Subscribe now

Content warning: This piece discusses child sexual abuse material, AI-generated abuse imagery, and sexual violence against children. There is also strong language throughout. Please read with care.

A federal appeals court has now ruled that the government cannot prosecute someone simply for possessing AI-generated child sexual abuse material in the privacy of his own home, so long as the images do not depict an identifiable real child.

What in the actual fuck are we doing as a species?

The ruling came August 25, 2026, from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Steven Anderegg. Anderegg was arrested after investigators said he used Stable Diffusion to deliberately generate sexually explicit images of children. Prosecutors said he adjusted prompts, excluded adults and created hundreds of images. The investigation began after AI-generated sexual images of children were allegedly sent to a 15 year old boy.

He was charged with producing the images, distributing them, sending them to a minor, and possessing them. The possession charge is the one that got thrown out. DOJ appealed that decision, and the Seventh Circuit just let it stand.

The reason this happened is a Supreme Court case from 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which said the government could not ban virtual child pornography when no real child had been used to make it. That was almost twenty five years ago, before Stable Diffusion, and before we gave sick, deranged people the ability to sit at home with a laptop and generate endless photorealistic images of children being sexually abused. Now, they can.

I can’t fucking accept any of this.

What exactly happens when you give someone who is already sexually interested in children an endless, private, customizable supply of abuse imagery and then tell them that simply keeping it at home is constitutionally protected?

Researchers are already warning that AI-generated CSAM could normalize child sexual exploitation, lower inhibitions, desensitize users to increasingly extreme material and create a pathway toward real world offending.

That is fucking horrifying.

What exactly are we gambling with here?

If somebody already wants to see children sexually abused, why would we assume giving them unlimited, photorealistic material made to their exact preferences is going to contain that desire? What if it feeds it? What if they keep escalating because the last image is no longer enough? What if the fantasy gets darker? What if one day the screen stops being enough?

Real children are the ones who will pay for this evil mistake.

The law may call the child “virtual,” but the person generating the image still wanted to see a child sexually abused, and there is nothing virtual about that.

Investigators could now be forced to waste precious time trying to figure out whether a child is real or AI, while the people already looking for this stuff can sit at home and make as much of it as they want, exactly how they want it, over and over.

That is a fucking nightmare.

While investigators are sorting fake victims from real ones, actual children are still out there being abused. Actual children are still waiting to be found. Every hour matters when a child is in danger, and now we are adding another layer of garbage between investigators and the kids who actually need them.

And somehow we are supposed to pretend the fact that the face was generated by software makes all of this okay?

None of this is fucking okay.

Anderegg still faces the other charges against him. But even the judges know the law has not caught up with what this technology can do, and they have asked the Supreme Court to look at it again.

It needs to.

Because “no identifiable real child was used” cannot be where this ends.

We should not have to wait for a real child to be raped or abused before admitting we crossed a line.

This is evil and if it doesn't make you want to call your representatives, I don't know what will.

What You Can Do

Find your U.S. Representative
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Find your U.S. Senators
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard
(202) 224-3121
(Tell the operator your state, and they’ll connect you to your Senators and Representative)

Bills in Congress Right Now

The ENFORCE Act – would ensure AI generated CSAM is prosecuted with the same penalties as other federal sex crimes

Protecting Our Children in an AI World Act (H.R. 1283) – would amend federal law to specifically prohibit child pornography produced using artificial intelligence

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

• United States v. Steven Anderegg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, decided August 25, 2026. - Read the Seventh Circuit opinion

• Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). Supreme Court precedent governing virtual CSAM. - Read the Supreme Court decision

• “AI-generated child sexual abuse material: what’s the harm?”, AI & Society (2026). - Read the research paper

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Read Part One

Blue Amp Action PAC is gone. The FEC lists it as terminated, with its final reporting period ending March 25, 2026. It closed out with $0 cash on hand, nothing owed to the committee, and no outstanding debts.

Blue Amp Action is still out operating in public as if very little changed. The website is live, the email list is active, fundraising emails are still going out under the Blue Amp Action name, and the site is still sending people to ActBlue to donate.

Naturally, the question now is what Blue Amp Action actually is, and where the money being raised under that name is going.

The PAC Ended With Nothing Left

The FEC now lists Blue Amp Action PAC, committee C00852400, as a terminated hybrid PAC. Its final financial summary covers January 1, 2025 through March 25, 2026, when the committee closed out with $0 cash on hand and no debts or loans owed by or to the PAC.

It handled a lot of money. During that reporting period, Blue Amp Action PAC reported $890,025.87 in receipts and $980,788.27 in spending. Its listed address was PO Box 8384 in Cincinnati, Ohio. That exact same address is still being used by Blue Amp Action months after the PAC shut down.

The Website Never Went Away

Go to BlueAmpAction.com now and it does not look like a site that shut down months ago. The website still describes Blue Amp Action as an organization supporting progressive campaigns and causes, it still collects email addresses and phone numbers, and still asks visitors to “chip in now!” The donation buttons, ranging from $10 to $500 lead to a live ActBlue page.

That page is branded simply as Blue Amp Action and carries the title “Support Our Mission to Amplify Good!” It says donations will help Blue Amp Action continue supporting progressive campaigns and causes around the country. The name shown there does not include “PAC.”

The footer on Blue Amp Action’s own website is worth a closer look too. It does not say “Paid for by Blue Amp Action PAC.” It says “Paid for by Blue Amp Action,” followed by the same Cincinnati address the terminated PAC used: PO Box 8384, Cincinnati, OH 45208.

None of that on its own tells me which legal entity is receiving money through the current ActBlue page. However, it does leave a very obvious question hanging in the air here- if the PAC is gone, who is fundraising under the Blue Amp Action name now?

Then I Read the Privacy Policy

Then I opened the privacy policy, and there it was: Blue Amp Action LLC.

Right at the top, the policy identifies “Blue Amp Action LLC (‘Blue Amp,’ ‘we,’ or ‘us’).” That is the same Ohio LLC Cliff Schecter organized in 2023, and the same company Blue Amp Action PAC later paid $498,211.26 for fundraising consulting.

The policy does more than name the LLC. It says Blue Amp can collect information when someone makes a donation or purchase, process donations and transactions, and solicit donations and support for Blue Amp and other political campaigns or causes. It also says information can be shared with political organizations and participants in joint fundraising committees.

Then you get to the text-message section, and the LLC is named again. Blue Amp Action LLC is described as the entity offering the mobile messaging program, and people who sign up are told they can expect updates and information from Blue Amp Action LLC.

It still does not prove the LLC is receiving every dollar through ActBlue…but it does blow up any suggestion that Blue Amp Action LLC was just some old vendor left behind with the PAC. Blue Amp’s own website names the LLC as part of the operation that is still running now.

I still cannot prove from the public record that Blue Amp Action LLC is receiving every dollar coming through the current ActBlue page. But Blue Amp’s own website does identify Blue Amp Action LLC as “Blue Amp” and connects that LLC to donations, political outreach and the messaging operation that is still running now.

So if the PAC is gone but the website, fundraising and messaging operation are all still active under the Blue Amp Action name, the question I have now is, what entity is actually running it, and where is the money going?

The Emails Did Not Stop Either

If the website was the only thing still hanging around, this maybe could be written off as an old page nobody bothered taking down. But, Blue Amp Action is still sending emails months after the PAC terminated.

The Archive of Political Emails logged Blue Amp messages throughout August 2026, including emails from Blue Amp Action, the Blue Amp Action Data Team, and Democratic politicians using the same operation.

On August 28, a Hakeem Jeffries email went out under the Blue Amp Action sender profile.

Blue Amp was also still showing up on fundraising appeals. On June 8, Rep. Shomari Figures asked readers to split a $10 contribution between his campaign and Blue Amp Action. On August 15, Elaine Luria asked supporters to split a contribution with Blue Amp Action.

All of that happened after the PAC shut down. So when those emails asked people to give to Blue Amp Action, what entity was actually receiving Blue Amp’s share?

The emails ask for the money but they do not tell donors who, legally, is on the other end of it.

The ActBlue Page Does Not Answer It

Click donate on Blue Amp Action’s website and you land on an ActBlue page branded simply Blue Amp Action. The form carries the identifier loc_baa_fr_website_2026.

What it does not plainly tell you is who is receiving the Blue Amp portion of the money. There is no federal committee number on the public-facing form, and nothing that clearly identifies the beneficiary.

That is a problem because the PAC is terminated, while Blue Amp’s own website identifies Blue Amp Action LLC as “Blue Amp.”

So when someone clicks donate, who actually gets Blue Amp’s share?

ActBlue knows. Blue Amp knows.

The donor should too.

Apollo

Apollo Artistry was in the first Blue Amp story because the PAC paid the company for web hosting. Months after the PAC terminated, Apollo is still credited at the bottom of BlueAmpAction.com, directly beneath the same Cincinnati address.

The footer still reads “Paid for by Blue Amp Action” and “Powered by Apollo.” Apollo was a PAC vendor and it is still credited on the same website after the PAC terminated.

So What Happened When the PAC Closed?

There is one line in Blue Amp’s privacy policy that is hard to ignore now. It says personal information may be disclosed or transferred in connection with a “reorganization, formation of new committee or successor organization, asset sale or transfer.”

That does not prove Blue Amp Action reorganized or transferred anything when the PAC shut down but it does leave us with a pretty obvious question or two. What happened to the website, donor list, email list and fundraising setup that kept running under the same name? Were any of those assets moved somewhere else? And if they were, did Blue Amp Action LLC end up with them?

Follow the Entity

The first Blue Amp story followed nearly half a million dollars from the PAC to an LLC organized by Cliff Schecter. This one picks up after the PAC shut down. The committee closed out with no cash left, but Blue Amp Action never really stopped. The website stayed up and the emails kept coming. The same Cincinnati address stayed on the site, the privacy policy still identifies Blue Amp Action LLC as “Blue Amp,” and the donate button still sends people to an ActBlue page branded simply Blue Amp Action, without clearly telling the donor which legal entity is actually receiving Blue Amp’s share.

I cannot prove the LLC is receiving that money. What I can prove is that the PAC is gone and Blue Amp Action is still operating. So… who is running it now, and where is the money going?

I contacted Blue Amp Action seeking clarification on the relationship between Blue Amp Action PAC and Blue Amp Action LLC, the LLC’s role in the website and fundraising operation, and Cliff Schecter’s current role with both entities. I’ll update this piece if they respond.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

Federal Election Commission

• Blue Amp Action PAC - FEC committee record

• Blue Amp Action PAC - final March 2026 filing

Blue Amp Action

• Current website

• Privacy policy

• Current ActBlue contribution form

Archive of Political Emails

• Blue Amp Action organization archive

• Hakeem Jeffries email - August 28, 2026

• Shomari Figures fundraising email - June 8, 2026

• Elaine Luria fundraising email - August 15, 2026

Additional reporting

• The American Prospect, “The Pro-Israel Super PAC Cinematic Universe”

  © 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Blue Amp Action PAC shut down on March 25, 2026. Before it did, it sent nearly half a million dollars to an LLC organized by Blue Amp Media founder Cliff Schecter. Two Blue Amp Media staffers later received separate PAC payments for political commentary.

FEC records show the Cincinnati-based hybrid PAC, run by treasurer Jay Petterson, paid Blue Amp Action, LLC $498,211.26 across 10 transactions in 2025, all listed as “Fundraising Consulting.” The payments ranged from $10,000 to $78,293.80 and ran across both halves of the year. Every one lists the same address for the LLC: 1776 Mentor Ave, Cincinnati.

The LLC Leads Back to Cliff Schecter

Ohio Secretary of State records show Blue Amp Action, LLC was formed on September 30, 2023, at 1776 Mentor Ave Ste 411, the same address that later shows up in the PAC’s FEC disbursement records.

The company was filed by Cliff Schecter. He is also named as its statutory agent, and his signature appears on the Articles of Organization, document ID 202327300206.

Schecter founded Blue Amp Media, where Ellie Leonard and Melissa Corrigan are both listed as staff.

The LLC was also pretty clear about what it was created to do. Its founding paperwork says its purpose was “assisting organizations involved in fundraising activities for social and political causes, including fundraising for candidates for political office.”

The filing makes the connection pretty damn clear.

Blue Amp Action PAC paid nearly half a million dollars to an LLC Schecter personally organized, signed for and registered himself as agent for. What exactly the PAC received for “fundraising consulting,” where that money ultimately went, and whether Schecter or anyone else personally profited from the arrangement are still open questions.

But the connection between Schecter and the LLC is not.

Ohio has it on file.

The PAC Also Paid Blue Amp Media Staff

Later that year, the PAC started making a different kind of payment: “Independent Political Commentary.”

During the second half of 2025, Blue Amp Action PAC paid nine people and companies between $500 and $2,000 each under that description, all from its Non-Contribution Account.

The recipients were Aurea Bolaños Perea, Dana Bos, Cerulean Sky Buffalo LLC, Melissa Corrigan, Gina DiVittorio, Ellie Leonard, McKenzie Ortiz, Reply Guyz LLC and Gabriel Sanchez. Altogether, the PAC paid $6,716.24.

Two of those recipients were on Blue Amp Media’s own staff.

Melissa Corrigan, listed by Blue Amp Media as a journalist and social media strategist, received $2,000 on December 29, 2025. Ellie Leonard, a contributing editor, received $500 that same day.

Those were not vague consulting payments. The FEC purpose line says exactly what they were for: “Independent Political Commentary.”

After publication, Corrigan reached out to me directly. She said she wrote her own work, was never told what to write, and described herself as low on Blue Amp’s internal “totem pole.” She also strongly rejected any suggestion that her work there was directed around Israel or Zionism. I have no evidence showing otherwise.

Together, Corrigan and Leonard received $2,500, more than a third of the PAC’s total spending in that batch.

Leonard’s payment has since become part of a much larger argument online about where Blue Amp Action’s money came from. The payment itself is easy to verify. What it proves beyond that is a separate question.

I Went Looking for the AIPAC Money

A claim making the rounds is that Blue Amp Action PAC was being used as a pass-through for AIPAC money, with Ellie Leonard’s $500 payment pointed to as proof.

I wanted to see what the filings actually said.

I read both of Blue Amp Action PAC’s 2025 FEC filings in full, more than 3,000 pages combined. I did not find AIPAC. I did not find Democratic Majority for Israel. I did not find United Democracy Project. The PAC’s own summary pages also report zero dollars in contributions from other political committees for the year.

That does not rule out an indirect connection somewhere outside the records I reviewed. It just means I did not find one in Blue Amp Action PAC’s 2025 FEC filings.

Other Threads

A couple of other names have come up around Blue Amp Action PAC.

Frederic Poag is one of them, but his connection to Blue Amp is not just something people are speculating about online. Poag says he was involved early, helping get Blue Amp Media off the ground and taking part in strategy, branding and content planning before eventually walking away. In his own account, he describes being there from the beginning and explains why he became uncomfortable with the direction the project was taking.

He also wrote about that experience himself, and you can read his piece here.

Frederic was there for those early conversations, so his account is worth reading for itself.

Apollo Artistry LLC is different because that name also shows up directly in the PAC’s FEC records. Blue Amp Action reported paying Apollo Artistry for web hosting.

What I have not found is evidence for the bigger claim that Apollo Artistry was operating Blue Amp Action PAC behind the scenes. The records I found show Apollo Artistry as a vendor. I couldn’t get beyond that from the filings.

If someone has records that show more, send them my way. I’ll look at them and update this piece if they check out.

There is one other connection worth being clear about. Jay Petterson serves as a paid compliance treasurer for a long list of Democratic committees, including DMFI PAC, the political arm of Democratic Majority for Israel. DMFI and AIPAC are separate organizations. A DMFI spokesperson has previously said Petterson “makes no strategic decisions” for the committees he serves.

So yes, Blue Amp Action’s treasurer also works for a major pro-Israel political group. That part is real.

What I have not found is evidence showing that connection was an AIPAC funding pipeline.

Follow the Money That Is Actually There

Even without the claims I couldn’t verify, there is plenty here.

Blue Amp Action PAC paid $498,211.26 to Blue Amp Action, LLC for ‘fundraising consulting.’ Ohio records show Cliff Schecter organized that LLC himself, signed its formation paperwork and became its statutory agent. Schecter also founded Blue Amp Media.

Then, in December 2025, the PAC separately paid two Blue Amp Media staffers, Ellie Leonard and Melissa Corrigan, for “Independent Political Commentary.”

I found no AIPAC, DMFI or United Democracy Project contributions in the PAC’s 2025 filings.

What I did find was a different money trail.

Follow the LLC. Follow the man who signed its paperwork.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

Federal Election Commission

• Blue Amp Action PAC committee overview, C00852400
  https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00852400/

• Statement of Organization, Form 1
  https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/007/202310049597397007/202310049597397007.pdf

• Mid-Year 2025 Report, Form 3X
  https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/099/202507229764165099/202507229764165099.pdf

• Year-End 2025 Report, Form 3X
  https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/975/202601309794859975/202601309794859975.pdf

Ohio Secretary of State

• Articles of Organization, Blue Amp Action, LLC

• Document ID 202327300206

• Filed September 30, 2023

• Search: “Blue Amp Action, LLC” at businesssearch.ohiosos.gov

Additional reporting

• The American Prospect, “The Pro-Israel Super PAC Cinematic Universe”
  

  © 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Anne Cheever wrote a come back to my piece about Alisa and Ellie Leonard. She even narrated it in her own voice.

Let's start with what's actually true- because none of this makes sense otherwise. I never once mentioned Anne Cheever in my piece at all. Not her name, not a hint about her… nothing. I also never wrote a single word, anywhere, about her family or Leslie Wexner. So her whole piece is a defense against two things I never said or wrote about. Of course, I did get curious and have to do some digging on her claims though.

Her piece asks who I am and what’s motivating me. Fair question. She never answers the same about herself, not with a single document or record, just a story about a third cousin, when public records identify her as the granddaughter.

These audios I found online. In them, Anne talks about having a troll army at her disposal, how to get around being blocked, and how to build sock accounts.

Listen for yourself.

Audio Source

Subscribe now

While Blanche was telling Justice Department employees that he would lead with integrity and uphold the law fairly, one of his own lawyers was in federal court being pressed over records DOJ still had not produced, a redaction log that was already months overdue, and an explanation the judge was not willing to simply accept.

Sullivan’s questions cut straight through the department’s position. If DOJ said the handwritten notes were duplicative, how was the court supposed to know without seeing them? If the redaction log was required by law, why was it still only “forthcoming”? By the time Blanche stood up on August 13 and promised integrity, the fight over what his department was withholding, how it was redacting records and whether it was complying with the law had already been underway for months.

The Epstein Files Were Already in Court

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025, requiring the Justice Department to release its Epstein-related records and explain anything it continued to withhold or redact. By December 19, that disclosure was supposed to be complete. It wasn’t. What followed was a growing fight over missing material, heavy redactions and records DOJ still would not release.

Katie Phang sued in April, and on June 25 Sullivan granted her request for a preliminary injunction after finding she was likely to succeed on her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. He ordered DOJ to either produce the records she had identified or explain why it still believed they could legally be withheld.

Sullivan’s order spelled out exactly what DOJ was being asked to produce. The records included handwritten FBI notes underlying four formal interview reports, email exchanges with names unredacted, records containing alleged potential co-conspirator names, previously unreviewed foreign-language material and the redaction log required by the transparency law.

By the August 13 hearing, the handwritten notes and the redaction log were still unresolved.

DOJ argued that the handwritten notes did not need to be released because their substance was already captured in the formal FBI interview reports. Phang pushed back, pointing to handwritten FBI records that had already appeared in DOJ’s own Epstein releases. Sullivan wanted to know how the court was supposed to accept DOJ’s claim that the notes were duplicative without seeing them.

The redaction log was still missing too. Congress had required DOJ to explain what it withheld and why, yet months after the deadline Phang was still asking a federal judge to make the department produce it. Then, eleven days after Blanche told DOJ employees that the department would uphold the law fairly and impartially, the Justice Department filed a protective notice of appeal preserving its right to challenge Sullivan’s June injunction.

By late August, DOJ was still in court over records Congress had ordered released, still defending what it had withheld and redacted, and still being pressed to explain why. By then, the questions were coming from outside the courtroom too.

They Had Been Asking to Speak With Him

The July meeting between Blanche and Epstein survivors did not begin with Blanche reaching out to them. By the time his confirmation hearing began, ten survivors were sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee room watching senators question the man asking to become attorney general. Sen. Dick Durbin pointed them out and said none of the ten had been able to speak directly with DOJ or the FBI despite repeated requests. He asked Blanche whether he would personally meet with them within thirty days. Blanche did not commit. Instead, he said someone in his office who had spent her career working on cases like Epstein’s was available to speak with them.

Durbin kept pressing him. “She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors,” he told Blanche. Blanche still would not say yes. At one point, he suggested that if the survivors were represented by lawyers, professional rules could prevent him from speaking with them directly. Durbin rejected that explanation and kept asking him to make the commitment. The exchange was harder to ignore, especially because Blanche had already made time for someone else at the center of the Epstein case. In July 2025, while serving as deputy attorney general, he personally traveled to Florida and interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell for roughly nine hours over two days.

Durbin made that comparison directly during the second day of the confirmation hearing while questioning survivor Dani Bensky. “I don’t understand how this Attorney General can find 48 hours to visit with Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been prosecuted for sex trafficking, and can’t find 30 minutes to meet with the survivors of that sexual predator,” he said. Blanche finally met with survivors on July 16, after the issue became tied directly to his confirmation. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, whose vote Blanche needed, said he expected the meeting to happen before he would support moving the nomination forward. Blanche sat down with the survivors that day.

What they said afterward showed how little the meeting had changed. Bensky described the meeting as performative and said she heard no concrete plan for pursuing accountability beyond Epstein and Maxwell. Other survivors who attended described it publicly as dismissive, disappointing or condescending. DOJ gave a different account, calling it a productive first discussion and saying officials encouraged survivors to bring forward any additional evidence they had.

There was another reason survivors were angry. At Blanche’s confirmation hearing, Bensky testified that identifying information about victims had appeared in DOJ’s Epstein disclosures even after survivors warned the department about privacy concerns. She told senators that people had lost privacy and confidentiality because of those releases. Blanche had already acknowledged that redaction mistakes were made and said he took responsibility for correcting them. But the survivors sitting behind him in that hearing room were the ones who had to live with the consequences of those mistakes. They involved their names, their privacy and whether they could trust the same department that was asking the public to believe it had handled the files responsibly.

Blanche Had Already Made Himself Part of the Epstein Story

Blanche was not just the official who inherited a mess over records. He had already put himself right in the middle of the Epstein case long before he was confirmed as attorney general.

In July 2025, while serving as deputy attorney general, Blanche flew to Florida and personally interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell over two days as she served a twenty-year federal sentence for helping Epstein sexually exploit and abuse minors. He spent roughly nine hours questioning Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator himself, rather than leaving the interview to career prosecutors or investigators.

Soon afterward, Maxwell was transferred from FCI Tallahassee, a low-security federal prison in Florida, to FPC Bryan, a minimum-security prison camp in Texas. The move was not routine. Under Bureau of Prisons classification policy, convicted sex offenders are generally required to be held at least at low security, meaning Maxwell needed a waiver to be placed at Bryan. The Bureau of Prisons confirmed the transfer but did not publicly explain why the waiver was granted.

The timing raised even more questions about Blanche’s role. Maxwell had just spent roughly nine hours over two days being personally interviewed by him, with limited immunity for truthful statements under a proffer agreement. Days later, she was moved to a less restrictive facility. No public record has established that Blanche arranged the transfer or promised it in exchange for her cooperation, but the Bureau of Prisons has never publicly explained why Maxwell received an exception to its normal classification rules.

