Tyler Shears

How he appears in these documents	Named in the clear, as sender or as addressee, on email chains with Jeffrey Epstein and Epstein’s office between July 2013 and June 2014, about what a search engine returned for Epstein’s name, about Epstein’s websites, and about getting press “placements” out123
How he was introduced	On July 9, 2013 a correspondent whose name the release withholds asked Lesley Groff to set up a call for Epstein and “the new tech person working on Jeffrey’s google results,” adding “His name is Tyler Shears”4
Role and employer	No document read for this page states either. The sentence above is a third party’s description of him at the moment he was introduced, not a title he gave himself, and no document read here names a firm he worked for45
Where he sent invoices	To Richard Kahn at HBRK Associates, on Lesley Groff’s instruction of July 10, 2013. That is the paying side of the relationship, not his own employer1
What he asked for at the outset	”Who should I work with for invoicing / next steps?”1
Documents read at the image for this page	Nine, listed in the footnotes, spanning July 9, 2013 to June 26, 2014

Tyler Shears is a named correspondent who, between July 2013 and June 2014, worked on Jeffrey Epstein’s search results, his websites and his press coverage, reported to Epstein directly, and billed him. The release holds the message introducing him to Epstein’s office and the instruction telling him where to send his invoices; a February 2014 exchange in which he sets out, at length and in his own words, the method by which negative search results were to be pushed down; the April 2014 message in which he reports “an additional pickup” to Epstein, with the item the alert caught printed on the next sheet; and a June 2014 message reporting that a set of edits to an Epstein website were done. He is also named five times on the page for Reputation Changer, for the August 2013 sequence in which three websites were moved off that firm’s server and its domains were transferred; that section is not repeated here.

This page states nothing about who employed him. See What these documents do not establish.

How he enters the record, July 2013

The earliest document read for this page is a two-sheet chain of July 9 and 10, 2013, under the subject line “Re: Phone call.”¹⁴ At the foot of it, on July 9 at 5:12 PM, a correspondent whose name and address the release withholds wrote to Lesley Groff:

“Could we set up a call for Jeffrey and the new tech person working on Jeffrey’s google results? His name is Tyler Shears. His email is cc’d.

Could you coordinate with Tyler?

Jeffrey said anytime.”

Groff answered at 6:05 PM, “Hi [redacted] and Tyler. Would a call tomorrow at 1:00 work?”, and confirmed the next morning at 7:36 AM: “Great. 1pm EST is confirmed for a call today with Jeffrey. I will send you the dial in details once I get to work.”⁴

Shears wrote after that call, at 1:10 PM on July 10 by the quoted attribution line on the sheet, addressing a redacted name and Groff together. None of the attribution lines in that chain prints a zone; the only zone stated anywhere in it is Groff’s own “1pm EST,” and the times below are given as the sheet prints them:

“I spoke with Jeffrey this morning about what needs to happen. I am going to work to come up with a plan of attack based on the circumstances and what we want to get fixed. I’ll need a little bit of time to analyze the problem results. I may also have questions for you [redacted] related to what was working, what you have changed on which sites, etc.

I’m sure this is urgent for your team. I will do my best to have a game plan ready by Friday but it may take the weekend. From there I can start execution next week on activities related to the problem.

Who should I work with for invoicing / next steps?”¹

Groff answered him four minutes later: “Invoices should be directed to: Rich Kahn / HBRK Associates / 575 Lexington Ave, 4th Floor / NY, NY 10022.” A further message in the same chain, whose “From:” line is blacked out, tells him: “Regarding billing, you should email both Jeffrey and Rich Kahn (Jeffrey’s accountant) directly.”¹

Read as instructions rather than as biography, those two sentences say only where his bills were to go, and both name the side that pays. A reading that takes the Lexington Avenue line as a lead to his own employer runs against the message printed directly beneath it on the same sheet, in which the man being answered is the one asking whom to invoice. That is not a question an employee of the payee asks.

