Epstein Data Wiki

Epstein's own requests for records about himself

Properties1
tagstopic, foia, national-security-agency, customs-and-border-protection, fbi, department-of-homeland-security, cia, document-release

43 min read

RequesterJeffrey Epstein, through counsel1234
Counsel making the requests described hereMartin G. Weinberg, of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., for the CIA matter and the FBI matters of 2009–2011 and the November 2012 renewal567; Darren K. Indyke, of Darren K. Indyke, PLLC, for the NSA and CBP matters8910
Agencies askedFederal Bureau of Investigation, through counsel, first in December 2009, twice more in 2011, and renewed by the same counsel in November 2012;611 Central Intelligence Agency, June 2011;412 National Security Agency / Central Security Service, January 2014;10 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, June 2013 and twice more in November 20142
What was asked of the CIARecords “relating or referring to” Epstein created between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2011, including records documenting “monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information”45
The CIA’s answerDetermination of July 29, 2011: a search for records reflecting an “open or otherwise acknowledged Agency affiliation” located nothing; as to records that would reveal a “classified connection to the CIA,” the Agency “can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence” of responsive records12
What was asked of the NSAAll records “relating to or referring to” Epstein created between January 1, 2000 and January 2, 201413
What was asked of CBPRecords of inspections and examinations on arrival at or departure from a U.S. port of entry, and records documenting “monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information”23
The NSA’s answerDenial of January 17, 2014 under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) and (b)(3);1 appeal denied July 30, 2014, the Agency concluding that “the appropriate response is to continue to neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any intelligence material on the subject of your client’s request pertaining to any NSA/CSS intelligence programs or activities”13
NSA case and appeal numbersCase No: 76098 / Appeal No: 394110
Programmes named in the NSA correspondenceSection 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act; Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act113
CBP’s answerA request closed November 7, 2014 “as insufficient” for want of third-party authorisation;14 a determination of January 13, 2015 that “A search of CBP databases produced records responsive” to request CBP-2015-005069 and that those records “are partially releasable”15
The FBI’s earlier answers, 2009–2011Twice told that responsive material sat in an investigative file and was withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A);1617 once, on a separate and narrower search, told that no record indicated Epstein had ever been the target of electronic surveillance;17 the second withholding appealed and affirmed1819
The FBI leg, 2012–2017A FOIPA request of November 27, 2012, renewing the three matters above and made on Epstein’s behalf by the same counsel, denied, appealed, remanded and processed in stages to 2017: set out on its own page20

Between 2009 and 2015 Jeffrey Epstein, through his lawyers, asked four parts of the United States government whether they held records about him. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was asked first, in December 2009, and asked twice more in 2011 before the same counsel renewed the request in November 2012. The Central Intelligence Agency was asked once, in June 2011, two days after the third of those FBI requests was filed. U.S. Customs and Border Protection was asked in June 2013 and, in November 2014, twice more. The National Security Agency was asked on January 2, 2014, was refused, and refused again on appeal on July 30, 2014, in each case on the ground that it would neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of any intelligence material on the subject of the request pertaining to any of its intelligence programmes or activities.13 A separate matter, five years later: in November 2019, the FBI was answering other people’s requests for records about Epstein, not his own, when the specialist working those requests circulated a draft response letter to which, the specialist wrote, “Unperfected Third Party Glomar language” had been added.21

What makes this a single record rather than an assortment of paperwork is that the requester is the subject. The documents below are Epstein’s counsel asking the agencies, using the requests’ own language of “monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information,” what they had on him, and the agencies answering in every register this kind of request produces: the FBI, twice, saying that responsive material existed in an investigative file and was being withheld, while a separate and narrower search of its own found nothing; the CIA, in a single letter, saying it had searched and found nothing under one description of what it might hold, and declining to say under another; the NSA declining to say whether anything existed at all; and CBP searching, finding responsive records, and releasing them in part.

December 2009 to September 2011: the FBI’s earlier answers

On December 31, 2009 Martin G. Weinberg wrote to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein, in the same request form later used for the CIA and the 2012 FBI requests, seeking Bureau, Department of Justice and field-office records about him created between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009.6 By letter of April 27, 2010, headed “Request No: 1142669-000,” the Bureau’s Record/Information Dissemination Section told Weinberg it was still “searching for, retrieving, scanning, and evaluating files that may be responsive,” and that the request would wait in a “perfected backlog” for an analyst once that evaluation was complete.22 Epstein was subsequently notified that documents responsive to that request were being withheld because of an open investigation.20

The request’s second page sets out what it asked the Bureau to do. Its first numbered item sought “Any records, order, agreement, or accommodation relating or referring to Epstein, including but not limited to records that document monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information relating to Epstein.” Its second asked, in the formula the later requests to the Central Intelligence Agency and to Customs and Border Protection would repeat, for records relating or referring to how, why, or when Epstein was selected to be a subject of it. It preauthorised spending up to $1,000.00. It then named the places it wanted looked in: “We specifically request that a cross-reference search be conducted for the requested materials. Likewise, we specifically request that the requested search include but not be limited to a search of the FBI’s Central Records System (“CRS”), Electronic Surveillance (“ELSUR”) indices and so-called tickler files.” And it asked at the outset that, “if this request is denied in whole or in part, we request that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and any other provisions of law upon which you rely.”23