By the summer of 2026, senators were questioning Blanche about that interview while survivors were still trying to get direct access to him. Maxwell had received hours of his personal attention. Survivors had to sit in a Senate hearing room, ask publicly to be heard and wait until his confirmation vote was on the line before he agreed to meet with them.

New Mexico Had Been Waiting for Years

While Blanche was facing questions in Washington, New Mexico had been trying to get federal Epstein records for a criminal investigation of its own. On August 5, Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Blanche and the Justice Department, seeking unredacted records tied to Epstein’s Zorro Ranch in Santa Fe County.

New Mexico says it first wrote Blanche in February 2026 asking for access to a specific record released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act and related investigative material involving the ranch. More requests followed over the next several months. In March, the state sought complete versions of records that had been released with redactions. In April, New Mexico officials spoke with DOJ and were told to submit a formal request through federal channels. They did that in May, then followed up with more letters and requests for meetings. By July 9, Torrez said more than 130 days had passed since the state first asked for the unredacted material.

New Mexico says its problems with the federal government actually began years earlier. Former Attorney General Hector Balderas says his office had already opened an investigation into Epstein and Zorro Ranch in 2019 and had begun locating and interviewing potential victims when Epstein was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in New York that July. According to Balderas, the Southern District of New York contacted his office because federal prosecutors were concerned that state investigators were speaking with witnesses who could also be part of the federal case.

Balderas says the two offices reached an agreement. New Mexico would stop those interviews and turn over what it had gathered, and when the federal case was finished, federal authorities would refer any material involving possible New Mexico crimes back to the state. He says New Mexico did what it was asked to do. He says the federal government did not follow through.

Balderas has pointed to federal record EFTA01681971, a handwritten note dated July 23, 2019, as documentation of that arrangement. The clearest lines appear to say that the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office would “stop interviews” and “refer all matters to SDNY,” while SDNY would refer any state-related matters back to New Mexico “at conclusion of SDNY case.”

By 2026, the state was asking for those records again. New Mexico says it wrote Blanche on February 13, followed up with Attorney General Pam Bondi in March, participated in an April conference with DOJ, filed a formal request in May and continued asking for records and an in-person meeting. In June, Torrez wrote Blanche specifically about the old SDNY agreement. By the end of the month, New Mexico had issued what it described as a final demand before litigation.

Then, on July 10, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Mexico sent the state 31 pages. According to Torrez’s office, much of that production consisted of material already available through the public Epstein portal, heavily redacted records that gave investigators little they could use and copies of local news coverage. The state continued asking for access to the underlying federal files.

On August 5, Torrez sued.

“Todd Blanche today with a stroke of a pen could grant us the access,” he told reporters, accusing DOJ of blocking an active state investigation into abuse and trafficking at the ranch.

DOJ disputes that characterization. The department has argued that some of the information New Mexico wants is covered by federal court orders protecting victim-identifying information and that it can only disclose material within those legal limits. Torrez has responded that if those orders are the obstacle, DOJ can go back to court and ask to modify them so state investigators can get what they need.

New Mexico’s position is that it stepped aside for federal investigators in 2019 after being promised cooperation later, then spent months in 2026 trying to get that cooperation through DOJ’s own channels. When that still did not produce the records it says it needs, the state sued Blanche and the Justice Department.

The Problems Around Blanche Go Beyond Epstein

By the time Blanche promised the department integrity on August 13, the questions around his conduct were not limited to the Epstein files. One of the biggest involved Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The case grew out of the illegal disclosure of Trump’s tax information, but by 2026 Trump was president again and his own Justice Department was defending the federal government in a case he had brought.

DOJ and Trump’s lawyers negotiated a settlement that would have provided broad protections connected to tax audits and initially contemplated roughly $1.8 billion for a compensation fund for people who said they had been targeted by government “weaponization.”

U.S. District Judge Kathleen M. Williams sharply criticized the arrangement. In July, she ruled that the case had been pursued for an “improper purpose” and said the parties had tried to use the court to legitimize an agreement that benefited the president and people connected to him. She also raised concerns about self-dealing and about the fact that DOJ was supposed to be defending the government while negotiating with the president who controlled the department.

Williams also discussed Blanche’s role. During congressional testimony, he had spoken publicly about abandoning part of the proposed settlement even though nothing reflecting that change had yet been filed in court. Williams wrote that Blanche appeared to believe he could speak for and bind both sides of the case. She referred lawyers involved in the matter for possible professional discipline.

By then, Blanche was already facing a separate ethics complaint. On June 22, Democracy Defenders Fund and Lawyers Defending American Democracy, joined by 101 former federal and state judges, asked New York’s attorney disciplinary authorities to investigate him. The complaint accused Blanche of professional-rule violations tied to conflicts involving his former client and current president, the use of DOJ investigative and prosecutorial power, matters in which the complainants argued he should have recused himself, and the department’s handling of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Those allegations have not been adjudicated, and the filing of a disciplinary complaint does not establish misconduct. But by the time Blanche was formally sworn in as attorney general, he was already facing criticism from judges, survivors, state investigators and more than one hundred former members of the judiciary. That was already the record around Blanche when he stood before DOJ employees on August 13 and promised them integrity.

“I Don’t Think That’s Actually True”

Blanche has kept returning to the language of integrity. In an interview with the Associated Press published August 28, he defended his record and rejected the idea that his years representing Donald Trump had compromised the way he now runs the Justice Department. “My integrity, my commitment to the rule of law is the same today that it was the day I graduated,” Blanche said. He also said he would never knowingly do anything unethical, improper or contrary to his oath.

The interview then turned to the Justice Department’s independence from the White House. Blanche rejected the usual idea of that independence. “I think attorneys general and others have said, ‘Oh, we’re independent.’ I don’t think that’s actually true,” he told the AP. His position was that DOJ is part of the executive branch and that the president has constitutional authority over it. Blanche also said Trump does not tell him who to investigate and maintained that prosecutors under him would continue acting without fear or favor.

That answer is hard to separate from how Blanche got there. He had been Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer before becoming one of the most powerful officials in the Justice Department under Trump’s presidency. As acting attorney general, he personally interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell while Epstein survivors were still trying to get a meeting with him. His department released Epstein records containing redaction failures serious enough that survivors later testified about losing their privacy. Blanche defended the overall review as a “Herculean task.”

By then, the questions around him had gone well beyond the redaction failures. Sullivan had found Phang likely to succeed in her challenge to DOJ’s withholding of Epstein records and ordered the department to produce specific material or explain why it could remain withheld. New Mexico had spent months asking Blanche’s department for records it says it needs for an active criminal investigation before suing. More than one hundred former judges had asked New York disciplinary authorities to investigate him, and another federal judge had raised serious concerns about self-dealing in a case involving Trump and referred lawyers involved for possible professional review.

Then came August 13. Blanche stood before Justice Department employees and promised integrity while, at nearly the same time, Sullivan was in federal court asking DOJ’s lawyers why he should accept their claim that withheld FBI notes were duplicative without being allowed to see them himself.

“How can the court know that?”

Sullivan was talking about the handwritten notes, but the same question hangs over much more than that. Blanche keeps asking people to trust his judgment, his integrity and his assurance that the department is acting fairly. But there is already a record to look at: court orders, survivor testimony, New Mexico’s requests and lawsuit, disciplinary complaints, judicial referrals and Blanche’s own words about how independent he believes the Justice Department really is.

And DOJ is still fighting over Epstein records Congress ordered released.

Blanche called the review a “Herculean task.” At this point, the harder question is why a law written to force disclosure has required survivors, journalists, state investigators and federal judges to keep dragging answers out of the department.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

Jana - DOJ Appeals in Katie Phang’s Epstein Files Case as Sullivan Presses for Answers

Jana - Elizabeth Holmes, Ghislaine Maxwell, and David Boies: The Same Lawyer’s File

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, “The Nomination of the Honorable Todd Blanche to be Attorney General of the United States,” July 15, 2026.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, “Grassley Questions Blanche at Attorney General Nomination Hearing,” July 15, 2026.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, “In Front of Epstein Survivors, Durbin Presses Attorney General Nominee Todd Blanche to Meet With Survivors Within the Next 30 Days,” July 15, 2026.

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, “Durbin Questions Outside Witness Panel for President Trump’s Nominee to be Attorney General, Todd Blanche,” July 16, 2026.

CNN, “Trump’s former lawyers: Judge Emil Bove swears in Attorney General Todd Blanche at the White House,” Aug. 10, 2026.

CNN, “Todd Blanche makes plea for unity at Justice Department,” Aug. 13, 2026.

Courthouse News Service, reporting on the Aug. 13, 2026 status hearing in Phang v. Blanche, including Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s questions regarding the handwritten FBI notes, redaction log and DOJ compliance.

Phang v. Blanche, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, June 25, 2026 preliminary injunction and subsequent filings.

Axios, “Epstein survivors describe Blanche meeting as dismissive, unproductive,” July 17, 2026.

The Hill, “Jeffrey Epstein survivor Jess Michaels details Todd Blanche meeting that left her ‘disappointed,’” July 18, 2026.

New Mexico Department of Justice, “Attorney General Raúl Torrez: USDOJ is Hindering Our Criminal Investigation by Withholding Unredacted Epstein Files,” July 9, 2026.

New Mexico Department of Justice, “Former AG Balderas: New Mexico and SDNY Struck a Deal on Epstein in 2019 - the Federal Government Never Held Up Its End,” July 21, 2026.

DOJ Epstein Library, EFTA01681971, July 23, 2019 handwritten federal investigative note documenting discussions involving the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office and SDNY.

NBC News, “Jeffrey Epstein investigation: New Mexico sues DOJ, Todd Blanche for blocking state probe,” Aug. 5, 2026.

ABC News, “New Mexico attorney general sues DOJ over Epstein files he says are needed for state probe,” Aug. 2026.

Reuters, “U.S. judge finds Trump misused court in IRS case, refers lawyers for discipline,” July 13, 2026.

Democracy Defenders Fund / Lawyers Defending American Democracy, June 22, 2026 disciplinary complaint asking New York attorney grievance authorities to investigate Todd Blanche, joined by 101 former federal and state judges.

Associated Press, “In AP interview, Attorney General Todd Blanche defends his record as political pressure mounts,” Aug. 28, 2026.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

The Information Staley Gave Epstein

Staley did not deny sharing confidential J.P. Morgan information with Epstein. He told the committee he used his own discretion in deciding what to share, and that there was no internal barrier at the bank stopping him.

Some of what he shared came during the height of the 2008 financial crisis. Committee counsel asked whether it was accurate to say that Staley had divulged J.P. Morgan’s communications with the Federal Reserve about efforts to stabilize the financial system.

“Yes,” he said.

He was also asked whether he told Epstein that J.P. Morgan’s Private Bank had brought in $44 billion in new assets in just two weeks.

“That’s possible, yes.”

One of those emails was read into the record.

“I’m spending a lot of time with Treasury,” Staley wrote Epstein. “The Private Bank has brought in $44 billion in the last 2 weeks. Unreal.”

Epstein had already pleaded guilty in Florida and was a convicted sex offender. Staley was still sharing information with him about what was happening inside one of the largest banks in the country during a financial crisis. In the same email, he told Epstein that J.P. Morgan was “throwing out” Sheldon Adelson as a client.

It was not an isolated example. Staley told the committee that he also discussed his own J.P. Morgan compensation with Epstein, and the flow of information continued after he left the bank. Years later, while Staley was trying to become CEO of Barclays, Epstein was still getting updates.

“The CEO wants to meet,” Staley wrote to Epstein.

The committee pressed him on that too. Staley confirmed that information around the CEO process was “reasonably market sensitive,” the same language he had previously used with the Financial Conduct Authority.

By 2015, Epstein’s conviction was seven years old, and he was still getting updates from Staley about major developments in his professional life. When the committee asked whether he regretted sharing confidential information with Epstein, Staley said no.

J.P. Morgan’s Own People Were Raising Alarms

By 2006, people inside J.P. Morgan already knew there were serious problems with Epstein. An internal Rapid Response Team memo recorded that he was withdrawing between $40,000 and $80,000 in cash several times a month, while the bank was also aware of his indictment on charges of soliciting underage prostitutes. After discussions involving Staley, Mary Erdoes, Catherine Keating and John Duffy, the bank decided to keep Epstein as a banking client. Under questioning, Staley agreed that cash withdrawals on that scale were a “red light.”

By January 2011, the concern inside the bank was even harder to ignore. In an internal email chain later entered into the congressional record, one compliance officer described Epstein as “a friend of Jes S.” and wrote that Catherine Keating believed Staley needed to be briefed on the bank’s human-trafficking review before a decision was made. Further down, the same officer wrote that the Private Bank was “not so thrilled with retaining him” and that “it was all due to Jes.” Staley disputed that characterization. Around the same time, he also confirmed that J.P. Morgan had extended Epstein a loan connected to a modeling agency under DOJ investigation for trafficking underage girls.

Another due diligence record shows just how directly Staley was involved. He personally discussed the trafficking concerns with Epstein.

According to the document, Epstein told him there was “no truth to the allegations, no evidence, and was not expecting any problems.” Committee counsel then asked why Staley, who had no formal role over Epstein’s accounts, was the one speaking to Epstein about the allegations instead of compliance or legal staff. Staley could not explain it.

Six months later, J.P. Morgan general counsel Stephen Cutler wrote about Epstein: “This is not an honorable person in any way. He should not be a client.” Staley agreed Cutler had the authority to end the relationship.

Epstein stayed with J.P. Morgan for another two years.

Andrew, Staley and the Woman in the Emails

The transcript then moves into a series of 2010 emails involving Epstein, Staley and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew.

Epstein wrote to Andrew: “If you can find time to show Jes around with [redacted], that would be fun.” When Andrew asked who the woman was, Epstein described her as “a great friend of mine, very pretty” and added, “I know Jes and she would love to see home.” The committee has said the woman was from Eastern Europe. Staley told the committee he never met her. He also said he once visited Buckingham Palace by taxi, but did not remember Andrew being there.

Two days later, Staley wrote to Epstein: “Is she free tonight?” Epstein replied two minutes later: “Call me.” Hours after that, Staley wrote: “I’m with A.” When counsel asked whether “A” meant Andrew, Staley answered, “It seems like it.” He said he did not know whether the woman discussed in the emails was connected to a dinner Andrew had mentioned the day before, and said he did not remember the dinner itself.

The “Snow White” Emails

I reported on the “Snow White” exchange before, when the emails appeared in the unsealed federal court record.

The newly released transcript goes further because Staley was finally asked about them directly.

According to an email reviewed by the committee in camera, Epstein wrote to an unidentified woman: “I would love to take photos of you in a Snow White costume. You can get it from the costume store.”

Less than three weeks later, Staley wrote Epstein: “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White. Maybe they’re tracking you??” Epstein asked what character Staley wanted next. Staley replied, “Beauty and the Beast.” When the committee asked who “Snow White” was, Staley said: “I don’t know who Snow White is.”

The following night, the same unidentified woman emailed Epstein: “The Snow White was f..ed twice as soon as she put her costume.” Committee counsel read the redacted word into the record as “fucked.” Staley denied that her email had anything to do with his message and said the timing was coincidental.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury later pointed out the gap in his memory. Staley could recall specific details from a 2009 visit to Epstein’s Florida office, including where he was, the sheriff who was present and how long the visit lasted. But when it came to the “Snow White” exchange from the following year, he said he could not remember it. “That’s ridiculous,” Stansbury told him.

The Massage Allegation

The transcript also puts a much more serious allegation directly to Staley.

A DOJ memo sent to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York recounts an October 2019 interview with a woman who said Epstein began abusing her when she was around 20. According to the memo, Epstein told her to “provide a massage to Jes Staley in Epstein’s New York residence.” She alleged that Staley “forced [her] to touch his genitals and then raped [her].” The memo says that when she later told Epstein what had happened, he responded that it was up to the two of them to decide whether to have sex.

Staley denied it. He told the committee he had never forced a woman to touch him during a massage, never raped or assaulted anyone in that context, and had never been violent with a woman during a massage.

The committee also brought up a separate class-action complaint against J.P. Morgan. That complaint alleges Staley told one victim he “had Epstein’s permission to do what he wanted to her.” Staley denied that allegation too.

Committee counsel then told him directly: “We have credible information that you have aggressively, even violently, sexually assaulted multiple women connected to Mr. Epstein.”

Staley did not change or amend his testimony.

Epstein Trusted Him With His Estate

Staley also confirmed that Epstein named him as a trustee of the Epstein 2014 Trust.

He signed on in November 2014 and signed an amendment to the trust the following September. Staley said he was never paid for the role and eventually resigned before Epstein’s death because, given Epstein’s convictions, he no longer wanted to be associated with the estate.

When the committee asked whether Epstein naming him as a trustee showed just how much Epstein trusted him, Staley agreed that it did.

What He Told Bowdoin

That relationship looked very different in the version Staley gave Bowdoin College in 2019.

Staley was a trustee of his alma mater and wanted to stay on the board. That fall, he spoke to the other trustees about his relationship with Epstein and told them he had only “limited contact” with him after his 2008 conviction. He also said he never allowed Epstein “any connection with any aspect” of his professional life after that point.

Then committee counsel put that version next to the actual record. There were more than 1,200 emails between Staley and Epstein from 2008 through 2012. Staley had discussed his compensation with Epstein, shared confidential J.P. Morgan and Federal Reserve information during the financial crisis, and years later was still updating him while pursuing the Barclays CEO job.

Staley said that when he spoke to Bowdoin, he only meant he had never brought Epstein into formal business transactions.

Counsel did not accept that explanation.

“If you were comfortable lying before, how do we know you’re not lying to us now?”

“I’m not lying to you,” Staley answered.

The interview ended shortly after.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Buy Me A Coffee

Sources

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Oversight Committee Releases Jes Staley Transcript,” August 26, 2026

Full transcript: Jes-Staley-Final-Transcript_Redacted-8.26.26.pdf

Reuters / BNN Bloomberg, “Former JPMorgan executive Staley says he shared confidential bank information with Epstein,” August 26, 2026

MSNBC / ms.now, “Jes Staley’s Epstein interview transcript released by House Oversight Committee,” August 26, 2026

CNBC, “House lawmakers grill former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley over Epstein ties,” July 23, 2026

ABC News, “Epstein’s former private banker appears before House Oversight Committee,” July 23, 2026

Jana Last Page First - Jes Staley and Jeffrey Epstein: The Banker, the Emails, and the Unanswered Questions

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

From Recruitment to “Our Network”

Something very weird is happening in independent Epstein media, and I think we are past the point where it makes sense to treat all of these people like completely separate writers and researchers who just happen to keep turning up in the same places.

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez has started saying that publicly too. In her August 16 piece, she named Meidas Touch, Aaron Parnas, Lev Parnas and “even sweet little Ellie Leonard” while arguing that supposedly independent Epstein coverage has become locked inside a political narrative. She went further, alleging coordination inside supposedly grassroots investigations and warning that intelligence operatives can plant themselves in independent media spaces where public trust has shifted.

In a later piece, Alisa also went directly at Blue Amp Media, where Ellie Leonard is a contributing editor, placing that relationship inside the same broader political-media ecosystem she was questioning.

Those are Alisa’s conclusions. I cannot prove from a leaked Signal chat that an intelligence service planted anyone inside this group. But I do think she is asking the right questions.

I had already been circling some of the same people from another direction. I did not get here through Alisa. I got here through Ed Opperman.

That overlap was already closer than it first looked. Lev Parnas, the former Rudy Giuliani associate who later became a fixture in anti-Trump media, has appeared on The Opperman Report. Ellie Leonard has also worked publicly with Parnas while relying on Opperman in her own Epstein reporting.

These are not completely separate media lanes. The same names keep crossing between the same shows, sources, livestreams and research circles. And when those same people are also deciding who is credible, who gets amplified and whose claims get treated as settled, the overlap is no longer incidental.

In July, I published an investigation into Opperman after going through his own public statements about the woman widely known as Katie Johnson. The issue was not whether someone believed the underlying allegations against Donald Trump. The issue was that Opperman’s own account of his involvement kept changing. He described himself as the investigator hired on the case. He called it “my case.” At other points he talked about different people, lawsuits and cases. At one point he sounded unsure whether something was even his case. Then, in an interview with Ellie Leonard, he became emphatic that it was “100% definitively” the same person.

I also checked the professional credentials attached to the way Opperman presents himself as a private investigator. I searched the public licensing records I could identify in the relevant jurisdictions and could not verify an active private investigator license under his name in the places I checked. I later added an update confirming that Colorado abolished statewide private-investigator licensing in 2021, meaning there is no current Colorado PI license for him to hold because the state no longer issues one.

I published what I found.

Then things got ugly fast. Anonymous accounts started targeting me. Personal attacks escalated. Claims about me started circulating. I eventually documented part of it in my Black Mask investigation, and I was careful about what I said. I did not claim Ellie Leonard was behind anonymous accounts. I did not claim Opperman directed them. I showed the behavior, the relationships and the overlap I could actually document.

Then someone sent me screenshots from inside the Butterfly Bureau / EpsteinWiki research group.

One message summed up the group dynamic pretty clearly: “come for one of us, you’ll need to defend from all of us.”

Before any of that happened, people connected to this circle had actually been trying to bring me into it.

I had been talking to people around the project. Some acted like friends. I was encouraged to apply to the EpsteinWiki Sleuths / Butterfly Bureau group, and I did. Then my application disappeared. Later, someone inside asked what happened to it and was told it “must’ve glitched and not came thru.”

That was the explanation I got.

By then, I was already saying publicly that something felt off. People in this circle were referring to me as Jana or Jena, questioning whether I was a real investigator and saying things privately that did not match how some of them treated me directly.

For clarity throughout this piece, when a screenshot refers to Jana, Jena or Last Page First, that is me. Plenty of the leaked conversations have nothing to do with me, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

I had also already talked publicly about the application being “lost,” my falling-out with Resistance Kitty/Patsy Evans and being told that private messages I sent were being passed around to other people.

Then I saw what they were actually saying inside the group.

Inside the chat, Lisa Tait, who publishes Epstein Hyper Focus, identified me as the person “abusing us atm.” Another message claimed I was angry because I “did not make the cut to get into our net work.”

The next exchange gets even weirder. After Tait asked whether the reference to “Lisa” meant her, Katie Chenoweth replied: “Mais non! The bad Lisa (Voldeng).”

So now my name was somehow being pulled into a conversation about Voldeng too.

That caught my attention. I have written critically about Lisa Voldeng before, including her relationships with Lady Victoria Hervey, Samantha Harris and George Tonks. So seeing my name pulled into the same conversation was bizarre, especially inside a group already sorting people into who belonged, who did not and who should be blocked or ignored.

And the irony is hard to miss. Ellie Leonard herself has publicly appeared and worked within the same broader Epstein-media ecosystem, including with Voldeng. So proximity, overlap and interaction are apparently not enough to make two people aligned when it applies to her.

That standard should not suddenly change when it applies to me.

Elsewhere, I am called a “grifter,” accused of being “paid to discredit us,” and criticized for going after their “patron saint.”

And then there is the phrase I keep coming back to:

“Our network.”

That is not my wording. It is theirs.

It is also very different from what I understood at the time, which was that my application had somehow been lost or never came through. I do not have a screenshot of that explanation, so I am not going to pretend I can document it the same way.

What I can document is the private chat, where I was described as someone who simply did not “make the cut.”

Inside the Butterfly Bureau

The Butterfly Bureau publicly presents itself as an independent investigative project built around evidence, open-source research, public records and transparency. EpsteinWiki’s own origin story makes the relationship between the people involved even clearer. Patsy Evans describes reaching out to researchers, journalists, data people, archivists, lawyers and others and asks, “What if we became a hive mind?” She says a couple dozen people now work together and describes their Signal group as a place where members share evidence, test theories, catch errors, break stories and support one another.