The domains and the server, August 2013

Two documents from August 2013 are already cited on the Reputation Changer page, for the exchange in which three websites were found to be sitting on that firm’s server and Shears answered “Yeah let’s do that. I can get us a server and transfer them,” and for his message of August 29 reporting that “the reputation changer domains are now in the primary Jeffrey account.”⁶⁷ What that page establishes is not restated here.

Two things on those sheets bear on this page and are not on that one.

First, the transfer was done by a named person at a named firm. The second sheet of the August 29 document carries a signature block reading “Emily Thompson” over the title “Strategy Coordinator,” with the website www.Brand.com printed in the same block.⁸ Six days earlier she had written to Shears: “I am working on transferring [redacted] domains to your server. In order to do so, I need your Customer ID and password information. I apologize for the delay, and I will complete the transfer as soon as possible.” Shears answered: “Can you please clarify what customer ID you are referring to? I do not have a Brand.com account but can set up any accounts necessary to complete the transfer. If you meant setting up a new hosting account somewhere I can also do that.”⁸

Second, what Shears then supplied. On the morning of August 29 he sent her a short block giving an account name in the Jeffrey Epstein foundation’s name, a customer number and a contact address; the customer number and the address are not reproduced here. She replied at 2:24:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, as her message’s own header states, “Tyler, Thank you for the information. I completed the transfer for you,” and he forwarded that to Epstein and Richard Kahn eleven minutes and forty-six seconds later, at 2:36:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time. That zone is derived, not printed: the unlabelled “Sent:” field at the head of his forward reads 6:36:08 PM and states none, and it is read here as UTC on the ground set out below for the April sheets, where two further copies of one message fix the field at the head of a message in this production as UTC and the headers quoted inside a message as local. His own sentence in that forward, that he is “checking them for any errors this afternoon,” fits 2:36 PM and not 6:36 PM.⁷⁸ So the person holding, or able to create, the credentials to the registrar account in the foundation’s name was Shears, and the counterparty asked him for a customer identifier and a password by email.

”Boosting strategy,” February 2014

The longest of these documents is a four-sheet chain of February 7 and 8, 2014, subject “Re: boosting strategy,” between Shears, Epstein and a correspondent whose name the release withholds.²⁹¹⁰¹¹

Two messages in that chain carry a zone on their own headers: Shears’s of 10:33:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, and his last, whose RFC header reads 01:32:58 UTC on February 8, which is 8:32:58 PM Eastern Standard Time on February 7. The other times below are printed on quoted attribution lines that state no zone, and are read here as Eastern Standard Time on the strength of those two.

It opens with a challenge to his method. At 10:18 AM on February 7 the correspondent wrote:

“Im at a Kinko’s.

I see that you’re boosting non-website url’s — are you sure this is the right approach? (vs. boosting Jeffrey’s sites?) the .org and foundation sites are slipping down and the USVI and science are permanently off the first page.”¹¹

Shears answered fifteen minutes later, at 10:33:16 AM Eastern Standard Time as his own header states, and the answer is the fullest statement of the method in any document read for this page:

“We are pushing up the highest authority domains available for ‘Jeffrey Epstein’ in general. I had reserved the approach of pushing non-website URLs for a few months because you expressed concern with making sure our URLs are on first page… but I had call w/ Mr. Epstein in the beginning of January and expressed that is a limiting factor for moving Forbes/NYPost as quickly as we’d like.

Getting up different types of results for different folks is required to dislodge the negative placements. Once they are dislodged it is much easier to restore our websites back to the rankings and have our ‘ideal’ first page. The reason for this is Google tracks click data on results and as soon as Forbes/NYPost are on second page they will begin a slow death (less clicks on those, more clicks on the ones we have on first page)

From there we will see our properties shoot up due to the interlinking between them and the reinforcement we can provide from sites like Harvard, Nat Geo, and any other publications we have influence over. Using the ‘short-term’ links is one battle around other pages is just a part of the overall war… You saw how Google was changing up much more dramatically when we had multiple Epstein’s on the first page vs. having a saturated first page.”¹⁰

The same message runs on to the next sheet, where he says what he thought the constraint had cost, and asks after his money:

“I feel like time was lost focusing on making sure it was Mr. Epstein properties when he has giving explicit permission to promote any URL required to dislodge the negatives.

