Epstein Data Wiki

Filthy Rich: the 2016 book and the 2020 Netflix series

Properties2
tagstopic, 2015, 2016, 2020, publishing, netflix, fbi-victim-services, defamation
aliasesFilthy Rich, Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, Patterson book

35 min read

SubjectA commercially published book about Jeffrey Epstein, the streaming series made from it, and what the released files record about both
The bookFilthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal That Undid Him, and All the Justice That Money Can Buy: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein, by James Patterson and John Connolly with Tim Malloy1
PublisherLittle, Brown and Company, Hachette Book Group; first edition October 2016; ISBN 978-0-316-27405-0 (hardcover)2
The seriesJeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich, on Netflix from the last week of May 202034
Pre-publication correspondenceLetters between Epstein’s counsel and the publisher’s counsel, December 3, 2015 to August 18, 2016; the publisher refused a pre-publication manuscript and offered an interview instead, which Epstein’s counsel declined567891011
In the releaseA bound copy of the book was photographed page by page into the House Oversight production112
RelatedKathryn Ruemmler · Julie K. Brown · Barbro Ehnbom

Filthy Rich is a book about Jeffrey Epstein published by Little, Brown and Company in October 2016, and Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich is the Netflix series made from it and released in May 2020. Neither is a government record and neither is evidence of anything it describes. What the released files hold is the paper around them: over eight months of correspondence in which Epstein’s lawyers pressed the publisher for the manuscript and were refused, the advice his associates gave him about what to do, his own reaction when he read it, and, four years later, emails among the FBI’s victim-services staff about the series.

This page is about that book, that series and those documents. It is not about the Miami Herald investigation and its reporter, which is Julie K. Brown; not about claims made after Epstein’s death, which is Conspiracy theories about the death of Jeffrey Epstein; and not about press coverage of the case at large.

A note on the quotations. Most of the emails below come from an export whose transmission damage is printed on the page itself rather than introduced by machine reading, so words arrive one character short. Where a character is visibly lost it is supplied in square brackets; where an artefact has been dropped from inside a quotation an ellipsis marks it. Nothing is repaired silently.

What the documents can and cannot show

A bound copy of the book sits in the House Oversight production, photographed on a dark table: the cover framed with the spine at the left edge, and interior spreads photographed two pages at a time with the gutter shadow of the binding between them. The photographs include the front cover, which prints the full title and the byline “JAMES PATTERSON & JOHN CONNOLLY WITH TIM MALLOY,” and the copyright page, which prints the publisher, the first-edition date and the ISBN.12 The pages of the book carry a folio and the running head “JAMES PATTERSON,” and one photographed spread shows folio 34.12

That a copy of a book is in a government production is evidence that somebody held a copy. It is not evidence that anything in the book is true, and this page does not use the photographed pages as a source for any statement about Epstein. The distinction matters here more than usual, because a run of book pages in a document production extracts as ordinary prose with no letterhead, no form number and no caption, and reads exactly like the record it is filed among.

Before publication: what Epstein was told, and when

The first notice in the documents is a New York Times financial reporter’s. On November 13, 2015 Landon Thomas Jr. wrote to Epstein under the subject line “Just got a call from John Connolly”: “He says he is doing a book on yo[u] — with James Patterson no less!” Epstein replied “unlikely.” Thomas answered: “Well, he says he is getting near finish line. I told him: don’t b[e]lieve everything you read in the papers!” The next morning Epstein asked him, “could you find out who is publis[h]ing it?” Thomas replied that he would try if Connolly called him back, and that Connolly had said he was going to reach out to Epstein directly.13

On December 1, 2015 Faith Kates wrote to Epstein: “James Patterson and john Conolly are writing a book about u Did u know?”14

Ten days later the writer Michael Wolff forwarded Epstein the answer to an inquiry Wolff had put to the publisher’s publicity office. Sabrina Callahan, a publicist at Hachette Book Group, replied to Wolff: “Nicole forwarded me your inquiry re: James Patterson. There’s no book on Epstein at this point. / Connolly has been working on an investigation for several years, and since he and Jim are both from Palm Beach they have met. Eventually they might see if there will be enough for a book, but it is too early to tell at this point. / That said, if something does materialize, I’ll be sure to let you know.”15 Wolff forwarded that to Epstein the same day. Epstein asked him who “Nicole” was; Wolff answered, “Somebody in publicity at Little, Brown.”16

