Subscribe now

In the second half of 2024, a woman named Walicki was cited ten times by Los Angeles police for the same thing: sleeping outside. Twice she was cited at the same intersection on back-to-back mornings. Most of the citations were for camping within 1,000 feet of a shelter, though she says the shelter is closer to 2,000 feet away. On Skid Row, a man named David Cerritos, five years on the same sidewalk, was cited at least a dozen times in a single year.

Neither of them had anywhere legal to go. That is not an aside. It is the entire story.

Los Angeles is now arresting and citing people for the act of sleeping in public at a pace it has never reached before, in a city where the shelters are full, the interim beds do not exist, and the waitlist for permanent housing has no end. This is what it looks like when a city criminalizes homelessness in everything but name, and does it legally.

What changed

For six years, this could not have happened here. Under the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 ruling in Martin v. Boise, which governed all of California, cities generally could not punish someone for sleeping on the street unless they had first been offered a shelter bed. No bed available meant no enforcement. The logic was simple: you cannot make it a crime for a person to do the one thing every human body must do, when you have given them no lawful place to do it.

That protection is gone. On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and in a 6-3 ruling it swept Martin v. Boise away. The Court held that enforcing anti-camping ordinances is not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, even when the person being cited has nowhere else to go. The majority reasoned that such laws punish conduct, camping, rather than the status of being homeless, and so fall outside the Eighth Amendment’s reach.

The practical effect was immediate. In the two years since, according to the ACLU, more than 350 cities have passed ordinances criminalizing unhoused people. California cities did not hold back: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sacramento all expanded their anti-camping operations across late 2024 and 2025. And no backstop replaced the one the Court removed. California has never passed a state law restoring the shelter-first rule; a proposed Homeless Bill of Rights that would have protected the right to rest has failed repeatedly in Sacramento, and Governor Newsom’s own executive order pushed cities to clear encampments faster, not slower.

So the honest headline is not that Los Angeles is breaking the law. It is that the highest court in the country made it legal to punish people for being unable to afford rent, and Los Angeles accepted.

What the city did with the permission

Los Angeles does not, technically, ban sleeping outside everywhere. Its anti-camping law, Municipal Code 41.18, works by zone. It prohibits sitting, lying, sleeping, or storing property within 500 feet of “sensitive” sites like schools, day cares, parks, and libraries; within 1,000 feet of shelters; and near fire hydrants, driveways, freeway ramps, and bike paths. Add it all up and the city has designated roughly 2,000 specific sites where lying down is a crime.

That is the quiet trick of it. A blanket ban on sleeping outside would be easy to see and easy to fight. Two thousand mapped zones, enforced unevenly and at each council member’s discretion, achieve the same end while staying harder to picture and harder to challenge. When enough of the map is off-limits, there is no meaningful difference between banning camping in 2,000 places and banning the person.

And enforcement has surged. LAPD made 68 percent more camping and homelessness-related arrests in the second half of 2024, after Grants Pass, than in the first half. In 2023, arrests under the ordinance through mid-September already outnumbered all of 2021 and 2022 combined. The people caught in it are cited again and again, the same faces at the same corners, because they have not moved, because there is nowhere to move to. Each citation carries fines and the risk of warrants, which do not clear encampments so much as make it harder for the person to ever qualify for the housing that would.

The enforcement is also lopsided in a way that gives away its purpose. Nearly half of the arrests in 2023 came from a single council district in the northwest San Fernando Valley, one that has among the smallest unsheltered populations in the city. As the Controller’s office put it, that district had the most arrests and the least homelessness. When the crackdown is heaviest where the problem is smallest, it is not a housing strategy. It is a strategy for moving the problem out of certain sight-lines.

It does not work, and the city knows

There is no need to argue about whether this approach solves homelessness, because Los Angeles has already measured it and answered no.

In its first three years, the anti-camping law cost at least $3 million to enforce and resulted in exactly two people being placed in permanent housing, while LAPD issued 3,183 citations. The Controller’s office reviewed the data and concluded the evidence points to the ordinance not being an effective tool for solving homelessness in any way.

The city’s own housing agency reached the same conclusion, and then it sat on it. LAHSA analyzed 41.18 and found it was not effective at housing people or at keeping encampments from returning. That report was kept from the public, and from council members, for months. It was not shared even with the chair of the council’s own housing and homelessness committee, and the broader report the council had ordered ran eight months overdue. A government finding that its signature crackdown does not work, quietly withheld from the officials who ordered the study, is not a footnote. It is a decision.

Nowhere to go, by design

The defense of enforcement rests on an unspoken assumption: that there is somewhere for these people to go. There is not, and the city’s own numbers prove it.

Los Angeles County counted more than 72,000 homeless people in 2025, roughly 43,000 in the city, about two-thirds of them unsheltered. Emergency shelters are holding a record 23,362 people on a given night, nearly double a decade ago, and they are full. For every one person the homeless system houses, about 2.3 more fall into homelessness. The waitlist for permanent supportive housing, the tier most of these individuals need, is effectively indefinite. And the city’s time-limited rental subsidies were just cut nearly in half, which meant thousands fewer people moved into housing and the shelters stayed jammed with people who had nowhere to move up to.

Crucially, 41.18 enforcement creates none of this capacity. The city does not build shelter or housing as part of clearing an encampment; it relies on the handful of beds that already exist and are already occupied. As the independent outlet Knock LA described it, the city cannot move people out of public space into beds that do not exist, so what it does instead is move the line and make the wait invisible. The encampment disappears from one block. The person does not disappear. They are simply now committing a crime somewhere else.

The part that is simply cruel

Strip away the legal machinery and here is what remains. A person loses their housing, which in Los Angeles most often means they lost a rent they could no longer pay, not that they did anything wrong. They cannot get into a shelter, because the shelters are full. They cannot get interim housing, because it does not exist at the scale needed. They cannot get permanent housing, because the waitlist has no end. There is no lawful place for them to lie down and sleep, which is not optional for any human being. And then the city arrests them for sleeping.

That is not an accusation. It is arithmetic. By the city’s own accounting there are no available options, and it punishes people for the absence of options it created and measured and buried. When you make every exit illegal and then criminalize standing still, you have not addressed homelessness. You have made it a crime to be a person who cannot afford a home.

In fairness

The other side of this deserves a real hearing, not a straw man. Encampments are not harmless. They bring fires, blocked sidewalks that violate disability access law, sanitation crises, and real fear for the people who live and work around them. Residents and small businesses who have watched a corner deteriorate are not villains for wanting it addressed, and the Supreme Court’s majority made a genuine argument that these decisions belong to elected local officials rather than federal judges. Some unhoused people do decline the shelter that is offered, sometimes because of addiction or mental illness, sometimes because the shelter on offer is worse than the street.

But none of that answers the core problem, and most of it points back to it. Enforcement does not put out the fires or clear the sidewalks in any lasting way; it moves them. The city’s own numbers, two people housed for $3 million, a 68 percent arrest surge alongside rising homelessness, a buried report admitting failure, show that punishment does not deliver what its supporters want from it. And when people refuse the shelter, the honest question is what they are refusing: not housing, but a temporary, rule-bound bed that leads nowhere, in a system with no permanent housing waiting at the end of it. Grant the problem in full. The response still does not work, and it still falls on people with no way to comply.

The ledger

Read alongside the money, the picture completes itself. Los Angeles spends around $17,000 a month per person to warehouse some of its unhoused in motels through Inside Safe, a program its own controller and a federal auditor could not fully account for. It spends millions more to cite and arrest the people who never get in. And it funds almost none of the permanent housing that would give anyone a lawful place to go, while cutting the subsidies that were doing the most.

Punishment on one end. Expensive, ineffective warehousing on the other. The actual solution starved in the middle. And in between, a person sleeping in one of two thousand forbidden zones, committing a crime that the law now permits the city to punish and gives that person no legal way to stop committing.

It is legal for the city. It is illegal for the person. And there is nowhere left to go. That is the design, and it should be named for what it is.

Primary sources

- The ruling: City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. (June 28, 2024); Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018).

- LA enforcement: LA City Controller’s 41.18 arrest analysis (controller.lacity.gov); LAPD citation and arrest data via LAist and CalMatters; the $3 million / two-people figure from a City Administrative Officer memo, reported by PBS SoCal.

- The buried report: LAHSA’s 41.18 effectiveness analysis, reported by LAist (December 2025).

- Capacity and waitlists: 2025 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count (LAHSA); LAHSA inflow/outflow and subsidy figures presented to the LA City Council; permanent supportive housing waitlist per Knock LA.

- Property seizure limits: Garcia v. City of Los Angeles and Lavan v. City of Los Angeles (Ninth Circuit).

- National context: ACLU, “Two Years Since Grants Pass” (2026); July 2025 federal executive order on homelessness.

For its first seven months, Los Angeles spent about $17,000 a month on every homeless person it moved indoors under Inside Safe, Mayor Karen Bass's signature program. Not for a home. For a motel room, plus the machinery stacked around it.

Seventeen thousand dollars a month is more than most Angelenos earn. It works out to roughly $204,000 a year, for one person, in a motel. It is enough to have rented that person ten studio apartments. And it is the city's own arithmetic: $32.6 million spent on 57,533 room-nights through June 2023, or $567 a night per person.

"I refuse to let our streets be a waiting room," Bass said this spring, crediting Inside Safe with moving Angelenos "out of tents and into interim housing at a pace the city has never seen before." The public record tells a different story. The average stay in a city-paid motel is now 362 days, for a program designed to move people into permanent housing within 90. The streets weren't the waiting room. The motels were, at $17,000 a month a head.

This is what the record shows: where that money went, how few people it housed, and what happened when a separately elected auditor tried to find out.

The promise

Bass launched Inside Safe on her first day in office in December 2022, alongside a declared state of emergency. The pitch was simple and humane: outreach workers would go encampment to encampment, offer everyone a room, and move them quickly into permanent housing. In her first-year materials, the Mayor's office framed the effort as dismantling "the myth that the vast majority of unhoused Angelenos are sleeping in encampments because they don't want to come inside."

But the offer was always narrower than the rhetoric. Inside Safe does not offer housing to anyone who is homeless; it offers a motel room to residents of the specific encampment being cleared that day, and only when beds have been secured in advance. At the launch, Bass told reporters the providers had "identified the beds." Months later, at an encampment on Aetna Street, a nonprofit representative told residents there were no rooms available, after they had been told to be packed and ready to leave that morning.

