court on behalf of victims; only the court’s own order at its first sheet was read, and nothing from the attachment is reproduced, summarised or counted. This page is built on the other body of paper a Deputy Attorney General leaves behind: the instruments he subscribed, the instruments filed over his printed name by someone else, the agreement executed in his name, and what opposing counsel and the courts recorded about him.

Named on the documents asTODD BLANCHE, Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and once, on a 2019 copy line, Todd Wallace Blanche1
OfficeDeputy Attorney General of the United States. Filings of 18 July 2025 print the title as Deputy Attorney General; from 29 July 2025 the same block prints Deputy United States Attorney General234
Instruments he subscribedFour, all on 18 July 2025 and all carrying the string /s/ Todd Blanche over a rule: a notice of appearance and a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in United States v. Epstein, and the same pair in United States v. Maxwell. On the two read at the page image the characters are type and not ink; of the other two the page makes no claim25
Instruments filed over his printed name, subscribed by anotherFour: the United States’ response in the Florida grand jury petition, subscribed in ink by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; and the memorandum of 29 July, the letter of 4 August and the letter of 8 August, each subscribed by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York6374
The agreement in his nameA two-page proffer agreement for a meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel, dated in manuscript July 24, 2025 at Tallahassee, Florida, with a single continuation date 7-25-20258
What the motion asked forRelease of the grand jury transcripts “subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information”, filed “[a]t the direction of the Attorney General”5
What opposing counsel recordedMaxwell’s counsel told the court on 22 July 2025 that he had discussed the defence’s request to review the transcripts with Blanche “and he has no objection to our application”9
Earlier, in the released filesCopied on a message of 13 August 2019 at a law firm address, in a thread circulating a news item on the investigation of Epstein’s associates1
Covered elsewhere on this wikiThe 2025 examination · Ghislaine Maxwell · Jay Clayton · Pamela Bondi

Todd Blanche entered his appearance personally, as Deputy Attorney General, in two criminal cases in the Southern District of New York on the same day: one against a defendant who had been dead for nearly six years and whose indictment the court had dismissed, and one against a prisoner then serving the 240-month sentence his own motion describes. Both notices were filed on 18 July 2025, both are subscribed /s/ Todd Blanche, and both ask the clerk to transmit electronic filings not to him but to a Department lawyer at [email protected].2

On the same day he subscribed the motions those appearances were entered to support. They ask the courts to unseal the grand jury transcripts in each case, and they open by locating the request above him: “At the direction of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice hereby moves the Court to release grand jury transcripts associated with the above-referenced indictment.” The Attorney General’s name is printed above his in the closing block. Hers carries no subscription. His does.5

Six days later a proffer agreement in his name was dated at Tallahassee, Florida, for a two-day meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell and her counsel.8

18 July 2025: the appearances and the motions

The two notices of appearance are one page each and identical in form. The undersigned attorney “respectfully requests the Clerk to note his appearance in this case and to add him as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this case.” Beneath the Respectfully submitted, line stands /s/ Todd Blanche over a rule, with TODD BLANCHE, Deputy Attorney General and a telephone number printed below it. Read at the page image, the subscription is typed: uniform stroke, aligned on the baseline, set in the same face as the printed block beneath. It is an electronic signature and not ink.2

The motions run to four pages. Their argument is that grand jury secrecy is not absolute, that the Second Circuit has recognised circumstances in which release is appropriate outside the exceptions listed in the Federal Rules, and that public interest can be such a circumstance. They quote a court of appeals for the proposition that “historical or public interest alone could justify the release of grand jury information”.5

The motions also recite the sequence that produced them. On 6 July 2025 the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had issued a memorandum describing a review of their investigative holdings, which concluded that “no such evidence was uncovered during the review” to predicate an investigation into uncharged third parties. “Since July 6, 2025, there has been extensive public interest in the basis for the Memorandum’s conclusions. While the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation continue to adhere to the conclusions reached in the Memorandum, transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”5

Twice in four pages the motion states the limit it accepts. The release sought is “subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information”, and: “Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims.”5

