Cantor Urramoor Asset Management

What it was	A proposed joint venture to create an asset management business, set out in a two-sheet term sheet headed “Term Sheet (8/29/13 Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)“1
Partners as the term sheet names them	”Cantor Urramoor Asset Management Holdings, LLC (“Cantor Holdings”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald” and “[Urramoor], an entity owned by a trust created by Mr. T.”1
The counterparty	The primary documents call him “Mr. T” on the term sheet and “The Duke” in the covering e-mail on the earlier file in the same matter. Two printed encyclopaedia article pages in the release record that Prince Andrew’s private office established the Urramoor Trust, owner of “Urramoor Ltd (established 2013)“123
Terms proposed	A £1,000,000 advance at 3.5% compounded annually; a clause headed “Exclusivity Agreements” covering “all business opportunities”; a ten-year term; and a clause headed “Sovereign Immunity”1
What Epstein did with it	On 2 September 2013 he set out a counter-position by e-mail: “no , suggest a counter, fifty fifty split, first 1 millino to offset loan, no subs acting without written agreement as to fee and profits . no exclusivity,“4
What the release holds from November 2013	An eight-sheet “AGREEMENT FOR REFERRALS” between Cantor Opportunities, LLC and “[Urramoor Limited],” dated to an unfilled day of November 2013. Exhibit B provides that “Such referral fee to Cantor would be split 50/50 with UML.”5
Field state of that agreement	The copy in the release is unexecuted: both “By:” rules are blank, “Name:” and “Title:” are blank, the joinder rule is blank, and every date blank is unfilled. No ink and no redaction bar anywhere on the sheet6

Cantor Urramoor Asset Management is the name a confidential term sheet dated 29 August 2013 gives to a proposed joint venture between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald and an entity the sheet describes only as one “owned by a trust created by Mr. T.” The e-mail that carried it to two named recipients on 30 August 2013 was sent by Stephen Merkel, and its subject line calls the document “Term Sheet from Cantor Fitzgerald to Mr. T.” On 2 September 2013 a copy reached Jeffrey Epstein, who read it and set out by e-mail what to counter with. The release also holds an instrument dated to an unfilled day of November 2013, between a differently named Cantor entity and a company called Urramoor Limited. It names no sum of money anywhere on its eight sheets, and the 50/50 in its compensation exhibit divides Cantor’s referral fee with the second company rather than the venture. Two further sheets in the release, printed pages of an encyclopaedia article rather than records made by any party to the transaction, identify the Urramoor entities with Prince Andrew, Duke of York. What no document cited here says is whether Epstein’s intervention produced the November terms, and this page keeps that question separate from the facts around it.

The counterparty: “Mr. T” on the term sheet, “The Duke” on the file

The term sheet identifies the second partner as “[Urramoor], an entity owned by a trust created by Mr. T.” It uses that form throughout: “Mr. T would refer all business opportunities,” “Urramoor and Mr. T’s compliance,” and, in a separate clause, “Mr T and T Limited etc.”¹ The e-mail that transmitted it carries the same form in its subject line, “Term Sheet from Cantor Fitzgerald to Mr. T,” and that is the subject line of the September thread on all three of the documents read at the image for this page.⁴⁷⁸

Three weeks earlier, on the same matter, the covering e-mail of 9 August 2013 was addressed “To: The Duke; ‘Libby Ferguson” with “Cc: Charles Douglas”, and the message forwarded above it is headed “=rom: The Duke”. Beneath both stands the attendance note itself, whose file line reads “File / Urramoor.”²

Two sheets in the release carry the passage that names him. Both are printed pages of the same encyclopaedia article, and both carry this passage: “Several months after Andrew’s controversial 2019 Newsnight interview, his private office established the Urramoor Trust, which owned both Lincelles Unlimited (established 2020) and Urramoor Ltd (established 2013), and according to The Times was set up to support his family.” The same passage records that Andrew “was described as a ‘settlor but not a beneficiary’,” did not own either company, and that Companies House “listed him and his private banker of 20 years Harry Keogh as people with ‘significant control’.”³

The counterparty is Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The entity name and the incorporation year match the primary documents exactly: Urramoor Ltd was established in 2013, and the term sheet that names Urramoor is dated 29 August 2013 and reaches a recipient the covering correspondence in the same file calls “The Duke.”