Wolff kept asking. On March 13, 2016, sending Callahan a link to a local Florida news item reporting a fall publication date, he wrote: “Sabrina, the following crossed my desk this morning and I’m just wondering if there is any change in the status of a book by James Patterson about Epstein. Would appreciate any update you might have.” Erinn McGrath, cc’d on the message, told him the book would be published in August, and offered an interview with Patterson and an early copy when copies existed. On March 16 he asked when there would be copies; on April 14 he asked twice more, and McGrath told him “the on-sale date has been moved to late August” and then “We’re late on this one…hopefully May?” He forwarded the whole chain to Epstein with the words “see below…”17

The thread did not end there. On June 22 McGrath told Wolff, “we expect manuscript this week,” and on August 1 he asked again for galleys or a manuscript. On August 2 McGrath replied that a copy could be shared once he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and copied a colleague, Gabrielle Tyson, who could provide the NDA and the new publication date, “10/10.” On August 3 McGrath confirmed: “Thanks for signing this NDA, Michael – we will let you know once we’re able to send you a copy of the manuscript.” Wolff asked again on August 5 and August 11; on August 15 McGrath wrote back, “unfortunately I am not able to share anything at this time.” Wolff forwarded that exchange to Epstein on August 18 with one word: “Weird.”18 So far as the release shows, the manuscript was never sent: the publisher’s promise, once Wolff had signed its non-disclosure agreement, went unanswered for a fortnight and then was withdrawn.

The letters to the publisher

By the time Wolff first asked, Epstein’s criminal defence lawyer had already written. On December 3, 2015 Martin G. Weinberg sent Little, Brown & Co. a letter marked “Via Hand Delivery,” under a heading naming a proposed book about Epstein, saying he had been informed by Connolly and by others Connolly had contacted that Connolly was writing a book about his client, that Epstein “has been the subject of widespread and often seriously inaccurate and untruthful media coverage,” and that “[i]t would be in reckless disregard for the truth if the book relied on past media reports or interviews with biased sources of information without verifying the truth of these reports and/or interviews.” He reserved “any and all legal rights to contest the basis for any inaccurate or untruthful information contained in any future publication.” The letter is signed.5

Nothing came back. Weinberg’s own April 21 letter recites what happened next: he received, by email and fedex, a letter dated April 14, 2016, addressed to Epstein and authored by James Patterson, representing that a book about him titled Filthy Rich was intended for publication that August.6 Weinberg forwarded that letter to Epstein, to Darren Indyke and to Kathryn Ruemmler with the note “As just received.”19 Epstein sent it on to Wolff, who gave him five numbered points, beginning “Nothing to be gained by talking to him—especially considering that the book, if it is to come out in August, is already written” and “He’s only trying to talk to you to lend credibility to what he already has,” and ending: “I would have your attorneys write the letter I suggest you write; again, book publishers are not journalistic organizations and do not have the resources to independently vet facts so they always runs scared.”19

A second letter to the publisher was drafted on April 18 over Reid H. Weingarten’s name at Steptoe & Johnson and left unsigned.20 The letter that went was dated April 21, 2016 and sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Little, Brown & Company at Market Place Center, 3 Center Plaza, Boston, marked for the attention of legal counsel. It recites the December letter and the silence that followed, gives notice of “your exposure to liability,” states that “[g]iven that James Patterson is being named as author (or co-author), the proposed book is likely to generate a wider audience which would likely magnify a potential damage award, although large portions of the book may be predicated on Mr. Connolly’s investigation and writing,” reserves the right “to commence suit against all those who bear responsibility,” and then makes the request the rest of the correspondence turns on: “we would be prepared to review an advance copy of the manuscript for the book to aid you in further investigating any defamatory falsehoods that may be contained therein before continuing with its publication. Short of that, if you decide to proceed with a release of the book, which we strongly caution against, you would be doing so at your own considerable risk.” It is signed by Weingarten, and signed for Weinberg by Weingarten (the second signature carries the notation “(by RHW)”), and copied to Epstein and to Patterson.6

The publisher’s outside counsel answered on May 2. Eric Rayman of Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP wrote to both lawyers that Carol Fein Ross, the general counsel of Hachette Book Group, of which Little, Brown is a division, “has advised me that to her knowledge no one at the company received the December 3rd letter,” that Patterson and Connolly had each confirmed receiving no letter from Weinberg, and that Hachette had moved out of the Center Plaza address in September 2014, so that “the address on Mr. Weinberg’s letter was erroneous, mail would not be accepted, and any attempted personal delivery would have been impossible.” On the manuscript he was flat: “We respectfully decline your request for an advance copy of the current draft of the manuscript. We are confident that, in writing this book, the authors are relying on credible sources, and that they intend to publish a truthful and newsworthy book.” He added that the authors had sought to obtain information from Epstein directly, and had also interviewed and attempted to interview many of Epstein’s friends and associates; urged that Epstein be interviewed and present his version of events; offered to submit areas of questioning in advance; and set a deadline: if he did not hear by Monday, May 9, 2016, he would take that as a rejection.7