Each motion says where else the Department was moving, and each names the other case. The Epstein motion reads: “The Department of Justice is filing similar motions in United States v. Maxwell, 1:20-cr-330 (S.D.N.Y.), and in the Southern District of Florida.” In the companion motion filed the same day, the same sentence names United States v. Epstein in that place instead.5 Read at the page image at 300 pixels per inch, the closing block of the motion carries the Attorney General’s name unsubscribed and /s/ Todd Blanche typed over the rule beneath it. On this instrument he is the only subscribing signatory.5

The Florida leg, where the ink is not his

The Florida petition went to the Southern District of Florida, where the grand juries of 2005 and 2007 had sat. On 19 July 2025 that court ordered supplemental briefing, and the United States responded in a six-page brief docketed on 23 July. It argued two things: that the petition should be transferred to the Southern District of New York, because “the only judicial proceedings giving rise to this petition are located in the Southern District of New York”; and that the strong public interest in the investigation supplies the “special circumstances” the brief says justify release.6

Copies of the two New York motions are attached to that brief as exhibits, which is why the motions’ closing block appears twice more inside one fourteen-sheet document.6 The brief’s own closing block, at its sixth sheet, is a different matter. It prints PAMELA J. BONDI and TODD BLANCHE with their titles and no subscription under either, and beneath them a cursive signature in ink over a rule, with HAYDEN P. O'BYRNE, United States Attorney, and Southern District of Florida printed below. The signature is ink: the stroke width varies, it sits off the baseline, and its terminal letters run over the printed name beneath the rule. Of the instruments read for this page it is the only one subscribed by hand, and the hand is not his.6

The Government’s own later memorandum records that the Florida motion was denied.3

24 and 25 July 2025: the proffer agreement

The two-day questioning of Ghislaine Maxwell is set out at its own page, and nothing from the record of the questioning is used here. What this page takes is the instrument, which fixes the terms, the place and the dates on its own face.

The agreement is headed PROFFER AGREEMENT and opens: “With respect to the meeting of Ghislaine Maxwell (“Client”) and his attorney, David Oscar Markus, Esq., with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to be held at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida on July 24 and 25, 2025 (“the meeting”), the following understandings exist”. The pronoun is the form’s.8

Its first numbered paragraph opens in capitals: “THIS IS NOT A COOPERATION AGREEMENT.” What follows is a limited undertaking. The Government “will not offer in evidence on its case-in-chief, or in connection with any sentencing proceeding for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence, any statements made by Client at the meeting”, with exceptions for a prosecution “for false statements, obstruction of justice or perjury” and for the client becoming “a fugitive from justice”. Notwithstanding that, the Government “may use information derived directly or indirectly from the meeting for the purpose of obtaining leads to other evidence”, may use the statements in cross-examination should the client testify, and may use them “to rebut any evidence or arguments offered by or on behalf of Client”.8

The execution block was read at the page image at 300 pixels per inch, and it settles three things the released text does not carry at all. The printed line Dated: Tallahassee, Florida is completed in blue manuscript ink, July 24, 2025, with the printed word (date) beside it. Under a printed and underlined heading Dates of Continuation, one rule carries 7-25-2025 in the same ink and the three rules beneath it are empty. And the Government’s party block prints TODD BLANCHE and Deputy Attorney General in type. The subscription areas on this sheet are covered by the producing party; nothing under any of them is read, supplied or described here. The released text of this sheet renders the manuscript date as an unreadable run of characters, and the reading above is the paper’s.8

So the instrument itself, with no transcript opened, establishes that the meeting was agreed for 24 and 25 July 2025, was to be held at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, and was agreed on terms that promised nothing. The agreement was dated at Tallahassee on 24 July, and one continuation date for the following day is written on its face. Where the questioning in fact took place the instrument does not say.

What the other side put on the record about him

Three filings by Maxwell’s lawyers name him, and they are the only documents read for this page in which someone other than the Government describes what he did.

On 22 July 2025 her new counsel wrote to the court asking to see the grand jury transcripts the Government sought to unseal, noting that the defence had not seen them and understood they “have never been provided to the defense in their entirety”. The letter closes the request this way: “We have discussed our request to review the grand jury transcripts with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and he has no objection to our application.”9 That is two days before the meeting the proffer agreement was executed for.