Two more requests followed on Epstein’s behalf, logged as FOIPA Request No. 1142669-001 and No. 1142669-002.20 The Bureau answered the first of these by letter of January 28, 2011: “The material you requested is located in an investigative file which is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A),” because, the Section Chief wrote, “there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records.”16 It answered the second, whose own underlying request an appeal below dates to June 28, 2011, two days before the CIA request described next, in the same terms by letter of August 8, 2011, and added a second, separate finding: “A search of the FBI Headquarters electronic surveillance indices has been conducted, and no responsive record which indicates that Jeffrey Edward Epstein has ever been the target of electronic surveillance was located.”17

The January 2011 letter set out the exemption it relied on. It reproduced the statute’s words for records “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” with the Bureau’s own ellipses standing for the rest, and recorded a determination in three parts, of which the clause above is one: that “the records responsive to your request are law enforcement records”, that a relevant proceeding was pending or prospective, and that “release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings.” It gave sixty days from the date of the letter to appeal to the Director of the Office of Information Policy, in the Department of Justice.16 Bound behind it is the Bureau’s standard fact sheet, which describes a FOIPA search as a “main file search” and distinguishes it from the National Name Check Program’s search of the Universal Index, and which states in bold: “The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.”24

Weinberg appealed the August 8 denial on August 24, 2011, arguing that “any ongoing FBI investigation ended either on or about June 30, 2008 or no later than July of 2010,” so that the material could no longer be considered relevant to a pending law enforcement proceeding, and asking that the Director reverse the denial or itemise what was withheld.1825 The Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy affirmed the FBI’s action on September 28, 2011: “The FBI properly withheld this information in its entirety because it is protected from disclosure under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A),” and the Office declined to itemise or separately justify each withheld item.19 The letter’s second page closes with notice of the right to sue: “If your client is dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, the FOIA permits him to file a lawsuit in federal district court in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).”26 Nothing cited here records a further appeal or a lawsuit.

Across these three matters the Bureau did not say it had nothing. Twice it said that responsive material existed in an investigative file and was being withheld because its release could interfere with a law enforcement proceeding; only the separate, narrower search of its electronic-surveillance indices returned no responsive record. When Epstein’s counsel wrote to the FBI again in November 2012, the new request said explicitly that it sought “a renewed examination of the documents withheld with regard to FOIPA Requests No. 1142669-000, 1142669-001, and 1142669-002 and specifically whether the open investigation cited” in each “has since been terminated.”20

June to July 2011: the Central Intelligence Agency

On June 30, 2011 Martin G. Weinberg wrote to the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator on Epstein’s behalf, in the same request form used for the FBI matters above, seeking disclosure of CIA records “relating or referring to” Epstein created between January 1, 2000 and June 30, 2011, including any documenting “monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information.”45 The Agency required a signed privacy waiver before it would process the request. In an email to Epstein on July 18, 2011, Weinberg’s office explained: “we filed CIA FOIA - they have it - we need a separate privacy waiver signed in 2011 for them to fully process.”27 A legal assistant in Weinberg’s office reported the same day: “I spoke with a woman at the CIA’s FOIA office, she said that they do not have a standard privacy waiver and identity cert. form. She did say that the DOJ’s form is sufficient for this request.”28 Earlier the same morning Weinberg had put the Agency’s requirement in his own words: “Please execute and return so I can finalize filing of CIA FOIA - they have demanded a privacy waiver but have no specific CIA form so they OKd using the FBI/DOJ form as attached”.29 The CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator recorded receiving the additional information on July 25, 2011, under cover of a letter from Weinberg dated July 19, 2011.12

The Agency answered by letter of July 29, 2011, referencing “P-2011-00673.” Its determination gave two different answers to two different searches:

We searched for CIA-originated responsive records that might reflect an open or otherwise acknowledged Agency affiliation existing from 5 November 1999, the date of our previous acceptance letter (P-1999-02450) to 25 July 2011, the date we accepted Mr. Epstein’s current request. We were unable to locate any information or records.

With respect to responsive records that would reveal a classified connection to the CIA, in accordance with section 3.6(a) of Executive Order 13526, as amended, the CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request. The fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended and section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended.12

For the first question, records reflecting an open or acknowledged relationship with the Agency, the CIA said it searched and found nothing. For the second, records that would reveal a classified relationship, it did not say whether anything existed at all; as with the National Security Agency’s later answer on this page, the Agency’s own reasoning is that confirming possession in some cases while staying silent in others would itself disclose the fact being protected. The letter refers to “our previous acceptance letter (P-1999-02450)” of November 5, 1999, without describing what it accepted or on what terms; that earlier record is not among the documents cited on this page. The Agency gave Weinberg 45 days to appeal to its Agency Release Panel.12 Exact searches of this release for the Agency’s reference number, the 1999 letter’s number, “Agency Release Panel” and “classified connection” found no later CIA appeal or continuation of this matter.