Weinberg replied the next day disputing the non-delivery, saying that a search for the firm still led to the Center Plaza address twenty months after the move and that his messenger had gone on to the Hachette Group’s State Street offices and delivered the December letter by hand there. On the substance he repeated the request: the offer to review a draft “was made with the intention of giving Little, Brown & Co. a chance to fact check their intended publication to avoid any false, defamatory, and harmful statements that could be identified by us and addressed before, not after, the dissemination of the intended book ‘Filthy Rich’.”8

Rayman closed it on May 5: “After receiving your letter, I checked with the Hachette Book Group and can confirm that your December 3, 2015 letter was not received by it.” He added: “I am advised that Mr. Patterson and Mr. Connolly are disappointed that Mr. Epstein has not accepted their request for an interview and the opportunity to present his views and account of matters for their book” (counsel reporting what he had been told, not stating it himself); that the invitation stood until May 9, and that “[c]onsistent with prevailing journalistic and editorial standards and practices, the authors respectfully decline to provide you with a pre-publication copy of the manuscript.”9

Eleven weeks later, on July 25, 2016, Charles Michael of Steptoe & Johnson wrote to Rayman that the “feigned ‘disappointment’ cannot be taken seriously,” that “[n]o reasonable person in Mr. Epstein’s position would subject himself to questioning from authors whose bias and intent to smear him is already evident,” that Connolly “has a well-known track record of attacking Mr. Epstein,” and that “[t]he authors’ interview proposal is and always has been a sham intended to create the appearance of evenhandedness, when you well know that any interview would be, in reality, an ambush.” He restated the manuscript request, set out the New York standard of gross irresponsibility with citations, and warned that if Hachette were to “plow blindly forward with publication, be assured that we will vigorously pursue all available legal remedies against it, and against the authors.” Copies went to Weinberg by email and to Patterson and Connolly by overnight mail.10 A search of the release on “Rayman” returns 33 pages across 28 identifiers; beyond the letters cited here and the unsigned August draft reported below, that search finds no answer to the July 25 letter and no proceeding arising from it.

Connolly and Patterson are both named, and this correspondence carries adverse characterisations of both: that Connolly has a personal animus against Epstein, and, twice repeated, that Patterson did not really write the book. The publisher’s side answers part of that in the same exchange: Rayman’s May 2 and May 5 letters, quoted above, state that the authors are “relying on credible sources” and intend “to publish a truthful and newsworthy book.” Neither letter takes up the authorship claim in those terms, and no response to that specific claim, from Patterson, Connolly or anyone speaking for them, appears in the documents cited here; whether one exists in published reporting was not established for this page. ⚠ This page treats each of those characterisations as an interested party’s assertion in advocacy correspondence and not as a finding, and it takes that care irrespective of whether the man characterised is living. An earlier version of this paragraph stated that both men were living; that was asserted without a source and has been withdrawn rather than replaced, because this page has no verified record either way.

The correspondence does not end with the July 25 letter. On August 11, 2016 Steven Hoffenberg forwarded an email under a subject line claiming “STEVEN HOFFENBERG IS ON THE JAMES PATTERSON BOOK WRITING TEAM” and that he was “TAKING BACK THE NEW YORK POST NEWSPAPER OPERATIONS.”21 Darren Indyke forwarded it to Epstein on August 17 with an attachment titled “2016.08.16 - Draft Letter to Eric Rayman re Epstein Book re Steven Hoffe…docx.”22 Indyke had already taken the email up with counsel: he forwarded it to Charles Michael on August 15, and Michael replied to him on August 16.23 The draft letter itself, addressed to Rayman and dated only “August ___, 2016,” recites Hoffenberg’s criminal history (his 1990s conviction for the Towers Financial Ponzi scheme, a twenty-year sentence and an order to pay almost $500 million in restitution, and his later, voluntarily dismissed lawsuit against Epstein) and asks the publisher to vet anything Hoffenberg supplies before using it, renewing the request already twice refused: it offers to “review the manuscript for factual error.” Both the date line and the signature line, above the typed name “Charles Michael,” are blank: this is a draft, and no signed or sent copy of it appears in the release. A search on “Hoffenberg” with “book writing team,” and on “Filthy Rich” with “Hachette,” found no executed version of the letter and no reply from Rayman to it.11