On 1 August and 6 August her trial counsel moved to withdraw, and both declarations date his entry into the case in the same words: “On July 18, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche appeared in this case on behalf of the government and filed a motion to unseal grand jury transcripts.”1011 Each declaration recites that the firm had appeared on 8 July 2020, had represented Maxwell at trial and through sentencing on 28 June 2022, and had not acted on the appeal.1011

After 18 July, the subscription moves

From the end of July the instruments in both dockets continue to print his name, and stop carrying his signature.

The Government’s memorandum of 29 July 2025, filed in response to the courts’ orders of 22 July, carries on its cover PAMELA J. BONDI, TODD BLANCHE and JAY CLAYTON. Its closing block subscribes /s/ Jay Clayton alone. The memorandum works through the factors the Second Circuit has set out for releasing grand jury records, and in doing so it states several things about the proceedings in its own voice. “Before filing the motions to unseal, relevant counsel for the Government reviewed the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts.” Separately: “[T]he Government has now provided notice to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in this motion. The Government has attempted to contact the remaining victim, but such efforts have been unsuccessful.” It records that there was “one witness” before the Epstein grand jury, “an FBI agent”, and two before the Maxwell grand jury, “the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force Officer with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force”, and that both were still serving.3

The letter of 4 August 2025, addressed to both judges and filed the following day, answers a further set of questions. It gives the sitting dates: “the Epstein grand jury met on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The Maxwell grand jury met on June 29, 2020, July 8, 2020, and March 29, 2021.” It states that “at this time, the Government has moved only to unseal the grand jury transcripts in these cases”, and that the Government was submitting annotated transcripts to the court under seal. On notification it repeats the earlier statement: the Government “has provided notice of the unsealing motions to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in the motions. The Government still has been unable to contact that remaining victim.” Its closing block again prints his name unsubscribed above /s/ Jay Clayton.7

The letter of 8 August 2025 widens the application: “In addition to seeking to unseal the grand jury transcripts, the Government moves to unseal the Maxwell and Epstein grand jury exhibits subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information.” It undertakes to notify parties whose names appear in the exhibits but not in the transcripts, asks to report back “by August 14, 2025”, and asks that the court “await that update before unsealing any of the grand jury exhibits”. Read at the page image, its closing block prints PAMELA J. BONDI unsubscribed, TODD BLANCHE with the title Deputy United States Attorney General unsubscribed, and /s/ Jay Clayton typed over a rule.4

Across those three instruments his name is on the paper and the subscription is the United States Attorney’s.

The court’s order of 6 August 2025

On 6 August the district judge in the Maxwell case docketed the correspondence the court had invited. Read at the page image, the order is signed in ink and reads in full on its own subject: “This Order publicly dockets the five letters submitted yesterday on behalf of victims and other individuals regarding the Government’s request to unseal the grand jury materials in this case. See Dkt. 789 (inviting letters from victims regarding Government’s motion to unseal); Dkt. 801 (providing logistical instructions for such letters). These letters have been redacted to the extent requested, to respect privacy interests. This Order also attaches the Government’s transmittal letter to the Court that contained these letters.”12

The twenty-six sheets that follow the order are that correspondence. They were not read for this page, nothing from them is reproduced, summarised, characterised or counted, and no person is named from them.12

Earlier: 2019, 2020 and 2023 in these files

The released files reach back before the office. The earliest dated document among those read for this page is a message of 13 August 2019, timed Tue, 13 Aug 2019 01:46:39 +0000, on whose copy line he appears as Todd Wallace Blanche at an address on the domain of a New York law firm. The sender and both recipient fields are covered by the producing party and no message on the sheet is attributed to anyone here. What the thread circulates is a news item on the investigation of Epstein’s associates, published the previous day.1

Two later groups of documents reach him only as a subject of news coverage, and are used here for nothing else. Four news digests carry a newspaper report of 22 October 2020 of a statement by “Manafort attorney Todd Blanche” about a state prosecution of Paul Manafort.13 Two Bureau news briefings of July 2023 carry a report that “Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and John Lauro” had met a Department special counsel.14 Both are summaries of press reporting compiled inside government, not records of the matters they report, and this page states them at that weight and draws nothing further from them.