One element does not match, and this page does not resolve it. Those two sheets date the Urramoor Trust to several months after the 2019 Newsnight interview they name, while the term sheet of 29 August 2013 already describes Urramoor as “an entity owned by a trust created by Mr. T.” Either the trust that existed in 2013 and the Urramoor Trust are different trusts, or the encyclopaedia account is imprecise about when the trust was created. The entity name and the 2013 incorporation date match whichever answer is right. Nothing cited on this page settles which.

Those two sheets are a secondary account sitting inside the release: printed article pages, not records made by any party to the transaction. Everything below about the venture, the money, the covenants and Epstein’s counter-terms comes from the primary documents; the name comes from these.³

What the term sheet proposed

The instrument is two sheets. Sheet 1 carries a diagonal “DRAFT” watermark, the running head “Term Sheet (8/29/13 Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)” and the word “CONFIDENTIAL”; it opens, “This term sheet summarizes certain key concepts regarding a joint venture to create an asset management business to be known as Cantor Urramoor Asset Management.”¹

Cantor Holdings “would be the manager of the Company.” The provisions that carry the substance are these.

• Loan. “Simultaneous with the formation of the Company and the Exclusivity Agreements, the Company would advance the sum of £1,000,000 to Urramoor which would accrue interest at an annual rate of 3.5%, compounded annually. Any distributions by the Company to Urramoor would be applied to the repayment of the balance.” Under “Capital Commitment,” neither partner would put in capital, “provided that Cantor would make a capital contribution to the Company in an amount necessary to fund the Loan.”¹
• Exclusivity Agreements. “Mr. T would refer all business opportunities (including his affiliates’ business opportunities) to the Company, and would not directly or indirectly engage in any activity that the Company could not. Mr T. would assign any remuneration, ownership or control rights relating to any outside business activity to the Company. Any distributions of income to Urramoor would be conditioned on Urramoor and Mr. T’s compliance with exclusivity obligations.”¹
• Term. “Ten (10) years, subject to automatic successive [annual] renewals unless either partner notifies the other of non-renewal prior to the renewal date.”¹
• Sovereign Immunity. “Mr T and T Limited etc will execute all appropriate waivers of immunity.”¹

Support services would be billed by Cantor to the venture “at 110% of fully allocated cost, including without limitation, finance, accounting and human resources.” The confidentiality clause is mutual and is scoped to the transaction: “Neither party hereto shall issue or authorize the issuance of any news release or other public statement or communication pertaining to this Preliminary Term Sheet or the contemplated transaction without the prior written consent of the other parties hereto, except as required by applicable law or regulation.” The sheet closes, “This term sheet is for discussion purposes only. It is not a commitment to form the Company, either express or implied, does not impose any obligation or liability on any person, and does not constitute an offer of securities.”¹

An earlier file under the same name

Three weeks before the term sheet, an attendance note was circulated by e-mail under the heading “ATTENDANCE NOTE” and, beneath it, “File / Urramoor.” Its own fields read “Matter / HL Asset Manage=ent etc”, “Date / 8 August 2013” and “Fee earner / Charles Douglas.” The = characters are printed on the face of the sheet, not introduced here; they are a quoted-printable export artefact of the kind this release carries, and every quotation below is given as the sheet prints it.²

The note records: “CPD attending Stev= Merkel on telephone to NYC at 20:30 hours on Thursday 8 August 20.30 BST”. Its numbered items on sheet 2 run 1 to 6, but items 3, 4 and 5 have no text beside them on the image and no redaction bar over them; they are blank, not withheld.² Item 1 reads, “It is common ground that no PG will be required from AC.” Item 2 reads, “We a=reed that it was appropriate to accelerate the agreement of the primary as=et management entity as soon as possible.” Item 6 reads, “It is recognised that the asset management entity will have no balance shee= value day 1 but the commitment by AC to contribute any profits derived fr=m the similar activity carried on outside the assets management company wo=ld be acceptable until such time as the debt was repaid.”²