That is their own description of how the group works.

And collaboration itself is not the problem. Neither is having a Signal group. Good investigative work often depends on people comparing notes, checking each other’s work and sharing leads.

The problem is what happens when that same private room is also being used to decide who is trusted, who is not, who belongs and who should be shut out.

The leaked messages show members discussing other researchers, weighing who they trust and talking about access to the group. Someone who had been encouraged to apply was later described privately as not having “made the cut.” Then, at one point, someone announced they were “doing a purge of certain members of this group because there is a leaker.”

At that point, this starts to look a lot less like a loose collection of independent researchers and a lot more like an organized network with its own internal lines of trust, access and loyalty.

A research group devoted to uncovering hidden information suddenly had a leak of its own, and the response was a purge.

That tells you something about how organized this actually was. This was not just a loose collection of strangers occasionally dropping Epstein PDFs into a chat. There were insiders and outsiders. There were decisions about access, trust and who belonged. There was enough of a group identity that someone could casually talk about who had or had not made the cut into “our network.”

Then I got to Ellie Leonard’s message about Ed Opperman.

Leonard writes:

“People don’t like Ed (who very much is certified) because he holds all the cards, doesn’t share, and if you get weird with him online he has the best and quickest comebacks.”

There is a lot packed into that sentence, and none of it is small.

Start with “Ed, who very much is certified.”

Certified as what?

A major part of my Opperman investigation was trying to verify the professional credentials attached to the way he presents himself as a private investigator. I searched the licensing records I could identify in the jurisdictions tied to him and found no active private-investigator license under his name, and no record showing that he had previously held one in the places I checked.

Colorado does not solve that problem. The state abolished private-investigator licensing in 2021, so there is no current Colorado PI license for Opperman to hold. I also found no record establishing that he held one before the licensing system was abolished.

So when Ellie Leonard says Ed is “very much certified,” I genuinely want to know what she means. Certified as what? By whom? Under what program? Certified to perform what work?

I checked. I documented what I found. I published it. If Leonard has a license, certification or other credential that proves otherwise, she can produce it and I will correct the record. Until then, simply saying he is “very much certified” does not answer the question.

Then there is the next part: “He holds all the cards.”

What cards?

Documents? Sources? Information about Katie Johnson? Material other researchers do not have?

The screenshot does not answer that question, and I am not going to invent an answer for her. But then she follows it with “doesn’t share.” That combination is hard to ignore. He supposedly holds all the cards, does not share them, and this is being offered as part of a defense of him.

If someone supposedly has information nobody else gets to examine, that does not make his claims stronger. It makes independent verification more important.

My entire Opperman investigation existed because I took his public statements and put them next to one another. They did not line up. He described the Katie Johnson matter as “my case.” At other points he talked about different people, different cases and different lawsuits. At one point he said he could not even figure out whether something was his case. Then, speaking with Ellie Leonard, he said it was “100% definitively” the same person and the same case.

Those are his statements.

And Ellie did not merely know Opperman casually. In her own published work on the 2016 Trump/Epstein Jane Doe litigation, she presented him to readers as “Katie/Jane’s private investigator” and relied on him to settle a disputed identification.

That matters because I had already gone looking for the licensing record behind that title and could not find one.

I was checking his claims against the record. Ellie was treating him as an authority in public and backing him up in private.

If he really does “hold all the cards,” then show the cards.

The last part of her message is strange too. Leonard says that if people “get weird with him online,” Opperman has the “best and quickest comebacks.”

I was never investigating whether Ed Opperman wins arguments on the internet. I wanted to know whether what he was saying held up.

Too much of it didn’t. Yet inside this circle, the response was not to show the records- it was to vouch for him.

Maria Farmer Had Her Own Problems With This Circle

And this was not just me questioning Opperman.

Maria Farmer, one of Epstein’s earliest known accusers and one of the most important witnesses in this entire story, has herself raised serious concerns about people in this media circle.

In a private message to me, Farmer gave me permission to name her and said someone had caught Opperman sharing her Social Security number, date of birth and address.

That dispute then played out publicly.

Opperman denied intentionally doxxing her but acknowledged that he had posted an original document containing her Social Security number. He said Farmer’s lawyer had sent him the document, that he posted it with permission, and that he later circulated a version with the SSN redacted.

Whatever explanation he gives for how it happened, that is not some minor personality dispute. We are talking about an Epstein survivor’s identifying information being published.

Farmer has also been blunt publicly about people in this same media ecosystem.

In that comment, Farmer described Leonard as a “pest” who had harassed her, accused people in the space of grifting, criticized Opperman and warned Aaron Parnas to be careful. She also raised concerns about people trying to contact Virginia Giuffre’s publicist and family.

That belongs in this story because so much of this circle’s authority comes from proximity to survivors, sources and documents. When one of the most important survivors in the Epstein story is herself warning about how people in that same ecosystem behave, that is not something readers should have to discover by accident.

Patsy Evans Was More Central Than I Realized

Patsy Evans turned out to be much more central to these projects than I understood when I first started looking at the Butterfly Bureau. At the time, Resistance Kitty and Patsy Evans looked to me like separate names floating around the same circle.

They are not.

Evans publicly identifies herself as the creator of Resistance Kitty and signs her EpsteinWiki origin story “Field Commander, EpsteinWiki and Butterfly Bureau.” She is also the person describing the project as a “hive mind” of a couple dozen people sharing evidence and theories in Signal.

That makes the private language about “our network” feel a lot less casual.

My own history with Evans was already bizarre. After the recruitment episode, I contacted her about Opperman. The conversation went bad fast. She belittled me and told me my messages were being shared with him and/or people in their group.

By that point, the pattern was hard to ignore: the same people were sharing information, defending one another, deciding who was credible and who was not, then carrying those judgments back into public reporting.

Who Gets Protected

I do not care whether Patsy Evans likes me.

I care about what happens when people helping run an Epstein research project are also helping decide who is trusted, who gets frozen out and who should be ignored, while people in that same circle are publishing, promoting and reinforcing reporting on the story.

There has also been chatter about Evans’s doctorate. I checked that too, because I am not going to turn a rumor into fact just because it would make this article meaner. The claim that she simply invented a Ph.D. is not supported by what I found. The International Institute of Clinical Sexology says it offers a Ph.D. in Clinical Sexology and is licensed by Florida’s Commission for Independent Education. The institution also states that it is not accredited.

The leaked messages tell us plenty on their own. They also show how personal some of these relationships are. Bekah Day tells Ellie Leonard, “We’re here for ya sister. I hope we can get him off your back.” In another exchange, she offers to organize a fundraiser or GoFundMe so Ellie and her children could stay in a hotel for a few days.

There is nothing wrong with helping a friend. But when the same people are also sharing sources, promoting one another’s work, defending people inside the circle and helping decide who is credible and who is not, those relationships are no longer just private background noise.

Readers should know when people whose reporting looks independent from the outside are actually friends, collaborators, source-sharers or members of the same private research room. Once those relationships disappear from view, readers can mistake trust inside a circle for independent corroboration outside it.

They share information. They defend people they trust. They discuss people they do not. They promote one another’s work, send audiences toward one another and, at times, help each other raise money.

Then they go back into public and report on, cite and validate work coming from the same circle.

That does not automatically make the reporting wrong. It does make the source chain much more important.

I had already learned exactly why before anyone sent me these screenshots.

During the Jane Doe 4 mess, purported handwritten FBI notes began circulating publicly before anyone had independently authenticated the leaked pages. I spent days trying to separate what was actually in the government record from what people were saying was in the leak. The underlying FBI interviews were real. The withheld handwritten notes were real. Reporters had seen genuine notes. But the 22 pages circulating online were a different question, and the journalist who initially published them eventually pulled them while raising the possibility that she had been fed disinformation.

That episode should have scared the hell out of anyone doing this work.

Because once material starts moving through a trusted circle, repetition can very quickly start looking like corroboration.

Five people repeating the same claim does not mean five people independently verified it. Sometimes they all got it from the same source. Sometimes one person told another, who told another.

By the time it reaches the fifth account, it can look like consensus.

I saw another version of the same problem with Katie Johnson and Jane Doe 4. Two separate women, from different decades, with different recruitment stories and different legal histories, were repeatedly collapsed into one person across Epstein coverage.

I spent an entire piece untangling them.

When Repetition Starts Looking Like Proof

I have seen the same problem while working through the Interlochen witnesses. One person’s document gets attached to somebody else. A name gets merged with another name. A count changes. Then the error gets repeated enough times that eventually someone cites the repetition as proof.

That is what happens when information moves faster than verification.

So when I received screenshots from a private Epstein research group whose members openly describe sharing evidence, testing theories and breaking stories together, I did not see that as some meaningless social detail. I wanted to know where the information was coming from, how it was moving and who was vouching for whom.

That is exactly why Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez calling out Ellie Leonard caught my attention.

We were looking at different parts of the same larger problem. I was following Opperman, contradictions in his public story, verification failures and the people defending him. Alisa was looking at political narrative and asking why supposedly independent Epstein media keeps forcing an enormous international story back through the same American partisan funnel.

And somehow, we still ended up staring at some of the same names.

The Question Alisa Is Asking

Alisa did not dance around it. She named Meidas Touch, Aaron Parnas, Lev Parnas and “even sweet little Ellie Leonard.” She accused supposedly grassroots investigations of coordination and went further, raising the possibility that intelligence operatives would want to plant themselves inside independent media spaces where public trust is high.

I cannot prove that Mossad, the CIA, a political campaign or any other intelligence operation planted somebody inside this group.

But I do think Alisa is right to ask the question.

Independent media can be influenced. Journalists can be cultivated. Researchers can be fed information. Audiences can be steered. Putting the word “independent” in a Substack bio does not make any of us immune from that.

And that gets even more important when you look at which parts of the Epstein story receive enormous, sustained attention and which parts barely get touched.

The Part of the Epstein Story We Get Weird About

The Trump material belongs in this story. Obviously. So does Bill Clinton. So does every Republican, Democrat, billionaire, banker, lawyer, academic, royal, technology executive and political figure whose documented relationship with Epstein warrants scrutiny.

But Epstein was not an American partisan story. His world crossed countries, governments, money, technology, political influence and people operating close to intelligence and national-security circles.

Which is why I think independent Epstein media needs to get much less uncomfortable with the word Zionism.

I want to be precise about what I mean by that. I am not talking about Jews, and I am not using “Zionist” as a substitute for Jewish. Zionism is a political ideology and movement centered on establishing and maintaining a Jewish state in the historic land of Palestine. Whatever somebody thinks about that ideology, it has produced political institutions, lobbying organizations, donor networks, advocacy groups and foreign-policy relationships with enormous influence in the United States and elsewhere.

Those are legitimate subjects for journalism.

Especially now.

Gaza has forced millions of people to look much harder at the relationship between Israel and the United States: lobbying, campaign money, donor pressure, universities, media institutions, censorship, protest, weapons, intelligence cooperation and the political consequences that can follow criticism of Israel.

You cannot spend years telling people to follow money, power, access and political influence and then suddenly act like those concepts become untouchable when Israel enters the conversation.

And Israel is already inside the Epstein story.

Ehud Barak was not some random Israeli businessman whose name appeared once in an address book. He was Israel’s prime minister, defense minister and chief of the general staff of the IDF. His relationship with Epstein is extensively documented.

In fact, Ellie Leonard herself has done useful work documenting it. Her published compilation of Epstein and Barak’s emails shows an ongoing relationship spanning years. Epstein and Barak discussed politics, Iran, Russia, Obama and Trump. Epstein arranged meetings and accommodations. Barak wrote to him while traveling. They discussed Bill Clinton and other international political figures.

So I am not accusing Ellie Leonard of refusing to touch Israel. She has.

The question is what happens after the name Ehud Barak appears.

How deeply do independent Epstein researchers pursue the Israeli political and security relationships around Epstein compared with the amount of energy spent tracing Trump-world connections? What business relationships grew out of those contacts? Who introduced whom? What did Epstein provide to people operating close to Israeli political and security power, and what did those relationships provide to him?

Where do technology, surveillance, politics and money intersect? Which intelligence allegations actually have evidence behind them? Which do not? Which questions have simply never been answered?

Those are not antisemitic questions.

They are investigative questions.

Robert Maxwell Is Already Part of This

Robert Maxwell makes avoiding those questions even more ridiculous. His relationship with Israel is historical fact. He invested heavily there, built relationships with senior Israeli political figures and, when he died, was buried in Jerusalem at a funeral attended by senior Israeli leaders.

The much more explosive claim that Maxwell worked for Mossad has circulated for decades, including in books and investigative reporting. Maxwell denied it during his lifetime and sued over the allegation. No publicly verified primary record has established that he was a Mossad operative.

What we can say for sure is that Robert Maxwell’s relationship with Israel is documented.

I have already spent months reporting on the Maxwell legal network, including Leah Saffian, who says she has represented the Maxwell family since 1991. She represented Kevin Maxwell after the collapse of Robert Maxwell’s business empire, was representing Ghislaine by 2015, and later became one of the public voices around Ghislaine Maxwell’s post-conviction habeas fight.

That habeas effort has itself raised allegations of government misconduct, juror misconduct and improper relationships between accusers’ lawyers and prosecutors. Those claims still have to survive the evidence. A habeas petition is an argument, not proof. But the fact that Maxwell is still fighting her conviction through those channels means the legal and political history around this family is not frozen in 1991 or 2021. It is still unfolding.

That is part of why I keep coming back to the same standard: separate what is documented from what is alleged, but do not refuse to investigate the allegation just because it leads somewhere uncomfortable.

Jeffrey Epstein’s intelligence ties are still unresolved, but the Mossad question is not some fringe theory that can simply be waved away. The documented relationships around Epstein and Maxwell repeatedly lead back into Israeli political, security and intelligence-adjacent circles. Robert Maxwell’s ties to Israel are undeniable. Ehud Barak’s relationship with Epstein is extensively documented. Epstein himself moved through worlds of surveillance technology, defense, politics and kompromat.

There is no clean public document that says “Jeffrey Epstein worked for Mossad.” But there is more than enough in the record to take the Israeli intelligence angle seriously instead of treating it like some embarrassing question nobody respectable is supposed to ask.

Israel is already in the story. Israeli political power is already in the story. Zionist political influence is already in the story.

The threads are already there and the question is who is willing to keep pulling them.

Who Decides What Gets Investigated?

That is where Alisa’s criticism gets even more interesting to me. She has been willing to write directly about Israel, Zionism, Gaza and the intelligence theories around Epstein. I agree those areas deserve far more scrutiny than they often get, and I have no interest in treating Zionism as somehow off-limits to investigation.

My own reporting keeps coming back to one basic question: What can we actually prove?

But if you keep asking that, another question follows pretty quickly: Who decides what gets investigated hard enough for us to find out?

Narrative control does not require a mastermind. It does not require everyone in a private Signal group taking orders from somebody in a dark room. It can happen through ordinary relationships.

People trust their friends. They send them information first. They recommend sources. They defend people they know. One researcher becomes trusted, another becomes suspect. One source becomes everybody’s source. One interpretation gets repeated while another line of inquiry barely gets touched.

Then one story gets ten posts and three livestreams while another gets almost nothing. Eventually the audience starts thinking the first story must be overwhelmingly important because everyone they trust is talking about it.

But everyone they trust may be talking to each other.

That is the part independent media needs to get much more serious about.

Independent Does Not Mean Untouchable

And yes, that includes infiltration.

I am not saying these screenshots prove Butterfly Bureau or EpsteinWiki was infiltrated by Mossad, the CIA, a political campaign or anyone else. They do not.

But it is naïve to act like independent media is somehow immune from cultivation, manipulation or influence simply because it exists outside traditional institutions. Independent media has become valuable precisely because trust in traditional media has collapsed. Gaza accelerated that. So did Epstein. People watched major institutions miss stories, minimize them, force them into partisan frames or tell audiences to stop asking questions. So people went elsewhere.

Now millions of people get information from Substack writers, podcasters, livestreamers, anonymous researchers and small publications. That is real power, and power attracts people who want access to it.

If someone wanted to influence an independent audience, they would not necessarily need to buy a newspaper or television network. They would need access to the people that audience already trusts: relationships, sources, introductions, documents, amplification and credibility.

That could mean a private room where researchers trade information. Trusted people vouching for someone. A group deciding who belongs, who is credible, who is a problem and who should simply be blocked and ignored.

Once people are sharing sources, defending one another and deciding who is trustworthy, the work may still be independently published, but it is not happening in isolation.

That does not prove an intelligence operation. It does explain why the possibility of influence should be taken seriously instead of waved away just because the people involved publish on Substack instead of working for a major network.

What the Messages Actually Show

Taken together, these screenshots show something pretty simple.

This was not just a bunch of unrelated researchers occasionally crossing paths online.

Someone was described as not having “made the cut” into “our network.” I was described as someone “abusing us atm” and elsewhere as someone who should be “blocked and ignored.” A leak triggered a purge. Patsy Evans publicly describes a couple dozen people working together in Signal and asks, “What if we became a hive mind?” Ellie Leonard privately defended Ed Opperman as “very much” certified, said he “holds all the cards” and “doesn’t share.”

There were insiders and outsiders. There were judgments about who was trusted, who was not and who should be defended. People shared information, backed one another personally and professionally, and carried those relationships into public reporting.

That does not mean everything produced by people in this circle is wrong.

It means readers should know the circle exists.

I started looking at Opperman because his own public story did not make sense to me. Then I started looking at the people around him because I wanted to understand why his claims carried so much weight. People connected to this same research network had previously tried to bring me in. My application supposedly disappeared. Later, privately, I was apparently someone who had not “made the cut.”

Then the messages leaked anyway.

Now Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez is pulling at some of the same people from another direction.

I do not need a flowchart with a mastermind sitting at the top to think readers deserve to understand these relationships.

There is a network.

That is not my label for it.

They called it “our network.”

And independent publication is not the same thing as independent verification.

Show the Receipts

Independent reporting only works if the verification is actually independent.

That means going back to the documents, following the citations and finding the original source. If five people publish the same explosive claim, the question is not how many accounts repeated it. The question is whether five people actually verified it, or whether they all got it from the same place.

The same goes for authority. If someone is treated as the person who knows, ask why. If a journalist says somebody “holds all the cards,” ask to see the cards. If criticism of someone inside a research circle suddenly gets reframed as abuse, disloyalty or a reason to block the critic, pay attention.

And the standard cannot change depending on where the trail leads. If independent Epstein researchers are willing to spend huge amounts of time on Trump, MAGA, Russia and American partisan politics, they should be just as willing to follow evidence into Israel, Zionist political power, intelligence, surveillance technology and the people around those worlds.

Do not decide the answer first. Follow the evidence wherever it goes.

That is supposed to be the entire fucking point.

Independent media is being trusted with an extraordinary amount of power right now. If it wants to keep that trust, it has to survive the same scrutiny it demands of everyone else.

One Completely Ridiculous Thing Before I Go

And because Alisa caught this, I have to end on it.

There really was an Ellie Leonard on Desperate Housewives.

No, not this Ellie Leonard…at least, not as far as anyone has yet established.

Justine Bateman played a character named Ellie Leonard in season four, a tenant of Carlos and Gabrielle Solis who turned out to be dealing drugs.

Alisa’s point is a little sharper than the joke- she has openly questioned whether “Ellie Leonard” is even a real name.

The fact that the exact name also belongs to a fictional Desperate Housewives character is so absurdly on-brand for this entire absurd story that I refuse not to mention it!

Thanks for reading.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez
Epstein Survivor Says She Was Trafficked By Multiple U.S. Presidential Administrations and Both Political Parties, Aug. 16, 2026

Diary in Exile: On Why Ellie Leonard, Lev Whatshisface and Some Fuckwit Named Jay Lost Their Minds About Me Back in May

Patsy Evans / Resistance Kitty

• International Institute of Clinical Sexology, FAQ. The institute says it is licensed by Florida’s Commission for Independent Education to offer a Ph.D. in Clinical Sexology and states that it is not accredited. IICS FAQ

• EpsteinWiki: An Origin Story, Aug. 4, 2026

• Episode 1: What is the Butterfly Bureau?, June 30, 2026

Ellie Leonard / Ed Opperman

• Ellie Leonard, Jane Doe v. Trump and Epstein (2016)

• Ellie Leonard, Epstein’s Emails to Ehud Barak, the “Well-Known Prime Minister.”

Robert Maxwell / Israel
Contemporary reporting from The Washington Post on Maxwell’s relationship with Israel and his Jerusalem funeral.

My Previous Reporting

• Ed Opperman: The Investigator Behind Katie Johnson Who Couldn’t Keep His Story Straight

• The Black Mask Network: How Anonymous Accounts Targeted My Reporting

• Jane Doe 4 and the Epstein Files: The Leaked FBI Notes Nobody Could Verify

• Jane Doe 4 Epstein Files: What DOJ Still Hasn’t Released

• Katie Johnson and Jane Doe 4: The Two Cases the Internet Collapsed Into One

• The Class System: What the Interlochen Witness Told the FBI in Her Second Interview

• The Unfinished Sentence

• George B. Tonks Named in the Files

Private Messages
The private-message screenshots reproduced in this article were provided to Last Page First by a source with access to the conversations. The screenshots establish what participants wrote; they do not independently establish the truth of every claim made about third parties.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

The New Complaint

On August 19, 2026, six women filed a new lawsuit in New York Supreme Court against Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and its co-executors, Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn. The women say Epstein began abusing them in NY between 2001 and 2005, when they were between sixteen and twenty four years old.

They are not accusing the two men of abusing them. They are accusing them of helping make the operation possible. The case was brought under NYC’s Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, which was expanded in January to cover older claims against people or entities accused not only of committing gender motivated violence, but of directing, enabling, participating in or conspiring in it.

According to the complaint, Indyke, Epstein’s longtime lawyer, managed financial matters, provided legal advice connected to the operation and helped fund properties where the women say they were abused. The complaint is even more blunt about Kahn. The complain calls him a “de facto financial manager of Epstein’s sex trafficking operation.”

The lawsuit alleges that Kahn managed expenses while Indyke withdrew cash in amounts structured to avoid federal reporting requirements. It also says Epstein and entities he controlled paid Indyke more than $16 mil over the years and Kahn more than $10 mil. Neither man has been found liable on the new claims, and both deny the allegations.

The lawsuit, filed by Merson Law PLLC, is captioned Christiansen v. Indyke. Bloomberg Law reported that a docket number was not yet available when the complaint was filed.

This is not the first lawsuit to put Indyke and Kahn’s roles under scrutiny. A federal class action filed in 24’ accused them of “facilitation, participation, and concealment” of Epstein’s conduct. Earlier this year, they agreed to settle that case for at least $25 million and as much as $35 million, without admitting any wrongdoing.

Seven other women also sued under the same NYC law in a separate case. Justice Adam Silvera largely rejected Indyke and Kahn’s attempt to get those claims dismissed, finding that the city law was not preempted by state law. He did throw out the request for punitive damages against the estate.

Now another six women are making allegations about the men who handled Epstein’s money.

What They Told Congress

Five months ago, Indyke and Kahn sat before Congress and gave a much cleaner version of their years with Epstein.

Richard Kahn testified before the House Oversight Committee on March 11, 2026. He said that he knew nothing about Epstein’s abuse while he was alive and that he saw nothing in the finances that made him suspect trafficking. His office handled Epstein’s spending, including household expenses, investments and gifts to women and men. According to Kahn, nothing looked like a red flag.

“I did not see anything that suggested to me that Epstein was abusing or trafficking women or otherwise acting unlawfully,” he said in his prepared statement. Kahn said it pained him to think he may have unknowingly helped Epstein.

Eight days later, Darren Indyke testified.