The letter also names what it was denying under, and who was answerable for it. It told Weinberg that he “may consider this portion of the response a denial of your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3), and PA exemptions (j)(1) and (k)(1)”, and that it enclosed “an explanation of these exemptions for your reference and retention.”12 That explanation is the Agency’s two standard sheets, bound behind the determination: one running the FOIA exemptions from (b)(1) to (b)(9),30 the other the Privacy Act exemptions from (d)(5) to (k)(7),31 each a dated form of 2007 and neither specific to this request. On the appeal the letter says: “Although our searches were thorough and diligent, and it is highly unlikely that repeating those searches would change the result, you nevertheless have the legal right to appeal the decisions above.” It then names the officer answerable for the decision by office: “As the CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator, I am the CIA official responsible for this determination.”12 The appeal counsel later filed against the National Security Agency took the absence of such an identification as one of its grounds.32

December 2012: a copy for the file

On November 27, 2012 Martin G. Weinberg wrote to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section “on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein,”7 seeking Bureau, Department and field-office records about him, and asking the Bureau to renew its examination of the three earlier matters described above.20 That request, its denial, its appeal, the Department’s remand and the staged releases that followed to August 2017 are set out on Requests for Epstein records answered outside the FBI’s FOIA letters and are not repeated here.

What belongs here is how the request travelled inside Epstein’s own office. On December 5, 2012 at 20:56 UTC, Darren K. Indyke forwarded to Lesley Groff a message under the subject “Fwd: Copy of Epstein’s Request to FBI under Freedom of Information and Privacy Act”, with one line of instruction: “Put this in the file with the other marty document. Thanks.”11 Beneath it sits Weinberg’s own message of November 26, 2012 at 1:23:07 PM EST: “It is my intention to send the attached by certified mail today. Marty”.11

June 2013: the first request to Customs and Border Protection

On June 26, 2013 a request under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act went to the FOIA Division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection over the name of Darren K. Indyke. In four numbered items it sought records created between January 1, 2000 and June 27, 2013 relating to inspections or examinations “upon Epstein’s arrival at or departure from a U.S. Port of Entry”; records of his entries and exits; “Any records that document monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information relating or referring to Epstein”; and any records “relating or referring to how, why, or when Epstein was selected to be a subject of any such monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information.”2

The letter preauthorised spending up to $1,000.00, asked that any deletion be justified “by reference to specific exemptions of the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and any other provisions of law upon which you rely”, and recorded that “Epstein reserves the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information.”2 It closes “Respectfully,” over Indyke’s handwritten signature.9 The letter’s first page and the Privacy Act waiver bound behind it are not cited here.

January to July 2014: the National Security Agency

Epstein’s request to the National Security Agency was submitted via the Internet on January 2, 2014.33 The Agency denied it by letter of January 17, 2014. Neither the request nor that letter is among the documents cited on this page; both are described in the appeal that followed and in the Agency’s own decision.113

The appeal

The appeal to the NSA/CSS FOIA Appeal Authority is a seven-page letter dated March 4, 2014 on its own letterhead,33 though both of the Agency’s own replies describe it as “dated 5 March 2014”;1013 the divergence between the two dates is unexplained. The Agency recorded the appeal as received on March 20, 2014.10 The Agency addressed both its replies to Darren K. Indyke and described him as “appealing on behalf of your client, Mr. Jeffrey Epstein”.10 The letter’s own closing page speaks of “my client” and of the response the Agency is required to give if the appeal is denied.8

The letter sets out the grounds the Agency had given. The denial, it says, asserted that the matter was “currently and properly classified matter in accordance with Executive Order 13526, Section 1.4(c)” and so exempt under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), and that as classified matter it was also protected by statute and exempt under § 552(b)(3). It records that the Agency was “particularly focused on two NSA intelligence programs”: a programme under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for foreign intelligence purposes”, and a programme “in which the NSA gathers telephone metadata as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act”. The Agency, it says, “refused to acknowledge the existence or non-existence of any of the records requested”.1 The appeal then states its own position: “We respectfully disagree with the Agency’s “Glomar Response” and the assertions contained in the Denial, and hereby appeal the blanket denial of the FOIA Request.”1

Its fifth page carries a lettered sub-heading, set like the letter’s other lettered sub-headings in bold italic without underline; alone among them, this one is printed in full capitals:

C. CONTINUING PATTERN OF GLOMAR RESPONSES TO U.S. CITIZENS FRUSTRATES THE PURPOSE OF FOIA AND LACKS CREDIBILITY34

Under it the letter argues that the Agency “has provided no indication that there is anything unique about Epstein, a U.S. citizen, or the request that would somehow elevate a general records request about a U.S. citizen to a matter of national security”, and that on the strength of its answer here and of “widespread media reports about repeated Agency denials of similar FOIA/Privacy Act requests from other U.S. citizens”, it “appears to be engaged in a recurring pattern of providing Glomar Responses to any and all U.S. citizens on virtually identical grounds.”34 Elsewhere the letter argues that because Epstein was a United States person, Section 702 “would prohibit the Agency from conducting targeted surveillance of Epstein either in the United States or indeed anywhere else in the world”, so that any denial resting on that programme “lacks credibility”.35