And what's offered is interim, not "a place of their own." The permanent housing is a goal, not a placement.

The cost

Start with that $17,000, because the number contains the whole story. The motel room itself, the thing you'd assume the money bought, ran about $3,300 a month, already more than rent on a typical Los Angeles apartment. So where did the other $13,000-plus per person, per month go? Into everything stacked on top of the room: police overtime for encampment sweeps, transportation, outreach, 24/7 site monitors, food, and the case management run by nonprofit service providers. The room was never the expensive part. The apparatus around it was, and that apparatus is where this story leads.

For comparison: Denver's 2026 shelter contracts average about $93 a night. One nonprofit told developer Rick Caruso it could house people for about $100 a day. Los Angeles was paying five to six times that: $567 a night, all in.

The per-person totals climbed from there. By mid-2024, City Controller Kenneth Mejia calculated the program had spent about $125,000 per individual served. By late 2025, with more than $322 million spent, the cost worked out to roughly $259,000 for every person actually in housing, and about $62,000 per participant across everyone the program had touched, whether they stayed housed, left, or returned to the street.

To put that against the thing the money was supposed to buy: a studio apartment in Los Angeles rents for about $1,700 a month, around $20,400 a year. By the city's own accounting, Inside Safe spent enough per person to have simply leased each of them an apartment for six to twelve years.

The outcomes

The spending would be defensible if it produced permanent housing. Mostly, it hasn't.

Seven months in, fewer than 6% of Inside Safe participants had moved into permanent housing. By late 2024, that figure had improved to roughly 23%. That is real progress, and worth stating plainly. But a large share of even that "permanent" housing is a rental subsidy lasting one or two years, after which the recipient is expected to pay market rent. As of mid-2024, only about 2.5% of participants had reached genuine permanent supportive housing, the model research consistently shows produces lasting results.

Meanwhile, people left. By December 2025, about 40% of all Inside Safe participants (roughly 2,300 people) had returned to unsheltered homelessness.

At the one-year mark, that figure had been around 20%. In the Controller's mid-2024 accounting of program exits, hundreds returned to the street, dozens were incarcerated, and dozens more died.

The encampments came back, too. The very first Inside Safe operation, in late 2022, promised housing for 30 people at a cost of nearly $1 million; city data later showed only 11 secured permanent homes, and the encampment returned. Venice, cleared to fanfare in Bass's first 100 days, filled back in.

Where the money went

Return to that $13,000-plus a month per person, the part that didn't go to the motel room. Where did it go?

A large share went to the service providers, the nonprofits that run the sites. An independent analysis of the city's per-night rates found the nonprofit operator's "services" typically cost roughly twice the motel room itself; at the LA Grand, about 59% of the nightly cost went to the provider and 41% to food and shelter. In other words: for every dollar that put a roof over someone's head, close to two went to the organizations managing them.

Those providers are a defined set of large nonprofits, and their revenues and executive pay have climbed as the crisis deepened.

At PATH (People Assisting the Homeless), CEO Jennifer Hark Dietz was paid $308,143 in base salary and $409,407 in total reported compensation in the fiscal year ending June 2024, according to the organization's IRS Form 990; her most recent filing, for the year ending June 2025, reports roughly $451,000. Over the same stretch, PATH's annual revenue more than doubled, from about $88 million in 2020 to $181 million in 2024. (Executive pay is a small share of a budget that size, roughly 1%. That is a point PATH would fairly make, and one worth including.)

At the Weingart Center, CEO Kevin Murray, a former state senator, drew a salary of $408,026 and total compensation of $432,188 in the 2023 filing, and more than $505,000 in the most recent one, a jump worth confirming against the latest 990 before it runs. Separately, LAist reported that Weingart took in more than $100 million in taxpayer money while out of compliance with federal audit deadlines since early 2022, with auditors finding it omitted more than $50 million in federal grants from its own accounting.

And at LAHSA (the public agency that distributes the money, not a nonprofit, so this is a board-approved public salary rather than a 990 figure), CEO Va Lecia Adams Kellum was paid $430,000 a year. Her successor's salary was set at about $370,000, which residents objected to at a public meeting as excessive.

Across 30 LAHSA-contracted nonprofits, roughly $35 million went to executive suites in a single year, compensation for 151 executives, even as the region's homeless count rose the following year.

High salaries alone are not a scandal; running a large social-services organization is real work, and nonprofit-pay benchmarks exist. The scandal is the pattern around them. LAHSA's own chief executive had come directly from running a provider that receives LAHSA money, and, as LAist reported, her signature appeared on publicly funded agreements involving a nonprofit where her husband held a senior leadership role. The Weingart CEO, according to reporting by the Westside Current, was placed on leave in late 2025 during an internal review into how certain housing projects were valued, and stepped down from a county oversight board amid scrutiny of a $27.3 million property deal tied to a developer's federal indictment. This is what it looks like when the people who allocate the money and the people who receive it are the same small circle.

The audit the city didn't want

Then there is the question of oversight, and this is where the record is sharpest.

When Controller Kenneth Mejia, a separately elected watchdog, moved to conduct a performance audit of Inside Safe, Mayor Bass refused to allow it. The city's position was that the Controller cannot audit a program run by the Mayor without the Mayor's consent. "We tried to provide a performance audit," Mejia said, "but we weren't able to get cooperation."

Because the city blocked its own free audit, a federal judge ordered an outside one. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who was overseeing the LA Alliance for Human Rights case, commissioned the consulting firm Alvarez & Marsal to trace the money. The independent audit cost taxpayers nearly $2.8 million, money spent only because the city would not audit itself.

What it found: examining roughly $2.3 billion in city homelessness funding across three programs from 2020 to 2024, the auditors could not determine how much was actually spent or whether services were delivered. Recordkeeping was fragmented; providers were often paid before anyone verified the work. Of $50.8 million in advances to providers, only $220,000 had been recovered. (That $2.3 billion spans years and flows through LAHSA, a joint city-county agency. It is not Inside Safe's tab alone. Inside Safe itself is the $322 million.)

At the March 2025 hearing on those findings, with the Mayor in the room, Carter delivered the line that should anchor any honest reckoning with this program. Nobody, he said, was asking providers what services they actually performed: "We may have providers who committed fraud, and we may never know." He added the other half, which is just as damning: there may be providers who did excellent work, and we'll never know that either. The system was built so that no one could tell.

Bass, at that same hearing, again declined to let the Controller audit her program.

The story the numbers tell about the homeless

There is a human cost to all this beyond the dollars, and it runs opposite to the story the public has been told.

When people decline an Inside Safe room, officials have a word for them: "service resistant." When the Venice encampment returned, city statements described the holdouts as "persistent and mostly service-resistant individuals." The phrase does quiet work. It converts a policy failure into a character flaw: theirs, not the city's.

But listen to why people say no. One Aetna Street resident described motel placements with strict curfews and rules like no razors, and being offered a shared room with a stranger, and concluded that if that's what the city offers, it's understandable people would rather stay in a tent. Others weighed giving up the only home they had for a temporary room unlikely to lead to anything permanent. These are not people refusing housing. They are people refusing a rule-bound, temporary, sometimes-unsafe motel bed with no exit into a real home.

Some refusals are harder: people in acute crisis, deep in addiction or untreated illness, who genuinely cannot engage in the moment. That is real, and Bass has cited it. But the "service resistant" narrative erases everyone in the first group to make room for everyone in the second, and the public hears a single message: they don't want help. The messaging manufactures the contempt.

In fairness

Bass has never claimed the program is finished, and her defense deserves a full hearing. She inherited one of the worst housing shortages in the country and a crisis her predecessors let spiral. She has argued that housing alone is not enough, that people need comprehensive services, measured by outcomes. Her office points to a drop in unsheltered homelessness of roughly 17% over two years and argues that permanent housing simply takes years to build. The improvement in the permanent-housing rate, from under 6% to around 23%, is real.

The rebuttal is not that services are unnecessary. It is that the city spent housing-first money and got motel results; that the services consuming most of the budget still moved a minority into lasting homes; and that when asked to prove otherwise, the city blocked the audit.

The ledger

Strip away the adjectives and here is the public record. By its own controller's math, Los Angeles spent between roughly $92,000 and $125,000 per person on a program that moved a minority into permanent housing and watched 40% return to the street. The money that could have leased every participant an apartment for years instead flowed through a system its own court-appointed auditor could not follow, to providers whose executives were paid $400,000 and up while the count rose, overseen by an agency the Mayor shielded from an independent audit, twice.

A federal judge said it plainly from the bench: we may never know where it went.

That is not a program that failed the homeless by accident. It is a system built so that no one has to answer for it.

Primary sources

- Spending & outcomes: LA City Controller's Homelessness Expense Tracker (controllerdata.lacity.org, dataset "HOMELESSNESS-EXPENSE-TRACKER") and Inside Safe dashboard (homelessdashboard.lacontroller.app/InsideSafe), drawing on the LAHSA data dashboard and CAO reports; figures as of the Oct. 2, 2025 update.

- The audit: Alvarez & Marsal assessment of Los Angeles City homelessness programs, filed as Docket 871 in LA Alliance for Human Rights v. City of Los Angeles (U.S. District Court, Judge David O. Carter), March 2025.

- Executive pay: IRS Form 990 filings via ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer for PATH / People Assisting the Homeless (EIN 95-3950196) and Weingart Center Association (EIN 95-6054617). Note: LAHSA is a joint-powers government agency and files no 990; its CEO salary is a public, board-approved figure.

- Statements & context: Office of the Mayor press releases; The Center Square; LAist; CalMatters; NBC4 I-Team; Los Angeles Times; Westside Current; Vice/Motherboard; ABC7.

Subscribe now

I’ll be honest about when this started for me. Coffee going cold, half paying attention, some clip of the Tate extradition circus playing in another tab, and there’s a guy on screen running the full Andrew Tate routine. The jaw. The fingers pressed together like he’s about to explain the tax code to a woman who didn’t ask. And I thought, sure, of course Tate’s representing himself, who else would he trust with this. Took me longer than I want to admit to clock that it wasn’t Tate at all.

It was his lawyer.

Joseph McBride. Counsel for both brothers. And somewhere between the courthouse steps and his fourth podcast hit of the month, he seems to have quietly decided the job wasn’t defending Andrew Tate so much as becoming a slightly worse one.