Indyke had been Epstein’s lawyer for roughly two decades, working on his companies, properties and legal affairs. Under oath, he told Congress he had “no knowledge whatsoever” of Epstein’s crimes and denied facilitating the trafficking of women.

The women suing them now describe something very different. Their complaint does not portray Indyke and Kahn as simply professionals who occasionally handled a bill or signed something. The complaint centers them inside the financial and legal system that kept Epstein’s world functioning.

When you are handling his money, companies, properties and legal affairs for years, “we saw nothing” demands better explanations.

What “Accountant” Actually Looked Like

Calling Richard Kahn Epstein’s accountant leaves out a lot.

Last Page First has previously reported on records showing just how involved Kahn was in Epstein’s affairs, including the operation of his properties. At Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, Kahn was doing far more than keeping books.

In 2015 and 2016, he researched and coordinated the purchase of fully equipped ambulances for both Little Saint James and Zorro Ranch. He compared vendors and prices, researched New Mexico equipment requirements, arranged medical equipment and EMT training, tracked shipping and customs, and reported directly back to Epstein.

The Zorro ambulance cost more than $50,000, and the invoice was made out to Kahn’s HBRK Associates.

His involvement continued long after it arrived. In January 2019, Kahn was still discussing where the Little Saint James ambulance should be kept and whether its medical supplies were current.

Financial records from Zorro show the same kind of hands-on role. When ranch manager Brice Gordon wanted a breakdown of payments made to his own consulting company, the request went through Epstein’s administration and Kahn.

Congress learned more in March. According to Ranking Member Robert Garcia’s office, Kahn acknowledged helping facilitate a fraudulent marriage involving women connected to Epstein and admitted impersonating Epstein in communications with banks.

That is a lot more than bookkeeping.

None of it, standing alone, proves Kahn knew women and girls were being abused. But it does show how close he was to the money and the day-to-day machinery around Epstein. When Kahn later told Congress that nothing in Epstein’s finances raised a red flag, the obvious question is how much more he would have needed to see.

Indyke’s Paper Trail

Darren Indyke has his own set of questions to answer.

Indyke acknowledged before Congress that he regularly withdrew large amounts of cash from Epstein’s accounts. He denied structuring the withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and said Epstein needed significant amounts of cash for staff, residences and travel.

The women suing him now allege otherwise. Their complaint says Indyke withdrew cash in amounts that avoided federal reporting requirements as part of the financial operation surrounding Epstein. That allegation has not been proven, but the withdrawals themselves are not hypothetical. Indyke acknowledged making them. The dispute is over what they were for and why they were handled that way.

Another part of Indyke’s testimony is harder to explain: he says law enforcement never interviewed him.

Indyke told Congress that no law enforcement agency had interviewed him about Epstein’s crimes, despite roughly two decades as Epstein’s lawyer. That becomes considerably harder to understand when placed beside the FBI’s own records. Interview reports released by the Justice Department show Epstein directing victims to contact Indyke if federal agents approached them.

Epstein was telling victims to call Indyke when investigators came around. Indyke says those investigators never came to him.

If his testimony is accurate, federal investigators spent years pursuing Epstein without interviewing the lawyer Epstein himself had positioned between victims and law enforcement. That deserves an explanation regardless of what happens in this lawsuit.

The Response

Daniel H. Weiner, an attorney representing the estate, told Bloomberg Law that Indyke and Kahn “emphatically reject” allegations that they were complicit in or knowingly facilitated Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking.

Weiner said Epstein’s abuse happened behind closed doors and in secluded locations, at times when neither man was present. He also pointed out that no woman has accused Indyke or Kahn of sexually abusing anyone, witnessing sexual abuse or being directly told by a victim that Epstein was abusing her.

The women suing them are not claiming either man stood in a room and watched Epstein commit abuse. Their allegation is about what made the operation possible.

Epstein had properties, companies, trusts and bank accounts. He needed cash, payments, legal work and people managing all of it. The complaint alleges that Indyke and Kahn helped provide that infrastructure.

That is a different question from whether either man personally witnessed an assault, and it is the question their response does not really answer.

Follow the Money

Jeffrey Epstein’s world did not operate by itself. There were corporations and trusts, bank accounts and payroll, properties across multiple jurisdictions, employees, pilots, contractors, property managers, lawyers and accountants. Millions of dollars moved through it.

Kahn was one of the people handling that money, and the records show his role went well beyond basic accounting. Indyke spent roughly twenty years handling Epstein’s corporate, transactional and legal affairs, including large cash withdrawals. Both men eventually became executors of Epstein’s estate.

When Congress put them under oath this year and asked what they knew about Epstein’s crimes, both gave essentially the same answer: nothing.

Rep. Dave Min publicly questioned whether Indyke’s testimony was credible and raised the possibility that he had committed perjury. Indyke has not been charged with perjury, and Min’s accusation has not been established.

But the more of the record that comes into view, the harder “nothing” is to accept without a better explanation.

Congress subpoenaed Indyke and Kahn because lawmakers said they needed to follow Epstein’s money to understand who may have enabled him. Now six women are asking a New York court to do the same.

The two men have already told Congress what they say they knew. The records show what they were doing. Now a court may have to decide how those two things fit together.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

• New lawsuit: Bloomberg Law, “Epstein Estate Sued in New York Over Trafficking, Sex Abuse,” August 19–20, 2026

• Richard Kahn testimony: CBS News, “Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant, tells Congress he didn’t know about abuse, saw no red flags in spending,” March 11, 2026

• House Oversight, Kahn deposition: Ranking Member Robert Garcia statement on Richard Kahn’s March 11 deposition

• House Oversight, Indyke deposition: Ranking Member Robert Garcia statement on Darren Indyke’s March deposition

• House Oversight subpoenas: Ranking Member Robert Garcia statement on subpoenas for Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn, January 2026

• Zorro Ranch ambulance procurement: EFTA00584371 - Apgar Ambulance invoice, $50,684 paid in full

• Kahn researching New Mexico ambulance requirements: EFTA00704362

• Kahn coordinating Little Saint James and New Mexico ambulances: EFTA01789769

• Kahn managing the Little Saint James ambulance in 2019: EFTA02605644

• Brice Gordon payment request involving Kahn: EFTA02607700

• Previous Last Page First reporting: “On the Record, Off the Hook: Darren Indyke Deposition,” March 21, 2026.

• Previous Last Page First reporting: “Ranch Central: What Jeffrey Epstein Was Building in New Mexico While No One Was Looking,” April 26, 2026.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

What Preska Actually Changed

Preska’s order goes back to a protective order first put in place in 2016, while Virginia Giuffre’s defamation case against Maxwell was still active.

That order kept confidential discovery from being shared outside the case. So this is not a new cache of evidence suddenly turning up. It is material that has existed for years, but has remained tied up by an old court order.

Preska’s ruling finally clears the way for the material to come out.

How DOJ Ended Up With the Material

The path from Giuffre’s civil case to the Justice Department is a little messy, but it matters.

In 2016, Judge Robert Sweet barred Giuffre, Maxwell and their lawyers from sharing confidential discovery outside the case, including with the government.

Giuffre and Maxwell settled in 2017.

Then, in late 2018, federal prosecutors began investigating Epstein. As part of that investigation, they subpoenaed Giuffre’s law firm, Boies Schiller Flexner, for discovery that was still covered by the protective order.

The court later modified the order so Boies Schiller could comply with the subpoena, and the material was turned over to prosecutors.

DOJ has had it ever since.

So the records at issue now trace back to discovery from the 2016 civil case that prosecutors obtained through the 2019 subpoena. Whatever comes out, these are not newly taken depositions or fresh witness statements.

Maxwell Tried to Stop the Release

Maxwell raised seven separate arguments against modifying the order. Preska rejected every one.

One of the biggest issues was grand jury secrecy.

Federal law normally puts strict limits on releasing material tied to grand jury proceedings. Preska acknowledged that those rules clash pretty directly with what the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires.

She ultimately found that the Act controls because Congress passed it later and specifically included Maxwell’s case.

Two other judges in the same courthouse had already reached the same basic conclusion in separate Epstein-related unsealing fights.

Maxwell also argued that the law violates separation of powers, forces courts to reopen closed cases and denies her due process. Preska rejected those arguments as well.

A big part of her reasoning was simple: the 2016 protective order was never untouchable. It expressly allowed the court to modify it for good cause.

How Much of This Could Actually Be New?

This is one of the more interesting parts of the ruling.

Preska found that the government had shown both a compelling need and extraordinary circumstances to justify modifying the protective order.

But the reasoning behind that is worth a closer look.

She pointed to how much information about Epstein and Maxwell is already public through earlier unsealing orders and Maxwell’s criminal trial. In her view, that leaves Maxwell with very little privacy interest left to protect.

What the opinion does not tell us is how much of this batch we have already seen in some form.

Some of it may turn out to be duplicative. Or Preska may simply be saying that, after years of litigation, unsealing and a criminal trial, Maxwell has very little privacy interest left even where specific records have never been made public.

We will not know which until the material is actually released.

A Separate Fight Over the Redactions

The order also dealt with a separate request from Florida resident George Poncy Jr., who wanted to intervene before the records were released.

Poncy asked the court to independently review DOJ’s redactions rather than leave that process entirely to the government.

Preska denied the request. She found that the Miami Herald and Giuffre’s estate were already in a position to push back against unnecessary secrecy, and that bringing in another party at this stage could slow the process down.

So that fight is over for now. DOJ’s redactions will not get the extra layer of court review Poncy was asking for.

What Happens Next

Nothing covered by this order has been released yet, and Preska did not set a release date.

There is one deadline to watch. By August 28, the parties and the Miami Herald have to file a joint letter telling the court how they think the remaining sealed material should be handled.

That filing should give us a better sense of what is still unresolved and what could come next.

If the releases under the Epstein Files Transparency Act so far are any indication, this probably will not land as one giant document dump. DOJ has been releasing material in batches, and there is no reason yet to expect this one to be different.

For now, Preska’s order removes another barrier. The bigger question is what the records themselves actually show once they are released.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-CV-07433, Opinion and Order, Docket 1367 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2026)

Epstein Files Transparency Act, Pub. L. No. 119-38, 139 Stat. 656 (Nov. 19, 2025)

Related Reporting

Jana - Leah Saffian: Maxwell’s Lawyer, the Habeas Petition, and the Public Record

Jana - Samantha Harris Said Maxwell’s Lawyer Coached Her. Here’s What Checks Out

Jana - Leah Saffian: The Maxwell Family’s 35-Year Fixer

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Prosecutors subpoenaed the gym and got no response. They later said they stopped pursuing the coach because they didn’t have jurisdiction. The information was later forwarded to an FBI agent working child exploitation and human trafficking cases.

What happened after that is much harder to find.

The memo, EFTA00156644-EFTA00156653, records a June 2023 call between a federal prosecutor and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. It summarizes an earlier DANY interview with a woman identified by the initials AW, who said she was brought into Epstein’s circle around 2001 or 2002, when she was 17 years old.

I found this memo through Russell at Wheelz of Steel, who flagged it while going through the files.

The Virginia Lead

According to the memo, AW told investigators that a coach at her gymnastics, cheer and dance program in Northern Virginia, a woman she knew as “Mary,” introduced her to Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein through what was described as an “apprenticeship program.” AW said Mary told her to sit on Epstein’s lap while she and Maxwell watched movies. She also said Epstein later flew her to Palm Beach, St. Thomas and New York.

On one trip, AW said Mary’s partner drove her from Virginia to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. There, according to the memo, Epstein introduced her to Leon Black and told her she would give him a massage. AW alleged that Black then assaulted her badly enough that she needed medical attention.

Investigators ran a background search on the woman AW knew as Mary. The memo lists her as Mary Small, with several other names associated with the search: Combs, Petit, Smalls and Fleming. It gives a June 1964 birth date, a phone number and a last known address in Midland, Virginia. Her partner is identified as Edward Charles Small.

The same search placed Mary in Vienna, Virginia and returned “Vienna Youth Inc.” as the name associated with the dance gym.

The memo doesn’t tell us exactly how Mary Small was connected to Vienna Youth Inc., how long that connection lasted, or whether she had anything to do with the organization after the period AW described. Nothing in the record ties the people involved with Vienna Youth Inc. today to these allegations.

What Investigators Did

DANY took a few steps, but the lead doesn’t appear to have gone very far.

The gym was subpoenaed and, according to the memo, never responded. The subpoena was still open when the notes were written. Investigators also tried to get phone records tied either to Mary Small or to the phone AW said Mary had given her, but they were unable to obtain them.

The memo does not say that anyone compelled a response from the gym, issued another subpoena, or brought any charge over the lack of response.

As for Mary herself, the memo says DANY “didn’t push on Mary because they didn’t have jurisdiction.”

The same notes say Edward Small drove AW “over state lines” from Virginia to New York, putting at least part of what she described outside Manhattan.

What Happened After

Two days later, an SDNY prosecutor forwarded the information to an FBI agent working child exploitation and human trafficking cases. The prosecutor noted that AW had identified other possible traffickers and said they wanted to do more due diligence before deciding what to do next.

The FBI agent replied, and a call was arranged.

After that, the public record goes quiet.

Did the FBI open an investigation into Mary or Edward Small? Did anyone go back to the gym after the unanswered subpoena? Were other girls who trained under the same coach ever identified or interviewed? Did anyone ever establish whether Mary had introduced other young women to Epstein or Maxwell?

The released files don’t answer any of that.

AW’s allegations involving Leon Black later became part of public litigation and reporting. The Virginia recruitment lead has received far less attention.

AW said her path into Epstein’s world began with a coach she knew through a youth program in Virginia. Manhattan prosecutors stopped pushing on Mary because they said they lacked jurisdiction. SDNY then forwarded the information to the FBI.

What, if anything, happened after that is still unclear.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

EFTA00156644

Reuters, “Billionaire Leon Black is accused in lawsuit of raping autistic girl,” Nov. 29, 2022

Russell / Wheelz of Steel, “USANYS Email Correspondence…” - source that first brought EFTA00156644 to my attention.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal Monday in Katie Phang’s lawsuit over the Epstein files, while another dispute over DOJ’s compliance with Sullivan’s order is still unfolding.

There’s already been some confusion over what was actually due this week, so the timing is worth clearing up.

August 25 was not a production deadline ordered by Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Phang’s lawyers had asked him to make it one. In a proposed order filed August 20, they asked Sullivan to require Attorney General Todd Blanche to turn over four sets of handwritten FBI interview notes for the court’s review by 3 p.m. today. They also asked for a sworn declaration explaining the status of the redaction log required under the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Sullivan did not sign that proposed order.

Instead, on August 21, he gave DOJ until August 27 to respond to the dispute over the handwritten notes. Phang has until September 3 to reply.

Then, on Monday, DOJ filed its notice of appeal.

The department called it a “protective notice of appeal.” That wording is worth noting. Monday was also the end of the government’s 60-day window to preserve an appeal from Sullivan’s June 25 preliminary injunction.

Sullivan is also still pressing DOJ over compliance with that same order.

He granted Phang’s request for a preliminary injunction on June 25 after finding she was likely to succeed on her claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. The order required DOJ to either produce a specific set of Epstein-related records or explain why they could still be withheld.

Those records were not some vague request for “the Epstein files.” Sullivan’s order identified them specifically: email exchanges with names unredacted, DOJ records containing alleged potential co-conspirator names, the handwritten FBI notes behind four FD-302 interview reports, previously unreviewed foreign-language material, and the redaction log required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

The handwritten notes are now one of the main fights in the case.

DOJ says they don’t need to be released because the information is already captured in the formal FBI interview reports. Phang pushed back with examples of handwritten FBI notes that had already appeared in DOJ’s own Epstein releases.

Sullivan has now ordered DOJ to respond to that issue by Thursday.

Then there is the redaction log.

Congress required DOJ to account for what it withheld and why. Months later, Phang is still asking the court to make the department produce it.

By the August 13 hearing, Sullivan’s patience was wearing thin.

When DOJ attorney Andrew Block said the log was forthcoming, Sullivan replied, “Christmas is forthcoming.”

He also reminded DOJ lawyers that he has held government attorneys in contempt before.

“That’s not a threat,” Sullivan said. “It’s a promise.”

DOJ preserved its right to challenge the June order on Monday. On Thursday, it still has to answer him about the FBI notes. The redaction log is still unresolved too.

This law was supposed to force disclosure of the Epstein records. Months later, DOJ is still in court over records that haven’t been produced, redactions it still has to explain, and handwritten FBI notes it says the public does not need to see.

Now the same records dispute is moving through two courts at once.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

DOJ notice of appeal, filed Aug. 24, 2026, Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417

Phang’s Aug. 20, 2026 proposed order requesting production of the FBI interview notes by Aug. 25, Phang v. Blanche

Sullivan’s June 25, 2026 order granting a preliminary injunction, Phang v. Blanche.

Sullivan’s Aug. 21, 2026 minute order, Phang v. Blanche

CourtListener docket for Phang v. Blanche, No. 1:26-cv-01417

Courthouse News Service, reporting on the Aug. 13 status hearing and Sullivan’s questions about the FBI notes, redactions and DOJ’s compliance.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Stephen Miller was one of the people driving the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation push.

At the same time, he held a sizable stake in Palantir, a company already doing major work for ICE.

The holding appears in Miller’s own federal financial disclosure.

The Disclosure

In mid-March, Miller filed a federal financial disclosure that was approved by a White House ethics official in early June. It listed between $100,001 and $250,000 in Palantir Technologies stock.

The shares were held in a brokerage account for one of his young children. But under federal ethics rules, it still counts as his financial interest. The Office of Government Ethics counts a minor child’s financial interests as the employee’s own.

His January 2021 disclosure, filed when he left the first Trump administration, does not list any Palantir holdings.

The Palantir stake appears to have been acquired sometime between Miller’s first and second terms, while he was also planning a much broader and more aggressive immigration enforcement push for a possible second Trump administration.

What Palantir Was Doing At The Same Time

While Miller held the stock, Palantir won a $30 million no-bid contract to build ImmigrationOS for ICE. ICE said the system would provide “near real-time visibility” into self-deportations and help decide where agents and resources were sent. The agency has also called Palantir’s work “mission critical.”

Palantir’s business was growing quickly at the same time. Its Q1 2025 investor presentation showed U.S. government revenue up 45 percent from a year earlier. By June, its stock had gained more than 80 percent for the year, putting it near the top of the S&P 500.

In May 2026, ICE gave Palantir another contract, this one worth about $86.3 million, for case management, analytics and modernization work tied to Enforcement and Removal Operations. It is set to continue until May 2027.

What Ethics Experts Said

Don Fox, a former acting head and general counsel of the Office of Government Ethics, told POGO the setup could create a real conflict.

“He could easily become involved in policy matters that have a direct and predictable impact on Palantir,” Fox said.

His example was simple. Miller could be in a meeting with DHS officials talking about expanding data analytics while knowing Palantir could benefit. Fox said his advice to senior White House staff in that position was to avoid individual stocks altogether.

Virginia Canter, chief counsel for ethics and anticorruption at the Democracy Defenders Fund and a former federal attorney, was even more direct.

“If he hasn’t stepped over the line, he’s just on the verge of it,” she told POGO. “I just don’t think anybody would be comfortable with him keeping this stock.”

The White House said Miller had recused, and would continue to recuse, from official matters that could affect the individual stocks he owned.

Miller Wasn’t Alone

Miller was not the only Trump administration official with Palantir stock.

His senior policy advisor, Kara Frederick, disclosed between $50,001 and $100,000 in shares.

Gregory Barbaccia, the federal Chief Information Officer and a former Palantir employee, also disclosed stock in the company.

At DHS, Deputy Secretary Troy Edgar and Under Secretary Robert Law both disclosed Palantir holdings and agreed to sell them.

Others held smaller stakes. White House liaison Paul Ingrassia reported between $1,001 and $15,000 in Palantir stock. Before joining the administration, he had written on his Substack that Palantir CEO Alex Karp thrives “on cheap labor.”

DHS special assistant Zachariah Hoag also disclosed Palantir stock. When POGO reported on the holdings, it was still unclear whether he planned to sell his shares.

Republicans Were Asking Questions Too

The pushback over Palantir was not just coming from Democrats or outside watchdog groups.

Republican Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio called the administration’s data consolidation effort “dangerous.”

“When you start combining all those data points on an individual into one database, it really essentially creates a digital ID,” Davidson told Semafor. “And it’s a power that history says will eventually be abused.”

Davidson said he wanted to “turn it off.” He was not the only Republican raising concerns. Thomas Massie said the reports “sound bad,” and Nancy Mace said she had “a lot of questions” about Palantir’s work inside the administration.

Steve Bannon was critical too.

“Some of the Palantir stuff that’s going up now, the MAGA base is not happy,” he told Chuck Todd.

Todd asked how Bannon would react if a Democratic administration were doing the same thing. Bannon said his War Room show would probably be leading with it every day.

What Happened Next

On August 14, 2025, Miller and his family sold more than $1 million worth of stock, including the Palantir shares.

The sale came less than two months after POGO reported on Miller’s Palantir stake and the ethics questions around it. A later disclosure showed the family also sold holdings in Amazon, GE Aerospace, Microsoft and several other companies.

The White House told NOTUS that Miller sold the stocks after receiving guidance from the Office of Government Ethics and White House counsel. It also said there were “no conflicts.”

The Oversight Gap

Representative James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, bought between $1,001 and $15,000 in Palantir stock on January 21, 2025, the day after Trump’s inauguration. His transaction report also shows a purchase of Marvell Technology stock that same day.

As chairman, Comer has subpoena power that Democratic lawmakers do not currently have. Democrats have asked Palantir for information, but without control of the committee they cannot force the company to turn records over.

In April, American Oversight sued DHS, ICE and several other agencies for records on how they were using Palantir, including contracts, internal communications and policies governing access to sensitive personal data.

Reuters reported in August that House Democrats were also looking at Palantir as a possible target for investigation if they win control of the House in November.

Palantir did not respond to POGO’s original request for comment on the stock holdings.

What We Know

There are plenty of bigger Palantir stories out there. This one is simpler.

Miller’s stock holding is in his own disclosure. The ICE contract is public. Palantir published the revenue figures itself. The ethics questions came from people who have worked with federal conflict-of-interest rules for years.

Then Miller got ethics guidance and sold the shares.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

POGO Investigates: Stephen Miller’s Financial Stake in ICE Contractor Palantir, June 24, 2025

Stephen Miller OGE-278 financial disclosure, 2025

Stephen Miller OGE-278 financial disclosure, January 2021

Kara Frederick OGE-278 financial disclosure

Gregory Barbaccia OGE-278 financial disclosure

Paul Ingrassia OGE-278E financial disclosure

ICE ImmigrationOS contract justification

Palantir Q1 2025 Investor Presentation (PDF)

USAspending: ICE award to Palantir for Enforcement and Removal Operations modernization, May 2026

NOTUS: Stephen Miller Dumps Defense Contractor Stocks to Comply With Ethics Laws

Semafor: Trump’s Palantir data push alarms Republicans on Capitol Hill

James Comer Periodic Transaction Report, House of Representatives

American Oversight: Lawsuit seeking DHS, ICE and other agency records on Palantir systems, April 2026

Reuters: Democrats plan Trump investigations if they win the House, including possible scrutiny of Palantir, August 2026

Office of Government Ethics guidance on financial interests of spouses and minor children

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

July 12, 2026 came and went. That was the expiration date for two federal radio licenses connecting Jeffrey Epstein’s Zorro Ranch to a mountaintop relay station above Albuquerque. Ten years were up, but nobody renewed them. Nobody cancelled them either. As of this writing, both are still sitting in the FCC’s public database marked Active.

I didn’t uncover the network. Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez identified it earlier this year, and Greg Olear later wrote about the same licenses. They deserve the credit for surfacing it. I wanted to know what had happened since.