Two further passages: “CPD agreed to send through to SM a copy of what we discussed and agreed (wh=ch will effectively be this attendance note suitably doctored) whereupon h= will double check that this is acceptable to HL and we can proceed.”; and “CPD suggested =hat the intention was to put the structure together as soon as possible su=ject only to SM telling CD who the internal tax adviser would be and we wo=ld then plug that person into Robert Langston but that apart we were agnos=ic as to which jurisdiction, USA, Cayman or otherwise as AC would simply d=clare his interest to HMRC in the usual way.” The note then closes its account of the call: “A positive and short discussion which seems to reach agreement and accord.”²

Sheet 2 ends on the words “Next step”, and that list runs over the page break onto sheet 3. It is the note’s own action list, not a footer: “1. This note to be approved, doctored and sent to SM.”, “2. Tax =uys to talk.”, “4. Agree shareholder agreement to reflect the above provisions in the entity=92s constitution.”, “5. Make advance.” Items 3 and 6 are numbered and empty on the image, with no bar over them. Item 1 is the same instruction as the “suitably doctored” passage above it. Item 5 reads “Make advance.”; the term sheet three weeks later sets an advance at £1,000,000. The list is followed by “Please do let me know if the above is agreeable and/or any comments.”, the sign-off “Charles”, and the sender’s own firm block.²

The note prints initials (CPD, CD, SM, AC, HL, PG) and expands none of them, except that Merkel is named in the same sentence as SM and Charles Douglas stands in the note’s own “Fee earner” field. This page expands none of the others, because no document cited here supplies an expansion. The e-mail enclosing the note was sent on 9 August 2013 by Charles Douglas, addressed “To: The Duke; ‘Libby Ferguson” with Charles Douglas himself copied; the copy in the release is one Jeffrey Epstein sent to David Stern on the same date. Charles Douglas and Libby Ferguson are the two people Merkel addressed the term sheet to three weeks later.²⁴

2 September 2013: the term sheet reaches Epstein, and he answers it

The release holds the 2 September exchange as seven separate one-message documents, each reproducing the thread beneath it, so the same words appear under seven Bates numbers; three of the seven were read at the image for this page and four were read only in the text layer.⁸ The transmittal that carried the term sheet into the thread is Merkel’s: “From: Merkel, Stephen … Sent: 30 August 2013 00:27 … To: Charles Douglas; Libby Ferguson … Subject: Term Sheet from Cantor Fitzgerald to Mr. T / Charles and Libby / Attached please find the draft term sheet. Please let me know when you would like to discuss it. / Thank you / Steve Merkel”.⁴

It is not the foot of the thread. Below it, on the two documents whose later sheets were read at the image, stands one further header block: “From: Luffman, Jason” over “Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:27 PM” and “To: Merkel, Stephen”, under a “Subject:” label with nothing printed after it and no body text beneath it before the corporate disclaimers begin. That is the earliest message the thread carries.⁴⁷

On the sheets read at the image for this page, two of the timestamps carry a printed zone offset and the rest carry none; the state of each is given below. Reading the thread from the bottom up, David Stern forwarded it on at “9:04 AM” by the thread’s own attribution line, which carries no zone on the sheet, with three lines: “See attached term sheet from Howard to PA. / I think madness. / They are still at it. We kill it ?” The attachment he is describing is the draft term sheet Merkel had sent, carried in a thread whose subject line reads “Term Sheet from Cantor Fitzgerald to Mr. T.” The two descriptions are of the same document. This page expands neither “Howard” nor “PA”, because no document cited here supplies an expansion for either.⁴¹

Epstein replied at “09:11:03 -0400”, which the sheet prints as an RFC date header: “no predetermined split, and even then payments made only if they choose to? its crazy”. At “9:13 AM”, another attribution line with no zone on it, a sender whose display name is not printed and whose address is covered by a redaction bar asked, “Kill the whole thing ? PA lawyer is out of his depth.”⁴ At “09:21:41 -0400”, the second of the two printed offsets, Epstein gave the counter in full:

no , suggest a counter, fifty fifty split, first 1 millino to offset loan, no subs acting without written agreement as to fee and profits . no exclusivity,