The appeal also reproduces some of the Denial’s own words. The Agency, it says, “has confirmed in its Denial” that “there has been considerable coverage of the two NSA intelligence programs in the pres/media” and that “these two programs have been publicly acknowledged”, while asserting that “details about these programs remain classified and/or protected from release by statutes …” Counsel’s answer was that where the two programmes had already been publicly acknowledged, acknowledging the existence or non-existence of records about a United States citizen could not plausibly permit an adversary to draw any further conclusions about the Agency’s technical capabilities, sources and methods.34

Two of the appeal’s grounds are not about Epstein at all. The first is that classification has limits: “Sections 1.7(a)(1) and (2) of E.O. 13526 prohibit the Agency from continuing to maintain information as Classified in order to conceal violations of law or to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization or agency.” On that footing the letter appealed the denial to the extent it rested on classifying the matter to conceal breaches of the Fourth Amendment or other federal statutes, or to prevent disclosure of what it called embarrassing misconduct by Agency representatives in proceedings before the FISC.36 The second is procedural: only certain enumerated officials may classify information under the Order, and, the letter says, “In its Denial, the Agency fails to identify the official who determined that the fact of the existence or non-existence of records about Epstein is properly classified.”32 The closing page adds that on a denial the Agency is required to provide “names and titles of each person responsible for the denial”.8 The reply of July 30, 2014 identifies the author of the January denial by office only, as “the Chief of the FOIA/Privacy Act Office”, and no document read for this page names the official who made the classification determination.13

The acknowledgment

The Agency acknowledged the appeal on March 25, 2014, under the head “Case No: 76098 / Appeal No: 3941”. The letter records that the appeal was received by the NSA/CSS Office of Associate General Counsel (Litigation) on March 20, 2014, that appeals are processed “on a first-in, first-out basis”, and that “At this time, there are a large number of appeals ahead of yours in our queue.”10 It is issued over the title “FOIA/PA Appeals Program Manager, Office of Associate General Counsel (Litigation)”; the name above that title is blacked out.10

The decision

The Agency answered on July 30, 2014, 132 days after the date it recorded for the appeal’s receipt, and beyond the 20 working days after which, counsel’s letter had said, his client reserved the right to seek judicial review.108 The reply, addressed to Indyke, states:

As a result of my review, I have concluded that the appropriate response is to continue to neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of any intelligence material on the subject of your client’s request pertaining to any NSA/CSS intelligence programs or activities, including programs authorized under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act.13

It then gives the Agency’s reason for the form of the answer rather than for the answer itself: “if NSA/CSS denied having information in cases where we had no such information but remained silent in cases in which the information existed, it would tend to reveal in which activities NSA/CSS was engaged.”13 The existence or non-existence of the material is, it says, exempt under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) as “a properly classified matter under Executive Order 13526, since it meets the specific criteria for classification established in Section 1.4(c) of the Order”, and Section 3.6(a) of that Order “allows an agency to respond by declining to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records.” It is exempt under § 552(b)(3) as well, on the strength of 18 U.S.C. § 798, 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i) and Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959, Public Law 86-36.13

The letter closes with notice of the right to sue: “Because this response is a denial of your client’s appeal, you are hereby advised of his right pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B) to seek judicial review of my decision in the United States District Court in the district in which he resides, in which he has his principal place of business, in which the Agency records are situated (U.S. District Court of Maryland), or in the District of Columbia.”37 It carries a handwritten signature over the typed block “E. R. BROOKS / Chief of Staff / Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act / Appeal Authority”.37 Nothing cited here records any suit being brought.

November 2014 to January 2015: Customs and Border Protection answers

On November 6, 2014 a request was submitted to Customs and Border Protection through the FOIAonline portal. Its four numbered items repeat those of June 2013 word for word, over a shorter period, from November 1, 2013 to November 6, 2014, and the third and fourth again ask for records documenting “monitoring, surveillance, observation, questioning, interrogation, investigation, and/or collection of information relating or referring to Epstein” and for records of “how, why, or when Epstein was selected to be a subject” of it. The processing-fee field reads “Will Pay Up To : $ 1,000.00”, and neither a fee waiver nor expedited handling was sought.3 A supporting file named “JEE Privacy Act Statement” is listed as attached, and the affirmation under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 is marked as agreed.38

A letter from CBP’s FOIA Division dated November 7, 2014, addressed to Darren K. Indyke, says: “Your FOIA request has been closed as insufficient for one or more of the following reasons:”, and gives one reason: “Your FOIA request is a third party request and did not include authorization that information on this individual can be released to you. All third party FOIA requests must include a signed G-28 or G-639 form, or a signed statement from the individual verifying that his/her information may be released to you.” It directs him to resubmit through his FOIAonline account. Nobody is named on it and nothing is signed: it closes “Sincerely,” over the words “U.S. Customs and Border Protection” alone.14