On August 17, I pulled both records through the FCC’s Universal Licensing System. WQXY300 and WQXY316 were still listed as active, more than a month after their July 12 expiration date. There was no renewal application. No cancellation either.

The only new paperwork on either record since the licenses were granted in 2016 was an automated renewal reminder the FCC sent on April 20. No response is logged.

That stands out because Donald and Mary Catherine Huffines, who bought the ranch through San Rafael Ranch LLC in 2023, have cancelled several other FCC licenses tied to the property. These two were left alone.

And lately, that kind of loose end has become familiar at Zorro Ranch.

Start with the memorial outside the gate. A roadside descanso for Epstein’s victims has been torn down five times this year, according to activist Lisa Christopherson. No one has been charged, and no one seems to know who keeps doing it. When a Santa Fe County Sheriff’s investigator went to the ranch in May to ask about the damage, ranch manager Claudia Rulla denied anyone there was involved. She suggested the wind may have been responsible.

Investigators also asked about the surveillance cameras at the gate. Rulla said there was no footage to hand over because the cameras “currently do not have memory cards installed and are only capable of providing a live feed.” Then, in June, Jenna Farrester photographed a bulldozer near the memorial site during the same week the crosses disappeared. What it was doing there, or whether it had anything to do with the memorial, has never been explained.

And then there’s the exorcism.

In a July Newsmax segment, Devin Huffines, one of Don Huffines’s five children, said the family brought in a Latin Mass priest from Ohio who spent three days “exorcising every bit of the property.”

“We’re devout Roman Catholics,” he said. “The spiritual aspect of this is real for us, demons and devils.”

Devin Huffines described the exorcism himself on television, and the Santa Fe New Mexican later reported on it as well. What remains unclear is why the family felt the property needed three full days of it in the first place.

The oddities are not limited to the spiritual side of things.

In January, Santa Fe County and state regulators ordered the family to stop construction on a new front gate after crews began building without the required permit. The project included concrete turrets and an arch reading “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO COME IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.”

The Huffines family has said it wants to turn the property into a Christian retreat. But as of this spring, the county said it still had not received the permit application required to actually operate one. Huffines has said the work is still “ongoing.”

Then the questions get bigger.

On August 5, New Mexico’s bipartisan Truth Commission released a 119-page interim report confirming five victims and identifying thirty more. Even lawmakers involved admitted it “did not break new ground.” What it did show, though, was that the commission and Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office still had not worked out how to share information with each other.

That same day, Torrez sued the U.S. Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche over records his office says it needs to investigate what happened at Zorro Ranch. According to Torrez, the ranch appears more than 13,000 times across the released Epstein files. New Mexico says DOJ has provided just 31 pages.

The Justice Department says the restrictions are necessary to protect victim-identifying information covered by a Southern District of New York protective order. Torrez calls it stonewalling.

The fight has now reached Congress. Last week, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Ben Ray Lujan, that would give state attorneys general a way to go to court when federal agencies refuse to hand over records needed for an investigation.

At this point, New Mexico is not trying to establish whether Zorro Ranch is in the federal record. That part is already clear.

The question is why a place that shows up more than 13,000 times in the files has resulted in New Mexico getting just 31 pages.

A camera without a memory card does not explain why two expired microwave licenses are still marked active. A three-day exorcism does not explain why New Mexico says it received 31 pages when Zorro Ranch appears more than 13,000 times in federal records. A bulldozer near a destroyed memorial does not explain an FCC filing.

But the same thing keeps happening.

The licenses expire, but stay active. The memorial keeps disappearing, but nobody is charged. The cameras are there, but apparently not recording. State investigators say they cannot get the records they need. Federal officials say they cannot provide them.

You keep getting right up to the point where there should be an answer.

And then there isn’t one.

None of that proves some grand theory.

It leaves one very simple question hanging over Zorro Ranch:

Why does almost everything about this place seem to come with an explanation missing?

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, “Breaking News Exclusive: Epstein’s Zorro Ranch Had a Massive Spy-Grade Private Communications Network” March 22, 2026

Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, “Epstein’s Microwave Radio Towers, Part Two” May 12, 2026

Greg Olear, “Infrequently Asked Questions About Jeffrey Epstein, Appendix A” March 31, 2026

FCC ULS License Search, live lookup for WQXY300 / WQXY316

Santa Fe New Mexican, “As memorial outside Zorro Ranch is destroyed and rebuilt, advocates look for solution” Aug. 17, 2026

Santa Fe New Mexican, “New owners had Epstein’s Zorro Ranch exorcised by Catholic priest” Aug. 2026

Santa Fe New Mexican, “Owners of former Zorro Ranch ordered to stop construction due to lack of permits” Feb. 26, 2026

Taos News, “Plans confirmed for Epstein’s ranch” April 16, 2026

CNN, “Investigations into Epstein’s mysterious New Mexico ranch add pressure on the Justice Department” Aug. 5, 2026

ABC News, “New Mexico attorney general sues DOJ over Epstein files he says are needed for state probe” Aug. 2026

Source New Mexico, “US Rep. Leger Fernandez, NM attorney general announce proposal aimed at unreleased Epstein files” Aug. 12, 2026

New Mexico Department of Justice, press release on the federal lawsuit - Aug. 5, 2026

Jana, “Zorro Ranch: What We Know, What We Don’t, And What’s Next” July 9, 2026

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Part One.

Seven years ago, a woman told the FBI that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump when she was between 13 and 15, and that Trump assaulted her. The FBI interviewed her four times. For months, only one of those interview summaries was public. DOJ later released the others, but the handwritten notes from those interviews and other related records remain withheld.

That is easy to lose sight of now that the leak has become the focus. There is already a documented record: four FBI interviews, records missing from earlier releases, handwritten notes DOJ still has not produced, a member of Congress who reviewed the unredacted material, reporters who saw the original notes, and an active court fight over their release.

What follows is an attempt to separate those pieces out: what is documented, what remains missing, what reporters who saw the real notes found, what Congress learned, what is happening in court, and where the leaked pages actually fit.

The leak is getting most of the attention right now. It is not the most important part of the story.

The Files That Weren’t There

In February 2026, New York Times reporters Mike Baker and Michael Gold examined the serial numbers on the Epstein files DOJ had released and found that more than 50 pages of investigative material tied to this woman’s claims were missing. The gap had already been flagged by independent journalist Roger Sollenberger and by NPR. At the time, of the woman’s four FBI interviews, only the one describing her allegations against Epstein had been made public. The other three, including interviews involving her allegations about Trump, were missing.

This was not just something being raised by outside reporters. Representative Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, went to the Justice Department and reviewed the unredacted files himself. He said the interview summaries tied to her claim were missing even there. “Documents that are listed, which should be included, which are referenced in other documents, are not in the files,” he said. Democrats later announced a separate investigation into why.

Credit where it’s due: Sollenberger reported the existence of the four interviews and DOJ’s withholding of related records before the Times examined the serial-number gaps. His reporting helped establish the paper trail this story now rests on.

DOJ later released the additional interview summaries. The handwritten agent notes and other related records are what remain at issue now.

DOJ’s Explanations Keep Changing

Sollenberger found an internal FBI email dated July 22, 2025, now hosted in the government’s own Epstein files archive. It says that “one identified victim claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” That is not a leak or a secondhand account. It is an FBI email released by DOJ itself.

Separately, a DOJ source told Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown that investigators considered the woman credible enough to interview her four times, saying they “would not have interviewed her four times if they thought she was lying.” That is not an official DOJ finding, but it adds important context to how seriously investigators appear to have treated her account.

There is also evidence that records from those interviews existed beyond the summaries now available to the public.

Sollenberger reported on a case index showing that all four interviews existed and had previously been provided to Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense team. After he reported on the index, it disappeared from DOJ’s public site. It was later restored. According to his reporting, the restored version was identical to the one that had been removed, with no apparent changes to the redactions.

Another referenced file remains missing altogether: an Excel spreadsheet titled “Updated_Case_Index_-50D-NY3027571-_UNREDACTED.xlsx.” FBI emails released by DOJ identify it as an attachment, but the spreadsheet itself was not included in the public release.

DOJ’s explanations for what remains withheld have shifted.

The department initially told the New York Times that “the only materials that have been withheld were either privileged or duplicates.” But months earlier, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York had told a federal judge that FBI files created before the Maxwell case “were not themselves produced under the Protective Order, and thus are not Maxwell Protective Order Discovery Materials.”

That does not eliminate the possibility of another legal basis for withholding them. It does, however, make the “duplicate” explanation less straightforward.

DOJ later cited “an ongoing federal investigation” as another reason material remained withheld. The department has also said that some information submitted to the FBI contained “untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump,” describing those claims as “unfounded and false.” It has not made clear whether that statement referred specifically to this woman’s allegations.

None of those explanations fully answers why the handwritten interview notes and related records remain unavailable.

And that matters because the Epstein Files Transparency Act places limits on what DOJ can withhold.

It does permit DOJ to redact or withhold certain categories of material, including victim-identifying information, child sexual abuse material, classified information, and material whose release could jeopardize an active federal investigation or prosecution.

The unresolved question is which of those exceptions DOJ believes applies here.

That issue has already reached federal court.

In June, ruling in Katie Phang’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan found that she was likely to succeed on claims that DOJ had violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Her challenge included DOJ’s failure to release the underlying FBI notes from the four interviews, subject to appropriate redactions protecting victim information.

DOJ largely responded with jurisdictional arguments rather than defending the withholding decisions on the merits. Sullivan concluded that, for purposes of the preliminary-injunction motion, the government had effectively conceded those arguments by failing to answer them.

So the question is no longer simply why the records are missing. A federal judge has already found, at least at this stage of the case, that DOJ is likely violating the law by continuing to withhold some of them.

Share

What Was Already Known, and What the Notes Add

A version of her account was already in the files DOJ released. A 2025 internal memo, written before the current fight over the handwritten notes, described her allegation that Epstein introduced her to Trump and that Trump assaulted her in the mid-1980s, when she was between 13 and 15. The New York Times described the alleged encounter as “violent and lurid.” The released files do not include an FBI conclusion about whether her account was substantiated.

Her first FBI interview, on July 24, 2019, focused mostly on Epstein. She described being asked to babysit at a house on Hilton Head Island, arriving to find there were no children there, and meeting a man she knew only as Jeff. She told agents he gave her alcohol, marijuana and cocaine and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions. The Post and Courier later matched a number of details from that account to public records. She also filed a lawsuit against Epstein’s estate and later withdrew it. Court records do not show whether she received a settlement. A separate 2021 court filing states that she was found ineligible for the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program, but does not explain why.

She told the FBI that she did not realize the man she knew as Jeff was Jeffrey Epstein until 2019, when a friend sent her a photograph and she recognized him. She also had a widely circulated photo of Epstein standing with Trump on her phone. She allowed agents to photograph it, but asked them to crop Trump out. According to her lawyer, she was afraid of implicating other well-known people because she feared retaliation.

That happened before the leaked pages, before Reddit, and before the current fight over authenticity. Whatever the withheld handwritten notes ultimately show, the fear she described to investigators was already part of the record.

What a Reporter Who Saw the Real Notes Found

In March, before the leaked pages began circulating online, journalist Jacqueline Sweet reviewed the real, unredacted handwritten notes and reported on them for the New York Post. She wrote that there was “no evidence” the woman had ever met Epstein or Trump, and she spoke with a childhood friend who disputed part of the woman’s account. Sweet also wrote that the handwritten notes largely matched FBI interview summaries that were already public, with only a small amount of new information.

That gives us a look at the actual notes from someone who saw them months before the current leak.

Sweet also reported that the notes contain the woman’s allegation that Epstein took her to a building in New York or New Jersey where Trump forced her to perform oral sex and she bit him. But that allegation itself was not new. A version of it was already contained in FBI material released by the government.

What the Post and Courier Found

The Post and Courier independently reviewed 30 pages of the handwritten notes and matched around sixteen details from the woman’s account to outside records, including her family’s move to Hilton Head and details surrounding the babysitting story. The paper also identified another man mentioned in her account through public records.

Its reporters said the handwritten notes contained witness names and other details that were not included in the FBI summaries released publicly. At least one woman named as a possible witness told the paper the FBI never contacted her. That suggests at least some of the withheld material contained information beyond what appeared in those summaries.

The Post and Courier was able to verify parts of the woman’s background and account through independent records. Its reporting did not independently establish what happened in the alleged encounter involving Trump.

A Separate, Unrelated Development: The Settlement Question

Separate from the leak, Representatives Robert Garcia and Ro Khanna sent a formal letter in March to an attorney representing Epstein estate co-executor Richard Kahn after Kahn gave conflicting testimony about whether Jane Doe 4 had received a settlement from the estate.

During his deposition, Kahn initially confirmed, in response to a question from Khanna, that she had received one. Later in the same deposition, after consulting with his attorney, Kahn’s counsel said that answer had been mistaken.

Garcia and Khanna’s letter asked that the record be formally corrected.

The Leaked Pages Are Still Unverified

On August 19, a journalist published 22 pages she said were leaked copies of the withheld handwritten notes. She later removed them after raising concerns about their authenticity, then reposted them after further review, saying she felt “almost sure” they were real.

That still falls short of independent authentication.

Questions remain about the handwriting and formatting of the leaked pages. One person who had previously seen the original notes reportedly questioned whether the handwriting matched what they remembered. Separate researchers have also pointed to differences in file-number formatting and spacing.

Katie Phang has likewise stopped short of treating the leaked pages as authenticated. In her latest public statement specifically addressing them, she said there were still “concerns and questions about their authenticity” and that she was trying to have them vetted by sources who could verify them.

There is also uncertainty about how the pages entered public circulation. Reporting has suggested that a version may have been uploaded through a Washington Examiner document-hosting account and later described as an inadvertent posting. I have not independently verified that account, so I am treating it as another unresolved part of the story rather than a settled explanation.

For now, the leaked pages remain unverified against the withheld originals.

That distinction matters because the court fight is over the actual government records, not leaked copies whose provenance is still uncertain. Judge Emmet Sullivan has already found, at this stage of Katie Phang’s case, that she is likely to succeed on claims that DOJ violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding some of those records.

So the leak does not resolve the authenticity question. The cleanest answer still depends on the originals: whether DOJ produces the handwritten notes, and whether they match the pages now circulating online.

What to Watch Next

Katie Phang’s legal team has submitted a proposed order asking Judge Emmet Sullivan to require DOJ to produce the withheld handwritten FBI notes to the court by August 25. That date is a requested deadline, not one the judge has imposed.

If Sullivan grants the request, the originals could provide the clearest way to determine whether the leaked pages are genuine.

If the notes remain withheld, the focus stays on the court fight and DOJ’s explanation for why they have not been produced.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

Mike Baker and Michael Gold, with Julie Tate and Dylan Freedman, “Epstein Files Are Missing Records About Woman Who Made Claim Against Trump,” The New York Times, Feb. 25, 2026. Print edition: “Epstein Records Omit Full Claim Against Trump,” Feb. 26, 2026, Section A, Page 1.

Roger Sollenberger, “On Trump Accuser Files, DOJ Establishes Pattern of Obstruction”, March 11, 2026.

FBI internal email, July 22, 2025: EFTA00161528.pdf.

FBI email chains referencing the missing case index spreadsheet: EFTA01684202.pdf and EFTA01684203.pdf.

Julie K. Brown, reporting for the Miami Herald on what a DOJ source said about the woman’s credibility.

Jacqueline Sweet, “What’s really in the 37 ‘missing’ pages of the Epstein files that lawmakers are seeking”, New York Post, March 24, 2026.

The Post and Courier, March 2026 reporting based on its review of the handwritten FBI notes and public records connected to Jane Doe 4’s account.

Rep. Robert Garcia, House Oversight Committee, public comments after reviewing the unredacted Epstein material at DOJ.

Katie Phang, Bluesky statement raising questions about the authenticity of the leaked handwritten notes, August 2026.

Ellie Leonard, “Update on Leaked Notes”, The Panicked Writer, August 2026.

Independent August 2026 analysis comparing the leaked pages’ file-number formatting and other features with previously released FBI records.

Phang v. Blanche, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, docket and filings, through Aug. 20, 2026.

Independent reporting on the possible Washington Examiner / Scribd origin of the leaked Jane Doe 4 notes, August 2026. I have not independently verified that account.

LPF, Katie Johnson and Jane Doe 4: The Two Cases the Internet Collapsed Into One
LPF, Ed Opperman: The Investigator Behind Katie Johnson Who Couldn’t Keep His Story Straight

LPF, Jane Doe 4 and the Epstein Files: The Leaked FBI Notes Nobody Could Verify

Rye Howard-Stone, “The Receipts: Everything That Didn’t Fit in the Deese Story,” Document Zero, August 23, 2026.

Amy Gabrielle, “What I Found in the Epstein Files Scares Me,” Absolute Pleasure, August 18, 2026. Gabrielle herself cautioned that she could not authenticate the handwritten material she located.

Rep. Ted Lieu, February 25, 2026 statement and letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, challenging DOJ’s handling of evidence in the Epstein files.

Reps. Robert Garcia and Ro Khanna, March 13, 2026 letter regarding Richard Kahn’s deposition testimony and Jane Doe 4. The letter documents how Kahn initially said Jane Doe 4 received a settlement, followed by multiple subsequent changes or qualifications to that answer.

Nina Burleigh and Katie Chenoweth, “Protect Source,” American Freakshow, February 2026. Their reporting identified gaps in the released case materials, including the case index showing multiple interviews associated with the same protected source.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Part 2 with updates.

Before this piece was published, the journalist who posted the leaked notes pulled them from her own platforms. She wrote that she was “working hard to verify” them, that they “may be part of a disinfo campaign,” and that she was “putting the brakes on everything” until more was known.

That came after a federal judge had already warned the Justice Department in open court that he had held government lawyers in contempt before and was willing to do it again. Six days later, an independent journalist published 22 pages of handwritten notes she said were leaked copies of records DOJ is still withholding.

So the basic question is: what in this leak was ever actually verified?

What We Actually Know

Jane Doe 4 told the FBI in four interviews in 2019 that Jeffrey Epstein abused her on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, beginning around 1983, and that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her when she was between 13 and 15.

Those interviews are part of the FBI record. DOJ released them in stages this year, with the final batch coming out on March 5. What it did not release were the handwritten notes taken by the interviewing agents, along with roughly 37 pages tied to her file.

Those are the records now being fought over in federal court.

Correction, added August 23: An earlier version of this section included a document (EFTA02748206) captioned as involving “Jane Doe 4” from a 2009 discovery order. That document is from Doe v. Epstein, a 2008 civil case in the Southern District of Florida, and concerns a different woman who was assigned the same generic “Jane Doe 4” label in an unrelated lawsuit. It has been removed, since it has nothing to do with the Hilton Head woman this piece is about. Thank you to a reader for catching this.

At an August 13 status hearing in Phang v. Blanche, a DOJ lawyer could not give the court a date for producing the notes. Judge Emmet Sullivan brought up the Ted Stevens case and reminded the lawyers that he had held government attorneys in contempt before for withholding information. He said he had no desire to go down that road again, but made clear he was willing to enforce the court’s orders.

Sullivan then gave Phang’s legal team ten days to propose how the case should move forward. Separately, her lawyers have asked the court to hold Blanche in contempt and impose a $1,000-a-day fine until he complies. That fine has been requested, not granted.

Phang’s attorney, Brendan Ballou, was blunt after the hearing. He said Blanche had “failed to follow the law,” pointing to DOJ’s failure to produce the required redaction log, begin producing foreign-language documents and turn over the notes concerning Trump.

DOJ has defended its handling of some of the material, saying it remains focused on protecting victim privacy.

The underlying story was already serious. There are FBI interviews, records DOJ still has not produced and a federal court fight over getting them released.

None of that needed an anonymous Reddit leak to make it worth reporting.

The Leak Nobody Could Actually Verify

On August 19, a journalist published 22 pages of handwritten notes she said had leaked to her. By her own account, the first batch came through an anonymous tip pointing to a Reddit thread. A second batch arrived through a private message.

The authentication came down to one phone call.

The source she contacted had seen the real missing notes once, briefly, in a supervised setting, and had not been allowed to photograph them. The source told her the leaked pages felt legitimate, but also said the handwriting did not match what they remembered and that a name they specifically recalled seeing in the real notes was missing.

That should have been enough to keep digging before publishing.

Katie Phang did exactly that. She did not post the leaked pages. On Bluesky, she said there were “concerns and questions about their authenticity” and that she was trying to get them vetted by sources who could actually verify them.

Phang’s own lawsuit is the reason these missing records are being fought over in court. She had every reason to want answers about them. She still did not call the leaked pages authentic before she could establish that they were.

Within days, the journalist who published the notes pulled them from her platforms. She wrote that she was “working hard to verify” them, that they “may be part of a disinfo campaign,” and that she was “putting the brakes on everything” until more was known. The Reddit thread the pages were said to have come from is also gone.

No government agency authenticated them. No court authenticated them. And no independent news outlet had shown they were the missing FBI notes before they were published to a large audience.

A researcher has said that related material appeared on Scribd under a pseudonym before it reached Reddit. That may help explain how the files traveled online. It does not tell us who created them or whether they are genuine.

If you are publishing purportedly leaked FBI records involving a survivor, allegations of sexual abuse and the sitting president, “it looks right” is not verification. A source remembering something similar is not verification either.

The person who published them ultimately decided there were enough questions to pull them herself.

A Wrong Name Is Not a Small Error

You can already see the danger of getting ahead of the evidence with one name: “Jim Atkins.”

Jane Doe 4’s FBI material refers to a man by that name and describes ties to Ohio, a university or college, and the survivor’s mother.

The Post and Courier later dug through public records and matched roughly sixteen details from her interviews. Its reporting pointed to Jimmy L. Atkins, a Hilton Head real estate figure who also had ties to a for-profit college in Ohio.

That identification is backed by substantially more reporting and records. It is still not the same thing as the FBI or DOJ officially confirming that Jimmy L. Atkins was the man Jane Doe 4 was talking about.

Before that reporting appeared, a different candidate had also been proposed.

You can see how the match happened. Some of the details appeared to fit.

But that is not enough.

So we are left with two public attempts to identify “Jim Atkins.” One is backed by much stronger reporting. The other remains unconfirmed. Neither has been officially confirmed by the government.

And this is where bad verification starts hurting real people.

Once you attach a real person’s name to allegations involving sexual abuse and blackmail, that name travels. Screenshots travel. Search results travel. Other people repeat it.

A correction does not magically pull all of that back.

You cannot treat verification like cleanup after the fact. With allegations this serious, getting the person wrong can drag an uninvolved person into an abuse story while doing absolutely nothing to help the survivor whose story you were supposed to be reporting.

The Incentive to Be First

None of this happens in a vacuum. The Jane Doe 4 story has been covered again and again by a group of independent journalists and podcasters who regularly appear on each other’s shows and cite each other’s work.

That is not automatically a problem. But it does mean something unverified can move very fast.

An anonymous tip becomes a Reddit post. Then a private message. Then a published story in front of a large audience, sometimes in the span of a night. Once one person puts it out, everyone else is reacting to it, quoting it, trying to identify names and scrambling to figure out what they have before anyone has really established what the document even is.

That is where the rush to be first starts screwing up the reporting.

Who leaked these pages, where they actually came from and whether they were deliberately planted are still open questions. Nobody can responsibly answer those yet.

Guessing does not help Jane Doe 4. It does not make her allegations stronger. It just adds more noise to a story that was already supposed to be about getting the actual records released.

What Matters Now

The real story is not the leak. It is that DOJ has had these notes since 2019 and still has not produced them, amid repeated promises of transparency and a federal judge warning government lawyers about contempt.