The misspelling is on the image and is left as printed.⁴ A further message came back from a sender whose From: value is covered by a redaction bar, under a zoneless header field reading “Sent: Mon 9/2/2013 1:22:59 PM”: “Instead of 50/50, can we do 40/40/20 ? 20 for me… This is original PA idea.”⁷ Epstein’s reply to that, under the zoneless field “Sent: Mon 9/2/2013 1:23:30 PM”, is one word: “yes”.⁸

Each of these sheets heads its top message with a Sent: field carrying no zone, and the sheets read at the image settle what that field is between them. One heads Epstein’s counter “Sent: Mon 9/2/2013 1:21:41 PM”; another quotes the same message under the RFC header “Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:21:41 -0400,” four hours earlier. The zoneless field is therefore coordinated universal time.⁴⁷ On that reading the 1:22:59 PM message above is 09:22:59 -0400; the sheet carrying Epstein’s “yes” attributes that message to “9:22 AM” in its own quotation line, and that line carries no zone, so that string is given here as the sheet prints it and is not relied on as a time.⁸

November 2013: the Agreement for Referrals

The release holds an eight-sheet instrument headed “AGREEMENT FOR REFERRALS,” “made and entered into as of the ___ day of November, 2013, between: Cantor Opportunities, LLC, a [limited liability company organized under the laws of ] whose office is located at 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY 10022 (“Cantor”) and [Urramoor Limited] (“UML”) a [private limited company organized under the laws of the United Kingdom whose registered office is located at [ 17 Albermarle Street, London, United Kingdom W1S 4HP ]”. The drafting brackets are on the sheet and are quoted here from the image: Cantor’s state of organisation is left blank inside its bracket, while UML’s registered-office bracket is filled in. “Albermarle” is as printed. The underscores stand for a blank printed rule, and the text layer of that sheet corrupts the second party’s name. Cantor Opportunities is described in the recitals as “a subsidiary of Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.”⁵

Exhibit B, “COMPENSATION STRUCTURE,” is a single paragraph, and it ends: “Such referral fee to Cantor would be split 50/50 with UML.”⁵ The figure is the one Epstein had named on 2 September, but the two are not the same thing. Epstein’s “fifty fifty split” is a split of the venture, written in answer to a term sheet that set no predetermined split of it; Exhibit B’s 50/50 is a division of Cantor’s referral fee with UML, in a worked example in which “a typical referral fee to Cantor would be 25% of the lender’s fee paid from the borrower/purchaser to the lender, which lender’s fee for example may be 1% of the principal amount of the loan.”⁵ Whether Epstein’s intervention produced the November terms is a question this page cannot answer: nothing in the record joins the September thread to the drafting of the November instrument, no document cited here says who instructed anything, and the two facts are set out separately for that reason.

Read against the term sheet:

• The advance is gone. Searching the full text of all eight sheets for “advance”, ”£”, “1,000,000”, “000,000”, “3.5” and “interest at” returns nothing for any of them, and the four occurrences of “loan” are all in Exhibit A’s list of asset classes and in Exhibit B’s worked example of a lender’s fee.⁵
• The joint venture is expressly disclaimed. Section A.3: “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed or interpreted to create a partnership or joint venture,” and UML’s services are to be “as a non-exclusive service provider.”⁵
• The term is five years, against the term sheet’s ten. “This term of this agreement shall be five (5) years from the date hereof and shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless either party provides notice of termination at least one (1) year period prior to the end of such five year or such one-year period.”⁵
• The exclusivity narrowed; it did not disappear, and it did not stop binding people. Section C.5 bars UML and its Representatives, without Cantor’s written consent, from soliciting or referring “potential clients for Asset Management Services to any person other than Cantor or a Cantor Company,” and from becoming “engaged in any capacity with another entity where the relationship contemplated in this Agreement with Cantor is in conflict.” It requires that “UML shall and shall ensure that its Representatives assign any remuneration, ownership or control rights relating to any such activity in conflict with the foregoing, to Cantor to the extent necessary to put Cantor in the same position as if such Representatives and each of their respective related enterprises were subject to this Agreement.”⁵ The assignment language is the term sheet’s, narrowed from “any outside business activity” to activity in conflict with the referral covenant.¹ But the clause binds “none of UML, nor UML’s Representatives,” and the Representatives are the class Section C defines to take in David Stern and UML’s ultimate beneficial owners.⁵
• A post-termination non-solicit appears that the term sheet did not have. Also in Section C.5: “During the term hereof and following the termination of this Agreement, none of UML nor UML’s Representatives, shall solicit any clients of Cantor or its subsidiaries or affiliates with respect to Asset Management Services or induce or encourage such clients to terminate or reduce their business with Cantor or its subsidiaries or affiliates in any way, or interfere with or damage (or attempt to interfere with or damage) any relationship between Cantor or a Cantor Company and a client.”⁵
• An anti-bribery section appears that the term sheet did not have. Section E is headed “Anti-Bribery /Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” and opens: “UML agrees it shall comply and cause its Representatives to comply with anti-bribery laws and regulations applicable to it or Cantor which include, but are not limited to, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the U.K. Bribery Act.”⁵
• A media clause appears that the term sheet did not have. Section G.3: “UML shall not disparage in any way Cantor and shall not during the term of this agreement or thereafter, contact, respond to any request from, or in any way discuss Cantor or its affiliates with the media (electronic, print, radio, television or otherwise).”⁵ The term sheet’s equivalent bound both parties and covered only public statements about the term sheet or the contemplated transaction.

Section C names one individual. It binds UML on behalf of its “affiliates, officers, directors, investors, equity owners, employees and agents (including but not limited to David Stern and UML’s ultimate beneficial owners),” who are collectively the “Representatives”; the joinder on the signature page is set out for signature by David Stern “as a Representative of UML.”⁵⁶ The instrument does not name UML’s ultimate beneficial owners, and this page does not supply them.

The copy in the release was never executed. Read at the image, the signature page carries “IN WITNESS WHEREOF … on this, the ______ day of November, 2013” with the blank unfilled; a ”[ UML ].” block and a “Cantor Opportunities, LLC” block, each with “By:” over an empty printed rule and “Name:” and “Title:” with nothing after them; and, under the joinder, a further empty rule above the printed name David Stern, with an “Address:” label and nothing after it. There is no ink on any of the three printed rules and no redaction bar anywhere on the sheet.⁶ What is in the release is the form of the agreement, not a signed copy of it, and this page does not assert that either party executed it.

What the sheets withhold, and what they only appear to

Four field states on these documents are redactions at the image that the extraction reports as though nothing had been covered. Two more run the other way.

Sheet 1 of the term sheet carries one redaction, and the extraction closes the gap: the text layer of that sheet reads as though nothing on it was ever covered. What the block covers is not legible and is not guessed at here.¹

On all three thread sheets read at the image for this page, the extraction reports a barred sender field as though nothing had been covered: on two of them it prints the barred field with no value at all, and on the third it renders the bar as a stray character in the middle of an attribution line. Either shape reads as a document that simply never carried a name.⁴⁷⁸

Against that, the three empty numbered items on sheet 2 of the attendance note, and items 3 and 6 of the “Next step” list on sheet 3, are genuinely blank on the face of the sheets, with no bar over them; and the notice-address field at Section G.2 of the November agreement is an unfilled typed form, ”( ______ @ ________ )”, not a withheld value.²⁵

Related

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor; Jeffrey Epstein; Offshore financial structures; Epstein email evidence; Document redaction integrity.