What this page does not say

  • It does not treat an electronic signature as a signature. All four instruments he subscribed carry the string /s/ Todd Blanche over a rule. Two of them, both in the Epstein docket, were read at 300 pixels per inch and the characters are type; the other two were read in the released text only and no claim is made here about what their paper shows. One instrument among those read for this page is subscribed in ink, and it is not his.256
  • It does not say he conducted the questioning in the way the transcripts record. That is the subject of a separate page, which opened the transcripts. This page did not, and takes the meeting’s dates, agreed venue and terms from the agreement alone.8
  • It does not reproduce anything a complainant said, and no detail about any complainant. Where a cited sheet carries such material, the footnote says so and nothing from it is read, quoted, summarised or characterised.
  • It does not use a news report of what was said at the meeting. One briefing in this set recounts answers given at the questioning. Taking that would reach the material this page refuses by a second route, and the page declines it.15
  • It does not state the outcome of the two New York unsealing motions. No document read for this page records a ruling on either of them. The one ruling these documents do record is the denial of the parallel Florida motion, which the Government’s own memorandum reports and this page states above. What the New York courts did afterwards is set out at Ghislaine Maxwell.
  • It makes no allegation and records none. Where the record holds his own words, they are printed as he put them.

How this page is scoped

A search of the released files for the phrase “Todd Blanche” returns 56 documents and 857 sheets. Thirty further forms were tried and added nothing: the index form “Blanche, Todd” returns 14 documents and every one is already inside the 56; “Todd B. Blanche”, “Theodore Blanche”, “T. Blanche”, “Todd Blanche Jr.” and “Todd Blanche III” return nothing; so do fifteen damaged, transposed and possessive spellings of the name, and a run-together form. “Mr. Blanche” returns 7 documents and all 7 are inside the 56. The union is therefore the same 56 documents the plain phrase gives, and on this name the inverted index form is not the separate population it is on many others.16

The surname alone was not mined, and the reason is on the record. It returns 395 documents, and Blanche in these files is also a forename, a French adjective and part of the titles of works of art: the apostrophe-free form blanches returns 23 documents, every one of which was read, and all 23 are art-collection schedules listing works by Jean Arp and Eugene Delacroix, or, in one case, a misreading of the word “branches”. None concerns this subject. A population built on the bare surname would have been a population of something else.16

The set is produced twice over. Nineteen of the 56 carry DOJ-OGR identifiers, 36 carry EFTA identifiers and one is a Bureau review file; for nineteen of the EFTA rows this project’s index holds a direct link to a Department of Justice web address. Twelve pairs of DOJ-OGR and EFTA documents were measured against each other sheet by sheet at the same offset and are the same paper, at similarity medians between 0.735 and 0.969, against a control pair of two different single-sheet filings that scored 0.006 at the same length. On every one of the twelve the first sheet carries the same case number, the same document number, the same filing date and the same title.17

A classification in this project’s index is not the producer’s record, and on this set it is wrong often enough to matter. Counted by that label, 28 of the 56 are act-class, which is 50 per cent; that figure is an estimate from a label, not a measurement of the documents. Against the sheets actually read, two documents labelled as a court indictment and as a blank redacted page are Bureau news briefings; one labelled as a grand jury transcript is the Government’s memorandum of 29 July; and another so labelled is the court’s order of 6 August. Sorted by what the documents are rather than by what they are labelled, the 56 divide as 21 instruments filed by the Government over his name or executed in it, 1 document he received, 25 documents about him, and 9 documents of the examination record, which were refused. Those figures sum to 56.16

The act count this page believes is real is nine instruments and one two-day meeting: four filings he subscribed, four filed over his printed name and subscribed by another, the proffer agreement executed in his name, and the questioning that agreement was made for. The remaining documents are other people writing about him, or the record of the meeting, which this page did not open.