I hope this makes sense.. I haven’t heard from Rich on the last invoice I sent (1/29/14) and am hoping all is well. Do you know if he’s out of the office ?”¹¹

The correspondent replied at 10:47 AM, “Ok thanks so much for the review. I’ve cc’d Jeffrey. I’ll be in touch this afternoon,” and Epstein was in the chain from that point.¹⁰ At 4:17 PM Shears wrote to both:

“It is imperative we get a placement out by mid next week in order for us to hit the timeline I spoke to Mr. Epstein about.. The fresh piece needs to come out while we are dislodging the current results (as you are observing now).

Mr. Epstein if you have any questions on current status vs. our conversation around Jan 10. please advise - We are continuing to work aggressively to clean up results per our last call.”¹⁰

Epstein answered at 6:56 PM with a screen capture and one line: “About 4,880,000 results (0.33 seconds) different computer, not good.”² The ten results he pasted run across two sheets. In the order the capture prints them they are: a Wikipedia entry; a New York Magazine profile headed “Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery,” whose snippet names Leslie Wexner, Ghislaine Maxwell and Donald Trump; a Forbes headline reading “Jeffrey Epstein: Sex Offender, Yes. Billionaire, No.” over a snippet dated February 28, 2011; the site in Epstein’s own name; a New York Post headline reading “Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator” over a snippet dated February 25, 2011; a corporate team page for another man of the same name; the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation’s own site; a Facebook page for that foundation; a professional-network directory page listing other men of the same name; and a physician-rating listing for another man of the same name.²⁹

Shears replied at 8:32:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, by the RFC header on his own message, which reads 01:32:58 UTC on February 8:

“Understand the two negatives are still present. We are still on track per our last call of 60 days from 1/10 if we can get the placement out next week [redacted] is preparing for us and results continue to respond as they have been.

It takes 30 days for Google to respond in most cases and we ramped up 28 days ago with boosting alternate URLs per our call

We are working very hard to make this happen and should have [redacted] set up to support us with columns on a few top sites at no cost moving forward

I am available for a call now or this weekend to review.”²

Two things in that chain are worth stating flatly. The work is described by the person doing it as moving two named news articles about Epstein’s sex-offence conviction from the first page of a search result to the second, in the expectation that they would then decay, and the mechanism given is click data rather than removal. And a “placement,” in his usage, is something that is prepared and timed by arrangement: he says a fresh piece is needed “while we are dislodging the current results,” and that someone whose name is blacked out is “preparing” it.

The Google Alert of April 16, 2014

The anchor for this page is a two-sheet chain of April 16, 2014, subject “Re: Fwd: Google Alert - Jeffrey Epstein.”¹²¹³

At 1:27 PM, which two further copies of the same message fix as Eastern Daylight Time for the reason set out below, Shears forwarded a Google Alert for Epstein’s name to Epstein and one further recipient whose name and address are blacked out, and wrote above it:

“Got an additional pickup here

Jeffrey I think waters have cooled down enough we can start promoting new stories. I’ll send new ideas for that by end of week.. we’ve evolved some of ours as news has changed.”

and then, to the redacted recipient:

“[redacted] can we set a call for Friday to collaborate before I share with Jeffrey? I want them to be as composed as possible before his review.”¹²

The second sheet is what the alert had actually caught, and it is the finding. The alert carries exactly one item. Its headline reads “WildAid Philanthropist and Financier Jeffrey Epstein, Applauds China’s Ban on Shark Fins.” Its source line reads, in full, “EIN News (press release).” Its snippet reads “The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation puts its support behind WildAid’s brave fight against shark fin consumption in China. NEW YORK, NY, USA, April 15, …”¹³

So the “additional pickup” reported to Epstein is a press release carried on a press-release distribution service, dated the previous day, describing the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation’s own support for a campaign. It is not an article by an independent publication, and the sheet does not say who placed it. No document read for this page states who wrote or filed it.