The client, briefly

Quick reminder of what McBride is actually holding, since the podcast tour tends to breeze past it.

July 18, 2026, U.S. Marshals grab Andrew and Tristan Tate in Miami on a sealed warrant. Britain wants them. The Crown Prosecution Service and Bedfordshire Police stack up 59 charges between them, 42 for Andrew and 17 for Tristan, and the list is not the kind you spin your way out of on a Thursday livestream. Rape. Sex trafficking. Assault. Charges tied to indecent images of a child. Seven women reporting alleged abuse in the East of England across a seven-year stretch. The brothers say none of it happened, which is what everyone says.

That’s the hand. And a normal lawyer, looking at that hand, plays it very quietly in the one place it matters, which is a federal courtroom in Florida’s Southern District. McBride looked at it and booked a media tour.

The bit

Because that’s what this is. A bit.

He calls two men facing rape and trafficking charges “political prisoners.” Says they’re locked up for “daring to exercise their First Amendment Rights,” as if the seven women were a matter of speech. Tells reporters the whole thing is “politically motivated,” no question about it, in the confident tone of a man who has never once been asked a follow-up. When reporting tied his own orbit to earlier meddling on the Tates’ behalf, he called it a “nothingburger,” which is genuinely the funniest thing to reach for when the alleged burger contents include a child-images count.

None of this is law. It’s an impression, and not even a good one, because the guy he’s doing the impression of is currently in a cell watching it happen. The martyr language, the good-versus-evil framing, the little pose. All of it lifted straight off Tate’s own shelf. McBride isn’t building a defense. He’s building fan content.

And honestly, look at the room he came up in. This is the lawyer whose old firm employed Paul Ingrassia, the Trump-administration hopeful who flamed out of a federal post after his texts surfaced, including the one where he cheerfully volunteered that he has a “Nazi streak.” That’s the peer group. That’s the register. This is not the vocabulary of a courtroom. It’s the vocabulary of a group chat that should have been evidence.

Who’s actually watching

Here’s the part that stops being funny.

The performance isn’t aimed at a jury, because McBride knows the extradition call doesn’t end with a judge. It ends with the Secretary of State, who gets sole discretion to slam the door shut. Right now that’s Marco Rubio.

And the Tate operation has run this play before. A New York Times investigation laid out how, in early 2025, the Trump administration leaned on Romania to lift the travel ban keeping the brothers parked in the country. Trump’s envoy Richard Grenell had a word with Romanian officials, the ban evaporated within days, and the Tates were wheels-up to Florida on a private jet. Andrew texted a contact that he “had word from the Trump admin that they’re on top of things.” Years of cozying up to people around the president, including his sons, and it cashed out exactly once.

So the whole clown show has a purpose. Wrap two accused traffickers in movement grievance language, make abandoning them feel like a betrayal, and make the guy with the door key pay a political price for using it. The tough-guy cosplay isn’t a lapse in professionalism. It’s the delivery mechanism.

The problem is the door key belongs to a former senator who ran on anti-trafficking laws and reportedly thinks, in the words of one source, that “these guys are scum.” Rubio told reporters there’s “no role for us to play at this moment or maybe ever.” The White House says it’ll honor the treaty. The one lever this entire act was built to pull is, for now, bolted to the floor.

The record is public

Peel the impression off and you’re left with the thing that was always underneath. Not a holy war. Not a free-speech crucifixion. A criminal case about what allegedly happened to specific women, in specific years, in specific rooms.

Andrew Tate got rich teaching men that if you perform certainty hard enough, the facts underneath stop mattering. His lawyer absorbed that so completely he now performs the man himself, pose and all, which is a strange way to grieve a client who isn’t even dead yet. It’s also a tell. A defense that spends all its oxygen playing to a political crowd is usually a defense that already knows how the actual judge is going to feel.

The pose is free. The charges cost 59 counts and seven women. And no amount of steepled fingers edits the record.

Public Record. Hidden Truth.

She wasn't wrong. She just didn't know the half of it.

The woman in this video raves about the food, the scene, the caviar. She jokes that she can't guarantee the men there aren't married. She and her friends are living their best lives at one of the hottest tables in the country. "Get a rez or cry about it."

What she doesn't mention, because she almost certainly doesn't know, is who owns it.

Stephen P. Hanson is the co-founder of The Polo Room in Palm Beach. His public-facing partner is Ignacio "Nacho" Figueras, the world's most famous polo player, global brand ambassador, and the handsome face of the operation. Hanson has been quietly co-owning one of Palm Beach's most sought-after reservations while keeping a very low profile.

There's a reason for that.

The official DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act archive contains:

An FBI victim interview in which a woman told federal agents Epstein "trafficked me too" and described Epstein dispatching Hanson to her apartment for paid sex acts more than a dozen times.

Photographs of Hanson inside Epstein's Little St. James private island home with a young woman whose face the DOJ has fully redacted.

Hanson in the same email as Jean-Luc Brunel, the modeling agent who sourced hundreds of girls for Epstein, found hanged in his Paris prison cell in 2022 while awaiting rape trial.

A shell company Epstein designed in writing to hide his name, used to purchase an $18.5 million Gulfstream G550 in Hanson's name.

A $500,000 wire from Epstein's own Deutsche Bank account to Hanson's lawyer to fund it.

Hanson's jets used to fly young women to Epstein's properties with passports collected.

Nacho Figueras has not condemned Hanson's documented entanglement with Epstein. The Polo Room's other investors have not spoken. No one associated with the restaurant has been asked to account for what the public record now shows about their partner.

The current administration has made clear it will not pursue accountability for the men in Epstein's network. The Oversight Committee has not subpoenaed Hanson. He has not been charged. He has not been deposed. He has not been asked a single question under oath.

So it falls to us.

We the People have one tool left when institutions fail. We stop spending our money there. We stop making them rich. We stop giving them the cover of normalcy while victims wait for justice that never comes.

The Polo Room is not just a restaurant. It is the last remaining public face of a man the DOJ archive places at the center of Jeffrey Epstein's world. Every reservation, every table, every bottle of wine ordered there is a signal that none of it matters.

It matters.

Boycott The Polo Room.

Share this everywhere.

Tag Nacho Figueras. Tag The Polo Room. Ask them publicly why they have not spoken.

The documents are public. The questions have not been asked. The accountability has to come from somewhere.

[LINK TO DEAD RECKONING]

[LINK TO THE TRAP]

[THE CONFESSOR & THE PREDATOR]

Plainsite. Public Record. Hidden Truth.

I was watching a video clip of Trump walking into an event, some branded backdrop, a podium, the usual. Before he says a word, the room stands and claps. And claps. It goes on so long that somewhere in the middle it stops sounding like applause and starts sounding like an instruction being followed. Nobody wants to be the first hand down. You can watch them not want it. That part I understand. A staffer in that room has a mortgage and a boss and a career that ends the second they're seen as insufficiently enthusiastic.

Fear is a real thing and it explains most of what you're looking at. There's a whole shelf of social science about it. People conform when they think everyone else believes something they privately doubt. People obey when the person next to them obeys first. People will do almost anything as long as they're not the one who has to go first and pay for it. The room clapping too long is the most ordinary human behavior there is. I don't even blame them much. The staffers aren't the story. The staffers are the easy case.

Here is the record, stated plainly, because it doesn't need my adjectives. A federal jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in a department store dressing room, and then for defaming her when she said it happened. The judge who presided over that trial later wrote that what the jury found fit what most people mean by the word rape. The Supreme Court declined to touch it. He paid her, years late, only after every appeal ran out. A separate jury ordered him to pay her another eighty-three million for continuing to defame her. In 2024 a Manhattan jury convicted him on thirty-four felony counts, making him the first convicted felon to hold the office. A judge ruled he had spent years committing business fraud, inflating his worth to make himself richer, though an appeals court later threw out the size of the penalty. This is not opinion. This is the paper trail. This is a man the courts have described, repeatedly, in language that would end anyone else.

And knowing all of it, the most powerful people in the country still line up to clap.

Not the rally crowds. I'm not talking about the guy in the red hat who genuinely believes. He at least has the excuse of belief. I'm talking about the ones who can't plead ignorance and can't plead faith. The tech founders who mocked him in private and now seat themselves in the front row. The CEOs of companies that could survive his displeasure. The billionaires with lawyers and exits and fortunes large enough that no threat he makes could actually touch them. The senators who know exactly what he is because they said so, out loud, before it became expensive to say. These are not frightened people. These are people with every resource a person could have to stand up straight, and they choose the floor.

So what holds them, if it isn't fear?

Part of it is the plainest thing in the world. It pays. The tax cut, the deregulation, the contract, the favorable ruling, the door that opens. Cross him and the damage lands on you alone. Go along and the reward spreads across your whole class, yourself included, at no personal risk. A rational, selfish actor takes that trade every single time. That's not a character flaw, exactly. It's arithmetic. It's just arithmetic that requires you to swallow everything in the paragraph above and pretend you didn't taste it.

But greed alone doesn't quite explain the faces. Because these people don't experience themselves as bought. And here's the part that actually turns my stomach, more than the cowardice does. The mind is very good at coming to believe whatever your interests need you to believe. A man who profits from Trump does not walk around thinking of himself as a coward taking a bribe. He talks himself, sincerely, all the way into admiration. He decides Trump is strong, is right, is playing some deeper game the rest of us are too small to see. The belief grows on top of the self-interest to give it cover, and after a while he can't tell them apart and neither can you. That's the worst version. Not that they're lying to us. That they've lied to themselves so completely that they mean it now.

And then there's the hunger. For a certain kind of already-rich, already-powerful person, money stopped being the prize a long time ago. What they can't buy is proximity to the one man handing out relevance. Being liked by the king. Being in the room. So they don't clap out of fear at all. They clap out of appetite. He feeds on their applause and they feed on his attention and the whole room is just people using each other, and the clapping is the sound of the transaction closing.

I keep coming back to a smaller thing. When he stands at a podium and belittles a reporter, especially a woman reporter, calls her stupid, calls her a terrible person for asking a real question, the room lets it happen. Everyone there outranks the cruelty in that moment simply by being a decent adult, and not one of them says treat her with respect. I think about what I'd do. I'd like to believe I'd say it, and I know what saying it would cost, the access, the seat, the invitation that never comes again. Some things should cost you that. I've had the corrupt version of the deal put in front of me in my own small life, the chance to cut the line, to take the thing that wasn't mine, to go along with a scheme that made money by cheating someone quieter than me. I said no. It wasn't heroic. It was just the floor. It was the least a person can do.