Nine documents were refused by their classification and three more on reading. The nine are the four transcripts, the two further transcript copies, the two documents classed as grand jury transcripts, and the Bureau review file. Of those, the two classed as grand jury transcripts are not transcripts at all, and this page uses the same two papers from printings that carry a different classification and were opened; no comparison between any two printings was made or is reported. The three refused on reading are two further printings of the examination record and the recording of it. Refusal here is by classification and by what reading showed a document to be. It is not a claim about what those documents contain.18

  • The 2025 examination of Ghislaine Maxwell, the two days the proffer agreement on this page was executed for
  • Ghislaine Maxwell, the defendant in one of the two cases he appeared in, whose page carries what the courts did with the unsealing motions
  • Jeffrey Epstein, the defendant in the other, whose indictment the court had dismissed after his death in August 2019
  • Jay Clayton, the United States Attorney who subscribed the three later instruments
  • Pamela Bondi, the Attorney General at whose direction the motions say they were filed
  • Richard M. Berman, one of the two judges the August letters are addressed to
  • The 2019 SDNY indictment, the indictment whose grand jury transcripts the Epstein motion sought
  • Also named in the court filings read for this page, and checked on 4 November 2026 against every slug, title and alias in this wiki, in both full and short name forms, as having no page here: Hayden P. O’Byrne, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida; Paul A. Engelmayer, United States District Judge; David Oscar Markus, Melissa Madrigal, Christian R. Everdell, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger, counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell.