The message at the top of that sheet is not his

The topmost message on the anchor’s first sheet has a blacked-out “From:” line and opens “Hi Tyler.”¹² It is addressed to Shears, not written by him. It reads:

“Friday’s good. yes, I’d like to draft more feature articles that have the same staying power as the positive Huffington piece.”

followed by a list of six outlets: “USA Today,” “Discover,” “Huffington,” “New Scientist,” “Bloomberg,” “Nature.”

That sentence and that list belong to the redacted correspondent. The sheet supplies no name, no role, no employer and no gender for that person, and none is supplied here. The “positive Huffington piece” is something the correspondent refers to; no document read for this page identifies such an article, and this page does not assert that one exists. What the sheet does establish is that on the same afternoon Shears asked for a Friday call “to collaborate before I share with Jeffrey,” someone answered “Friday’s good” and proposed drafting feature articles for a named set of publications.

The two clock readings on that sheet are on different clocks

Neither time printed on the anchor sheet carries a zone: the top message’s unlabelled “Sent:” field reads 6:21:02 PM, and Shears’s quoted header below it reads 1:27 PM. Read as one clock those are five hours apart. They are not one clock. A second copy of the same top message, produced separately, carries an RFC header reading “Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:21:02 +0000,” which states 18:21:02 UTC on its face and matches the anchor’s 6:21:02 PM exactly.¹⁴ A third copy carries Shears’s own forward with its unlabelled field reading “Wed 4/16/2014 5:27:16 PM,” that is 17:27:16, which fixes the 1:27 PM quoted on the anchor as Eastern Daylight Time, four hours behind UTC.¹⁵ Read that way the reply reached him 53 minutes and 46 seconds after he sent the forward, on the same afternoon, which is what the content of the two messages implies and what the anchor sheet alone would hide.

Website edits, June 2014

The last document read for this page is a two-sheet chain of June 2014, subject “Re: Net Edits.”³¹⁶ At 12:50 AM on June 22 a correspondent whose name, cell and email are blacked out sent Shears a bulleted list of changes to an Epstein website: which flashing titles should appear over the homepage photograph and where they should link, which photograph to use, what the footer navigation should contain, that the Twitter link did not reach the intended account, that the blog page’s feed was stale, and, last, that “Contact page: the address =hould say: Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation. The VI was left out.” The list closes: “were all the meta tags etc put in?”³

Every sheet of that document reaches the release with characters replaced by an ”=” sign, an artefact of quoted-printable encoding left in the text, which is why the quotation above reads “=hould” and why other words on the sheet are damaged the same way. Quotations from it are given here exactly as printed.³

That list is the correspondent’s, not Shears’s. Shears’s part of the exchange is two sentences. At 10:10 AM the same morning: “got it - will be done by we=nesday”. And on June 26, at 1:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, to a recipient whose name is blacked out and to Epstein: “all the edits are done - please review .NET site with Darr=n so we can take live.”³ That zone is derived, not printed. This sheet gives the time only in the unlabelled “Sent:” field at the head of the message, which reads 5:30 PM and states none; a separately produced copy of the reply to that message quotes the same message’s own header as “Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 1:29 PM.”¹⁷ The two readings are four hours and one minute apart: the four hours are the offset that puts the field at the head of a message on UTC and a header quoted inside one on Eastern Daylight Time, the same split the April sheets above establish, and the odd minute is the two renderings differing over the seconds. The quoted header is the one carrying a local clock, so 1:29 PM is the time given here. A personal name stands in that last sentence with the same encoding damage across it. The producing party did not black it out; the encoding broke it. This page prints it as the sheet prints it and does not supply the missing letter or resolve it to anyone.