Here's the thing I can't get past, and I'll say it about a man I otherwise can't stand. JD Vance could earn actual respect in a single afternoon. He could stand at one of those podiums and, instead of playing the loyal echo, tell his own boss to stop bullying a reporter on live television. That's it. That's the whole bar, and it's on the ground, and he will never clear it. That's the tell. Not that the bar is high. That it's low enough to step over and they still walk around it.

We've seen this exact shape before. There was a man everyone close to him understood was a monster, and they stayed close anyway, because of what the proximity bought them. The access, the money, the parties, the usefulness. Plenty of powerful people knew and said nothing and kept their seats warm, and when it finally came apart they all discovered they'd barely known him. I've spent real time in the wreckage of that story. It is the same machine. The same trade. The same quiet decision that what you get is worth what you already know.

So I've stopped extending the courtesy of understanding. Understanding was for when I thought most people were decent and afraid. I still think most people are decent. But the ones who aren't afraid, the ones with every means to refuse and every reason to know better, have made a choice, and the choice is disqualifying. It is too late to forgive anyone still kissing the ring. Every Republican still standing behind him, every titan still seated in the front row, every one of them is telling you exactly who they are, and the only mistake left is to forget it.

That's where the hope is, and it's real hope, not the soft kind. There are more of us than there are of them. The people who see him clearly are not rare and are not alone, and the point of naming the cowardice out loud is to make the refusal to join it feel like the thing it actually is. A stand. Something worth being. The titans won't do it. Fine. That was never who this was addressed to. It was addressed to the rest of us, the ones still willing to be the first hand down.

Be the first hand down.

Six days ago, Fox News walked a camera crew into a homeless encampment in New York City during a heat wave. The segment aired on Jesse Watters Primetime under the framing that this is what Mayor Mamdani’s city looks like.

The most revealing moment is not a statistic or a policy claim. It is a reporter going through a stranger’s suitcase on national television, naming the contents out loud, while foreboding music plays underneath.

Before I go further: this is not a defense of an administration. Mamdani pledged to end encampment sweeps, reversed himself in February, and restarted them in May at eleven sites. The Legal Aid Society and the Coalition for the Homeless called that another broken promise, and they were right to. But Fox reached for a mayor who took office in January to explain a housing crisis that took decades to build. That is the trick, and it is the reason this segment exists.

Here is the segment in full. Watch it before I rip it apart.

The correspondent is Johnny Belisario. He is standing inside the place where somebody lives, and he is narrating the inventory like a customs agent.

A suitcase. A pineapple. A bottle of tequila.

That is not reporting. It is a tour.

This is a format, not a story

Belisario has done this before. In 2024 he ran essentially the same routine, approaching a man sitting on a sidewalk until the man told him to leave him alone on camera.

Two years apart. Same premise, same posture, same result. Somebody at that network looked at the first one and ordered another.

Now look at what he actually found in that encampment.

He found a man keeping himself clean. Belisario says it out loud, notices the hand sanitizer, gives it a small approving aside, and moves on. He found bedding. He found an umbrella rigged against the sun. He found belongings kept in a suitcase, because you keep your life in a suitcase when you do not have a closet.

Every item in that inventory is evidence of a person trying. In a lethal heat wave, with nothing, doing the daily work of staying alive and staying human.

Fox put ominous music under it. Listen to the scoring choice, because it is the whole editorial position of the segment stated without words. It is not the music you put under a report on a crisis. It is the music you put under a haunted house. Someone in an edit bay chose that, and someone above them approved it, and that decision was made about human beings sleeping outside in July.

The most honest sentence in the segment

There is one line I want to sit with, and it is not the one you think.

There is beds right here. (0:15)

I know what I am supposed to do with that. I am not going to do it. Mocking how a man conjugates a verb is the smallest available response to this, it lets everyone off the hook including me, and it is the same instinct that produced the segment in the first place: find a person, make him small.

But I want that sentence, because it is the most honest thing anybody says on that tape.

There is beds right here.

He is right. There are. People made beds. On concrete, in July, in a city with roughly a hundred thousand people in its shelter system, human beings built somewhere to sleep out of whatever they could carry.

That is not a punchline. That is the entire story, and he walked past it to get to the tequila.

The lie the whole segment rests on

They don’t want a job. They don’t want to go inside. This is where they like to live. (2:42)

This is the load-bearing claim of every segment like this one, so let’s be precise about it.

The research says the opposite, consistently and for decades. Interview after interview, survey after survey, the overwhelming majority of unsheltered people say they would move inside if what was offered was safe and stable. When people do decline a shelter bed, the reasons are documented and they repeat. You cannot bring your partner. You cannot bring your dog. You cannot bring the possessions you have left, which is the exact thing Belisario is on camera handling.

That is not preference. That is triage.

And be careful with the rebuttal you may have heard, because in New York it is wrong. New York City operates under a right to shelter. A bed is legally guaranteed on demand. Roughly 97 percent of the city’s homeless population is in a shelter, compared with Los Angeles, where about 70 percent are unsheltered.

So no. The answer is not that the shelters are full.

The answer is harder, and worse.

There is a bed. There is no home.

96,500 people slept in New York City shelters every night this past May.

Roughly another 250,000 are doubled up on someone else’s floor or couch. More than 154,000 New York City schoolchildren experienced homelessness during the 2024-2025 school year. One in eight kids in the city’s schools.

And the way out is a door that does not open.

The most recent citywide housing survey put the net rental vacancy rate at 1.4 percent, the lowest in decades. Landlords refuse housing vouchers constantly, which is illegal under source of income protections and which happens anyway. A state comptroller audit found it took the average person ten months to actually find an apartment and secure a CityFHEPS voucher, a finding the city disputes.

And here is the part that should end the argument. In fiscal year 2024, the city placed a record number of households into homes with those vouchers, more than 13,000, a 42 percent jump over the year before. The shelter population still rose by roughly 50 percent.

They are doing more, and it is still getting worse, because the people coming in vastly outnumber the doors opening out.

That is the math Fox does not mention, because mentioning it would require admitting that the people in that encampment are not there by choice. They are there by arithmetic.

Do you know that you can’t be sleeping here?

Yeah, I know. (1:03)

She knows. She says so. She is not confused about the law. She has nowhere to go, and a reporter with a microphone just asked her to explain herself.

What caring actually looks like

Here is the test. Anyone can be upset about an encampment. The question is what you do next.

Here is what it looks like when people who actually do this work respond. When the city restarted sweeps, the Legal Aid Society and the Coalition for the Homeless said that if the mayor wants fewer encampments, the city should increase the number of outreach workers, offer low-barrier beds like safe havens and stabilization beds, and provide immediate access to supportive housing.

Agree with all of that or none of it. It is a policy argument, and policy arguments are allowed.

And here is why they are making it. The city has spent more than $6.4 million since 2024 breaking up encampments. Across more than 4,148 sweeps, not one person was offered permanent shelter through a housing voucher application, a direct placement, or a transfer to supportive housing.

Not one.

Now go back through the Fox segment and find the policy. Find the proposed solution. Find one sentence advocating anything at all.

There isn’t one. There was never going to be one. The segment is not an argument. It is a mood, and the mood is contempt.

Why this is not just bad television

Cities across this country are passing ordinances that criminalize sleeping outside.

Those laws do not pass on their own. They pass after the public has been trained, night after night, to see the people affected as a nuisance instead of as neighbors in an emergency. That training has a production budget. It has music cues. It has a correspondent with a microphone.

The dehumanization is the pre-work. The statute is the payload.

Are you willing to share what you guys do for a living?

I hold up TV reporters at gunpoint. (1:51)

That is the one moment in the entire segment where somebody has the upper hand, and it is not the man holding the microphone. A guy with nothing looked at a camera crew that came to make a spectacle of him and refused to play his part.

He understood exactly what was happening to him. Which puts him several minutes ahead of the network.

The record

The heat wave is real. The encampment is real. The suffering Fox filmed is real, and I am not suggesting they invented any of it.

They found it, and they decided it was funny.

That is the record. It is public. It aired on national television with a graphics package.

Go help somebody today.

Plainsite Investigations. Public record, hidden truth.

Editor’s note: This piece links to Fox News’ own posting of the segment rather than re-cutting and re-uploading the footage. The people in that video did not consent to appearing on national television. Fox exposed them once. There is no reason for me to do it a second time to make a point about it.

Subscribe now

I. "Do We Have One on the Shelf That Does Not Show My Name?"

On March 15, 2016, Stephen Hanson forwarded Jeffrey Epstein an email from Kevin White, Executive Sales Director at aviation broker AVPRO Inc., regarding Gulfstream G550 serial number 5017. Hanson wanted to buy it. He needed Epstein's guidance on how to proceed.

Epstein replied the same evening. His response contained a single directive — not addressed to Hanson, but to someone named Darren, copied on the thread.

"no, a new co will be formed. darren do we have one on the shelf that does not show my name?" (EFTA00678083)

That sentence is the most important line in this entire investigation.

Jeffrey Epstein, in his own words, in writing, in a document now part of the official DOJ public archive, was asking whether a shell company existed that could be used to structure an $18.5 million aircraft purchase without his name appearing anywhere in the transaction.

Six days later, SFS LLC was formed. Wholly owned, on paper, by Stephen P. Hanson. Jeffrey Epstein's name does not appear in the ownership documents. Exactly as directed.

This was not the first jet Epstein had arranged for Hanson. It was the second. And the documents show what the first one was used for.

II. The First Jet

On June 24, 2011, at 2:36 AM, Stephen Hanson emailed Jeffrey Epstein from his Blackberry (EFTA02022751).

The subject line was: I love my plane.

The message read: "Why didn't u make me get this 5 years ago — makes life great."

That line — why didn't u make me get this — is not the language of a man who independently decided to purchase a private jet. It is the language of a man who was talked into it. By Epstein. Over years of urging. Until he finally did it.

By June 2011, Stephen Hanson owned his first private aircraft — a Bombardier Global 5000, tail number N343DF, serial number 9206. A large-cabin intercontinental jet capable of flying nonstop from New York to London, to the Caribbean, to Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, to anywhere Jeffrey Epstein needed people moved without a commercial record.