What was proposed instead

In parallel with the letters, Wolff was advising a different course. On March 18, 2016, in a memo sent to Epstein, Weinberg, Ruemmler and Darren Indyke, Wolff opened with a point this page has not previously carried: “Little, Brown has made on the record representations to at least one well-known journalist that it was not publishing a book by James Patterson about Jeffrey Epstein—possibly an effort to avoid inquiries about the questionable nature of the book.” He went on to write that publication in August created “some time frame issues,” that a competing book or documentary could not be produced before then but should be pursued anyway, and that “you do need an immediate counter narrative to the book. I believe Trump offers an ideal opportunity. It’s a chance to make the story about something other than you, while, at the same time, letting you frame your own story. Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now.” He proposed an op-ed, a television interview and social media, and “a strategic plan, involving your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies,” which he called “a big, comprehensive, expensive effort.” The same memo suggested what a lawyer’s letter should say, “not necessarily legal, but a warning about how a press campaign might unfold,” reasoning that “publishers are more worried about being caught in negative media controversy than they are of legal threats,” and proposed asserting that Connolly rather than Patterson was the actual author and that Patterson’s authorship “will not stand up to scrutiny.”24

Epstein forwarded the memo to Weinberg, Ruemmler and Indyke within two minutes of receiving it. Weinberg replied that he liked “points 2,3” but worried “that too early a warning will simply result in their papering Patterson’s participation”; that he did not think it in Epstein’s legal interest “to go on TV i.e. go strongly public for a variety of reasons”; and that he did not understand how taking an anti-Trump position “would help your legal or media life.” Epstein’s own answer, above Weinberg’s reply in the same message, was one line, with no terminal punctuation in the image: “i think thats in his interest not mine”24

Ruemmler answered the memo separately, from the road: “On the shuttle back to NYC. Abou[t] to take off.”25 On May 4, 2016 she wrote to Epstein again: “We can’t forget about the Patterson book and letter to publisher. lot going…on — we need to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks.”26

On July 4, 2016, answering an Amazon link Epstein had sent him, Wolff wrote: “Still not too late to jump down their throats with lawyers. They are vulner[a]ble because Patterson didn’t write the book he’s claiming to write… It’s not edited or lawyers yet so you could still have big impact. An[d] I won’t add that if you don’t tell the story so[m]eone else always will.”27

The book in the Maxwell discovery, March 2016

Three weeks before Patterson wrote to Epstein, the book was already a discovery target. On 23 March 2016 a request served in Giuffre v. Maxwell asked for

All Documents concerning any actual or potential book, television or movie deals concerning […] including but not limited to a potential book by former New York Police Department detective John Connolly and writer James Patterson.

⚠ The elision is deliberate and is the desk’s, not the document’s. The omitted clause is the requesting party’s characterisation of a survivor’s allegations, addressed to her in the second person. It adds nothing to a page about a book and this page will not carry an adversary’s wording about a survivor. Nothing else in the request is cut.

The response was an objection, on attorney-client, work-product, joint-defence, agency, investigative and other asserted privileges. No documents about the book were produced in answer to it so far as this page can show.28

Publication

On the morning of Friday, September 23, 2016, Epstein sent the book’s Amazon listing to several correspondents between 7:07 and 7:49 a.m. Eastern, under the subject lines “click on the go inside” and “if you have a moment click on go inside.” The page he was pointing them at was the retailer’s sample-pages feature; the book itself was not yet on sale.2930

Wolff answered at 8:36 that morning: “Quick zip through this looks like super pulpy dramatic recreations, so more of same and not any new investigation.” Epstein asked, “but the book must be available somewhere?” Wolff replied: “Depends how tightly it’s embargoed. But it’s for sale the week after next—the 10th. I will try calling them again. Or try to get someone else to do it.” Epstein wrote back at 8:53: “thx , it is trash , they didnt even get my eye color right. though it is on every docujment”, with no terminal punctuation in the image. Wolff’s last word, at 9:10, was: “My immediate sense is that it is so bullshitty that it explains itself.”29

Deepak Chopra, sent the same link at 7:48 that morning, replied twice. The first message, at 8:04, read in full, again with no terminal punctuation in the image: “He wants to be filthy rich / Off your back”30. The second, at 8:22, was longer and is quoted here in full because a partial quotation would not carry its sense:

Invite him for dinner Tell him you’d like to help him sell his book Think of something to utterly confuse him Be nice to him 4 qualities of the spiritual warrior 1 Ruthlessness 2 Cunning 3 Patience 4 Sweetness He may be a popular successful writer but not smart . Just an opportunist Let’s discuss how to creatively make him impotent and lose credibility You may need to find a writer who is his equal or better Let’s meditate on this Most important detach and treat it as a game -31

The morning’s replies were not uniformly dismissive. Landon Thomas Jr., the Times reporter this page opens with, replied: “I still think the book party is a good idea. Seems like a cheap rush job.”32 Lesley Groff wrote: “You’re famous. I think I’ll preorder my copy. …I do like his books usually. Wow”33 And Stephen Hanson wrote: “Love the photo. It’s a hot looking cover.”34 The account above draws on two of at least six recipients that morning; these three replies are part of the same batch and are not dismissive.