What these documents do not establish

His employer. No document read for this page states it. He was told to send invoices to Richard Kahn at HBRK Associates, which is where his bills went; he asked, at the outset, who to invoice; and in February 2014 he chased Kahn about an invoice he had sent on January 29, 2014. He writes throughout in the first person plural, “we,” “our URLs,” “our properties,” “our websites,” but no document read here names the party that plural refers to. Employer is an attribute, and a document that withholds one is not evidence for it.

His role or title. The only role words attached to his name in any document read for this page are a third party’s, in the sentence introducing him to Lesley Groff: “the new tech person working on Jeffrey’s google results.”⁴ He does not use that description of himself anywhere on these sheets, and no signature block of his read here carries a title.

What he was paid. None of the nine documents read here records an amount paid to him, an invoice of his, or an instrument engaging him. Two of them refer to invoices existing.¹¹¹

Any relationship between Brand.com and Reputation Changer. The string “Brand.com” was searched by phrase across the whole corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions. It returns one page: the second sheet of the August 29, 2013 document cited above.¹⁸ No document read for this page connects that firm to the firm whose server the August 10, 2013 message names, and this page does not connect them.

The scale of the rest of the record. Searched by phrase across the same index, “Shears” returns 849 pages across 720 documents and “Tyler Shears” returns 741 pages across 624 documents.¹⁸ Nine documents were read at the image for this page. Nothing on this page is a statement about the remainder of that return, which has not been read.

Footnotes

Footnotes

1. Email chain, “Re: Phone call,” July 10, 2013, first sheet, carrying at its head a message whose “From:” line is blacked out, addressed to Lesley Groff and copying Tyler Shears, and beneath it Lesley Groff’s message of July 10, 2013 at 1:14 PM and Tyler Shears’s message of the same day at 1:10 PM. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:57Z, 300 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear in the header block and on the quoted attribution line; a name is blacked out in his salutation and again inside the body of his message; the “From:” line of the topmost message is blacked out, and its outlet-free billing sentence is therefore not attributed to any named person on this page. The Lexington Avenue line is a firm’s business address and is quoted as printed. Email addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. The clock times are as printed on the quoted attribution lines of this chain, which give no zone. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02134073 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

2. Tyler Shears to Jeffrey Epstein, copied to Richard Kahn and to one further addressee whose name is blacked out, “Re: boosting strategy,” carrying the RFC header “Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:32:58 +0000,” which states 01:32:58 UTC on its face. Eastern Standard Time is five hours behind UTC, so that is 8:32:58 PM Eastern Standard Time on February 7, five hours earlier. Below it, Jeffrey Epstein’s message of “Feb 7, 2014, at 6:56 PM” and the first three results of the screen capture he sent. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:57Z, 300 dpi, and re-read at the image by this fixer at 2026-09-09T17:44Z, 400 dpi with the header block cropped, because the count below had been reported wrong: the “Cc:” line carries two entries and no empty field. The first is barred throughout, name and value alike; the second is Richard Kahn, named in the clear, with the value beside his name barred. So one further addressee’s name is withheld there, not two. Tyler Shears and Richard Kahn are named in the clear; two names are blacked out inside the body of Shears’s message. Email addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00673087 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. Tyler Shears, “Re: Net Edits,” June 26, 2014, to Jeffrey Epstein and one recipient whose name is blacked out, carrying beneath it his own message of “Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:10 AM” and, below that, the bulleted list of site changes sent to him at 12:50 AM the same day by a correspondent whose name and address are blacked out. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:57Z, 300 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear in the header block and on the quoted attribution line; no role, employer or gender is supplied here for the correspondent who sent the list, and the list is not attributed to Shears. The sheet reaches the release with quoted-printable escape sequences left in the text, so that “wednesday,” “accordingly,” “of” and other words print with an ”=” in place of a character; the personal name in the last sentence of that message carries the same damage; it is printed on this page exactly as the sheet prints it and is not resolved. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02382208 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