Notes

Footnotes

  1. A single-sheet message carrying the header date Tue, 13 Aug 2019 01:46:39 +0000. EFTA00092801 p. 1. Read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch. From this sheet this page takes four things and nothing else: the date, the display name “Todd Wallace Blanche” where it stands on the copy line, the fact that the address beside that name is on the domain of a New York law firm, and the fact that the message below it circulates a news item of 12 August 2019 on the investigation of Epstein’s associates. Producer’s marks fall on this sheet. Nothing under any of them is read, supplied or described here, and no message on this sheet is attributed to any person. The released text of this sheet renders some characters wrongly; the one span used above is given as the paper prints it. This document is in none of this project’s local stores. It was fetched read-only from the site’s own per-document path on 4 November 2026: HTTP 200, 25,003 bytes, a file beginning %PDF- of one sheet matching this project’s index, against a negative control fetched in the same call that returned HTTP 403 and 111 bytes. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Notice of Appearance, United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), Document 60, filed 18 July 2025, a single sheet whose own header reads “Page 1 of 1”. DOJ-OGR-00000731 p. 1. Read at the page image at the served file’s native resolution of 300 pixels per inch, which pdfimages reports for this sheet. The sheet carries no producer mark. It reads “The undersigned attorney respectfully requests the Clerk to note his appearance in this case and to add him as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this case. Please transmit electronic filings to [email protected].”; and, beneath “Respectfully submitted,”, the typed characters “/s/ Todd Blanche” on a rule, with “TODD BLANCHE”, “Deputy Attorney General” and a telephone line printed beneath. Those characters are type, not ink: the stroke is uniform, the baseline is the rule’s, and the face is the printed face of the block below. The Department address is printed on a public court filing and is reproduced because it is the fact the sentence rests on. The companion notice in the other case is Document 784, filed the same day, in United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.): EFTA02842874 p. 1, released text only. The two notices are separate filings in separate cases and are not two printings of one paper; each carries its own case number and document number on its own first sheet. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Government’s Memorandum in Response to the Court’s Orders of July 22, 2025, filed 29 July 2025 in both cases: United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, Document 66, and United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 796. Ten sheets. EFTA02842900 pp. 1-10. Released text only; no sheet of this document was read at the page image. The cover sheet prints “PAMELA J. BONDI”, “TODD BLANCHE” with the title “Deputy United States Attorney General” and “JAY CLAYTON”; the closing block at p. 10 subscribes “/s/ Jay Clayton” alone. The quoted spans are at p. 9 (“Before filing the motions to unseal…”; “[T]he Government has now provided notice to all but one of the victims…”) and p. 8 (“one witness”; “an FBI agent”; “the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force Officer with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force”). The second sheet records that a parallel motion in the Southern District of Florida was denied, citing a decision of 23 July 2025. A producer’s mark falls on that sheet. Nothing under it is read, supplied or described here, this page does not say what it covers, and the sentence carrying it is not quoted. Sheets 6 to 9 set out what the grand jury witnesses conveyed about complainants and which complainants were living; none of that is read, quoted, summarised or characterised here, and no count is taken from it. Three further printings of this same memorandum are at DOJ-OGR-00015062, EFTA02824624 and DOJ-OGR-00000746. The last of those is typed in this project’s index as a grand jury transcript, which it is not; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. The memorandum is also treated at Jay Clayton. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. Letter of 8 August 2025 to the Honorable Richard M. Berman and the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Document 808, filed 8 August 2025, two sheets. EFTA02842969 pp. 1-2. The second sheet was read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; it carries no producer mark, and its closing block prints “PAMELA J. BONDI” / “United States Attorney General” and “TODD BLANCHE” / “Deputy United States Attorney General” / “United States Department of Justice”, neither subscribed, above the typed characters “/s/ Jay Clayton” on a rule with “JAY CLAYTON” and his office printed beneath. The first sheet was read in the released text only and carries the quoted spans about the exhibits, the notifications and the 14 August update. The first sheet also describes civil complaints filed on behalf of complainants and what the Government compared them against; none of that is read, quoted, summarised or characterised here. A second printing is at DOJ-OGR-00015131; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. This page read only the Maxwell docket entry for this letter and makes no statement about any other docket. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. United States’ Motion to Unseal Grand Jury Transcripts, United States v. Epstein, No. 1:19-cr-00490-RMB (S.D.N.Y.), Document 61, filed 18 July 2025, four sheets. DOJ-OGR-00000732 pp. 1-4, the sheets whose own headers read “Page 1 of 4” to “Page 4 of 4”. The fourth sheet was read at the page image at the served file’s native 300 pixels per inch; it carries no producer mark, and its closing block prints “PAMELA J. BONDI” and “U.S. Attorney General” with no subscription beneath, then the typed characters “/s/ Todd Blanche” on a rule with “TODD BLANCHE” and “Deputy Attorney General” printed below. Sheets 1 to 3 were read in the released text only. The second sheet also carries the two facts the opening of this page leans on: that “On August 10, 2019, while awaiting trial, Epstein committed suicide in his cell in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. Soon after, the Court dismissed the indictment.” The quoted spans are at p. 1 (“At the direction of the Attorney General…”; “On July 6, 2025…”; “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”), p. 2 (“subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information”; “Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims.”; “The Department of Justice is filing similar motions…”) and p. 4 (“historical or public interest alone could justify the release of grand jury information”, which the sheet prints inside a longer parenthetical quotation of In re Craig, 131 F.3d 99; the span is quoted only from “historical” onward because the sheet sets an ellipsis before it and nothing is completed). The companion motion in the other case is Document 785, filed the same day in United States v. Maxwell: EFTA02842875 pp. 1-4, released text only. The two motions are not word for word the same. At its own second sheet the companion motion names United States v. Epstein where this one names United States v. Maxwell, so the quotation of that sentence in the body is the Epstein motion’s alone and is not given as both motions’ words. The other spans this page does give as both motions’ words were checked against the released text of both printings and are present in each. That motion is set out more fully at Ghislaine Maxwell, which cites it from a different printing. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  6. United States’ Response to Order on Supplemental Briefing, In re Grand Jury 05-02 (WPB) 07-103 (WPB), No. 9:25-mc-80920-RLR (S.D. Fla.), Document 3, entered on the docket 23 July 2025, fourteen sheets. EFTA02819488. The sixth sheet was read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch, which pdfimages reports for this document; it carries no producer mark. Its closing block prints “PAMELA J. BONDI” / “U.S. Attorney General” and “TODD BLANCHE” / “Deputy Attorney General”, neither subscribed, and beneath them a cursive mark in ink over a rule with “HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE”, “United States Attorney,” and “Southern District of Florida” printed below. The mark is ink and not type: the stroke width varies along its length, it departs from the rule, and its last letters cross the printed name beneath. The quoted spans are at pp. 1-3 and 6 and were read in the released text. The heading of this brief is not quoted, because the released text damages one word of it and this page completes nothing. Sheets 7 to 14 are copies of the two New York motions, attached as exhibits and carrying their own case numbers, document numbers and filing dates on their own first sheets; the signature blocks at the tenth and fourteenth sheets belong to those attachments and not to this brief. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  7. Letter of 4 August 2025 to the Honorable Richard M. Berman and the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer, filed 5 August 2025 in both cases: United States v. Epstein, Document 70, and United States v. Maxwell, Document 800. Four sheets. EFTA02824639 pp. 1-4, the sheets whose own headers read “Page 1 of 4” to “Page 4 of 4”. Released text only; no sheet of this document was read at the page image. The quoted spans are at p. 2 (“at this time, the Government has moved only to unseal the grand jury transcripts in these cases”), p. 3 (“the Epstein grand jury met on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The Maxwell grand jury met on June 29, 2020, July 8, 2020, and March 29, 2021.”) and p. 4 (“has provided notice of the unsealing motions to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in the motions. The Government still has been unable to contact that remaining victim.”). The closing block at p. 4 prints “PAMELA J. BONDI” and “TODD BLANCHE” unsubscribed above “/s/ Jay Clayton”. Sheets 3 and 4 also describe what the grand jury transcripts contain about complainants and what the Government proposed to redact; none of that is read, quoted, summarised or characterised here. A second printing is at EFTA02842917 and the DOJ-OGR printings are DOJ-OGR-00000761 and DOJ-OGR-00015079; none was opened, nothing here rests on them, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2