Late that night Epstein wrote to a correspondent the document does not identify: “ive read 60 pages of the patterson book its silly, im thinking whether i should write a b[o]ok review.…”35

The book was published on October 10, 2016.2918 Six days later Chopra wrote again, under the subject line “Ignore,” that his settled view was “to totally ignore it Do not give it an ounce of attention/ energy”, with no terminal punctuation in the image.36 On October 26, sixteen days after publication, a correspondent whose name the production blacks out answered a message from Barbro Ehnbom: “Received your message…Jeffrey has been aware of the James Patterson book for awhile now! What can he do?! Nothing really…he has several copies…has read it and told me it’s ‘boring’ and he is dealing with it!”37

The book surfaced once more in the litigation. An expert report served in Epstein v. Rothstein, Edwards and L.M. in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County records: “I have not included dissemination of the defaming statements in the book, Filthy Rich by authors James Patterson and John Connolly. Therefore, this source of dissemination is not included in my analysis.” Its own footnote on that page gives the publisher as Little, Brown and Company.38

How a copy of the book reached Epstein’s files

The release contains the book itself, photographed page by page, and the covering e-mails say where the scan came from. On 28 September 2016, twelve days before publication, Bebe Avdiu, a legal assistant at Darren K. Indyke, PLLC, sent it to Epstein as a set of PDFs split into four parts, subject “See attached James Patterson book (1/4)” through “(4/4)”. Epstein forwarded them on the morning of 1 October 2016, beginning at 8:47 a.m.39

That is the provenance of a block of several hundred photographed pages in the production, and it corroborates the line quoted above that he “has several copies…has read it”.

⚠⚠ A WARNING TO ANYONE COUNTING ANYTHING IN THIS RELEASE. Because a whole book was photographed into the production, JAMES PATTERSON appears as a running head on roughly every other page of that block. Name counts, and especially co-occurrence counts between Patterson and any subject vocabulary, are meaningless unless that run is excluded first: a search pairing his surname with the language of the underlying case returns mostly book pages and will manufacture a connection that does not exist. This page treats the scanned block as an artefact of the production, not as evidence of anything.

⚠ And the desk does not quote from the scan. The photographed pages reproduce material concerning survivors that this wiki does not republish from any source, and no index of those pages is given here.

The adaptation, and the question Epstein’s adviser asked

On the evening of 16 June 2017 a Google Alert reached Epstein carrying a Hollywood Reporter item headed “‘Concussion’ Helmer to Write, Direct Adaptation of James Patterson’s ‘Filthy Rich’”. The alert’s own summary described the book as “Patterson’s 2016 non-fiction true crime bestseller about Jeffrey Epstein”.

It moved through three hands in five hours the next morning. Darren Indyke forwarded it to Epstein at 7:52 a.m.; Epstein forwarded it on at 8:51; and at 13:02 UTC his public-relations adviser Matthew Hiltzik replied in full:40

Ok Well this is both irritating but also offers an opportunity to refute things How bad is the book?

The last three words are the point. Eight months after publication, and after Epstein had told a correspondent he had several copies and had read it, the man advising him on his public position had not read it and was asking.40

The Netflix series, 2020

Four years later the book was made into a Netflix series. What the release holds about it is a handful of emails among staff of the FBI’s Victim Services Division, and they are worth reading for what the Bureau’s own people said rather than for anything about the series.

On the morning of Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Angela Jackson, of the Bureau’s New York office, told two colleagues on a weekly reporting call thread: “In case your interested Netflix added an Epstein documentary out yesterday.” Later that day she wrote: “Hi Bruce - I don’t have anything. But I’m watching the Epstein documentary on Netflix and wondering if we should add as FYI for awareness. They are referencing the FBI- just in case they were not aware.” Bruce May, a victim specialist at the Bureau’s Rye, New York office, proposed a line for the weekly report: “how about ‘VS JAckson reports, for YSA, Netflix is currently airing a documentary on the Epstein case in which the FBI has a prominent role.’” Jackson answered at 7:37 p.m.: “I don’t know if I should say prominent role bc we were not interviewed. Maybe just awareness for possible calls from potential additional victims or other entities.” At 7:53 p.m. she added: “Looks good. Its titled Jeffrey Epstein :Filthy Rich. If you think we should put that.” May replied: “Got it..I’ll put title in. Thanks”34