Epstein did not own that jet. His name was not on it. Hanson did.

III. What the First Jet Was Used For

The documents establish that N343DF was not used for Hanson's restaurant business. It was used as operational infrastructure for Epstein's world.

August 2012. Zorro Ranch. An internal email dated August 8, 2012 (EFTA02313217) documents Epstein's assistant coordinating a trip to Zorro Ranch, Epstein's 8,000-acre New Mexico estate. The email reads in part: "Apparently Steve Hanson is flying out to see JE on the ranch this Friday Aug 10... JE wants to fly with him... Steve is flying private... will need to get to Westchester airport on Friday probably by 9am. [redacted name] will be bringing Jeffrey's wallet and whatever else he may want her to bring. Will then fly in Hanson's private plane to the Hampton's to pick up Steve and off they go to the Ranch."

A young woman — identity redacted by the DOJ — was coordinated onto Hanson's private jet to fly with Epstein to Zorro Ranch. Hanson's jet. Epstein's destination. Someone else's name blacked out.

July 2013. Columbia University. A Passport. On July 12, 2013, Hanson coordinated an afternoon pickup of Karyna Shuliak from her school at 168th Street and Broadway in Manhattan — Columbia University's dental school campus, where she was enrolled (EFTA00530193). A second, unnamed person was being collected simultaneously from 71st Street.

Hanson's emails in this chain are operational in tone. He writes: "Make sure u have ur passport on you." He confirms: "So we can take off before 6."

A passport means international travel. Karyna Shuliak is the woman Jeffrey Epstein left $100 million, his private island Little St. James, and his properties to in his will. She was among the closest young women in Epstein's inner circle. In July 2013, she was being collected from dental school by Stephen Hanson, reminded to bring her passport, and flown internationally on his jet — alongside a second person whose identity the documents do not name.

Aviation spotters photographed N343DF at Stansted Airport in the UK and Copenhagen during the period of Hanson's ownership — confirming the aircraft was making international flights. The complete flight records for that period are being pursued via FAA records request.

Two documented trips. Two sets of passengers. One jet registered to Hanson, urged on him by Epstein two years earlier.

IV. Five Hundred Thousand Dollars

On March 18, 2016, a wire transfer left Jeffrey Epstein's personal Deutsche Bank account.

The account balance at the time was approximately $1.6 million. The wire was for $500,000. The memo line read: "Loan to Steve Hanson." The recipient was the law firm of Muchnick, Golieb & Golieb, P.C., 200 Park Avenue South, New York (EFTA01367909).

Five days earlier, on March 13, Stephen Hanson had sent Epstein one of the most panicked emails in the entire DOJ archive — a 3 AM message about a woman from Scottsdale he had been paying for a decade to stay silent. He called Epstein the only person in the world he could trust.

Two days after that, Hanson was forwarding Epstein the AVPRO jet purchase emails. Epstein was asking Darren about shell companies.

Three days after the wire, SFS LLC was incorporated at 200 Park Avenue South — the address of Muchnick, Golieb & Golieb. The lawyer who structured it was Howard Muchnick — the same Howard Muchnick that Hanson had personally introduced to Epstein in 2013 (EFTA00390161).

The $500,000 deposit required under the purchase agreement — wired to escrow — was the same amount Epstein had wired to Muchnick Golieb six days before SFS LLC was formed. Same firm. Same amount. Same month. Same lawyer.

V. The Aircraft

The purchase proposal is dated March 24, 2016 (EFTA00590125). The seller was Path Air, LLC, a subsidiary of GE Capital. The aircraft was a Gulfstream G550, serial number 5017, registration N62MS. The purchase price was $18.5 million as recorded in the Aircraft Warranty Bill of Sale.

The ownership structure, stated explicitly in the purchase documents: wholly owned by Steve Hanson through SFS LLC.

Not a shared investment. Not fractional ownership. Not a lease. One man. One LLC. One $18.5 million jet. With Jeffrey Epstein's name nowhere in the paperwork — exactly as Epstein had directed.

There is one additional detail the purchase email chain reveals. When Kevin White of AVPRO asked Hanson about his current aircraft, Hanson identified it as the Global 5000, tail number N343DF. Stephen Hanson already had a private jet. He was not buying the Gulfstream G550 because he needed his first plane. He was buying a second, significantly larger, longer-range aircraft — one with full transatlantic range — at a moment when he had no active revenue-generating business and his hotel partnership was in financial distress.

VI. The Man Who Was Going Broke

By March 2016, Stephen Hanson's financial position was precarious.

He had sold half of BR Guest Hospitality to Starwood Capital in 2007 for $150 million — but fully exited the company in 2013. By 2016 he had been out of his only major business for three years. His comeback was the Life Hotel in Herald Square, a partnership with developer David Mitchell signed in January 2015. It was struggling almost immediately. Epstein himself described what he found in the Life Hotel's books as "sooo many funky numbers" and advised Hanson to sell before an audit could proceed.

By 2018 the situation had fully collapsed. Epstein's emails from January and April of that year show him managing the Mitchell-Hanson dispute in granular detail — referencing "all the money I have advanced" to the Life Hotel (EFTA01036326), telling Hanson to get it sold and deal with Mitchell afterward. Hanson was simultaneously consulting employment lawyers about mass layoff thresholds — the legal requirements for closing a restaurant.

In March 2016, sitting between the collapse of BR Guest and the implosion of Life Hotel, with a decade of hush money payments to a woman in Scottsdale, Hanson acquired an $18.5 million Gulfstream G550 — his second jet — through an LLC structured to hide Epstein's involvement, funded by a wire from Epstein's own Deutsche Bank account.

A man with no active business does not independently finance an $18.5 million second aircraft. Not in that month. Not through that structure. Not with that wire.

VII. Transactional Dependency Dressed Up as Friendship

The documents do not explicitly state why Jeffrey Epstein wanted Stephen Hanson to have a Gulfstream G550 rather than simply continue using the Global 5000 he already owned. Plainsite makes no allegation beyond what the documents establish.

But the documents establish enough that a reasonable person examining them is entitled to ask the question. And to consider what the answers might be.

The Global 5000 is a large-cabin intercontinental jet. The Gulfstream G550 is larger — wider cabin, greater range, more passenger capacity. It is the category of aircraft used to move groups of people across oceans without commercial records, without manifests available to the public, without the scrutiny that comes with commercial aviation.

By 2016, Jeffrey Epstein was a registered sex offender. The FBI had been monitoring his network for years. His own jets — tail number N120JE among others — were known, tracked, and associated with him directly. A jet registered to Stephen Hanson's LLC was not a jet registered to Jeffrey Epstein. That distinction, in the context of ongoing federal surveillance, is not incidental. It is the point.

The documents show Epstein explicitly directing the concealment of his name in the purchase structure. They show him wiring the deposit from his own account to the structuring lawyer. They show Hanson's first jet being used to fly women to Epstein's ranch and internationally with passports collected. They show Epstein maintaining financial control over Hanson through a sustained pattern of loans, ghost-negotiations, and business interventions — creating the kind of debt and dependency that binds men to arrangements they might otherwise exit.

The entire relationship was transactional dependency dressed up as friendship. Epstein didn't have a wingman. He had an asset. One he dispatched to a victim's apartment.

Steve Hanson owned the jets. Jeffrey Epstein owned Steve Hanson.

As for the woman from Scottsdale — the one Hanson had been paying for a decade, the one who prompted a 3 AM email to a convicted sex offender five days before the wire transfer — Plainsite notes only this: she appears in the correspondence at precisely the moment the jet transaction begins. What she knew, and what her silence was purchased to protect, remains an open question. One that the flight logs may help answer.

VIII. The Lawyer. The Statement. The Horse Shit.

When the New York Times published its investigation in June 2026, Stephen Hanson's attorney Gerald B. Lefcourt — himself a former attorney for Jeffrey Epstein — issued a statement. Epstein, Lefcourt said, had "pulled the wool over the eyes of leading academics, scientists, and titans of business." The implication was clear: Hanson was just another unwitting victim of Epstein's charm. Another good man deceived.

Plainsite has a different word for that statement. It's hot stinking horse shit.

The man whose eyes Epstein supposedly covered with wool visited him in jail during his sentence for soliciting sex from a minor. Replied "Glad" when a rape lawsuit filed by a woman alleging Epstein raped her at age 13 was dropped. Collected passports from young women and flew them internationally on his private jet. Was dispatched by Epstein to a victim's apartment where he paid her for sex more than a dozen times. Wrote at 3 AM to a convicted sex offender calling him the only person he trusted with his nightmare about a woman he'd been silencing for a decade — a woman he'd been funding horses for.

The only wool Epstein pulled over Steve Hanson's head was that Epstein was using him too. Hanson knew exactly what Jeffrey Epstein was. The relationship was not a con. It was a partnership. And Steve Hanson was not the victim of it.

IX. The Last Email

On July 4, 2019, Stephen Hanson sent Jeffrey Epstein a message wishing him a happy Fourth of July.

Epstein was in Paris. He replied:

"Ive been careful as my press has been toxic. No need to put you at risk. Hopefully changing soosn."

Hanson wrote back:

"No different then before. Nyc understand a bitch. But palm is easy. Enjoy paris."

Two old friends. A holiday. Nothing on their minds.

On July 6, 2019, Jeffrey Epstein boarded his own Gulfstream GV-SP, tail number N120JE, registered to his shell company Plan D LLC, at Le Bourget Airport outside Paris. It landed at Teterboro Airport in New Jersey. A dozen FBI agents and NYPD officers were waiting. Epstein was arrested on federal charges of sex trafficking minors.

As he was driven to Manhattan, he reportedly asked: Is this sex trafficking?

He died in federal custody 35 days later. The medical examiner ruled it suicide.

The jet that brought him to his arrest was his own — N120JE. Not N62MS. Plainsite states this clearly. N62MS was not the Paris plane.

But the last known communication between these two men — Epstein laying low in Paris, telling Hanson he didn't want to put him at risk — took place two days before Epstein stepped onto that plane for the last time.

Where was N62MS on July 4 and July 6, 2019? The flight logs would tell us. They are blocked. We are asking for them.

X. After the Arrest. After the Death.

Epstein was arrested July 6, 2019. He was dead by August 10.