If DOJ eventually turns over the missing 37 pages, they can be compared directly with the copies that circulated online. That is what will settle this. Not one phone call. Not a source saying something felt right. Not silence from a lawyer. Not a document going viral before anyone knew where it came from.

Until then, the leaked pages are still unverified pages that were published, spread widely and then pulled by the person who published them.

And this is where the rush to publish starts causing problems.

Jane Doe 4’s allegations already exist in FBI records. There is already a legitimate court fight over material DOJ has not produced. Throwing questionable documents into the middle of that does not help her. It gives people something easier to attack, something easier to dismiss, and another excuse to cast doubt on everything else.

In a story involving a survivor, that kind of mistake can do real damage.

Survivors do not need people racing to be first. They need people willing to verify what they are putting in front of the public.

DOJ still has the records that can actually answer the question.

Those are the records worth waiting for.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

CourtListener docket for Phang v. Blanche

NBC News, “Judge shows signs of frustration with DOJ attorneys over handling of Epstein files”

Newsweek, “Epstein Files Update: Trump’s DOJ Accused of Noncompliance After Hearing”

Forbes, “Will More Epstein Files Come Out? Trump DOJ To Answer For Redactions In Court Today”

Raw Story, “Contempt charges sought after Trump DOJ staffer ‘stumbles’ through Epstein hearing”

Brendan Ballou’s statement following the hearing and DOJ’s response were reported by NBC News.

DOJ / FBI records

U.S. Department of Justice, Jane Doe 4 FBI interview records released in 2026, available through the DOJ Epstein Library and FBI disclosures.

Jane Doe 4 Reporting

The Guardian, “Alleged Epstein victim who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault fears retaliation”, June 30, 2026.

The Post and Courier, “Fuzzy memories and hard facts: An SC accuser’s claims against Epstein, Trump examined”, March 2026, comparing Jane Doe 4’s FBI interviews with public records and identifying a likely candidate for “Jim Atkins.”

AOL, “New Investigation Backs Up Evidence Given by Woman Who Accused Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein…”

The New Republic, “New Details on 13-Year-Old Trump Accuser Revealed in Massive Report”

LPF, Katie Johnson and Jane Doe 4: The Two Cases the Internet Collapsed Into One
LPF, Ed Opperman: The Investigator Behind Katie Johnson Who Couldn’t Keep His Story Straight

LPF, Jane Doe 4 and the Epstein Files: The Leaked FBI Notes Nobody Could Verify

The Disputed Leaked Notes

Katie Phang, public Bluesky statement, August 2026, explaining that she had not published the leaked pages because of concerns about their authenticity and was seeking further verification.

Ellie Leonard, “Update on Leaked Notes”, August 2026, announcing that she had removed the leaked notes while trying to verify them and warning that they could be part of a disinformation campaign.

Independent researcher publications from March 2026 proposing a competing identification for “Jim Atkins.” Those publications are discussed in the piece as unconfirmed identification attempts, not as proof of the man’s identity.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

There is a 32-page handwritten statement in the Epstein files that begins with an explosive accusation.

The letter is dated June 14, 2025, and addressed to a redacted Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.

The writer identifies herself as Phyllis Morris Shaw. On the first page, she writes:

“My testimony places Donald J Trump as a person involved in the sale of young women to the sex trafficking ring of Jeffrey Epstein and Saudis.”

That sentence alone is enough to produce a headline.

Then page two changes the picture.

EFTA01682027 was released by the Department of Justice as part of Data Set 10 of the Epstein files. The document is real, but it contains an allegation sent to federal prosecutors. I have not located an FBI interview, investigative report or prosecutorial finding corroborating its central claims.

Start With the Date

On page two, Shaw tells the prosecutor when she says the events took place:

“This is my testimony of the summer of 1967. My last years of high school. I just completely recovered this memory.”

She writes that her experience in New Jersey was so bad that she told her father and then “deleted it all from memory.” From there, she begins describing what she says was a plan to sell her to Jeffrey Epstein.

There is an immediate question in the timeline.

Jeffrey Epstein was born on January 20, 1953. By the summer of 1967, he was 14 years old.

There is another detail from that summer worth noting. Interlochen Center for the Arts confirms that Epstein attended its Arts Camp in Michigan in the summer of 1967.

That does not tell us where he was every day of that summer or rule out travel elsewhere. But it is another documented part of his 1967 timeline and worth keeping in mind when reading Shaw’s account.

The federal sex-trafficking case brought against Epstein decades later alleged conduct between 2002 and 2005, while the Maxwell prosecution documented a conspiracy involving Epstein and underage girls in the 1990s and early 2000s. Nothing in those cases places an Epstein trafficking operation in 1967.

Donald Trump was born June 14, 1946, so he turned 21 that summer. His age does not raise the same chronological question.

Epstein’s does.

Shaw’s letter does not describe a teenage Jeffrey Epstein. On page four, she writes:

“The plan had not been to get me pregnant and marry me but to sell me to the Epstein bunch through Donald Trump.”

She then alleges that Trump came to the property where she was being held, saw her naked, discussed her pregnancy and whether she could be sold, and referred to Saudi buyers.

That leaves a serious question in the timeline. Shaw places Epstein at the center of what she describes as an already functioning trafficking operation in 1967, when he was 14. The letter does not explain how those pieces fit together.

Pages four and five contain the main allegations involving Trump and what Shaw calls the “Epstein bunch.” She places those events in early summer 1967, when Jeffrey Epstein was 14.

The Most Serious Allegation

On page six, Shaw says that after the proposed deal fell apart, Trump told the men holding her that he did not care what happened to her.

The handwriting immediately before the line is hard to make out, but the passage ends:

“feed her to the fishes. I don’t care what you do with her.”

Shaw then says she was locked in a bedroom without food, water or access to a bathroom.

An EFTA number tells us the document is part of the DOJ release. It does not mean investigators verified everything written inside it.

EFTA01682027 confirms that Shaw’s letter made it into the files. What we still do not know is whether investigators were able to verify any of what she alleged.

The Memory Came Back Nearly Six Decades Later

Shaw is not describing something she wrote down in 1967 and kept for decades. On page two, she says:

“I just completely recovered this memory.”

The letter was written in 2025 about events she says happened in 1967, almost 58 years earlier.

That alone does not tell us what Shaw did or did not experience. People can come forward about traumatic events many years later. But when a memory returns decades later and includes serious allegations against real people, it becomes especially important to look for evidence outside the memory itself.

As the letter goes on, Shaw’s claims also move well beyond the alleged encounter with Trump. She describes cloned phones, someone taking her identity, attempts to fake her death, criminal activity involving members of her family, connections to several law-enforcement agencies, and experiences she describes in supernatural terms.

All of that is part of the same statement. It does not tell us what happened to Shaw, but it does mean the allegations involving Trump and Epstein need to be separated from what can actually be checked and verified.

One Part of Her Story Does Check Out

Shaw identifies George McDevitt’s father as the police chief of Seaside Heights, New Jersey, and that detail checks out.

The Seaside Heights Police Department identifies Joseph P. McDevitt as the town’s second police chief. He was appointed a marshal in 1935 and became chief four years later. The department also records that McDevitt appeared before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1965 to discuss youth drug abuse and prescription medications.

That is a very specific detail, and Shaw got it right. But it only takes us so far. Confirming McDevitt was real does not tell us whether Trump was at the house she describes, and it does not fix the bigger problem in the timeline: Epstein would have been 14 years old.

The Storm Creates Another Question

Shaw also describes a dramatic storm during her escape from Seaside Heights. By her own timeline, she was in New Jersey in early June 1967.

The hurricane recorded along the New Jersey coast that year was Hurricane Doria, but Doria did not develop until September. Environment and Climate Change Canada dates it from September 8 to September 21, 1967, noting minor damage from New Jersey southward and three deaths after a boat sank off Ocean City.

That does not mean Shaw could not have encountered severe weather in June. It just means the storm she describes does not line up with Hurricane Doria, so that part of the story is still something that could be checked against historical weather records.

Then 2025 Enters the Story

On page 25, Shaw connects what she says she remembered about Saudi buyers to something that was in the news while she was writing the letter.

She writes:

“It made me wonder about Trump’s payment of a luxury jet plane. It was given to Trump not the U.S.”

The Qatar aircraft story had broken just weeks earlier. On May 21, the Pentagon confirmed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had formally accepted the aircraft from Qatar and that the Defense Department would handle the modifications needed for presidential use.

Shaw dated her letter June 14.

She is not saying the airplane was part of her 1967 memory. She says remembering the alleged Saudi connection made her think about the plane story that was unfolding at the time.

That does not disprove what she says happened. It does show how firmly the letter sits in 2025, almost six decades after the events she describes, shortly after she says those memories returned, and while the Trump-Qatar plane story was all over the news.

Who Was the Letter Sent To?

We do not know who Shaw actually sent the letter to. The name on the first page is redacted, leaving only the title “Assistant US Attorney” and the SDNY address at 1 Saint Andrews Plaza.

Given the June 2025 date, the recipient would have been someone working inside the Southern District of New York while Jay Clayton was leading the office. That does not necessarily mean Clayton himself. In fact, the visible title says Assistant U.S. Attorney, not U.S. Attorney.

The first page reads:

[REDACTED]
Assistant US Attorney
Southern District, New York
1 Saint Andrews Plaza
New York, NY 10007

Later, Shaw addresses part of the statement “To James” and refers to earlier contact. That may offer a clue to who she believed she was writing to, but I have not been able to establish whether “James” is the person whose name was redacted on page one.

The redacted name cannot be identified from the page itself. What we can say is that Jay Clayton was leading SDNY when Shaw wrote the letter.

He had taken over the office just one day after leaving Apollo Global Management, so that timing is worth looking at more closely.

Jay Clayton Had Just Left Apollo

Jay Clayton began serving as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2025. His resignation from Apollo Global Management’s board had taken effect the day before.

Apollo announced the transition itself. Clayton left the board effective April 21, 2025, then stepped into SDNY on April 22.

So there was essentially no gap between the two roles. One day he was leaving Apollo’s board; the next he was leading one of the country’s most powerful federal prosecutor’s offices.

That is relevant here because Clayton’s years at Apollo overlapped with the fallout from founder Leon Black’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Clayton joined Apollo after the original review of Black had already been completed, so the order of events is important.

Clayton, Apollo and Leon Black

Apollo announced Jay Clayton’s appointment as lead independent director in February 2021, with the role taking effect March 1. This was right in the middle of the fallout over founder Leon Black’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

By the time Clayton arrived, Apollo had already released the results of an independent review by the law firm Dechert. That review came out on January 25, 2021, before Clayton joined the board, so he did not oversee the original investigation into Black’s relationship with Epstein.

The review found that Black had known Epstein socially since roughly the mid-1990s and later retained him between 2012 and 2017 for tax, estate planning and other services. Apollo said the review found no evidence that Black or Apollo employees took part in Epstein’s criminal activity, and no evidence that Apollo itself retained Epstein.

Then, in March 2021, Black left Apollo’s leadership. Clayton was named non-executive chairman, and Apollo said that he and Marc Rowan would succeed Black in their respective roles.

Clayton stayed at Apollo for the next four years.

January 2021: Apollo releases the Dechert review of Leon Black’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
March 1, 2021: Jay Clayton becomes Apollo’s lead independent director.
March 22, 2021: Black leaves Apollo leadership and Clayton becomes non-executive chairman.
April 21, 2025: Clayton’s resignation from Apollo takes effect.
April 22, 2025: Clayton takes over SDNY.
June 14, 2025: Shaw dates her handwritten statement to a redacted Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office.

That puts Clayton’s years at Apollo and his move into SDNY very close together in the timeline surrounding Shaw’s letter. He left Apollo, took over SDNY the next day, and less than two months later Shaw dated her letter to a redacted Assistant U.S. Attorney in that office.

What I have not been able to establish is whether Clayton personally received the letter, reviewed it, or had any role in what happened after it reached the office. I also have not found anything directly connecting Apollo or Leon Black to Shaw or to the allegations in her statement.

So What Happened to EFTA01682027?

We still do not know.

The letter is in the DOJ Epstein release, dated June 14, 2025, and addressed to a redacted Assistant U.S. Attorney at SDNY. What I have not found is an FBI FD-302 showing that Shaw was interviewed, an investigative report testing her allegations, or a prosecutorial memo explaining what happened after the letter reached the office.

There may be more material elsewhere in the release. It runs into the millions of pages, and related records are not always filed together.

For now, EFTA01682027 is exactly what it appears to be: a handwritten allegation submitted to federal prosecutors. What we still do not know is what investigators did with it, whether they followed up, or whether they were able to verify any part of what Shaw described.

What Still Needs Checking

The McDevitt detail is a good example of why this letter cannot just be accepted or dismissed all at once. There really was a Chief McDevitt in Seaside Heights, and Shaw got that part right. But one correct detail does not automatically validate everything around it. Names can stick. Memories can shift. People can be misidentified. And one solid detail can make the rest of a story seem stronger than the evidence actually supports.

There are still a lot of places to look. Marriage records could help confirm Shaw’s relationship with George McDevitt, and property records could show where she says she stayed in Seaside Heights. Military records could be checked against the timeline she gives for her brother Raymond. Local police and municipal archives may have more on the McDevitt family.

The storm can be checked against historical weather records. Old newspapers, photographs or travel records might help show whether Donald Trump was anywhere near Seaside Heights during the period Shaw describes. Federal records could also tell us whether prosecutors interviewed her or followed up on the letter.

Until more of that turns up, those parts of the story are still open.

Read Page Two

The first page of EFTA01682027 is enough to stop you. A woman tells federal prosecutors that Donald Trump participated in the sale of young women to a Jeffrey Epstein trafficking operation. If you screenshot that page by itself, the conclusion almost writes itself.

Then you turn to page two.

Summer 1967. Jeffrey Epstein was fourteen.

That changes the whole read.

Shaw says the memory had only recently returned, and as the letter goes on, the story expands into other conspiracies and supernatural experiences. She also brings up a political controversy from May 2025 in a letter written the following month.

At the same time, one oddly specific detail does check out. There really was a McDevitt running the Seaside Heights Police Department. Jay Clayton was also leading SDNY when Shaw wrote the letter, just weeks after moving there from Apollo Global Management.

Those facts are real. They still do not tell us whether the central allegation happened. I have found no evidence that Clayton personally received or suppressed Shaw’s letter, and no independent evidence placing Trump at the house she describes.

The biggest problem is still the date. Shaw’s account places Jeffrey Epstein at the center of an operating trafficking organization in 1967, when he was 14 years old.

That is why an EFTA number is not the same thing as verification. The Epstein files contain evidence, but they also contain letters, tips and allegations sent to investigators. EFTA01682027 shows that this allegation was made and that the letter ended up in material later released by DOJ. It does not tell us whether investigators were able to confirm what Shaw described.

Anyone sharing page one as proof should read page two.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

U.S. Department of Justice, Epstein Files, Data Set 10, EFTA01682027, 32-page handwritten statement dated June 14, 2025.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, Investigation and Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Custody, Care, and Supervision of Jeffrey Epstein, June 2023

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, Jeffrey Epstein Charged in Manhattan Federal Court With Sex Trafficking of Minors, July 2019

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, Ghislaine Maxwell Charged in Manhattan Federal Court for Conspiring With Jeffrey Epstein to Sexually Abuse Minors, July 2020

Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, President Donald J. Trump, confirming Trump’s June 14, 1946 birth date.

Seaside Heights Police Department, History, identifying Joseph P. McDevitt as the town’s second police chief and recording his 1965 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives concerning youth drug abuse and prescription medications.

Environment and Climate Change Canada, Canadian Tropical Cyclone Season Summary for 1967, dating Hurricane Doria from September 8 to September 21, 1967.

Interlochen Center for the Arts, A statement from Interlochen Center for the Arts, confirming that Jeffrey Epstein attended Interlochen Arts Camp in the summer of 1967.

Reuters, US accepts luxury jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One for Trump, May 21, 2025, reporting the formal acceptance of the Boeing 747 from Qatar for presidential use.

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Statement of United States Attorney Jay Clayton, April 22, 2025

Apollo Global Management, Form 8-K, April 17, 2025, confirming Clayton’s resignation from Apollo effective April 21, 2025 and his move to the interim U.S. Attorney role at SDNY on April 22.

Apollo Global Management, Apollo Global Management Announces Conclusion and Release of Independent Review, January 25, 2021, announcing the completion of the Dechert review into Leon Black’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Dechert LLP, Investigation of Epstein/Black Relationship and Any Relationship Between Epstein and Apollo Global Management, Inc., January 22, 2021

Apollo Global Management, Marc Rowan Assumes Role of CEO of Apollo, March 22, 2021, announcing Jay Clayton as non-executive chairman and stating that Clayton and Marc Rowan succeeded Leon Black in their respective roles.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

In early July 2026, a Romanian artist released 16 minutes of video from Little St. James, Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious private island. He drove the narrow roads filming the lawns, sculptures, pier, pool house and main residence, then walked through rooms he had painted himself. He also filmed the blue-and-white striped building with the golden dome that Epstein called his mosque.

The artist’s name is Ion Nicola. He worked for Epstein from 2010 to 2019 and appears more than two thousand times in the files. His work took him across Epstein’s properties, including both Little St. James and Great St. James in the U.S. Virgin Islands. He painted bedrooms on both islands, decorated the library ceiling, and worked on the interior of the mosque. In emails, he discussed stripe widths, paint samples, finishes and closet door colors directly with Epstein, sometimes multiple times a day.

In one of those emails, dated November 3, 2016, Epstein told Nicola to make a bedroom on Great St. James brighter.

His exact words were:

sorry the closet doors should be lavendar as well. and the yellow too pale it should be bright more children room like

That email does not appear to have been reported in the English language press. The bedroom was on Great St. James, the larger of Epstein’s two islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The files show Nicola was doing more than routine painting. He was also involved in the decorative and interior work inside Epstein’s properties.

Who Ion Nicola Is

Ion Nicola is from Tulcea, a small city in eastern Romania near the Danube Delta. He studied painting at the Academy of Visual Arts “Ioan Andreescu” in Cluj-Napoca from 1991 to 1997, then attended the School of Visual Arts in New York in 1998. By the following year, he was a member of the United Artists Organization in Bucharest.

He had an established career long before his name surfaced in the Epstein files. Nicola held solo exhibitions at the Romanian National Theater in Bucharest, the Romanian Cultural Center in New York and the History Museum in Constanta. His work also appeared in group exhibitions in New York and Romania, including shows at Agora Gallery in Chelsea and the Atlantic Arts Festival in Brooklyn. His paintings are figurative, bright and expressive, and some have been listed for sale in the United States for as much as $15,000.

Nicola has not been accused of wrongdoing.

Romanian journalist Mircea Barbu was among the first to report on his appearance in the Epstein files in February 2026, after Nicola’s name turned up 2,578 times in the released federal documents. Romanian television later visited Tulcea, where neighbors described him as quiet and reserved. One told reporters: “A man at his place, a man like us, nothing special. I know he paints, that is all.”

In March 2026, Nicola told The New York Times that Epstein regularly referred to the blue-and-white building on Little St. James as his mosque. A few months later, in July, Nicola released video footage from the island through Storyful.

What he has never really done is give a full public account of those nine years working inside Epstein’s properties.

Share

Four Properties

The EFTA emails place Nicola at four Epstein properties, something I have not found previously reported.

The earliest correspondence I found places him at 301 East 66th Street, an Epstein-controlled apartment building in Manhattan. In February 2012, Nicola sent Rich Barnett an invoice for eleven days of work on “Jen’s apt” at 66th Street. His rate was $303 a day. The total came to $3,333.

In November 2015, Lesley Groff, Epstein’s executive assistant, arranged Nicola’s trip from Bucharest on KLM. When he arrived in New York, he was given the door code for apartment BA at 301 East 66th Street: 20161. Groff told him there was work waiting at both 71st Street and 301.

At 301 East 66th Street, Nicola also took direction from Karyna Shuliak, Epstein’s girlfriend. In a November 2015 email chain, Shuliak sent him apartment codes and told him which units needed touch-up painting. Nicola asked which apartment he should start with. Shuliak told him to begin wherever he wanted.

At 71st Street, Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, Nicola’s name appears in the daily schedules. The June 2013 calendar records his arrival on June 2. That same week, Epstein had appointments with Ehud Barak, Leon Black, Mort Zuckerman, Alan Dershowitz, Joi Ito and Jes Staley, along with a genetics appointment with George Church at Massachusetts General Hospital for skin cell samples.

On June 6, a staff member named Michael Serban flew to St. Thomas “to help Ion.”

The islands became a regular part of Nicola’s work. As early as July 2014, he was emailing Epstein about plans to paint the cabanas on Little St. James after Richard Kahn passed along the request.

By 2016, the emails show Nicola working across both Little St. James and Great St. James, doing “touch-ups in all cabanas on lsj” one day and painting bedrooms on Great St. James the next. Epstein followed the work closely from a distance, responding to photos of paint samples and stripe widths within hours, sometimes minutes.

The emails read like a back and forth about interior design. Stripe widths, color choices, symmetry. Nicola suggests something, Epstein answers. Most of it reads like ordinary, practical talk about paint.

On October 10, 2016, Nicola emailed Epstein:

anna told me you want me to paint 2 bedrooms in gsj.. can you give me some advise how would you like me to paint them? she said you will send me some images but i didnt get email from you..

Epstein replied: “ill send some soon.”

After that, the emails became a running discussion about the rooms on Great St. James. Nicola sent photos and mockups. Epstein chose colors, stripe widths, ceilings and closet doors, sometimes replying with little more than a word or a number.

Unlike Little St. James, the interiors of Great St. James have remained largely out of public view.

One room was lavender, with matching closet doors and a bathroom Nicola painted in alternating white and lavender stripes that continued onto the ceiling. Another was being painted yellow. Nicola also worked on what the emails call the “chillax” room and bathroom, where he proposed black crown molding, blue and black geometric lines, bright cabinets and orange accents. Epstein weighed in on the details himself, telling him to make the lines thinner and more delicate.

By the end of October, Nicola was moving between the two islands, finishing cabana touch-ups on Little St. James while continuing the work on Great St. James. A few days later came the November 3 email that opens this piece.

The School of Athens

On November 8, 2016, five days after the “children room” email, Nicola told Epstein he had finished the first bedroom on Great St. James and was ready to begin the oil painting. He attached a detail of Heraclitus from Raphael’s School of Athens and asked:

i attached a detail (heraclitus) from raphael’s school of athens. is this one ok?

Epstein replied: “Yes.”

Two days later, Nicola sent progress photos. Epstein wanted more detail:

yes I need to see more details. its needs to look old. not easy to do

It was not the first time Epstein had Nicola reproducing classical imagery. Documents connected to the 71st Street townhouse include an instruction to “Co-ordinate Ion going to the Island to paint library ceiling.”

The ceiling featured enlarged portraits of Greek philosophers, including Plato, Socrates, Seneca and Aristotle. Epstein wanted the figures made 50 percent bigger, so they would dominate the room.

Nicola later told The New York Times that photographs did not really capture the effect of the finished ceiling. You had to see it in the room.

You see the same taste throughout the work Epstein gave him: classical figures, old-master reproductions and elaborate decorative finishes. On Great St. James, Epstein wanted the School of Athens detail to look old. In the library, he wanted the philosophers larger than life. These details mattered to Epstein. He was choosing them himself, carefully.

The Mosque

The striped building with the golden dome became one of the most infamous structures on Little St. James. Over the years it has been described as a music room, a pavilion, a chapel and an occult temple. But in the EFTA emails, and later in Nicola’s own account, Epstein called it his mosque.

In 2013, Epstein sent Nicola a photograph of the Yalbugha Hammam, a 15th-century bathhouse in Aleppo, Syria, with striped stonework and a golden dome. He wanted Nicola to sketch something that resembled it.