A second request was received the following day. CBP’s own FOIA log records it as tracking number CBP-2015-005069, requester “Darren K Indyke”, received 11/7/2014, status “Closed”, with a final disposition beginning “Partial Grant/Partial” and running past the edge of the column. Its description repeats the same four items and adds a sentence the earlier one did not carry: “Attached to this FOIA/Privacy Act Request is Epstein’s signed and notarized statement authorizing the release of the requested information to the Requester.”39 A footnote to the same description defines the term the request turned on: “records” means “all records or communications preserved in electronic or written form, including but not limited to correspondence, documents, data, videotapes, audiotapes, faxes, files, guidance, guidelines, evaluations, instructions, analysis, memoranda, agreements, notes, orders, policies, procedures, protocols, reports, rules, technical manuals, technical specifications, training manuals, or studies.”39

The answer that followed is the one substantive answer any agency in this record gave. By letter of January 13, 2015 CBP wrote:

A search of CBP databases produced records responsive to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request CBP-2015-005069.

CBP has determined that the responsive records are partially releasable, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. §552 and have applied the appropriate exemptions.15

The letter gives a right of appeal within sixty days to the agency’s Policy and Litigation Branch under 6 C.F.R. § 5.9, notes that the Office of Government Information Services mediates FOIA disputes but has no authority over Privacy Act requests, and asks that the file number be noted on future correspondence. It is issued over the name Ryan Conyers, with no title beyond the agency line and no handwritten signature.15 What that release contained is not described or reproduced here.

Two things in that letter are worth setting beside the requests that produced it. It identifies no exemption: the word “exemptions” in the sentence above is printed as a hyperlink, and no subsection of § 552 is named anywhere on the sheet,15 although the June 2013 request in the same series had asked that any deletion be justified “by reference to specific exemptions of the FOIA, the Privacy Act, and any other provisions of law upon which you rely”.2 And it states the consequence in terms: “You have a right to appeal our withholding determination.”15

Two agencies were asked in overlapping terms within a year, and answered in two different kinds. The National Security Agency would not say whether it held anything. Customs and Border Protection searched, said it had found responsive records, and released them in part.

November 2019: the Bureau adds Glomar language

Five years later the Bureau was answering other people’s requests about Epstein. On October 31, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. a Government Information Specialist in the FBI’s FOIA operation wrote to three special agents, listing three requests that needed an individual answer rather than the Bureau’s standard “Modified Vault with b7A language” letter: correspondence between Epstein and Prince Andrew; footage of Epstein in prison on the day of his death; and the video the Palm Beach Police Department took when it served a search warrant at Epstein’s residence in 2006.40 The specialist’s reason for asking was that the office did not know whether the material existed: “Since, we are not aware that any of these documents or videos are even available, we do not want to send a b7A stating that we have this, when we really do not even know. I am emailing you in hopes that you know if these documents/videos are in any of Epstein’s files.”40 Each item in this message sits beside an attached-file label naming a different item’s subject than the one above it; this page does not attempt to resolve which label belongs where.4041

On November 4, 2019 the specialist forwarded the same message to the same three agents, writing “I am just adding one more request to the email that I sent last week,” and adding a fourth item: complaints filed against Epstein dating back to the 1990s.42 On November 14, 2019 the specialist wrote again that “SA [redacted] has already provided me with an answer regarding the footage of Jeffrey Epstein in prison on the day of his death,” and asked the remaining agents to look at what was left.43

An answer to the rest came on November 18, 2019. A special agent of the FBI’s New York Field Office, squad C-20, wrote: “At this time, as evidence is still under review and going through a taint process, I cannot confirm what documents or correspondence we have between Prince Andrew and Epstein.” The same message adds: “We have the PBPD footage of Epstein’s Palm Beach residence.” The same message also confirms: “We are in possession of [redacted] complaint from the 90’s”; the redaction box covers the complainant’s name, not the fact that a complaint exists.21

Two days later, on November 20, 2019 at 18:32 UTC, the specialist replied with a draft: “I have attached a Modified b7A letter in which we added Unperfected Third Party Glomar language for [redacted] and Maxwell. Just wanted to send you a copy to get your input.”21 One name in that sentence is covered by a redaction box; “Maxwell” is not. The attachment is named “1445384_Modified_b7A_with_Unperfected_Third_Language.pdf”.21 On November 22 the specialist forwarded the thread on with a chase: “Just wanted to see if you have had a chance to review the letter below?”44

What the Bureau’s own response letters to requesters said, and the standard box in which it “neither confirms nor denies the existence of your subject’s name on any watch lists”, is on FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records.

What these documents establish, and what they do not

They establish who asked, on whose behalf, when, in what terms, and what each agency said in reply. They establish that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, across three requests between 2009 and 2011, twice said that responsive material existed in an investigative file and withheld it, and once, on a separate and narrower search, found no record indicating Epstein had ever been the target of electronic surveillance. They establish that the Central Intelligence Agency, in a single letter, said it had searched for records of an open or acknowledged relationship and found none, while declining, as to records that would reveal a classified relationship, to say whether anything existed at all. They establish that the National Security Agency twice declined to say whether any intelligence material about Epstein existed within its intelligence programmes and activities, and the statutory and executive-order grounds it gave for that form of answer. They establish that Customs and Border Protection closed one request as insufficient and granted another in part after a search of its databases. They establish, too, what each agency said about the form of its own answer: that the Bureau applied 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) on a three-part determination and enclosed its standard fact sheet with it; that the Central Intelligence Agency named the four Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act exemptions it was denying under, identified its Information and Privacy Coordinator as the official responsible for the determination, and gave forty-five days to appeal to its Agency Release Panel; and that Customs and Border Protection identified no exemption at all while recording a right to appeal its withholding determination.