  8. Proffer Agreement with respect to a meeting of 24 and 25 July 2025, two sheets, bearing no case number, court document number or filing date. DOJ-OGR-00022982 pp. 1-2. The second sheet was read at the page image at the served file’s native 300 pixels per inch, and the foot of the sheet carries, as ink on paper, the printed Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00022983. The first sheet was read in the released text only. From the first sheet this page takes the opening recital and the quoted terms of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). From the second sheet, at the image: the printed line “Dated: Tallahassee, Florida” completed in blue manuscript ink “July 24, 2025” with the printed “(date)” beside it; the printed and underlined heading “Dates of Continuation” with “7-25-2025” in the same ink on the first rule and the three rules below it empty; and the printed party block “TODD BLANCHE” / “Deputy Attorney General”. Subscription areas on this sheet are covered by the producing party. Nothing under any of them is read, supplied or described here, and this page does not say what any of them covers. The released text of this sheet does not carry the manuscript entries in readable form at all, which is why both dates are taken from the paper. A second printing of this agreement is at EFTA02847269; its sheets were not inspected for this page, nothing here rests on them, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. The agreement is treated more fully at the page on the examination. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  9. Letter to the court from counsel for Ghislaine Maxwell, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Document 793, filed 22 July 2025, a single sheet whose own header reads “Page 1 of 1”. DOJ-OGR-00015054 p. 1. Released text only; this sheet was not read at the page image. The quoted spans are “have never been provided to the defense in their entirety” and “We have discussed our request to review the grand jury transcripts with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and he has no objection to our application.” A second printing is at EFTA02842892; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2

  10. Declaration of Christian R. Everdell in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Co-Counsel, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Document 798-1, filed 1 August 2025, two sheets. DOJ-OGR-00015075 pp. 1-2. Released text only. The quoted sentence is numbered paragraph 4. A second printing is at EFTA02842912; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2

  11. Declaration of Jeffrey S. Pagliuca and Laura A. Menninger in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Co-Counsel, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Document 805-1, filed 6 August 2025, two sheets. DOJ-OGR-00015124 pp. 1-2, the second of which carries the header “Page 2 of 2” and the quoted sentence as numbered paragraph 4. Released text only. A second printing is at EFTA02842961; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2

  12. Order, United States v. Maxwell, No. 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), Document 804, filed 6 August 2025, twenty-seven sheets. EFTA02842934 p. 1. The first sheet was read at the page image at the served file’s native 96 pixels per inch; it carries no producer mark, and the quoted paragraph is the whole of the order’s text. Beneath “SO ORDERED.” a cursive mark in ink sits on a rule above the printed “PAUL A. ENGELMAYER” and “United States District Judge”, and the sheet is dated “August 6, 2025” at “New York, New York”. The released text of this sheet renders the judge’s printed name as a broken run of characters; the reading above is the paper’s. The twenty-six sheets that follow are the correspondence the order dockets. They were not opened for this page, nothing from them is read, quoted, summarised, characterised or counted, and no person is named from them. A second printing is at DOJ-OGR-00015096, which is typed in this project’s index as a grand jury transcript, which it is not; it was not opened, nothing here rests on it, and no comparison between printings was made or is reported. ↩ ↩2