The following evening Jackson wrote to three colleagues in the Division under the subject “Epstein documentary”: “Hi Ladies - I hope you both are doing ok! I told Amanda about this but realized you both may be interested if you haven’t already seen it out on Netflix this week. It’s called Filthy Rich. You will see some familiar faces that you helped us with.” Amanda Allen, a programme manager in the Division, answered at 9:14 p.m., “I’m watching it now :)”, and Jackson replied at 9:44, “I cant wait to hear what you thought”41

On July 8, 2020 an email inside the Bureau’s New York office was forwarded on with the line “Did you see this see below?” under the subject “Fwd: ECPAT Flier Discussion on: Jeffery Epstein Filthy Rich.” The flier itself is not in the release and the document is a single page; every correspondent on it is redacted.42

Two things in that sequence are worth separating from each other. The staff were treating the series as a reason to expect calls from people who had not come forward before, which is a victim-services judgement about a documentary rather than a comment on the case. And the one substantive correction in the thread is Jackson’s: the Bureau had not been interviewed, so a line saying it had “a prominent role” in the series was not one she was willing to file.

Julie K. Brown; Kathryn Ruemmler; Barbro Ehnbom; Darren Indyke; Scott Rothstein; Conspiracy theories about the death of Jeffrey Epstein; Post-conviction activities; The 2008 non-prosecution agreement.

Footnotes

  1. Photograph of the front cover of Filthy Rich, held in the House Oversight production; the cover prints “JAMES PATTERSON / & JOHN CONNOLLY WITH TIM MALLOY / FILTHY RICH / A POWERFUL BILLIONAIRE, THE SEX SCANDAL THAT UNDID HIM, AND ALL THE JUSTICE THAT MONEY CAN BUY: THE SHOCKING TRUE STORY OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN.” Read at the image. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019111 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  2. Photograph of the copyright page of Filthy Rich: “Copyright © 2016 by James Patterson”; “Little, Brown and Company / Hachette Book Group / 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104”; “First Edition: October 2016”; “ISBN 978-0-316-27405-0 (hc) / 978-0-316-31758-0 (large print)”; “LCCN 2016946084.” Read at the image. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019112 ↩ ↩2

  3. FBI Victim Services thread “This morning’s call,” May 27, 2020, pp. 1-3, carrying the whole day’s exchange with each message’s local stamp. The top message’s header reads Thu, 28 May 2020 00:10:18 +0000, which is 8:10 p.m. Eastern on May 27; the UTC header crosses midnight but every message in the thread was sent on May 27 Eastern. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01650777 ↩ ↩2

  4. Angela Jackson to Bruce May and Laura B. Riso, “Re: This morning’s call,” p. 1. The header reads Wed, 27 May 2020 23:53:35 +0000, which is 7:53 p.m. Eastern on May 27; the same message is quoted back at that local time in the reply. The spacing around the colon in the title is the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01650776 ↩ ↩2

  5. Martin G. Weinberg to Little, Brown & Co., December 3, 2015, marked “Via Hand Delivery,” p. 1, signed. ⚠ The heading of the letter is described here rather than quoted: its third word renders in the extraction as Reeardine and its forename as Jeffery, this sheet was not opened at the image, and neither word is presented here as the letter’s own. A draft of this page quoted the heading as “Proposed Book Regarding Jeffery Epstein,” which silently mended the first of those two and kept the second. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599492 ↩ ↩2

  6. Reid H. Weingarten and Martin G. Weinberg to Little, Brown & Company, April 21, 2016, “CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED,” pp. 1-2, signed by both, the second “(by RHW).” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00621695 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Eric Rayman, Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman LLP, to Martin G. Weinberg and Reid H. Weingarten, May 2, 2016, pp. 1-2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00601523 ↩ ↩2

  8. Martin G. Weinberg to Eric Rayman, May 3, 2016, “Via Electronic Mail,” pp. 1-2. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606604 ↩ ↩2

  9. Eric Rayman to Martin G. Weinberg, May 5, 2016, p. 1, signed, copied to Reid Weingarten. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01110963 ↩ ↩2

  10. Charles Michael, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, to Eric Rayman, July 25, 2016, pp. 1-2, signed, copied to Martin G. Weinberg by email and to James Patterson and John Connolly by overnight mail. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00599650 ↩ ↩2

  11. Charles Michael, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, to Eric Rayman, undated draft (“August ___, 2016”), pp. 1-3; the date line and the signature line above the typed name are both blank. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00583735 ↩ ↩2

  12. Photograph of an open spread of Filthy Rich at the book’s folio 34, verso running head “JAMES PATTERSON.” Read at the image; the frame shows the gutter shadow of the binding and the dark surface the book was photographed on. A second photograph of the same spread, framed further into the gutter, is at https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019151. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019150 ↩ ↩2