They do not establish whether the National Security Agency, or the Central Intelligence Agency as to a classified relationship, held any such record about Epstein. Both agencies’ decisions say on their face that this is the point of that form of answer, and their reasoning forbids reading anything into it in either direction: each explains that denying possession where there was nothing, while staying silent where there was something, would itself disclose what it is required to protect.1312 Nor do they establish what, if anything, sits in the FBI’s withheld investigative file, only that the Bureau said such a file existed. The Bureau’s own enclosure sets a limit on how far its answers reach: it describes the FOIPA search as a “main file search”, distinct from the National Name Check Program’s, and states that “The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.”24 What Customs and Border Protection released is bound into the same production; this page makes the editorial choice not to describe or reproduce it. Nor do these documents establish whether Epstein appealed the CIA’s determination, appealed the NSA’s refusal a second time, appealed Customs and Border Protection’s withholding determination, or ever brought the suit the July 2014 NSA letter told him he could bring.

Every citation above is pinned to the page it rests on, and pages of these productions that carry contact or identity particulars are not cited. Names blacked out in these documents stay blacked out, and the names covered by redactions in the November 2019 emails are not supplied or guessed at.

Requests for Epstein records answered outside the FBI’s FOIA letters; FOIA exemptions in the FBI’s Epstein records; Darren K. Indyke; Lesley Groff; Withheld government records; Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Footnotes

  1. The same appeal, second page, setting out the grounds given in the Agency’s denial of January 17, 2014 and the appellant’s disagreement with the “Glomar Response”. Read from the page image; the page prints “Executive Order 13526, Section 1.4(c)” with the comma as quoted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  2. Request to the FOIA Division, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, June 26, 2013, second page, carrying the header block “U.S. Customs and Border Protection / FOIA Division / June 26, 2013 / Page 2”, the four numbered request items and the fee and appeal paragraphs. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00299467 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6

  3. FOIAonline request preview, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, second page, carrying the description block, the four numbered request items and the “Will Pay Up To : $ 1,000.00” line, with the footer “11/6/14, 1:43 PM”. Read from the page image. The request’s first page is not cited here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00622787 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  4. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. to the Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency, June 30, 2011, under the heading “REQUEST UNDER FREEEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT” (the letter’s own misspelling), submitted “on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein.” Read from the page image; the facsimile number in the “Via Facsimile” line and Epstein’s Social Security number are blacked out, and his stated residential addresses are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082913 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  5. The same request, second page, the two numbered items, the preauthorisation to spend up to $1,000.00, and the appeal-rights paragraph, closing “Respectfully,” over the typed name “Martin G. Weinberg.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01082913 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  6. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, December 31, 2009, “This Request is submitted by undersigned counsel on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein,” seeking records created from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009. Read from the page image; the requestor-identification fields for birthdate, place of birth, Social Security number and residence are left blank on this copy rather than redacted. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00731047 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. to the FBI’s Record/Information Dissemination Section, November 27, 2012, “This Request is submitted by undersigned counsel on behalf of our client, Jeffrey Epstein.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01102433 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  8. The same appeal, concluding page, asking the Agency to reverse the denial, invoking the segregability clause of 5 U.S.C. § 552(b), recording that on a denial the Agency is required to provide “names and titles of each person responsible for the denial”, and stating: “If the appeal is denied or the Agency’s response is not forthcoming within 20 working days, my client reserves his right under FOIA to seek judicial review, including the award of attorney’s fees.” It ends “Respectfully,” over the typed name “Darren K. Indyke”; read from the page image, there is no handwritten signature above it on this copy. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.7 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  9. The same letter’s closing page, headed “U.S. Customs and Border Protection / FOIA Division / June 26, 2013 / Page 3”, carrying “Respectfully,” over a handwritten signature and the typed name “Darren K. Indyke”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00299467 p.3 ↩ ↩2

  10. National Security Agency / Central Security Service to Mr. Darren K. Indyke, 25 March 2014, “Case No: 76098 / Appeal No: 3941”, acknowledging receipt of correspondence “dated 5 March 2014” and recording receipt of the appeal by the Office of Associate General Counsel (Litigation) on 20 March 2014. Read from the page image; the signature block carries a title but the typed name is blacked out, and the Agency’s contact particulars are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02726324 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  11. Email, Darren K. Indyke to Lesley Groff, December 5, 2012 at 20:56:08 UTC, subject “Fwd: Copy of Epstein’s Request to FBI under Freedom of Information and Privacy Act”, forwarding Martin Weinberg’s message of November 26, 2012 at 1:23:07 PM EST. Read from the page image; every value in the forwarding lawyer’s telephone, telecopier, mobile and email lines is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00400120 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Central Intelligence Agency to Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., July 29, 2011, “Reference: P-2011-00673,” the Agency’s determination on the June 30, 2011 request. Read from the page image; the signing official’s typed name is blacked out above the printed title “Information and Privacy Coordinator.” This sheet was re-read at 350 dpi for the present page; its text layer renders the parenthesised exemption designations in damaged form, so the quotations taken from it here will not bind against that layer. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01089565 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8