4. Same chain, second sheet, carrying Tyler Shears’s signature, Lesley Groff’s messages of July 10, 2013 at 7:36 AM and July 9 at 6:05 PM, and, at the foot, the message of July 9, 2013 at 5:12 PM introducing him. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: the writer of the July 9, 5:12 PM message has name and address blacked out, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for that person here; a further name is blacked out in Lesley Groff’s 6:05 PM salutation and in a quoted signature. “1pm EST” is stated as such in Groff’s own message. Email addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02134073 p.2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

5. On the July 10, 2013 sheet, HBRK Associates is the address to which his invoices were to be directed, and the message printed immediately below that instruction is his own, asking whom to invoice. Neither states who employed him. No document read for this page names a firm he worked for, and none is supplied. entities/reputation-changer records the same absence in its own terms for the August 2013 messages. ↩

6. Email forwarded to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: other sites,” August 10, 2013, carrying Tyler Shears’s reply timed on its own header “August 10, 2013 10:51:52 AM EDT,” a zone stated on the header itself, above the message it answers of the same morning. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:55Z, 400 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear on the forwarded header and in the message text; the other correspondent’s name is withheld by the producing party and is not supplied here, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for that person. Email addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. This document is already cited on entities/reputation-changer, whose account of the exchange is not restated on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01959766 p.1. ↩

7. Tyler Shears, “Fwd: Domain Transfer for [redacted],” August 29, 2013, copied to Jeffrey Epstein and Richard Kahn, forwarding a confirmation from Emily Thompson timed on its own header “August 29, 2013, 2:24:22 PM EDT,” a zone stated on the header itself, and beneath that his own message of the same day at 11:28 AM. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:55Z, 400 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear as sender and in his signature, and Emily Thompson is named in the clear in the header and in her signature; the addressee line and part of the subject line are blacked out. An account reference, a customer number and email addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. This document is already cited on entities/reputation-changer; the material used on this page is not the material used there. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01962090 p.1. ↩ ↩²

8. Same document, second sheet, carrying Tyler Shears’s message to Emily Thompson, her message of August 23, 2013 at 3:58 PM, and her signature block. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: the block reads “Emily Thompson” over “Strategy Coordinator,” with the firm website www.Brand.com printed in the same block; no value from her phone, fax or email fields is reproduced here. A redaction stands in the middle of her sentence about which domains were being transferred, and this page does not supply what it covers. entities/reputation-changer cites the first sheet of this document only and records that the sheet it cites states no role and no employer for the sender of the confirmation; that is true of that sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01962090 p.2. ↩ ↩² ↩³

9. Same document, second sheet, carrying results four to ten of the screen capture Jeffrey Epstein sent. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: the sheet is a screen capture of a search results page, and two of its ten results carry small photographic thumbnails, which this page does not describe. Web addresses print on the sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00673087 p.2. ↩ ↩²

10. Same document, third sheet, carrying Tyler Shears’s message of “Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:17 PM,” the correspondent’s message of the same day at 10:47 AM, and Shears’s message timed on its own header “February 7, 2014 at 10:33:16 AM EST,” a zone stated on the header itself. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear on both attribution lines and in his signature; the other correspondent’s name and address are blacked out in the header and again inside the salutation of Shears’s 4:17 PM message, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for that person here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00673087 p.3. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

11. Same document, fourth and last sheet, carrying the close of Tyler Shears’s 10:33:16 AM message, the correspondent’s message of “Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM,” and a confidentiality notice. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: the correspondent’s name, address, cell and email are blacked out in the attribution line and in the signature block beneath; no role, employer or gender is supplied for that person here. The confidentiality notice at the foot names Jeffrey Epstein as the property owner of the communication and prints an email address, which is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00673087 p.4. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