  13. Landon Thomas Jr. to Jeffrey Epstein and reply chain, “Re: Just got a call from John Connolly,” November 13-14, 2015, p. 1. The export header is in coordinated universal time. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02378221 ↩

  14. Faith Kates to Jeffrey Epstein, December 1, 2015, p. 1. The header reads 11:55 a.m., which is coordinated universal time in this export; 6:55 a.m. Eastern. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02340420 ↩

  15. Sabrina Callahan (Hachette Book Group) to Michael Wolff, “Fwd: James Patterson,” December 11, 2015, p. 1, forwarded by Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein the same day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744919 ↩

  16. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: James Patterson,” December 11, 2015, p. 1, answering Epstein’s question earlier in the thread. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01806023 ↩

  17. Michael Wolff to Sabrina Callahan and Erinn McGrath (Hachette Book Group), and Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: James Patterson,” March 13 to April 14, 2016, pp. 1-3. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00645036 ↩

  18. Erinn McGrath and Gabrielle Tyson (Hachette Book Group) to Michael Wolff, and Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: James Patterson” / “Fwd: James Patterson,” June 22 to August 18, 2016, pp. 1-3. The same instrument as 17, four months longer. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00821185 ↩ ↩2

  19. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Jeffrey Epstein 04 14 16.pdf,” April 14, 2016, p. 1, quoting Epstein’s forward of Martin Weinberg’s transmission of the same date to Epstein, Darren Indyke and Kathryn Ruemmler. The errors in the fourth and fifth points are the message’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00709045 ↩ ↩2

  20. Reid H. Weingarten to Little, Brown & Company, April 18, 2016, pp. 1-2. The signature line is blank; this is an unsigned draft of the letter sent on April 21. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00584752 ↩

  21. Steven Hoffenberg, forwarded email, “JAMES PATTERSON NEW BOOK TELLING FEDS COVER UP OF BILLIONAIRE JEFF EPSTEIN CHILD RAPES…STEVEN HOFFENBERG IS ON THE BOOK WRITING TEAM,” August 11, 2016, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019109 ↩

  22. Darren Indyke to Jeffrey Epstein, “Fwd: Privileged and Confidential - Fwd: JAMES PATTERSON NEW BOOK…,” August 17, 2016, p. 1, forwarding the Hoffenberg email with the attachment “2016.08.16 - Draft Letter to Eric Rayman re Epstein Book re Steven Hoffe…docx.” https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019105 ↩

  23. Darren Indyke forwarding to Charles Michael, and Michael’s reply, August 15-16, 2016, p. 1; the body of both messages is marked “Privileged - Redacted.” Read at the image on 2026-09-14. The sheet carries the later message at the head, “Subject: RE: Privileged and Confidential - Fwd: JAMES PATTERSON NEW BOOK … / Date: August 16, 2016 at 10:42:56 PM EDT / To: ‘Darren Indyke’”, opening “Darren:” and signed “Best, / Charles”, over the message it answers: “From: Darren Indyke [mailto…] / Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 5:35 PM / To: Michael, Charles / Subject: Privileged and Confidential - Fwd: …”, signed “Thanks, / Regards, / Darren”. An earlier version of this footnote and of the sentence it supports had the direction the other way round, with Michael forwarding to Indyke and Indyke replying. The sheet settles it against that reading. “Steptoe & Johnson LLP” appears nowhere on this sheet; Michael’s firm is not identified on it, and the body no longer attributes it from here. https://epstein-data.com/HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019106 ↩

  24. Michael Wolff’s memo of March 18, 2016 (“Re: Patterson”), forwarded by Jeffrey Epstein to Martin Weinberg, Kathryn Ruemmler and Darren Indyke two minutes after he received it, with Weinberg’s reply the same day and Epstein’s own one-line reply above it, pp. 1-2. Read from a copy carrying no transmission damage; Epstein’s reply header reads 16:58:46 +0000, which is 12:58 p.m. Eastern. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00831397 ↩ ↩2

  25. Kathryn Ruemmler to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: Patterson,” March 18, 2016, 3:58 p.m., p. 1, replying separately to the same forwarded memo. This copy carries transmission damage; the bracketed letter is supplied. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02352977 ↩

  26. Kathryn Ruemmler to Jeffrey Epstein, May 4, 2016, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02463003 ↩

  27. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, July 4, 2016, p. 1, replying to Epstein’s message of the same day carrying the book’s retail listing. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02457586 ↩