  13. National Security Agency to Mr. Darren K. Indyke, 30 July 2014, first page, replying to the appeal of 5 March 2014. Read from the page image; the statutes cited under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) appear in the final paragraph of this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606101 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11

  14. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, FOIA Division, to Darren K. Indyke, November 7, 2014. Read from the page image; “one or more of the following reasons” is printed bold and underlined, and the page carries no name and no signature. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02848081 p.3 ↩ ↩2

  15. U.S. Customs and Border Protection to Darren K. Indyke, January 13, 2015, on FOIA request CBP-2015-005069. Read from the page image at 350 dpi; the word “exemptions” is printed as a hyperlink and no subsection of § 552 is named on the sheet; the toll-free number given for the Office of Government Information Services is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02848081 p.4 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  16. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Mr. Martin G. Weinberg, January 28, 2011, “FOIPA Request No.: 1142669-001 / Subject: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY EDWARD,” withholding the responsive material under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) and enclosing an FBI FOIA/Privacy Act File Fact Sheet. Read from the page image; signed by David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01145891 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Mr. Martin G. Weinberg, August 8, 2011, “FOIPA Request No.: 1142669-002 / Subject: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY EDWARD,” withholding the responsive material under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A) and separately recording that a search of the FBI Headquarters electronic surveillance indices found no responsive record indicating Epstein had been the target of electronic surveillance. Read from the page image; signed by David M. Hardy, Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01145897 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. to the Office of Information Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, August 24, 2011, “FOIPA Request No.: 1142669-002,” first page, a Freedom of Information Act appeal stating that the underlying request was “dated June 28, 2011.” Read from the page image; the firm’s telephone, fax and night-emergency lines and its email address are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01104763 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  19. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy, to Martin G. Weinberg, Esq., September 28, 2011 (date-stamped “SEP 28 2011”), first page, “Appeal No. AP-2011-02961 / Request No. 1142669-002,” affirming the FBI’s action and declining to itemise the withheld material, citing Judicial Watch v. Clinton, 880 F. Supp. 1, 11 (D.D.C. 1995). Read from the page image; the letter’s second page closes over a handwritten signature and a printed title reading Associate Director, with the signing official’s name blacked out; that page is cited at 26. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00621268 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  20. The same request as 7, second page, stating that the FBI had notified Epstein documents were withheld with regard to FOIPA Request No. 1142669-000 due to an open investigation; that two additional prior requests, 1142669-001 and 1142669-002, were each answered the same way; and that “we would respectfully request a renewed examination of the documents withheld with regard to FOIPA Requests No. 1142669-000, 1142669-001, and 1142669-002 and specifically whether the open investigation cited” in each “has since been terminated.” Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01102433 p.2 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  21. Email, a Government Information Specialist in the FBI’s FOIA operation to a special agent, November 20, 2019 at 18:32:23 UTC, subject “RE: EPSTEIN REQUESTS - 1447066, 1447270 AND 1445247 --- UNCLASSIFIED”, quoting beneath it the special agent’s reply of November 18, 2019. Read from the page image, at 400 dpi: exactly one redaction box sits in the specialist’s own sentence, immediately after the word for and immediately before the word and, and nothing is covered between there and the end of the sentence; the sender’s and addressee’s names are blacked out and the specialist’s title stands in a signature block. The quoted reply of November 18 carries a further redaction box of its own, covering the complainant’s name in the sentence beginning “We are in possession of”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173732 p.1 ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  22. Federal Bureau of Investigation to Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., April 27, 2010, “Request No: 1142669-000 / Subject: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY EDWARD,” advising that the Bureau was “searching for, retrieving, scanning, and evaluating files that may be responsive to your request.” Read from the page image; the signature block’s name and title are blacked out above the printed title “Section Chief, Record/Information Dissemination Section.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00726671 p.1 ↩

  23. The same request as 6, second page, carrying the two numbered items, the preauthorisation to spend up to $1,000.00, the request for a cross-reference search and for a search of the named indices, and the paragraph asking that deletions be justified by reference to specific exemptions, closing “Respectfully,” over the typed name “Martin G. Weinberg”. Read from the page image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00731047 p.2 ↩

  24. The FBI FOIA/Privacy Act File Fact Sheet named as an enclosure in the letter at 16 and bound behind it, headed “FBI FOIA/PRIVACY ACT FILE FACT SHEET” and describing the Bureau’s files, the National Name Check Program and the FOIPA main file search. Read from the page image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01145891 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  25. The same appeal, second page, arguing that “any ongoing FBI investigation ended either on or about June 30, 2008 or no later than July of 2010,” and asking that the Director reverse the denial or apply the segregable-portions clause. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01104763 p.2 ↩