In April 2021, an FBI FD-302 interview record (EFTA01250194) placed Stephen Hanson in explicit detail inside a trafficking arrangement. A victim told federal agents that Epstein had dispatched Hanson to her apartment. She described what happened there in detail. She named Hanson. She used the words "trafficked me too." The document is three pages long and exists in the official DOJ public archive.

Hanson has not been charged. He has not been deposed. He has not been asked by any investigative body prior to Plainsite to explain his relationship to the jet registered in his name through an LLC Epstein designed to conceal his involvement.

Between Epstein's death in August 2019 and March 2021, N62MS was quietly re-registered. It received a new tail number: N147SF. The registered owner became Constellation Leasing LLC, 1299 Scottsville Road, Rochester, New York.

XI. The Sands Family

Constellation Leasing LLC is the aviation holding company of the Sands family — Rob and Richard Sands, the billionaire founders of Constellation Brands, the company behind Corona beer, Modelo, and Robert Mondavi wines. Their combined net worth is estimated at $3 billion. Their aircraft fleet bears the SF suffix — Sands Flight — across all registrations.

N147SF — formerly N62MS, formerly the wholly-owned jet of Stephen P. Hanson, serial number 5017 — is now listed as registered to AS Aviation III LLC, another Sands family aviation entity.

There is no allegation against the Sands family. They purchased an aircraft on the secondary market. They almost certainly had no knowledge of its provenance. The chain of title from Epstein's wire transfer to SFS LLC to Constellation Leasing to AS Aviation III LLC is not their story. It is the story of what happened before they bought it.

What it means is this: the jet allegedly purchased with Jeffrey Epstein's money, registered to an LLC Epstein designed to hide his name, used during the years Hanson flew women to Epstein's properties — is currently being flown by one of America's most prominent billionaire families. They did not know what they were buying. Nobody told them. Because nobody asked.

XII. What the Flight Logs Would Show

Private aircraft are required by the FAA to file flight plans. Those plans are government records.

N62MS was active from 2016 until approximately 2021 — covering Epstein's arrest, his death, the FBI victim interview naming Hanson, and the quiet transfer of the aircraft. Flight tracking services show no publicly accessible historical data for N62MS during this period. Private aircraft may register with the FAA's BLOCK Aircraft Registration Request program to withhold their position from public tracking. Whether N62MS was enrolled in that program, and when, is itself a question the records would answer.

Plainsite is pursuing the flight logs for N62MS for the full period of Hanson's ownership — April 2016 through early 2021. Those logs would show every airport N62MS departed from and arrived at. Whether it flew to St. Thomas — the gateway to Little St. James. Whether it flew to Santa Fe — the gateway to Zorro Ranch. Whether it flew to Palm Beach, Paris, or anywhere else documented in the Epstein correspondence.

Plainsite is also pursuing the flight logs for Hanson's first jet — the Bombardier Global 5000, N343DF, serial number 9206 — which was in his possession from at least 2011 through 2016. Those logs cover the years when N343DF flew a redacted woman to Zorro Ranch with Epstein, and when Karyna Shuliak was collected from dental school with her passport and flown internationally. Aviation spotters photographed N343DF at Stansted Airport UK and Copenhagen during Hanson's ownership period, confirming the aircraft was making regular international flights. N343DF is currently operated by Executive Jet Management as a charter aircraft — flying paying customers who have no knowledge of what that aircraft was used for between 2011 and whenever Hanson sold it.

Two jets. Two sets of flight logs. A documented pattern of women being moved on Hanson's aircraft to Epstein's properties. And a question that has not been formally asked: where did those jets go, and who was aboard?

We do not yet have those logs. When we do, Plainsite will publish what they contain.

XIII. The Questions Nobody Asked

The statement from Hanson's attorney said Epstein pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. The documents say something else entirely. They say Hanson was present, active, operational, and compensated — in bailouts, in ghost-negotiations, in financial lifelines — for his participation in a relationship the FBI victim interview now characterizes as trafficking.

He has not been asked to explain any of it. Not the wire. Not the shell company. Not the passports. Not the flights. Not the apartment. Not the jet.

Stephen Hanson now operates The Polo Room in Palm Beach, co-owned with Ignacio "Nacho" Figueras — the most famous polo player in the world and a global brand ambassador. It remains one of the hottest restaurants in the country. Reservations are nearly impossible to obtain. Neither Figueras nor the restaurant's investors have been publicly asked to account for what the DOJ archive now shows about their partner.

The documents are public. The questions have not been asked.

XIV. What Comes Next

The aircraft with serial number 5017 — the Gulfstream G550 that began its life in Hanson's hands as N62MS — is currently flying under the registration N147SF, operated by the Sands family. It is airworthy. It is active. It carries its current owners to their destinations aboard a machine whose history they did not buy with it.

Hanson's first jet, N343DF, is now operated by Executive Jet Management as a charter aircraft.

Plainsite is pursuing flight logs for both aircraft through official FAA channels. We are also pursuing the complete financial picture of what Epstein meant when he wrote, in January 2018, about "all the money I have advanced" — and what that ledger of debt and dependency enabled across more than a decade.

The documents got us this far. The flight logs will take us further.

Plainsite will keep reading. One document at a time.

Share

Subscribe now

A Plainsite investigation. All findings drawn from documents in the official DOJ public release, FAA public records, and public financial filings. Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what those documents establish. Where this piece draws reasonable inferences from the documented evidence, it says so explicitly. Flight logs for the period in question are currently blocked. Plainsite has filed to obtain them.

A note on sourcing: The findings in this piece — including Epstein’s written directive to form a shell company that would not show his name, the $500,000 wire transfer memo-lined “Loan to Steve Hanson,” the documentary evidence of women being flown on Hanson’s private jet to Epstein’s properties, and the complete ownership chain of both aircrafts — have not been previously reported by any news organization. All documents are from the official DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act archive and are linked where possible. The “Darren” email quoted in Section I has never been published before today.

EFTA documents referenced in this piece:

EFTA02022751 - EFTA02313217 - EFTA00530193 - EFTA00678083 - EFTA01367909 - EFTA00390161 - EFTA00590125 - EFTA01036326 - EFTA00842112 - EFTA01250194

FAA Registry:

N343DF (Global 5000, serial 9206 -- Hanson's first jet)

N62MS / N147SF (G550, serial 5017 -- Hanson's second jet)

N120JE (Epstein's own Gulfstream GV-SP)

All EFTA documents available in the official DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act archive.

Subscribe now

I. The Man He Trusted

Between June 2014 and July 2016, Steve Hanson, founder of BR Guest Hospitality and one of New York’s most prominent restaurateurs, sent a series of emails to Jeffrey Epstein about a woman. Not to his lawyer. Not to a therapist. Not to a close family member. But to Jeffrey Epstein.

The emails, now part of the official DOJ document release, trace a two-year arc in which Hanson grows increasingly frightened, increasingly obsessive, and increasingly reliant on Epstein’s counsel about a woman he had been involved with for a decade. They also trace something else. The gradual construction of a narrative weapon, the label of liar, the label of blackmailer, deployed against a woman before she has said a single public word.

What emerges from reading these emails in sequence is a portrait of two men who share the same fundamental instinct when a woman threatens their control. Discredit her first. Build the story. Get ahead of the truth.

“there is no one else I would trust with this nightmare”

Stephen Hanson to Jeffrey Epstein, May 1, 2016 (EFTA02463523.pdf)

One of those men was a convicted sex offender who trafficked girls across international borders and whose estate would ultimately pay hundreds of millions in settlements to his victims. The other man chose him, above everyone else in his life, as the one person he could trust.

The woman at the center of these emails is never named in the documents. She is, instead, given a sequence of labels, each one tracking how Hanson’s framing of her hardens over time. In June 2014, when Epstein first references her, she is simply “the girl.” In January 2016, she is “the girl I have known for awhile.” In February, Hanson locates her in his own past for the first time, writing in his own words, “who I have known for many years, actually from when I had my hotel in Scottsdale and she and her friends would hang around.” By March 2016, in a 3 AM panic email, she has become “that girl from Scottsdale,” “a rotten bitch,” and “a total psychopath.” In May, she is again “that girl I told you about from Scottsdale.” By July, after Epstein has coached him through the framing, she is reduced to “the California person,” a label so abstract it removes her from gender, history, and place entirely.

She is systematically dehumanized through abstraction, even as the evidence of their relationship accumulates in the very act of describing it. He never calls her a woman. Not once. In thirteen documents spanning two years, she is always “the girl,” or worse.

What the documents establish, in Hanson’s own words, is that he had known her for a decade. He lent her money to purchase a diamond ring. He funded horses. He fielded her calls almost daily. He had been paying for her life, or a significant portion of it, for long enough that he calls the situation a “trap,” a word that appears across multiple emails, always describing the situation, never his own choices that created it.

He never once asks what she needs. He never expresses concern for her wellbeing. She is described exclusively in terms of the inconvenience she causes him. A nightmare. A trap. A source of panic that wakes him at 3 in the morning. Not concern for her. Concern for himself.

II. Five Documents

What follows is the full arc, in order. Five emails. Twenty-five months. One pattern.

June 25, 2014. Epstein already knows. In the middle of a condolence chain about a mutual acquaintance’s death, Epstein inserts a single casual line. “yes i know, how s the girl” (EFTA00667046.pdf ). No clarification. No “which girl.” He already knows her, and Hanson’s response is, “I’m in Tahoe, business.” He does not answer the question. By June 2014, this woman is already a standing topic between these two men. Hanson had no active company at this point. BR Guest had been sold. There is no documented business reason for Hanson to be in Tahoe in June 2014.

January 7, 2016, 3:16 AM. The diamond ring. Eighteen months later, Hanson contacts Epstein again. Subject line, “Need to talk to you.” The email arrives at 3:16 in the morning (EFTA02477498.pdf). He frames a diamond ring as a loan she never repaid. The sums and the daily calls accumulate into a portrait of a man who has been paying for years and is starting to panic. He does not say, “I made a mistake.” He says, “some bs story being said about she and I.” The story exists. He needs Epstein to help him get ahead of it.