12. Email chain, “Re: Fwd: Google Alert - Jeffrey Epstein,” April 16, 2014, first sheet. It carries, at the head, a message whose “From:” line is blacked out, addressed to Tyler Shears and Jeffrey Epstein, opening “Hi Tyler,” with an unlabelled “Sent:” field reading 6:21:02 PM; and beneath it Tyler Shears’s forward to Jeffrey Epstein and one further recipient, quoted header “Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:27 PM,” above the forwarded Google Alert. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:54Z, 300 dpi: Tyler Shears is named in the clear on the forwarded header and in his signature; the topmost message’s sender, one recipient of the forward, and a name inside the body of Shears’s message are blacked out, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for any of them here. The outlet list and the sentence about feature articles stand above the separator, inside the message addressed to Shears, and are not his. Neither clock reading on this sheet carries a zone; see the two footnotes below. Email addresses print on this sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01928397 p.1. ↩ ↩² ↩³

13. Same document, second sheet, stamped with its own release number in sequence after the first. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:54Z, 300 dpi: the sheet reproduces the body of the Google Alert. Under the heading “NEWS” it carries one item and one only, with the source line “EIN News (press release)” set beneath the headline, followed by the alert’s standard footer. Nothing on the sheet states who wrote, filed or paid for the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01928397 p.2. ↩ ↩²

14. A separately produced copy of the same April 16, 2014 message, carrying an RFC header in place of the unlabelled “Sent:” field: “Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:21:02 +0000.” Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T17:12Z, 600 dpi, because the finding is a clock reading. That is 18:21:02 UTC, stated as such on the header itself, and it matches the “6:21:02 PM” printed on the anchor sheet. The sender’s name, cell and email are blacked out on this copy as on the anchor, in two bars where a first and last name would stand, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for that person here. Email addresses print on this sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00987665 p.1. ↩

15. A separately produced copy of Tyler Shears’s own forward of April 16, 2014, whose unlabelled “Sent:” field reads “Wed 4/16/2014 5:27:16 PM.” Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T17:12Z, 500 dpi. Set against the quoted header for the same message on the anchor sheet, cited two footnotes above, which reads 1:27 PM, the pair fixes the unlabelled field on these sheets as UTC and the quoted header as Eastern Daylight Time, four hours behind. Tyler Shears is named in the clear; one recipient of the forward, a name inside the body, and the alert’s machine sender address are blacked out. An email address prints on this sheet and is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01928110 p.1. ↩

16. Same document, second and last sheet, carrying the signature block of the correspondent who sent the list. Read at the image by the writer at 2026-09-09T16:58Z, 300 dpi: the whole block is blacked out, name, cell and email alike, and nothing on the sheet supplies a role, an employer or a gender for that person. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02382208 p.2. ↩

17. A separately produced copy of the same “Re: Net Edits” thread, first sheet, carrying at its head a reply of June 26, 2014 whose “From:” line is blacked out and whose unlabelled “Sent:” field reads “Thur 6/26/2014 11:02:20 PM,” and beneath that the quoted header of Tyler Shears’s message, “Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 1:29 PM,” above the sentence quoted on this page. Read at the image by this fixer at 2026-09-09T17:52Z, 500 dpi and again at 800 dpi on a tight crop, because the finding is a clock reading and a redaction bar clips the top of the characters. The text layer of this sheet does not carry the quoted header at all, so that string will not resolve against an extraction; it is legible on the image. Tyler Shears and Jeffrey Epstein are named in the clear; the sender of the reply, one recipient of Shears’s message and a block beneath the reply are blacked out, and no role, employer or gender is supplied for any of them here. Email addresses print on this sheet and are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01919473 p.1. ↩

18. Searched by phrase against the corpus full-text index, which covers the EFTA, HOUSE_OVERSIGHT and DOJ-OGR productions, on 2026-09-09. “Shears” returns 849 pages across 720 documents; “Tyler Shears” returns 741 pages across 624 documents; “Brand.com” returns 1 page in 1 document; “Emily Thompson” returns 2 pages in 1 document. The variants “Reputation Changer” (239 pages across 168 documents) and “boosting strategy” (16 pages across 13 documents) were run in the same pass. Counts are of pages whose extracted text matches, so they are counts of what survived extraction and not of what is on the paper. ↩ ↩²