  13. Four news digests, each dated 23 October 2020 on its own first sheet, carrying the same newspaper report of the previous day: EFTA00135796 p. 20, EFTA00136939 p. 24, EFTA00148445 p. 20 and EFTA01659028 p. 21. Released text only; no sheet was read at the page image. Each carries the words “Manafort attorney Todd Blanche said in a statement,” followed by a quotation from that statement which is not reproduced here, because nothing on this page turns on its contents. These are summaries of press reporting compiled inside government and are not records of the matters they report. They are used on this page for one fact only: that he was so described in October 2020. ↩

  14. Two Bureau news briefings of 28 July 2023 carrying the same report: EFTA00160472 p. 11 and EFTA00164108 p. 14. Released text only. Each reports that “Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and John Lauro had a meeting with Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith”. These are summaries of press reporting compiled inside government, not records of the matters they report, and they are used here only for the description of his practice at that date. EFTA00164108 is typed in this project’s index as a court indictment, which it is not. ↩

  15. A Bureau news briefing of 13 November 2025, EFTA00164059, recounts an answer attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell at the July 2025 meeting. This page does not reproduce, quote, summarise or rely on that item, because doing so would carry material from the examination record that the page has refused, through a second route. The document is typed in this project’s index as a blank redacted page, which it is not. It is named here so that a later reader can see the item was identified and declined rather than missed. ↩

  16. Measured against the released files on 4 November 2026, with the index size checked before each run and a control printed and read in the same invocation: the phrase “richard m berman” returned 371 documents and 885 sheets, and a freshly generated token that occurs nowhere returned 0. The forms and their returns: “todd blanche” 56 documents / 857 sheets; “blanche, todd” 14 / 15, with the overlap measured directly and all 14 inside the 56; “mr. blanche” 7 / 8, all 7 inside the 56; “todd b. blanche”, “blanche, todd b.”, “theodore blanche”, “t. blanche”, “todd blanche jr.”, “todd blanche iii”, the run-together and initial forms, the possessive form, and fifteen damaged, transposed or possessive spellings of the name, one of which damages the forename rather than the surname, all 0. The bare surname returns 395 documents and was not mined. The apostrophe-free form blanches returns 23 documents which are outside all of the above; all 23 were read at their matching sheets and none concerns this subject (twenty-two are art-collection schedules in which the word belongs to the French titles of works by Jean Arp and by Eugene Delacroix; on the twenty-third it stands where the word “branches” belongs). Every one of the 56 is present in this project’s document index. The classification counts in the body are of this project’s own labels and are reported as an estimate from a label, not as a measurement of the documents. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Twelve pairs of documents carrying DOJ-OGR and EFTA identifiers were compared sheet by sheet at the same offset, by the method this project uses for the purpose: text normalised and compared as overlapping five-word runs, sheets under 200 normalised characters excluded, and the median taken across eligible offsets. The medians run from 0.735 to 0.969. Two controls were run in the same invocation and both behaved: a pair this project has separately established as the same paper returned 0.910, and two different single-sheet filings of the same length returned 0.006. The first sheet of each pair was then compared for its case number, document number, filing date and title, and matched on all twelve. A thirteenth pairing, proposed on equal length alone, was tested and refuted: two fourteen-sheet documents returned a median of 0.000 across the eligible offsets and are a court filing and a Bureau news briefing. Equal length is not a test of sameness, and on short documents it is not even a signal. ↩

  18. The documents refused by this project’s classification, and not opened: DOJ-OGR-00022393, DOJ-OGR-00022759, EFTA02846680, EFTA02846943, EFTA02847046, EFTA02847203, DOJ-OGR-00000746, DOJ-OGR-00015096 and FBI_REVIEW_PART_06. The documents refused after reading established what they are, and not opened further: DOJ-OGR-00022656, DOJ-OGR-00022916 and DOJ-OGR-00022985. The first two of those three are printings of the examination record that carry a classification which would not have refused them, and the third is the recording of it. No comparison between any two printings was made or is reported anywhere on this page. FBI_REVIEW_PART_06 is served by a route this project has not established, so whether it can be read at the page image is not known, and this page asserts nothing about it either way. ↩

Backlinks