February 6, 2016. The Scottsdale origin, confirmed. Four weeks later, Hanson writes again. Subject, Jeffrey. This email does something none of the others do. It confirms exactly where this began. In his own words, “who I have known for many years, actually from when I had my hotel in Scottsdale and she and her friends would hang around”(EFTA02392003.pdf). The James Hotel Scottsdale opened in 2004 and sold in 2006. That places the start of this relationship at approximately 2004 to 2005, consistent with his “10 years ago” reference one month later. This email is also where he names Brynn, his eldest daughter, for the first time. Epstein now has a named reference. Ten months later, Hanson will bring Brynn, then 15, to meet Epstein privately. That visit is the subject of Part 2.March 13, 2016. The Scottsdale panic. Subject, Jeffrey (EFTA00634942.pdf). He wakes up in a panic. He describes the relationship as “started out 10 years ago as a business deal,” placing the origin at 2006, his Scottsdale years. He admits the core truth in his own words, “years ago I made the decision to keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.” He has been paying for a decade. To prevent her from speaking. This is hush money in everything but name. In the same email, the language hardens. She becomes “that girl from Scottsdale,” “a rotten bitch,” “a total psychopath.” He mentions his daughters as “especially” important. His wife Deana is not referenced. She is not part of his moral accounting.

May 1, 2016. “How are you,” the disguised subject. The subject line reads “How are you” (EFTA02463523.pdf). The email contains nothing about how Epstein is. It is entirely about the Scottsdale woman and Hanson’s escalating fear. He has disguised the subject because he does not want a paper trail with her name on it. He is still waking at 3 AM. He still calls it a trap. Now he imagines dying and not being there to defend himself. He worries about his daughters’ perception of him. He does not mention his wife. And he writes the line that gives this entire investigation its name, “there is no one else I would trust with this nightmare.” The man he is writing to has, by this point, served time for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

July 30, 2016. The script arrives. On July 3, Hanson emails Epstein about “the California person,” horses, phone calls, 3000 miles away. Still “the trap I’m in.” He asks for a way out of the “horrible situation.” On July 30, Epstein replies (EFTA02458203.pdf). This is the moment the coaching completes. Hanson came to Epstein over two years with vague anxiety, with self-pity, with “rotten bitch” and “psychopath.” Epstein sends him back with a weapon. Epstein tells him she is a blackmailer. Tells him to cut her off completely. And references, explicitly, operations in China that “are set up to only do that.” To get rid of female blackmailers.

“its a shame you cant send her to another country where they deal with blackmailers more effectively. in china there are cos that are set up to only do that.”

Jeffrey Epstein to Stephen Hanson, July 30, 2016 (EFTA02458203.pdf)

This is the arc. Hanson arrived with a personal mess and a vocabulary of insult. Epstein refined the vocabulary into a strategy and, in the final email, gestured at infrastructure for making women like her disappear. Hanson did not flinch from the suggestion. He did not write back to clarify. He did not break the correspondence. He absorbed it.

III. What “Lies” Really Means

Across thirteen documents, Hanson never once denies the relationship existed. Not in the 3:16 AM email. Not in the Scottsdale confession. Not in the “how are you” email that is not about how Epstein is. He never once writes the sentence “nothing happened.”

What he says, instead, is that she is lying about someone, and that those lies are “something more than a business thing going on.” He needs to neutralize a specific claim she is making about him. He does not name the claim. He does not refute the claim. He simply moves the frame. “She lies” becomes the structure he is asking Epstein to help him build.

He chose his phrase carefully. “Keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.” He paid so she would not speak. This is the working definition of hush money.

Who he was protecting was himself. Always and only himself. The daughters appear in the emails not as people he is shielding from a predator, but as the audience he cannot afford to lose. “Especially my daughters” is not concern for their safety. It is concern for the image they hold of him. He worries the truth will “create psychological effects” in them, not that the truth itself is true, but that they might hear it. He is afraid of dying before he can finish constructing the story. Before he can teach his daughters what to believe.

This is the pattern that runs through every email. Hanson never once takes responsibility for his own conduct. The woman is a trap. The situation is a nightmare. The money is a business deal. The years of payments are something that “started out,” passive voice, no actor, “as a business deal.” He never writes, “I made a choice. I created this. I am the reason this exists.”

It is the same pattern that surfaces later in his business correspondence. In his BR Guest separation, Barry Sternlicht calls his demand for a $2.5 million payment, in writing, “your $2.5m blackmail payment.” In Hanson’s telling, Sternlicht is the unreasonable one. In the collapse of the Life Hotel and its restaurant Henry, his partner David Mitchell is the one mishandling money. In Hanson’s telling, Mitchell is the problem. Epstein himself, when the books at Life Hotel begin to show what Epstein in his own words calls “sooo many funky numbers,” advises Hanson to sell before the audit can proceed. In Hanson’s telling, the audit is the threat, not what the audit might find.

It is always the other person. The woman. The partner. The auditor. The girl from Scottsdale, the rotten bitch, the psychopath, the blackmailer. The cast of villains rotates. The protagonist is always blameless.

The person he chose to help him maintain that story was a convicted sex offender. Not a lawyer. Not a therapist. Not a priest. A man whose expertise was how to make young women with inconvenient stories stop talking. By 2008, Jeffrey Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution from a minor, a state felony. He was required to register as a Tier 1 sex offender. He served 13 months under a controversial non-prosecution agreement so lenient it would later be condemned across the political spectrum and contribute to the resignation of a U.S. Labor Secretary who had signed off on it as a federal prosecutor.

During that 13-month sentence, Stephen Hanson was on Epstein’s approved visitor list at the Palm Beach County Stockade (EFTA00315076.pdf). He did not stop being Epstein’s friend when Epstein went to jail for sex crimes against a minor. He went to see him there.

Between 2014 and 2016, the exact window of the Scottsdale correspondence, Epstein’s status was not hidden. It was a matter of public record, reported in the press, searchable on any sex-offender registry. Anyone could find it. Hanson did not need to be told. He also did not need to be told what was alleged about Epstein beyond the 2008 conviction. He was told directly, in writing, by Epstein himself.

On Sunday, November 6, 2016, two days before the presidential election, Epstein emailed Hanson a Daily Mail article (EFTA01738461.pdf). The article reported the dismissal of Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, a federal lawsuit filed by a woman who alleged that Epstein and Donald Trump had raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. The suit was withdrawn days before the election after the plaintiff said she had received threats.

Epstein chose to share that news with Hanson. Hanson’s reply, in its entirety, was one word and a follow-up question.

“Glad. U free at all.”

He did not ask whether the allegations were true. He did not ask his friend whether he had done what he was accused of. He did not say he was sorry the woman had withdrawn the suit, or sorry she had ever needed to bring it. He said he was glad. One word. Then he asked when they could talk.

That word is a small mirror of the Scottsdale correspondence. There, Hanson was the one who needed an accusation to go away. Here, his friend needed the same thing. The response is identical. “Glad. Let’s talk about something else.”

That choice, not an accident, not a moment of weakness, but a repeated, documented, two-year return to the same man for the same kind of counsel, is not collateral to the story. It is the story.

IV. The Wife He Never Mentions

There is a woman who appears in none of these emails. She is not the Scottsdale woman. She is the woman Hanson was married to.

Across thirteen emails spanning 2014 to 2016, discussing fear, money, a decade-long relationship with another woman, and what Hanson framed as his moral reckoning, Hanson names his wife exactly once. In a forwarded chain. In passing. About stock in a vitamin company.

Deana Hanson is the mother of his children. She is the woman most directly affected by a decade of payments to another woman. She appears in the broader correspondence, in passing references, dinner arrangements, a note that she was away with Brynn and he realized he missed them. She exists in his world. She is simply not part of his crisis planning.

Across the Scottsdale emails specifically, the thirteen documents in which Hanson is constructing his response to the woman who might speak, Deana never appears as a reason. Not as someone he is protecting. Not as someone he fears finding out. Not as someone he considers telling the truth to. Not once does he write: “Deana cannot know this.” Not once does he write: “I owe her an explanation.” Not once does he frame the Scottsdale woman’s silence as something he needs for his wife’s sake.

The daughters appear six times as the explicit reason for concealment. The phrase “the family” appears four times, always meaning him and his daughters. Deana, the woman most directly wronged by a decade of payments to another woman, is never named as a consideration in that accounting.

This is not an oversight. It is not the kind of omission a man makes by accident. It is a decision. Deana is not part of his moral accounting because Deana was never the audience. The daughters were the audience, the future audience, the one he was constructing the story for. Deana was the woman already inside the marriage, already paying her own kind of cost, already in possession of whatever truth was between them.

She does not need to be lied to in these emails because she has already been lied to. For years. For a decade.

She is, in the language of the documents, the woman the lies are no longer for.

V. What the Documents Prove, in His Own Words

These are six facts that are not subject to interpretation.

One: a relationship lasting a decade. Hanson’s own phrase, “started out 10 years ago as a business deal.” Origin, Scottsdale, 2006. His own hotel. The woman and her friends “would hang around.”

Two: payments made to silence. “Keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.”Payments made specifically to suppress speech. Hush money by definition.

Three: protection of his own image, not his daughters’ safety. “Especially my daughters.” Six emails cite the daughters as the reason for concealment. Zero cite the wife. The threat he is managing is not what someone might do to his daughters. It is what his daughters might learn about him.

Four: 3:16 AM. The tone of the January 7, 2016 email is not a business inquiry. It is a man in crisis, writing before dawn, seeking a fixer.

Five: thirteen emails on this topic across twenty-five months. A sustained correspondence with a convicted sex offender, selected, chosen, returned to. Not an accident.

Six: the China response. Epstein, on July 30, 2016, writes that there are companies in China “that are set up to only do that,” to get rid of female blackmailers. Hanson is given a script. He accepts it.

These are not allegations. They are the record.

VI. The Daughter He Never Worried About

In the preceding sections, Stephen Hanson invoked “especially my daughters” six times as the reason he had to suppress a woman’s story.

What he does next cannot be reconciled with that fear.

The man he described as “the only one I would trust with this nightmare,” the convicted sex offender he chose as his confidant, was invited into his family. Not kept out of it.

Brynn Hanson, his eldest, was 15 years old during the period these emails document. She was a student at Marymount School in Manhattan. She was an academic. She rode horses. She joined clubs and built a college résumé.

Across April 2015 to December 2016, the exact same window as the Scottsdale correspondence, seven documented emails in the DOJ archive coordinate contact between Brynn and Jeffrey Epstein. School project advice. College advice. Term paper topics. Cosmetic demonstrations. A Thanksgiving Day visit. A holiday gift exchange.