Nicola’s work continued inside the building. The interior had striped walls, ornate woodwork and a painted ceiling filled with clouds, animals, constellations and zodiac imagery. Photos released after Epstein’s death show the mural stretching across much of the ceiling.

Then Epstein sent Nicola a stranger instruction. In one email, he wrote:

Remember we saw the aribic writing in black and white... instead of allah, i thought j’s and e’s

He wanted the word “Allah,” Arabic for God, replaced with his own initials.

Years later, pieces of the kiswa, the embroidered cloth associated with the Kaaba in Mecca, were brought into the building. In 2017, one of Epstein’s assistants told a customs broker: “We are receiving 3 pieces from the Kaaba.”

The textiles carried Quranic inscriptions and came from Islam’s holiest site. They ended up inside the same building Epstein referred to as his mosque.

The Money Trail

Nicola was paid through Epstein’s Deutsche Bank account. The records show wire transfers from that account directly to Nicola’s JPMorgan Chase account.

On March 14, 2014, Epstein’s account sent Nicola $2,782.74.

On December 17, 2015, another wire went to the same JPMorgan account, this time for $8,584.42.

The payments were only part of it. His 2012 invoices went to Rich Barnett at 71st Street. In 2015, Lesley Groff coordinated his travel from Bucharest. By 2016, his work on the islands was being directed through Epstein and staff, including “Anna,” whose full identity is not clear from these documents.

By 2017, Groff was arranging his travel again. This time, Epstein offered him a seat on his private plane.

Jeffrey says this time you will fly with him and his plane...!

Nicola flew from Bucharest to JFK on October 17, 2017. Eight days later, he was scheduled to fly on Epstein’s plane to the island.

Before the trip, Nicola raised a concern with Groff about his visitor visa. He told her that the last time he had stayed on the island for two months, border agents had found the length of the visit “a little strange.”

Nine Years Inside Epstein’s Properties

Ion Nicola worked for Jeffrey Epstein from 2010 to 2019, covering almost the entire period between Epstein’s release from jail in Florida and his arrest in New York a decade later.

By then, Nicola had spent years moving through Epstein’s properties. He worked in Manhattan and on both islands, painted bedrooms and ceilings, handled cabana touch-ups, dealt with staff and assistants, and took detailed instructions directly from Epstein.

His name also appears throughout Epstein’s schedules alongside the people moving in and out of that world. In June 2013, while Nicola was working in St. Thomas, Epstein’s calendar included meetings with Ehud Barak, Leon Black, Joi Ito and Jes Staley. On June 6, the same day Michael Serban flew to St. Thomas “to help Ion,” Epstein left for Paris with Jean-Luc Brunel. Brunel was later charged in France with the rape of minors and sexual harassment and died in custody in 2022.

Nicola has not been accused of wrongdoing. He later spoke to The New York Times and released his own footage from Little St. James.

What makes Nicola’s record unusual is how much of his work survives in the emails. They are mostly practical exchanges about paint, ceilings, closet doors, colors and measurements, but they also show how closely Epstein involved himself in the interiors of his properties. He decided how wide the stripes should be, how bright a bedroom should look, how large the figures on a ceiling should appear and how old a reproduction should seem. He even told Nicola to replace the Arabic word for God with his own initials.

For nine years, Nicola was one of the people carrying those decisions out. The emails show Epstein making those decisions in real time, including the November 2016 instruction to make a bedroom on Great St. James “bright more children room like.”

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

EFTA

EFTA00812740
Epstein and Nicola email chain concerning the Great St. James bedrooms, including Epstein’s November 3, 2016 instruction that the yellow was too pale and should be “bright more children room like,” along with discussion of lavender closet doors and stripe widths.

EFTA00812937
October 2016 email chain in which Nicola tells Epstein he has been asked to paint two bedrooms on Great St. James and asks how Epstein wants them done.

EFTA01062935
November 2016 correspondence concerning Nicola’s reproduction of a detail from Raphael’s School of Athens, including Epstein’s instruction that it needed to “look old.”

EFTA02412329
Documents concerning Nicola’s work on the library ceiling, including the instruction to coordinate his travel to paint it.

EFTA00705954
Mosque design correspondence in which Epstein tells Nicola that, instead of “allah,” he was thinking of using “j’s and e’s.”

EFTA02029589
Nicola invoice sent to Rich Barnett in February 2012 for eleven days of work at 301 East 66th Street. Rate: $303 per day. Total: $3,333.

EFTA00336132
Lesley Groff correspondence coordinating Nicola’s travel from Bucharest and work at 71st Street and 301 East 66th Street in November 2015.

EFTA00573457
Karyna Shuliak correspondence giving Nicola apartment codes and directions for painting work at 301 East 66th Street.

EFTA00284774
June 2013 Epstein schedules showing Nicola arriving in St. Thomas and Michael Serban later flying to St. Thomas “to help Ion.”

EFTA01916822
July 18, 2014 email in which Nicola tells Epstein that Richard Kahn asked him to paint the cabanas on Little St. James.

EFTA01361319
Deutsche Bank authorization for a $2,782.74 wire from Jeffrey Epstein’s account to Ion Nicola’s JPMorgan Chase account in March 2014.

EFTA01359259
Deutsche Bank authorization for an $8,584.42 wire from Jeffrey Epstein’s account to Ion Nicola’s JPMorgan Chase account in December 2015, listed for invoices and expenses tied to NES LLC and LSJE LLC.

EFTA02223237
September 2017 travel correspondence. Groff tells Nicola, “Jeffrey says this time you will fly with him and his plane.” Nicola also raises concerns about his visitor visa and says border agents had questioned his previous two-month stay on the island.

EFTA00002959
Photograph of the painted ceiling inside the striped building on Little St. James, showing constellations, zodiac figures and mythological imagery.

EFTA00002961
Interior photograph of the striped building on Little St. James showing the painted ceiling, wall treatment and ornate built-in shelving.

Reporting and Artist Background

The New York Times, “Epstein Obtained Objects From Islam’s Holiest Site for His Island ‘Mosque,’” April 2026
Reporting based on the released correspondence concerning the Little St. James building, the kiswa from the Kaaba, Epstein’s use of the term “mosque,” and Ion Nicola’s account of his work there.

The Independent, “Epstein obtained sacred items from Mecca for unusual ‘mosque’ on his private island,” April 30, 2026
Additional reporting on the mosque correspondence, Islamic objects acquired for the building and the changing descriptions of the structure.

Storyful, Ion Nicola footage from Little St. James, July 2026
More than 16 minutes of footage filmed by Nicola while driving and walking through Little St. James.

Ziare.com, “Mesajele uluitoare dintre Jeffrey Epstein și un artist din Tulcea,” February 2, 2026
Romanian reporting on Nicola’s appearance more than 2,500 times in the released files, his work for Epstein and reporting originally attributed to Observator.

Mircea Barbu, reporting on Ion Nicola in the Epstein files
Romanian journalist Mircea Barbu identified Nicola, also referred to in the files as “Ion the Painter,” among the newly released Epstein records.

Artavita, Ion Nicola artist profile
Nicola’s education, exhibition history and portfolio.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Europe is arguing about its borders again.

On August 12, Morocco tightened security around Ceuta and Melilla after messages began circulating online calling for another mass attempt to enter the Spanish territories on August 15. It came only weeks after the scenes of late July, when Spanish authorities said roughly 72,000 people crossed irregularly into Ceuta from Morocco. Most were later returned, but in a city of about 83,000 people, the scale was hard to ignore. Migration, border control and European sovereignty were suddenly back at the center of the argument. Reuters also reported renewed Moroccan claims over Ceuta and Melilla.

Europe, meanwhile, has only just started operating under a new migration system. The EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum began applying across the bloc on June 12, bringing common screening and registration at the external border, faster asylum and return procedures, new rules for deciding which country is responsible for a claim, and a system for sharing responsibility when individual member states come under pressure.

So while Europe is once again arguing over who gets in, who stays and who decides, one old name keeps resurfacing.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi.

The “Kalergi Plan” is the name now attached to the claim that Kalergi envisioned the racial transformation of Europe, that influential European figures carried his ideas forward, and that modern mass immigration is the continuation of something he described nearly a century ago.

Depending on where you read about it, you usually get one of two answers. One side treats the Kalergi Plan as established history. The other dismisses the whole thing as an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

Part of that label comes from the way the theory was reshaped later. Some versions folded Kalergi into older claims about Jewish control and recast his ideas as part of a Jewish-led effort to replace Europe’s population. That is a different argument from criticism of Zionism itself, which is a political ideology and can be debated on its own terms.

The phrase “Kalergi Plan” was not his. It came later and was applied back onto ideas he had written about decades earlier.

Neither answer gets very far into what Kalergi actually wrote.

What did he actually say?

There Really Was a Kalergi

Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi was born in Tokyo in 1894 to an Austro-Hungarian diplomat father and a Japanese mother. Despite his birthplace, his life and political career were rooted in Europe. He grew up in Bohemia, studied in Vienna and, after the First World War, began thinking about how Europe could avoid another catastrophe.

He came to see the continent’s competing nation states as part of the problem. His answer was to bind European countries together politically and economically.

In 1923, he published Pan-Europa. A year later, he founded the Pan-European Union and began building an actual political movement around the idea.

The European Parliament now describes Coudenhove-Kalergi as a “pioneer of European integration” and considers the Paneuropa movement one of the early precursors to what eventually became the European Union. Kalergi often described the future he wanted as a “United States of Europe.”

He spent decades trying to make that vision political. He organized conferences, worked with parliamentarians and brought politicians and intellectuals from across Europe into the movement. After the Second World War, he founded the European Parliamentary Union and continued pushing for a formal European political structure.

According to the Council of Europe’s archives, his proposal for a European assembly made up of representatives chosen by national parliaments was accepted at the Hague Congress in 1948.

In 1950, Coudenhove-Kalergi became the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize for his work toward European unity. Five years later, he wrote to the Council of Europe proposing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy as a European anthem. It was later adopted by the Council of Europe and then by the European Communities, the predecessor to today’s European Union.

The European Parliament also credits the Paneuropa movement with helping build the political momentum that led to the founding of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in 1949.

By that point, Kalergi was not simply writing about Europe from the outside. Europe was where he had grown up, where he lived and where he spent decades trying to reshape the political order.

How much of what came later can be traced directly back to him is harder to pin down. European integration had many architects and was shaped by war, economics, security and competing political visions.

But Kalergi was there early, and he had influence.

The more controversial question starts with what else he was writing.

Practical Idealism

In 1925, Kalergi published Praktischer Idealismus: Adel, Technik, Pazifismus, or Practical Idealism: Aristocracy, Technology, Pacifism. The original German edition was published by Paneuropa-Verlag in Vienna and Leipzig, and digitized copies are now available online.

This is the book most people are referring to when they talk about the Kalergi Plan. But immigration is only one part of it.

Kalergi writes about aristocracy, democracy, heredity, socialism, technology, pacifism, Judaism, race and the kind of society he believed would emerge in the future. Some of the language is unmistakably from its time, especially the sections on race and heredity.

The passages about racial mixing are real. In a section titled Inzucht - Kreuzung, roughly Inbreeding - Crossing, Kalergi predicts that the people of the distant future will be of mixed ancestry. He writes about racial and caste divisions disappearing and imagines a future population shaped by extensive mixing.

But what did he expect anyone to actually do with that idea?

I have seen English translations presented as if Kalergi were laying out instructions for governments or designing an immigration program that would later be carried out across Europe. That is not what I found in the book.

He is describing what he believes humanity will eventually become. He clearly sees racial mixing as part of that future. But he does not lay out a practical system for producing it through immigration. There are no quotas, no timetable, no list of countries migrants should be brought in from and no administrative structure for deliberately changing Europe’s population.

I could not find anything in Practical Idealism that looks like the immigration systems now associated with the phrase “Kalergi Plan.”

That does not make the racial passages irrelevant. They are a major reason his name became attached to this argument in the first place.

Kalergi wrote about a racially mixed future. The next question is whether those ideas ever moved from his books into government policy.

How Much Influence Did He Actually Have?

Kalergi had political influence. The European Parliament describes him as a pioneer of European integration. The Council of Europe preserves his correspondence. His Paneuropean movement worked directly with politicians and parliamentarians. He pushed for a European assembly long before one existed, proposed a European anthem that was later adopted, and became the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize.

So the question is not whether he had influence. It is how far that influence went.

Postwar Europe was shaped by a lot more than one man. Reconstruction, trade, coal and steel, security, the Cold War and the fear of another war all pushed governments toward closer cooperation. Kalergi was one of several people arguing for a more politically integrated Europe.

His role in that movement is easy to document. What I could not trace nearly as clearly was whether his racial ideas travelled with it.

If governments later took the ideas in Practical Idealism and turned them into policy, there should be some point where those two histories connect. I looked for that connection.

I could trace Kalergi’s influence on the early movement for European integration. I could not trace his racial writing into later immigration policy in the same way.

So there are two things I can document: Kalergi had real political influence, and he wrote about a racially mixed future.

Then Europe Really Did Change

Part of what keeps the Kalergi theory alive is that Europe really did change.

The Europe of 2026 looks very different from the one Kalergi was writing about in 1925. Large-scale migration into Western Europe accelerated after the Second World War for several reasons. Labour shortages led governments to recruit foreign workers. Former colonial powers received migrants from places with which they already had long political and economic ties. Family reunification followed. Wars and instability brought refugees, while asylum systems expanded around those movements.

European integration added another layer. Free movement allowed citizens of member states to live and work across much of the continent, while the EU gradually built a common system for managing migration and asylum at its external borders.

So when people read Kalergi now, in a Europe that has become far more ethnically and culturally mixed, it is not hard to see why they draw a connection.

Europe did change, dramatically.

The question is whether that change can actually be traced back to what Kalergi wrote in 1925.

These later policies did not all begin at the same time or for the same reasons.

Some were openly economic. European countries needed workers and recruited them. Other migration came through refugee and asylum systems. Family reunification created another route. European integration later made it easier for citizens of one member state to live and work in another.

The rules changed repeatedly. Governments expanded some programs, tightened others and sometimes reversed course altogether. There was never one European migration policy moving in a straight line from the 1920s to today.

Europe is tightening parts of that system again now.

The EU’s Migration and Asylum Pact, which began applying this June, strengthens screening at the external border, changes asylum and return procedures, and includes measures aimed at limiting secondary movement between member states after someone enters the bloc. At the same time, it keeps asylum protections in place and creates a system for sharing responsibility when certain countries come under heavy pressure.

People can support those policies or oppose them. They can argue Europe admitted too many people, too few, or handled the process badly.

But the decisions themselves are public. We can read the laws, see who passed them, follow how the rules changed and see what happened next.

Kalergi Also Wrote About Zionism

Kalergi’s writing on race was only one part of a much broader political worldview.

By the mid-1930s, he was also writing about antisemitism, Jewish identity and nationalism. In Judenhass von heute, he treated the so-called “Jewish question” as part of a wider problem of minorities living within nation states and rejected the idea that national identity should be defined by blood.

He also wrote directly about Zionism and Palestine.

In October 1937, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that Kalergi had proposed creating a center of Jewish immigration in Africa under a British-Jewish arrangement. He suggested places such as Uganda or Rhodesia and presented the idea as an alternative to creating a Jewish state through the partition of Palestine.

He also warned that a Jewish state in Palestine would face fierce Arab opposition. He wrote about the growing strength of both Pan-Arabism and Zionism and predicted that the two movements were heading toward a serious conflict. Palestine was not empty land. It already had an Arab population with its own history, communities and claim to the country.

That makes Kalergi’s position more complicated than a simple endorsement of Zionism. He was not arguing that Palestine should simply be turned into a Jewish state. He was looking elsewhere.

His thinking about population and nationalism went well beyond European integration. He was writing about race, population, nationalism and what happens when political movements decide that territory belongs to one people more than another.

Palestine was already caught inside that argument.

They have endured displacement, occupation, siege and enormous civilian loss. Families have been wiped out. Homes, hospitals, schools and entire neighborhoods have been destroyed. These are not abstract arguments about nationalism or political theory. They are decisions imposed on people who already live on the land.

That history should not be reduced to a side note in a piece about Kalergi. Palestinians are not simply one half of an old ideological dispute. Their displacement and dispossession are part of the history itself.

The argument has also spread far beyond Palestine. Across Europe and the United States, support for Palestinian rights now sits inside political fights over Muslim identity, immigration, extremism, loyalty and who is treated as fully entitled to take part in public life.

Kalergi could see in 1937 that Zionism and Pan-Arabism were heading toward a collision over Palestine.

Nearly ninety years later, Palestinians are still living with the consequences.

Canada Has Its Own Immigration Argument Now

Canada is useful here for a different reason. Its immigration debate shows how quickly population policy can become a domestic political fight over labour, housing, healthcare and how much growth a country can realistically absorb.

The numbers are public. Canada’s 2026 to 2028 Immigration Levels Plan sets permanent resident admissions at 380,000 per year. The government has also lowered its targets for new temporary residents to 385,000 in 2026 and 370,000 in both 2027 and 2028.

Ottawa says it wants non-permanent residents to make up less than five percent of the population by the end of 2027, while permanent resident admissions are expected to stay below one percent of the population beyond that point. The government says the lower targets are meant to keep meeting labour-market needs while easing pressure on housing, healthcare and public services.

Canada spent years expanding immigration, temporary foreign worker programs and international student admissions because successive governments believed higher immigration would bring economic and social benefits. Now Ottawa is cutting some of those levels because it says the pace became difficult to sustain.

That raises a different set of questions. How were the earlier targets chosen? What assumptions were made about housing and healthcare capacity? How much population growth could existing infrastructure realistically support? How dependent did certain industries become on temporary foreign workers? What role did international students come to play in college and university finances? Who benefited most from rapid population growth, and who ended up carrying the costs?

And underneath all of that is a political question: how much chance did Canadians actually have to debate the scale and speed of those changes before they were already happening?

The United States Is Having a Different Fight

The United States belongs in this discussion too, but the fight there looks different. The focus has shifted much more toward enforcement, citizenship and who the law recognizes as American.

On August 6, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders aimed at birthright citizenship. One directs federal agencies not to recognize citizenship in several categories the administration says fall outside the Fourteenth Amendment, including certain children of foreign-government employees, alien enemies and people involved in fraudulently obtaining citizenship. The second targets so-called birth tourism.

Those orders came after the Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily in the country are still citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Trump’s new orders are narrower than the one the Court considered, but the fight over birthright citizenship is far from over.

Citizenship is only part of what is happening.

The language around Muslims in American politics is becoming harder to separate from the immigration debate itself. This week, Trump referred to Democratic candidates as “jihadists” while attacking a new generation of Muslim political figures. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed has just become the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate and could become the first Muslim elected to the chamber. Trump has attacked him by emphasizing his name and casting him as somehow foreign to the country he is running to represent.

That language is not coming from Trump alone. Muslim candidates and communities are increasingly discussed through references to Sharia law, jihad, terrorism and foreign influence. In May, Representative Nancy Mace introduced legislation that would require immigrants to undergo what she called an “assimilation” screening, explicitly citing Sharia law and “Jihadi violence” as grounds for exclusion.

Palestine runs through this argument too. Muslim and Arab American political organizing has become much more visible since the war in Gaza, especially in places like Michigan. At the same time, criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights are often pulled into arguments about extremism, loyalty and whether Muslim political participation is somehow less legitimate. El-Sayed’s Senate campaign has already become part of that fight.

By now, these arguments are starting to overlap. Europe is fighting over borders and asylum. Canada is cutting immigration targets after years of rapid population growth. In the United States, the debate reaches into citizenship, religion and who gets treated as fully belonging in public life.

But Europe, Canada and the United States did not get here the same way.

I could not find a direct line from Kalergi’s racial writing to immigration policy in Canada or the United States. What I found instead were the policies themselves, who made them, and the arguments used to justify them.

So Was There a Kalergi Plan?

If “Kalergi Plan” means the ideas Coudenhove-Kalergi actually put on paper, then there is something real behind the phrase. He argued for European political integration, rejected the old system of competing nation states, and wrote about a future in which racial distinctions would disappear through mixing.

That part is not in dispute.

The harder question is what happened to those ideas afterward. Did they stay inside Kalergi’s own political philosophy, or did any of them make their way into government policy?

His influence on the early movement for European integration is easy to trace. His writing about race is much harder to follow.

European institutions preserve his correspondence and recognize his role in the history of integration. His writing about a racially mixed future is part of that same body of work.

What I could not find was the point where those two things clearly became one.

Western governments later made decisions that changed the populations of their countries. They set immigration targets, recruited foreign labour, expanded family reunification, created asylum systems and opened international student programs. Some of those systems grew for decades. Others are now being cut back.

Those decisions changed who was living in these countries.

So who set the targets? Which industries wanted more workers? What projections were governments using? What assumptions were made about housing, wages, healthcare and infrastructure? Who benefited from rapid population growth? Who carried the costs? And how much public debate happened before those decisions were already underway?

Those are questions the records can answer.

Kalergi pushed for European integration. He wrote about a racially mixed future. He had access to political leaders and institutions involved in building a more integrated Europe.

Decades later, Western governments adopted immigration and population policies that changed their countries in major ways.

Both things are documented.

What I have not been able to pin down is where, exactly, they became the same story.

A century after Practical Idealism, Europe is again fighting over its borders. Canada is cutting immigration targets after years of rapid population growth. In the United States, the argument now reaches into citizenship, religion and who gets treated as fully belonging in the country.

Those are not old arguments anymore. They are happening in courts, elections and government policy right now.

By the end of this, I was asking a different question.

How far did Kalergi’s ideas actually travel?

And where, in the policies and institutions that came after him, can that influence actually be traced?

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi

European Parliament, “Paneuropa: 1922–1966” - Biography and institutional history of Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Paneuropa movement.

Council of Europe Archives, “Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and the Council of Europe” - Timeline and original archival correspondence, including his proposal for Ode to Joy.

German National Library, Judenhass von heute, Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi - Bibliographic record for Kalergi’s 1935 work on antisemitism and Jewish identity in Europe.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency, October 11, 1937, “British-Jewish Dominion in Africa Urged by Count Cudenhove-Kalergi” - Contemporary reporting on Kalergi’s proposal for a Jewish immigration center in Africa as an alternative to partitioning Palestine, and his warning of a clash between Pan-Arabism and Zionism.

European Commission, Migration and Asylum - Current EU migration policy and implementation of the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which began applying on June 12, 2026.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, 2026–2028 Immigration Levels Plan - Current permanent and temporary resident targets and the government’s explanation for reducing temporary resident levels.

U.S. Supreme Court, Trump v. Barbara, June 30, 2026 - Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present.

White House, Executive Order 14418, August 6, 2026 - Administration policy concerning specified categories of birthright citizenship.

White House, Executive Order 14419, “Ending Birth Tourism,” August 6, 2026 - Executive order directing federal action against the use of temporary visas for the purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for children born in the country.

Representative Nancy Mace, “No Immigration Without Assimilation Act,” May 26, 2026 - Primary source for proposed immigration screening based on assimilation, including explicit references to Sharia law and “Jihadi violence.”

Reuters, August 5, 2026, “After bitter primary, El-Sayed seeks to unite Democrats in must-win Michigan race” - Reporting on Abdul El-Sayed

Al Jazeera, August 11, 2026, “Trump warns of ‘jihadists’ ruling in Washington as Democrats show momentum” - Reporting on Trump’s use of the term “jihadists” in attacks on Democratic candidates.

Reuters, August 12, 2026, “Spain rejects discussing sovereignty of enclaves with Morocco” - Reporting on Ceuta, Melilla and the aftermath of the late July mass crossing from Morocco.