  26. The same letter as 19, second page, carrying the notice of the right to file a lawsuit. Read from the page image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00621268 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  27. Email, Martin Weinberg to Jeffrey Epstein, July 18, 2011 at 15:06:00 UTC, subject “Re: CIA FOIA Request”: “yes, we filled out fbi privacy waiver with VI address last year / we filed CIA FOIA - they have it - we need a separate privacy waiver signed in 2011 for them to fully process.” Read from the page image; a cell-phone number in the signature block is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00687827 p.1 ↩

  28. The same email chain, third page, an earlier message the same day from a legal assistant in Weinberg’s office: “I spoke with a woman at the CIA’s FOIA office, she said that they do not have a standard privacy waiver and identity cert. form. She did say that the DOJ’s form is sufficient for this request. I have attached a copy of it for you to forward to Epstein,” signed “Evan Capps, Legal Assistant for Martin G. Weinberg, Robert M. Goldstein & Kimberly Homan.” Read from the page image; a telephone number in the signature block and a further contact number in the confidentiality notice are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00687827 p.3 ↩

  29. The same email chain as 27, second page, carrying Martin Weinberg’s message of July 18, 2011 asking that the waiver be executed and returned so that the CIA filing could be finalised. Read from the page image at 400 dpi; address values in the message headers and a mobile number in the signature block are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00687827 p.2 ↩

  30. The same determination as 12, second page, the enclosed “Explanation of Exemptions Under the Freedom of Information Act”, nine paragraphs running from (b)(1) to (b)(9) and footed “[Central Intelligence Agency, Jan 2007]”. Read from the page image at 350 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01089565 p.2 ↩

  31. The same determination, third page, the enclosed “Exemptions Under the Privacy Act”, eleven paragraphs running from (d)(5) to (k)(7) and footed “[Central Intelligence Agency, 2007]”. Read from the page image at 350 dpi; this sheet’s text layer is damaged and is not relied on here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01089565 p.3 ↩

  32. The same appeal, sixth page, on the requirement that classification be traced to an authorised official, and the Conclusion. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.6 ↩ ↩2

  33. Freedom of Information Act appeal to the NSA/CSS FOIA Appeal Authority in Case Number 76098, seven pages; first page, dated “March 4, 2014” in its own letterhead and stating that it concerns “the Agency’s denial of the January 2, 2014 FOIA/Privacy act request to the Agency submitted via the Internet on January 2, 2014 and attached hereto”. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.1 ↩ ↩2

  34. The same appeal, fifth page, carrying what the appeal reports the Agency to have confirmed about the two programmes, the heading lettered C. and the argument beneath it. Read from the page image; “pres/media” and the spaced ellipsis after “statutes” are the letter’s own and are not repaired here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.5 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  35. The same appeal, fourth page, on Section 702 and United States persons. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.4 ↩

  36. The same appeal, third page, on the limits Executive Order 13526 places on continued classification and on the Agency’s burden. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583099 p.3 ↩

  37. The same letter, second page, carrying the judicial-review paragraph and the signature block “E. R. BROOKS / Chief of Staff / Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act / Appeal Authority” over a handwritten signature. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606101 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  38. The same request, third page, listing the attached supporting file “JEE Privacy Act Statement” and the checked Privacy Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 affirmations, with the same footer. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00622787 p.3 ↩

  39. U.S. Customs and Border Protection FOIA log, second page, carrying the row for tracking number CBP-2015-005069, its description column and the footnote to that column defining the term “records”. Read from the page image at 350 dpi; the Final Disposition column is truncated by the column width at “Partial Grant/Partial” and the remainder is not recoverable from this page; the log’s export renders the request’s own quotation marks as mojibake and that damage is not repaired here. Other pages of this production are not cited here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02848081 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  40. The same thread. This page carries the closing lines and signature of the November 4 forward (see 42), and beneath that, a separate header block for the message of Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 3:30 p.m., followed by its opening paragraph and the first of its enumerated requests. Read from the page image; the October 31 message’s remaining requests and its own closing signature continue onto the next page, and the attached-file label beside this first item names the subject of a different item. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173732 p.3 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  41. The message of October 31, 2019, continuing from the previous page: its remaining enumerated requests, the closing paragraph beginning “Since, we are not aware,” and its own closing signature. Read from the page image; each remaining item’s attached-file label names a different item’s subject than the one it sits under. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173732 p.4 ↩

  42. The same thread, the forward of Monday, November 4, 2019 at 12:24 PM, “I am just adding one more request to the email that I sent last week,” and its own re-listing of the requests. Read from the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173732 p.2 ↩ ↩2

  43. The same thread, the message of Thursday, November 14, 2019 at 2:26 PM, reporting that a special agent had already answered on the prison footage and asking the remaining agents to look at what was left. Read from the page image; the special agent’s initials are covered by a redaction box. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173732 p.2 ↩

  44. The same thread forwarded on, November 22, 2019 at 15:21:36 UTC, subject “FW: EPSTEIN REQUESTS - 1447066, 1447270 AND 1445247 --- UNCLASSIFIED”. Read from the page image; the quoted message of November 20 carries the same single redaction box in the same position. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00173713 p.1 ↩

Backlinks