  28. Request for Production No. 31 and the response to it, Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), Document 71-3 filed 03/23/16, Exhibit 3, 40 pages. EFTA02780927 viewer p.35. ⚠ Read at the text layer; not rendered. ⚠ p.1 of this identifier is an “EXHIBIT 3” cover sheet and carries none of this; an earlier desk note cited p.1 and that was the cover, not the request. The request is quoted with one clause elided, the requesting party’s second-person characterisation of a survivor’s allegations; the elision is marked and nothing else is cut. The objection is quoted by its listed privilege grounds rather than verbatim. ↩

  29. Michael Wolff to Jeffrey Epstein, September 23, 2016, p. 1, carrying the whole morning exchange with the local stamps of each message. The header is coordinated universal time. “docujment” is the message’s own spelling. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01743910 ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  30. Deepak Chopra to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: if you have a moment click on go inside,” September 23, 2016, p. 1, quoting Epstein’s 7:48 a.m. message. The header is coordinated universal time; 8:04 a.m. Eastern. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744027 ↩ ↩2

  31. Deepak Chopra to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: if you have a moment click on go inside,” September 23, 2016, p. 1. The header is coordinated universal time; 8:22 a.m. Eastern. The lines carry no terminal punctuation in the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744103 ↩

  32. Landon Thomas Jr. to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: click on go inside,” September 23, 2016, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744002 ↩

  33. Lesley Groff to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: click on go inside,” September 23, 2016, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744325 ↩

  34. Stephen Hanson to Jeffrey Epstein, “Re: click on go inside,” September 23, 2016, p. 1. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01744223 ↩

  35. Jeffrey Epstein to a recipient the document does not identify, September 24, 2016, p. 1; the header is coordinated universal time and the message was written at about 10:07 p.m. Eastern on September 23. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02451171 ↩

  36. Deepak Chopra to Jeffrey Epstein, “Ignore,” October 16, 2016, p. 1. The header is coordinated universal time; about 5:34 a.m. Eastern. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02447957 ↩

  37. Message to Barbro Ehnbom, “Jeffrey Epstein,” October 26, 2016, p. 1. The From field and the sign-off are solid redaction boxes at image level and the sender is not identified here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02193322 ↩

  38. Expert report served on behalf of Bradley J. Edwards in Jeffrey Epstein v. Scott Rothstein, Bradley J. Edwards and L.M., Case No. 502009CA040800XX30GMBAG, Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, p. 6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00601577 ↩

  39. Covering e-mails for the photographed copy of the book. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_008972 and its siblings for parts (1/4) through (4/4). ⚠ The /pdf/ route returns HTTP 403 for HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_* identifiers, which is a fact about that route and not about the sheets. An earlier version of this footnote said those documents “CANNOT be rendered”; that was false and is withdrawn. The covering sheet was opened at the image on 2026-09-25; it is an ordinary page image, and the stamp at its foot reads HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_008972. The reading below is still the text layer’s and is not re-pinned to the image here. The sheet quoted reads “From: jeffrey E. … Sent: 10/1/2016 8.47.52 AM … Subject: Fwd: See attached James Patterson book (3/4) … Forwarded message From: Bebe Avdiu Date: Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10.32 PM”, above the block “Bebe Avdiu / Legal Assistant / DARREN K. INDYKE, PLLC”. ⚠ The recipient of Epstein’s forward is blank in the extraction and this page does not say who he sent it to. ⚠ No e-mail address, telephone number or street line from these sheets is reproduced. ↩

  40. Google Alert of 16 June 2017, 9:56 p.m. EDT, and the e-mail chain of 17 June 2017. EFTA00685379 pp.1-2, p.1 read at the image at 300 dpi and p.2 at the text layer. p.1 carries Hiltzik’s reply timed 13:02:35 UTC, Epstein’s forward timed 8:51 a.m., and Darren Indyke’s forward timed 7:52 a.m.; p.2 carries the alert itself with the Hollywood Reporter headline and summary. Hiltzik’s message is quoted in full, including its lack of terminal punctuation. ⚠ Sender and recipient addresses, and a barred telephone block, are on p.1 and none is reproduced here. ⚠ This document was cited by no page on this wiki before 2026-09-19. ↩ ↩2

  41. FBI Victim Services thread “Epstein documentary,” May 28, 2020, p. 1. The header reads Fri, 29 May 2020 01:44:52 +0000, which is 9:44 p.m. Eastern on May 28; the UTC header crosses midnight but the quoted messages carry Eastern stamps of 8:34 p.m. and 9:14 p.m. the same day. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01650773 ↩

  42. Forwarded email, “Fwd: ECPAT Flier Discussion on: Jeffery Epstein Filthy Rich,” July 8, 2020, p. 1. The misspelling of the forename is the subject line’s own. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01651008 ↩

Backlinks