Footnotes

1. “Term Sheet (8/29/13 Preliminary Draft for Discussion Purposes Only) / CONFIDENTIAL / TERM SHEET,” two sheets, headed “Cantor Urramoor Asset Management.” Both sheets read at the image at 400 dpi. Sheet 1 carries a diagonal “DRAFT” watermark and one redaction, which the text layer closes without any mark. Sheet 2 carries no bar and no signature block of any kind. The text layer reorders this sheet’s two-column layout, printing the “Loan:” and “Exclusivity Agreements:” labels together above both bodies, and renders “Purpose of Joint Venture:” as “Purpose of .Joint Venture:”; every quotation above is taken from the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01107738 pp.1-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴

2. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, 9 August 2013, “Re: HL Loan - CD/SM call note 8.8.13,” four sheets, forwarding an e-mail of 09 August 2013 from Charles Douglas headed “ATTENDANCE NOTE” over “File / Urramoor” and enclosing an attendance note dated 8 August 2013. All four sheets read at the image at 400 dpi. Sheet 2 ends on the words “Next step” and sheet 3 carries that list, numbered 1 to 6 with 1, 2, 4 and 5 carrying text and 3 and 6 empty; it is followed by “Please do let me know if the above is agreeable and/or any comments.”, the sign-off “Charles”, and the sender’s own firm block. Sheet 4 is disclaimers only. The = characters quoted above are printed on the face of the sheets: this run carries quoted-printable soft breaks onto the image, and nothing here is repaired. On sheet 1 six values are barred: five of them stand in header or attribution lines at the position an e-mail address occupies, and one is a subject line. Sheet 2 carries no bar at all, and the blank numbered items 3, 4 and 5 are blank on the image with nothing over them. Sheet 3 carries one redaction bar; what it covers is not legible, its class cannot be established at the image, and nothing is asserted about it here. Sheet 4 carries no bar. No clock time from sheet 1 is printed on this page. Its top-of-message Sent: field carries no zone, and the labelled and unlabelled times on that sheet do not resolve into a consistent order, so the only time given above from the note itself is the one it labels on its own face, “20.30 BST.” The content of the covering message at the head of sheet 1 is not quoted on this page: it concerns a named third party and belongs with that person’s own record rather than here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02573653 pp.1-4. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

3. Two printed pages of the same encyclopaedia article, “Prince Andrew, Duke of York - Wikipedia,” printed “9/27/22, 10:57 AM” and numbered “13/18” on their own face: sheet 6 of https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00266155 (Bates EFTA00266160) and sheet 11 of https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00266187 (Bates EFTA00266197). Both read at the image at 400 dpi. The two are copies of the same article page and the quoted passage is identical on both. Neither sheet carries a redaction bar; both carry handwritten annotation, which is not reproduced here. This is a secondary account that happens to sit inside the release — a print-out of an encyclopaedia entry, not a record made by any party to the transaction — and it is cited only for the entity names and dates. Nothing on this page about the venture, the money, the covenants or the correspondence rests on it. The passage’s own dating of the Urramoor Trust and the term sheet’s reference to a trust already existing in August 2013 are not reconciled here. ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. Jeffrey Epstein to David Stern, “Re: Term Sheet from Cantor Fitzgerald to Mr. T,” three sheets, all three read at the image at 400 dpi. Sheet 1 does not end the thread: below Merkel’s transmittal it prints “Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.” and then a further header, “From: Luffman, Jason” over “Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 12:27 PM”, and stops there. Sheet 2 opens on the continuation of that same block, “To: Merkel, Stephen” over a “Subject:” label with nothing printed after it and no body beneath it, and then runs into the Cantor and Epstein disclaimers; sheet 3 is disclaimers only. Neither sheet 2 nor sheet 3 carries a redaction bar. The header field at the top of sheet 1 reads “Sent: Mon 9/2/2013 1:21:41 PM” with no zone; it is coordinated universal time, fixed against the RFC header “Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 09:21:41 -0400” carried for the same message on the sheet cited at ⁷, read at the image on both. On sheet 1 five values are barred, three of them in sender or attribution position, all of them standing in header or attribution lines at the position an e-mail address occupies; nothing else on the sheet is barred. The whole of the 9:13 AM message’s sender field is among them, and no display name is printed for that message. Merkel’s transmittal field on this sheet, “Sent: 30 August 2013 00:27”, carries no zone and none is inferred here; it is quoted only as printed. The text layer renders “David Stern” as “David Stem” and reduces the barred 9:13 AM sender to the single character “a” in the middle of the attribution line. “millino” and “fifty fifty split” are as printed at the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958916 pp.1-3. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰