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

The Question

The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam holds a 1590 painting by Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem. Nearly nine feet wide, it shows soldiers tearing infants from their mothers. One child is being killed. A woman claws at a soldier’s face. The museum’s own exhibition text asks a simple question: “Who would commission such a work? And why?”

In 1590, the answer was Prince Maurits of the Dutch Republic. The painting served as political propaganda. The biblical massacre was used to represent the rule of Philip II of Spain and the suffering of the Dutch under foreign troops.

Van Haarlem painted a second version in 1591 for the prince’s residence in Haarlem. The first was considered too graphic, so the later version was toned down.

More than four centuries later, in 2010, Jeffrey Epstein ordered a 9-foot oil reproduction of that second painting. He paid $1,999 to have it hand-painted in China, shipped to his Manhattan townhouse, and later sent by FedEx to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, where survivors have described being abused.

The Rijksmuseum’s question works just as well here.

The documents explain the first commission. They do not explain the second.

The Seed

On November 20, 2010, a contact named Mark emailed Jeffrey Epstein about an elderly art collector looking to sell two paintings privately. One was a Rubens, priced at $45 million. The other was a Caravaggio, priced at $40 million.

To put the Rubens price in context, Mark pointed to another Rubens: The Massacre of the Innocents. It had sold for $72 million in 2002 to Canadian businessman Kenneth Thomson, who later donated it to the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Epstein replied asking for photos, but he did not buy either painting. Eighteen days later, someone in his office contacted Ocean’s Bridge Group about a different artist’s version of the same biblical subject.

The timing stands out. The November email had brought The Massacre of the Innocents into the conversation, and less than three weeks later Epstein’s office was asking about another version of it. Instead of a $45 million Rubens, he ultimately ordered a $1,999 reproduction of Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem’s 1591 painting, one of the harsher versions of the subject.

The Order

On December 8, 2010, Sarah Kellen contacted Ocean’s Bridge Group, a company that sells hand-painted reproductions of historical artworks. She asked about Painting ID 58335, Massacre of the Innocents 1591.

The original was Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem’s 1591 version, owned by the Mauritshuis in The Hague and on long-term loan to the Frans Hals Museum in Haarlem.

Kellen initially asked about a 12-foot version. Ocean’s Bridge told her that 9 x 9 feet 5 inches was the largest size they could ship. She also wanted to confirm that the reproductions were actually painted, not printed. The company said they were 100 percent oil, made using traditional methods, with no printing involved. Kellen asked to see examples of previous work, and they sent samples.

On December 28, 2010, she forwarded the quote to Epstein: “Regarding the Massacre of the Innocents.. pls see below.. Would you still like to proceed with the painting? The 9 feet by 9 feet 5 inch size is $1999.”

Epstein replied with one word: “proceed.”

December 28 is the Feast of the Holy Innocents in the Christian calendar, which commemorates the biblical massacre shown in the painting. There is no evidence Epstein chose that date deliberately.

The order was placed the next day, December 29, 2010. Order number 204704. Total cost: $1,999. It was shipped to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse at 9 East 71st Street.

The Production

Ocean’s Bridge had not produced this particular painting since 2005 and no longer had photos of the earlier reproduction on file. Its reproductions were painted by hand on canvas and shipped rolled in protective tubes. The company worked with museums, interior designers, hotels, and other clients. It had also produced a 9 x 20 foot piece for a church in Chicago.

On February 9, 2011, Kellen asked for an update. Ocean’s Bridge sent progress photos the next day. Finished photos followed on February 18, and Kellen forwarded them to Epstein.

On February 22, she approved the painting: “It’s great!! Please go ahead and send it out to me.”

By early March, she was asking for the tracking information.

The Man at 71st Street

The painting was first shipped to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse at 9 East 71st Street, where Richard Barnett had worked since December 1995. His title was House Engineer and Security, but his job went far beyond maintenance.

Internal staff descriptions from 2013 show that Barnett watched the front door when Epstein was in town, managed the CCTV system, checked identification at dinner parties, and coordinated with other security staff.

In late 2008, Barnett oversaw a major rebuild of the CCTV command center at 71st Street. A proposal from Sawyers Control Systems called for an eleven-monitor Winstead rack, infrared cameras inside and outside the townhouse, a 500-gigabyte digital video recorder capable of storing about three weeks of footage, and pan-tilt-zoom cameras on the exterior. The total cost was $42,730.

Barnett approved monitor upgrades directly with Epstein and received invoices in his own name. His job was not limited to maintenance. He was responsible for the surveillance system that controlled what could be watched and recorded inside and around the house.

Barnett also traveled to Zorro Ranch. In August 2012, he flew from LaGuardia to Albuquerque twice. Both trips were charged to Epstein’s American Express Centurion card and coordinated with ranch manager Brice Gordon.

The first trip required Epstein’s approval, which staff had to request twice. Barnett returned later that month for a three-day stay, from August 22 to 25.

The Transfer

On July 10, 2011, about four months after the painting arrived at 71st Street, Kellen emailed Barnett and told him to send it to Zorro Ranch.

“Jeffrey is asking if you can Fedex the painting he had made of the Massacre of the Innocents to the ranch. It’s the large 9’x9’ canvas that we had rolled out for him to see in the entry way where they are killing babies. He wants to use it on the ranch and is hoping you could Fedex it to arrive by Wednesday?”

The email establishes several things. The painting had been made to order and unrolled in the entryway at 71st Street for Epstein to see. Kellen identified it by its subject, “where they are killing babies,” and said Epstein wanted it sent to the ranch.

The request went from Kellen to Barnett. Kellen would later be placed under an FBI silent hit, and Barnett would be subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. The painting they handled was a 9-foot depiction of the massacre of children, bound for a property where survivors have described being abused.

The People Who Handled the Painting

The people who handled the painting later came under federal scrutiny.

Sarah Kellen ordered it, forwarded progress photos, approved the finished work, and arranged for it to be sent to the ranch. She had previously been named as a co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement. On August 28, 2019, seventeen days after Epstein’s death, the FBI placed a silent hit on her travel documents. An eight-page prosecution memo explaining why she was not charged remains fully redacted.

Richard Barnett, the house engineer who received Kellen’s FedEx instructions, was subpoenaed to appear before an SDNY grand jury in July 2019.

Barnett was interviewed twice under a proffer agreement in the fall of 2019. His sessions included discussion of his interactions with Customs and Border Protection in the Virgin Islands. He was interviewed again in October and November 2020 and was later prepared as a witness for Maxwell’s trial.

What He Chose

There are dozens of paintings titled Massacre of the Innocents. Rubens painted one. So did Giotto, Matteo di Giovanni, Guido Reni, and Nicolas Poussin. The subject appeared again and again across centuries of European art, and Ocean’s Bridge sold reproductions of several of them.

Epstein’s office chose Cornelis Cornelisz van Haarlem’s 1591 painting.

The art historian Karel van Mander described it in 1604, writing about the “naked child killers” and “the efforts of the mothers to save their children.” He also discussed the different flesh tones of the figures and the physical effects of death on the children’s bodies. He considered the work excellent.

Van Haarlem’s painting is one of the harsher treatments of the subject. It is crowded, violent, and deliberately disturbing. His 1590 version was considered so intense that the 1591 painting was softened somewhat. Even then, it remained brutal.

Epstein had just been offered a $45 million Rubens when his office turned to a catalog and chose this painting instead for $1,999. The selection was specific. The painting ID appears in the emails, and the reproduction was made to order at Epstein’s direction.

The Ranch

Zorro Ranch was not some getaway vacation ranch. Previous reporting has documented the compound in extraordinary detail: a private runway and hangar, daily gun cabinet checks, weekly firearms cleaning, bi-weekly ammunition inventories, a fire truck tested monthly, an ambulance delivered in 2016, five to six full-time staff, satellite connections to Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, a bunkhouse, and more.

Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant and estate co-executor, handled procurement. Brice and Karen Gordon managed the ranch’s daily operations until Epstein’s death.

The painting arrived at Zorro Ranch in July 2011. Before it was shipped, Kellen wrote that it had been “rolled out for him to see in the entry way” at 71st Street.

It was not the only unusual artwork associated with Epstein’s properties. In 2019, a contractor who had worked at Zorro Ranch described a roughly 6-foot painting of a young woman straddling a dead lioness. He said it hung at the bottom of the stairs in the main house basement, near the laundry, and had been there since at least 2013. Fox News reported on the painting that year.

A different former contractor later provided a photograph of another painting he identified as a young Ghislaine Maxwell, nude and holding a gold-colored dagger. He said that painting had also been displayed inside the ranch.

Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse had its own interesting art collection. Parsing Bill, Petrina Ryan-Kleid’s portrait of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress, was photographed there and widely reported in 2019.

Maria Farmer’s later FBI submission documented additional artwork associated with Epstein.

Where the Painting Is Now

In March 2026, New Mexico state investigators searched Zorro Ranch with the cooperation of its current owner, Don Huffines, who bought the property in 2023 and renamed it Rancho de San Rafael. It is not known whether the painting was among the items cataloged during that search, and the Huffines family has not publicly said where it is now.

The New Mexico Survivors’ Truth Commission, a bipartisan panel of four state representatives, issued its first round of subpoenas in June 2026. More than a dozen entities were targeted, including the DOJ, FBI, Epstein’s estate, and several major banks. No individuals were subpoenaed. The commission is expected to issue its final report by the end of the year.

Attorney General Raúl Torrez reopened the state criminal investigation in February 2026 after reviewing newly released federal files. He put the limits of that investigation plainly:

“Epstein has been dead for years. Zorro Ranch has changed ownership. Physical evidence may no longer exist, and the statute of limitations has likely run on many potential offenses. These are real obstacles, and survivors deserve to hear them stated plainly.”

A photograph of the painting has since been published by the DOJ. Its current location is still unknown.

Four hundred and twenty years apart, two men commissioned versions of the same image. We know why Prince Maurits wanted his. We do not know why Jeffrey Epstein wanted his.

We know Epstein approved the order, saw the finished painting at 71st Street, and then had it sent to Zorro Ranch.

Where the painting is now, nobody has said.

The Rijksmuseum’s question still stands.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

EFTA02408496: Email from “Mark” to Epstein regarding Rubens and Caravaggio private sale, November 20, 2010. References Rubens “Massacre of the Innocents” sold in 2002 for $72M.

EFTA00560320-322: Full Ocean’s Bridge ordering chain, December 8-28, 2010. Painting ID 58335, “Massacre of the Innocents 1591.”

EFTA00901209: Epstein reply “proceed,” December 28, 2010.

EFTA00901220: Epstein follow-up regarding furniture delivery, same email chain.

EFTA02319842: Order confirmation #204704, December 29, 2010. $1,999.00. Shipping to 9 E. 71st St.

EFTA01788826: Ocean’s Bridge progress update, February 10, 2011. Order #15363.

EFTA01779110: Ocean’s Bridge finished photos forwarded to Epstein, February 18, 2011.

EFTA00561013: Kellen approval: “It’s great!! Please go ahead and send it out to me,” February 22, 2011.

EFTA00561119-120: Kellen tracking inquiry, March 7, 2011.

EFTA00563164: Kellen to Rich Barnett: FedEx painting to ranch, July 10, 2011.

EFTA00553278: DOJ photograph of the painting.

EFTA00595013-595020: Sawyers Control Systems CCTV upgrade proposal and invoices for 71st Street, November 2008-2009. Barnett named recipient.

EFTA00383669-675: Staff descriptions (Mark Tollison dinner planning thread), September 2013. Barnett described as House Engineer/Security.

EFTA00709105-121: JEE 2010 Payroll & Benefits Analysis. Barnett listed under NES LLC, salary $103,500.

EFTA00152162-164: Grand jury subpoena for Richard Barnett, July 2019. 18 U.S.C. 1591, 2421, 2422, 2423, 371.

EFTA00095753: Discovery index listing Barnett interview 302s (July 29, 2019; September 16, 2019) and proffer agreement.

EFTA00022456-479: Crowell & Moring correspondence regarding Barnett proffer sessions and Maxwell trial preparation, 2020-2021.

EFTA00406764-766: Barnett flight to Albuquerque, August 22-25, 2012.

EFTA02028080-083: Barnett flight to Albuquerque (first attempt), August 15, 2012.

EFTA01653429: FBI email thread, “Silent Hit on Ghislaine Maxwell,” August 27-28, 2019. Silent hit confirmed on Kellen.

Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. “The Massacre of the Innocents.”

MashableMiddleEast, Epstein Files: Disturbing biblical slaughter painting ‘Massacre of Innocents’ at Jeffrey’s Zorro Ranch ignites frenzy.

ABQ Journal, March 9, 2026. AG Torrez op-ed on reopened investigation.

CNN, June 1, 2026. Truth Commission subpoena announcement.

AP, March 2026. State investigators begin searching Zorro Ranch.

LPF: The Art The FBI Has: The Paintings Maria Farmer Put On Record Five Days Before Virginia Giuffre Died

LPF: Ranch Central: What Jeffrey Epstein Was Building in New Mexico While No One Was Looking

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.

Subscribe now

Zorro Ranch was not searched once until seven years after Epstein’s death. The question has always been why.

That is one of the central issues the New Mexico Survivors’ Truth Commission is now trying to answer. Its new interim report looks at what happened at Epstein’s New Mexico ranch, why so much of it went uninvestigated, and how the state’s own inquiry was eventually set aside.

The report runs 119 pages and draws on the Epstein Files Transparency Act release, roughly 3.5 million pages so far out of an estimated 6 million, along with subpoena returns, witness interviews, and land and financial records dating back to 1993.

The work is not finished. But the report already shows how New Mexico stopped pursuing its own investigation and left the case to federal prosecutors in New York.

The Deferral

In May 2019, New Mexico’s Deputy Attorney General wrote to the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico. She said her office had an active investigation into Epstein’s conduct in the state and wanted to coordinate. The federal prosecutor wrote back two days later. He said his office supported the state’s work but was not, at that time, prepared to share information or discuss coordination.

By July, the arrangement had changed. According to an email later obtained by the Commission, the state Attorney General’s Office had agreed to stop investigating sex trafficking and hand over its files to the Southern District of New York.

New York would investigate. New York would prosecute.

New Mexico would step aside.

The state sent its files. They included police reports, recorded witness interviews, correspondence and land lease documents. Former Attorney General Hector Balderas later described what came back the other way: nothing. He called it a one-way relationship.

When SDNY charged Epstein, the indictment covered conduct in New York and Palm Beach. New Mexico was not included.

Years later, the Commission found that New Mexico had another problem of its own. The state could no longer locate its complete Epstein investigative file. The Department of Justice also apparently did not have a full copy of everything New Mexico had sent to New York. In other words, New Mexico handed over investigative material from a sex trafficking case and did not preserve a complete copy for itself.

The Commission later asked the U.S. Attorney’s Office why Epstein’s conduct in New Mexico had never been pursued locally. The answer was that its own file was limited because the matter had been referred elsewhere and was never handled by the district. New Mexico had stopped investigating. It no longer had its complete file. And the federal district in New Mexico had never built much of one.

New Mexico offered to help draft a search warrant, although nobody ever applied for one. There is no indication that SDNY ever took them up on the offer.

The Registration Loophole

Epstein was convicted in Florida in 2008 for procuring a minor for prostitution. Under federal law, that conviction should have triggered ongoing sex offender registration wherever he lived, including New Mexico.

He registered once, in August 2010. Two days later, New Mexico’s Department of Public Safety removed him from the registry.

The decision came down to the victim’s age. She was 17, while New Mexico’s age of consent was 16. State officials concluded that Epstein’s Florida conviction did not meet New Mexico’s definition of an offense that required him to remain registered.

So a man who had already been convicted of a sex offense involving a minor was able to come and go from a sprawling New Mexico ranch without remaining on the state registry.

Everything after that ran largely on the honor system.

For the next several years, Epstein or his attorney emailed a Santa Fe County detective whenever he planned to stay at the ranch. The messages read more like courtesy notices than sex offender reporting. In one, Epstein says he will be staying a little longer because he has a cold.

There is no record that the sheriff’s office required annual in-person appearances, updated photographs, or other verification normally associated with federal registration requirements.

That is what makes the loophole so significant. New Mexico did not just remove Epstein from a list. It removed one of the few formal systems that might have required the state to keep track of him while he was spending time at Zorro Ranch.

And that loophole is still on the books.

The Commission says it is drafting legislation to close it during the 2027 session.

Guns and a Felon

Epstein could not legally possess a gun after his 2008 conviction, and he knew it. A 2009 security policy for Zorro Ranch says so. Epstein was a convicted felon, and federal law barred him from possessing firearms or ammunition.

And yet the emails keep circling back to guns. In June 2010, Epstein’s staff discussed moving the gun safes and firearms to the pilot’s garage because the land was deeded to him. On paper that would put the weapons off Epstein’s property.

In a March 2011 email, he wrote that a staff member’s gun would not be kept in the main house or anywhere near him “due to the conviction/felony.”

Check the gun cabinet every morning. Inventory the ammunition every two weeks.

When firearms were reported stolen from the ranch’s gun safe in 2018, staff went through the remaining inventory serial number by serial number and compared it against their records. The results were then forwarded up the chain to Epstein.

The Commission found no indication that the incident led to an investigation into whether Epstein himself possessed or controlled firearms at the ranch. That includes after law enforcement responded to the 2018 theft.

The Commission points to that as another missed opportunity. A firearms investigation could have helped establish who actually possessed the weapons and where they were being kept.

The ranch’s own maintenance records add more detail. Staff checked the gun cabinet every day, cleaned the guns every week, and counted the ammunition every two weeks.

This was routine maintenance, scheduled and repeated for years, involving weapons Epstein himself knew he was not legally allowed to possess.

I covered that schedule in detail back in April. You can read here.

The Rest of the Network

The report also traces how Epstein used money and institutional access far from the ranch. He funded a Harvard research program run by mathematician Martin Nowak and kept an office in Nowak's lab for nine years after his conviction, using it, per Harvard's 2020 internal review, dozens of times, usually with young women introduced as assistants.

Harvard later sanctioned Nowak and shut down the program in 2021. The sanctions were lifted in 2023. Then, in February 2026, after another release of Epstein files, Harvard opened a new investigation and placed him back on paid leave.

Epstein also had longstanding ties to the Santa Fe Institute, the New Mexico research center co-founded by Nobel laureate Murray Gell-Mann. Emails show years of contact with scientists in his network, including physicists and biologists. Some of them also visited Zorro Ranch.

Then there is Karyna Shuliak, Epstein’s longtime girlfriend and a dentist.

After Columbia initially turned her down, Epstein began leaning on people in his academic circle to get her another shot. Emails show him reaching out on Shuliak’s behalf, including to faculty at Columbia’s dental school.

She was eventually admitted.

Shuliak later applied for a New Mexico dental license and listed Zorro Ranch as her proposed practice address.

She was also the largest beneficiary named in Epstein’s final trust. He set aside $50 million for her, another $50 million for a lifetime annuity, and several properties, including Zorro Ranch. Whether she ever received those bequests is unclear. By 2026, much of Epstein’s estate had already gone toward survivor compensation, settlements, taxes and legal costs.

The Gordons

The interim report names five survivors and refers to roughly 30 other people whose identities remain redacted in the files reviewed by the Commission. Brice and Karen Gordon have not been publicly named.

The Gordons, a New Zealand couple, ran Zorro Ranch and several of Epstein’s other properties for more than a decade.

In February 2007, FBI agents interviewed Brice Gordon at the ranch. He told them that massage therapists brought in for Epstein had been hired through the Santa Fe spa Ten Thousand Waves, and that Karen could provide their names and payment records. Before agents could speak with her, Brice received a call from what he described as Epstein’s “main office” in New York telling him to stop talking. The interview ended there.

The public file does not show everything Gordon had already told the agents before that call came in.

Two days before his death, Epstein signed his final estate documents. Brice Gordon was left $2 million.

Still Missing

The report leaves one of the most disturbing claims about Zorro Ranch unresolved. In 2019, an anonymous email claimed that two bodies were buried near the property and demanded bitcoin in exchange for what the sender said was video evidence.

A different person came forward in 2020 and said he had seen what looked like grave-like disturbances on the property. Photos connected to his account did not surface publicly until early 2026.

New Mexico did not conduct a full search of Zorro Ranch until March 2026, when investigators brought in cadaver dogs and ground-penetrating radar.

No human remains were found. Neither of the earlier claims has been verified, and the Commission does not present them as fact.

One Day Later

The Commission’s final report is due by the end of the year. One day after the interim report was released, New Mexico was already fighting the same battle again.

Attorney General Raul Torrez announced that his office is suing the U.S. Department of Justice for access to the unredacted files. He said Zorro Ranch appears nearly 13,000 times in the federal material and that his office has asked for the records ten times since reopening its investigation. What New Mexico got back was 31 pages, most of which Torrez said had little to do with what investigators were asking for.

DOJ says the Epstein Files Transparency Act limits what it can release because of victim privacy. Torrez says New Mexico is not asking under that law. His office is requesting the files as one law enforcement agency seeking evidence from another. He also said state police, local sheriffs and the ranch’s current owners have cooperated. The federal government has not.

It is nearly the same complaint Hector Balderas was making years ago when he described the relationship with federal prosecutors as one-way. The difference now is that New Mexico has taken it to court.

The state had an investigation, handed over its files, failed to keep a complete copy, and then spent years trying to get them back. Seven years later, New Mexico is still waiting.

Have a tip? A lead you want to share?

Submit a Tip

This work is entirely reader supported. If you want to keep this going, subscribing is the most direct way to help. Thank you for reading and supporting this work.

Subscribe now

Sources

• Clara Moran sends New Mexico’s investigative files to SDNY, EFTA00017781

• New Mexico prosecutors offer to assist with a search warrant, EFTA00019188

• Clara Moran asks federal authorities to pursue seizure of Zorro Ranch, EFTA00015190

• Feds asked New Mexico to halt its Epstein probe, Albuquerque Journal

• New Mexico Touhy response, June 30, 2026

• New Mexico DPS letter, EFTA00731095

• Epstein security policy on firearms and his felony status, EFTA00728836

• Email discussing moving Zorro Ranch gun safes to the pilot’s garage, EFTA01812304

• Epstein email acknowledging the firearm restriction, EFTA01837848

• Zorro Ranch gun cabinet and ammunition maintenance schedule, EFTA00586045

• Santa Fe Institute visitor arrangements at Zorro Ranch, EFTA00659273

• Geoffrey West visit to Zorro Ranch, EFTA02163874

• Ghislaine Maxwell email concerning Murray Gell-Mann’s 80th birthday, EFTA01828932

• Harvard Crimson, Martin Nowak placed back on paid leave, Feb. 26, 2026

• Associated Press, Santa Fe Institute received $275,000 through Epstein

• Columbia dean contacts Belarusian State Medical University about Shuliak completing her degree, EFTA02173516

• “Zorro Smiles”: Shuliak’s New Mexico dental licensing records

• Epstein’s 1953 Trust, executed Aug. 8, 2019, EFTA00099303

• FBI interview with Brice Gordon at Zorro Ranch, Feb. 13, 2007, EFTA00269599

• Anonymous 2019 ProtonMail tip forwarded by Eddy Aragon, EFTA00067066

• Al Jazeera, 2020 trespasser photos published in 2026

• Reuters, New Mexico search of Zorro Ranch, March 10, 2026

• State of New Mexico v. U.S. Department of Justice, federal complaint

Last Page First reporting

• Five Months In: What We Know About Zorro Ranch

• Ranch Central: What Jeffrey Epstein Was Building in New Mexico While No One Was Looking

• The New Mexico Truth Commission Is Looking For Brice And Karen Gordon

• Ten Thousand Waves: The Spa That Supplied The Girls To Epstein’s Zorro Ranch

• The Gordons: The Couple Who Ran Epstein’s Properties and Vanished

© 2025-2026 Last Page First. All rights reserved.