5. “AGREEMENT FOR REFERRALS” between Cantor Opportunities, LLC and “[Urramoor Limited],” eight sheets, dated to an unfilled day of November 2013 and footed “67891 v1”. All eight sheets read at the image at 400 dpi. Nothing on any of the eight sheets is redacted. The party block at p.1 renders in the text layer as “lUrramoor Limited’”, with a stray character fused to the front of the name, which is why the instrument does not answer a phrase search for the name itself. Sections A.1 to A.3 at p.1; Section A.4, Section B and the Section C preamble with C.1 to C.3 at p.2; Sections C.4 to C.7 and the Section D preamble with D.1 and D.2 at p.3; Sections D.3 and D.4 with Sections E, F and G.1 at p.4; Sections G.2 to G.8 at p.5; Exhibit A at p.7; Exhibit B at p.8. The bracketed date blanks in the Exhibit A and Exhibit B footers are unfilled, as is the one on the signature page. The searches reported above were run with text.count() over the concatenated extraction of all eight sheets, 23,348 characters, and returned zero occurrences each for “advance”, ”£”, “1,000,000”, “000,000”, “3.5” and “interest at”, and four for “loan”; the sheets carrying the compensation and term provisions were then checked at the image. Section C.5 is quoted from the image, where the extraction reads “atIother” for “another”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01141453 pp.1-5, 7-8. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴

6. Signature page of the same instrument, sheet 6, read at the image at 400 dpi. Three printed rules stand on the sheet: “By:” for [ UML ], “By:” for Cantor Opportunities, LLC, and the joinder rule above the printed name David Stern. All three are empty. The attestation’s ”______ day of November” blank is unfilled, and so is the sheet’s one bracketed date blank, the footer “[Signature page to Agreement between UML and Cantor Opportunities, LLC dated as of _________, 2013]” — two date blanks on the sheet, one of them bracketed. There is no ink, no printed name on any rule and no redaction bar anywhere on the sheet. “Name:” and “Title:” are printed labels with nothing after them, and so is the “Address:” label under the joinder rule. Underscores used on this page to represent those blanks are this page’s rendering of a blank printed rule and are not characters on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01141453 p.6. ↩ ↩² ↩³

7. The same thread with one further message on top, sent 09:22:59 -0400, three sheets, all three read at the image at 400 dpi. Six values on this sheet are barred, four of them in sender or attribution position; nothing else is. The top-of-message From: field is among them, and the text layer prints that field with no value at all, which would read as a message that was never attributed. Merkel’s transmittal breaks across the page here: sheet 1 ends inside it, and sheet 2 opens on “Thank you / Steve Merkel”, then “Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.” and the whole “From: Luffman, Jason” header block, under a “Subject:” label with nothing printed after it, before the disclaimers; sheet 3 is disclaimers only. Neither sheet 2 nor sheet 3 carries a bar. The text layer renders the counter as “filly fifty split”; the image reads “fifty fifty split.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958960 pp.1-3. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

8. The 2 September 2013 exchange survives in the release as seven separate documents, each a single message reproducing the thread below it: https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958492 (09:11:03), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958705 (09:13:07), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958867 (09:20:54), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958916 (09:21:41), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01958960 (09:22:59), https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01959027 (09:23:30) and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01959509 (09:28:06), the times being the -0400 equivalents of each sheet’s own zoneless header field, converted here and printed on no sheet. Three were read at the image: the fourth, the fifth, and https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01959027 p.1 at 400 dpi, which carries Epstein’s one-word “yes” under the zoneless field “Sent: Mon 9/2/2013 1:23:30 PM” and attributes the message it answers to “On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:22 AM”, an attribution line that carries no zone. Seven values are barred on that sheet, four of them in sender or attribution position, all of them standing in header or attribution lines at the position an e-mail address occupies; the text layer of that sheet closes the gap in the 9:22 AM attribution line, leaving it with no sender at all. The other four documents, and therefore the statement that each carries one message above the thread, are from the text layer and are UNVERIFIED at the image; the cost on those four is the ability to say what each sheet withholds, whether its own fields are barred or blank, and whether any of them carries a further time convention bearing on the reading of the zoneless field above. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