This is the contradiction this series documents. A father whose stated fear was that his daughters would learn something was, in the same period, bringing his eldest daughter into the home of the man he trusted with that fear.

He did not protect Brynn from Epstein. He brought her to him.

VII. Seven Emails

April 4, 2015. The school project. Hanson emails Epstein, “Brynn / oldest would like your advise on a school team project. We have horse back riding but can be to u anytime after 130, so what is best” (EFTA00644503.pdf).

Stephen Hanson is a graduate of NYU’s Stern School of Business. He built a restaurant empire generating $200 million in annual revenue. He negotiated multi-million-dollar transactions and managed hundreds of employees. His family foundation lists Marymount School, one of Manhattan’s most exclusive Catholic girls’ schools, among its grantees in public IRS tax filings.

According to the DOJ documents, her father could not help her brainstorm a school team project without consulting a man with no children, no academic credentials, and a federal conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

April 5, 2015. “Be there in 10. With brynn.” The following evening, Sunday, April 5 at 10:19 PM, someone sent Epstein a five-word text: “Be there in 10. With brynn.” (EFTA02505763.pdf).

The sender’s identity is completely redacted in the DOJ archive. The email address field is blank. The metadata lists the sender as Unknown.

A teenage girl. Sunday night. After 10 PM. Arriving at Jeffrey Epstein’s home.

January 6, 2016. College advice. Hanson emails Epstein multiple items. He opens by noting he has a serious situation to discuss, but only by text, not in writing. What that situation was is unknown. He then asks Epstein for college advice for his daughter, who is anxious about not getting into a good school, studying hard, joining yearbook, building her résumé (EFTA02475176.pdf). The DOJ redacted her name in this document. The context tracks directly to what we know about Brynn from the surrounding emails.

October 28, 2015. “Show her face.” Lesley Groff, Epstein’s personal assistant, emailed Hanson: “Hello Steve…Jeffrey is here in NY at the house and says you can stop by! He says to bring your daughter if she is available so she can show Jena her face (and how great Accutane works!)” (EFTA00336648.pdf).

Hanson: “I’m 5 blocks away. I’ll see where brynn.” Groff: “Great!”

Epstein was not a physician or dermatologist. He had no medical credentials. He did, however, have, documented across the DOJ archive, a pattern of directing the physical routines of young women in his circle. Brynn was being brought to demonstrate results to another young woman in Epstein’s home. Hanson was five blocks away and went to find her.

November 24, 2016. Thanksgiving Day. Hanson: “We need to be home then at 2. But if ok I’ll bring brynn over to see [REDACTED] play with the cats” (EFTA01743243.pdf).

The person Brynn was brought to watch on Thanksgiving Day is redacted by the DOJ. Hanson confirms they needed to be home by 2 PM, a brief, scheduled visit on a family holiday, to a convicted pedophile’s home.

November 27, 2016. The term paper. Subject, “Brynn wanted me to ask.” Hanson asks Epstein for term paper topic ideas. Epstein replies, “transgender? life on mars. self driving cars. genetic engineering. living to 120 years old.”Hanson: “Tks I’m sure she will want you to proof read once she picks a topic” (EFTA02669410.pdf).

The girl in these documents was attending one of New York City’s most academically rigorous private schools. She was joining clubs, building her résumé. She did not need Jeffrey Epstein to suggest term paper topics. Her father chose to make him available to her anyway.

December 27, 2016. A holiday gift for Karina. Hanson: “When are u free today. Brynn also has a holiday gift for Karina, would like to see her at some point.” Epstein: “1030 morning or 430?” Hanson: “430” (EFTA02665313.pdf).

Karyna Shuliak is the woman Epstein left $100 million, his private island, and his properties to in his will. She was among the closest young women in his circle. By December 2016, Brynn had a holiday gift for her and wanted to see her.

The relationship between Epstein’s world and the Hanson family had become social, reciprocal, and normalized.

VIII. What This Section Does Not Claim

This series does not make claims about what happened during these visits.

The documents establish that the visits occurred. They establish the dates, the venue, the redacted companions, and the man at whose home she was a guest. They establish that her father was the one arranging her presence in those rooms. Whether Steve Hanson remained present during those visits, or left his daughter alone with Epstein, is not established by the documents we have.

But that question, while worth asking, is not the only one the record raises.

Even if Hanson never took his eyes off her, even if every visit was fully supervised, a different question remains, and it is one no one has asked him to answer: Why? Why does a father choose a convicted sex offender, a man federally registered as a Tier 1 pedophile, as the person to advise his teenage daughter on school projects, term papers, and college applications? Why is Jeffrey Epstein the one giving her access to his household, to young women in his circle, to holiday gatherings? Stephen Hanson had resources, credentials, and connections that most parents can only imagine. He chose Epstein anyway.

That choice does not require an allegation. It requires an explanation. None has ever been offered.

The contradiction the documents establish is this: a father whose stated nightmare was that a woman might tell his daughters something true about him was, in the same window, voluntarily integrating that same convicted predator into his eldest daughter’s life. The two things cannot both be expressions of the same paternal instinct.

One of them is the cover story. The other is the conduct.

The documents do not require us to choose between them. They show us both.

IX. A Name in the Federal Record

The Scottsdale emails show Stephen Hanson choosing Jeffrey Epstein as the man he would trust with a nightmare. The Brynn emails show Hanson bringing his teenage daughter into Epstein’s home.

There is a third document set in the public record, released by the Department of Justice under the Epstein File Transparency Act, that adds a fourth dimension to this relationship.

It is an FBI FD-302 interview record, dated April 1, 2021 (EFTA01250194.pdf). It documents an interview the FBI conducted, by video conference, with a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. The victim’s identity is redacted by the federal government. What is not redacted are the names of the men she identified.

She named Stephen Hanson.

In her own words, recorded by the interviewing agents: “trafficked me too.”

The interview describes a pattern. She first encountered Epstein as a teenager. By the time she turned 18, she was being summoned weekly to his Manhattan residence. She was instructed by Epstein’s assistants on how to behave when she arrived. She was paid in cash, sometimes $300, sometimes $150, after each visit. She estimates the pattern continued over multiple years.

Then, according to the document, the arrangement expanded. “EPSTEIN sent HANSON to her house,” to her own apartment, in her bedroom. “Performed fellatio on HANSON more than a dozen times. This happened in her bedroom apartment. HANSON paid her.”

The document also names Henry Jarecki, a physician, financier, and longtime Epstein associate, in the same context. The victim states that Epstein arranged for her to “entertain” Jarecki at his home, weekly, in exchange for help with college. She “really wanted to attend college,” the document records. “She obliged.”

The interview is three pages long. It is subject to a federal protective order. It is part of the official DOJ release. Every page bears the same notation: 3501.503-001.

The Scottsdale woman, in 2014, was Hanson’s nightmare because she might speak.

The woman in this FBI interview, in 2021, is the woman who did.

She did not speak publicly. She did not bring a civil suit. She sat with two federal agents on a video conference call and described, in detail, what had been done to her. The interview record now exists in the public archive of the Department of Justice. Her identity is protected. The names she gave are not.

There is no documented response from Stephen Hanson to this FBI interview. He has not been charged. He has not been deposed. He has not been asked, by the press or the public, to explain his presence in this woman’s bedroom apartment, or what “more than a dozen times” of paid sex acts with an Epstein victim, arranged and dispatched by Epstein himself, meant in the context of his correspondence with that same Epstein about another woman who was “a nightmare.”

This is the question this series has been moving toward.

In the Scottsdale emails, Hanson positions himself as the victim of a woman’s lies. He frames her as a “blackmailer,” a “psychopath,” a “trap.” He asks Jeffrey Epstein, the man we now know, in the federal record, was sending him women to her apartment, for help making her go away.

The same man. The same window. The same correspondence. The same convicted child sex offender he called “the only one I would trust with this nightmare.”

The Scottsdale woman was not Hanson’s nightmare because she was lying.

She was his nightmare because what she might say was true.

X. A Note on What Remains

The Scottsdale emails, the Brynn emails, and the FBI 302 establish the personal and criminal dimensions of the Hanson-Epstein relationship. They do not exhaust it.

A separate documentary trail in the DOJ archive establishes the financial and operational dimensions. Across the same years that Hanson was writing to Epstein about the woman from Scottsdale, the two men were partners in a sustained working relationship. Epstein ghost-negotiated Hanson’s separation from BR Guest Hospitality, including the $2.5 million payment Hanson’s business partner Barry Sternlicht would call, in writing, “your $2.5m blackmail payment.”Epstein advised Hanson on the Life Hotel and its restaurant Henry, telling him to sell before what Epstein himself called “sooo many funky numbers” in the books could be reached by an audit. On March 18, 2016, five days after the Scottsdale panic email, $500,000 was wired from Jeffrey Epstein’s personal Deutsche Bank account, balance approximately $1.6 million, to the law firm of Muchnick, Golieb & Golieb. The wire was memo-lined “Loan to Steve Hanson” (EFTA01367909). Three days later, SFS LLC, an entity wholly owned by Steve Hanson, was formed to purchase an $18.5 million Gulfstream aircraft, the ownership documents explicitly designating the aircraft as wholly owned by Steve Hanson through that LLC. The lawyer who structured the LLC was Howard Muchnick, the same Howard Muchnick that Hanson had personally introduced to Epstein in 2013 (EFTA00390161).

These threads, and the friendship that made all of them possible, will be the subject of the next Plainsite installment.

XI. What the Epstein Class Looked Like

The Epstein archive is often discussed as a list of names, a flight log, a black book, a client list people keep demanding be released. That framing makes it sound like a conspiracy. It isn’t. It’s a pattern of behavior, among a recognizable class of men, that the documents render fully legible.

Stephen Hanson is not the most famous name in that archive. That is precisely what makes these emails useful. He is a competent, successful American businessman, a restaurateur, a philanthropist, the founder of a family foundation, whose correspondence with Epstein, read in order, shows what proximity to Epstein actually looked like in practice.

It looked like a man paying another woman for a decade to keep his daughters from finding out something. It looked like asking a sex offender how to make her stop. It looked like seven documented emails coordinating his teenage daughter’s access to that same man, school projects, college advice, holiday visits, across the same two-year window.

What the emails show about the men who wrote to Jeffrey Epstein:

They treated women as problems to be managed, not as people with stories of their own.

They paid to silence those stories, and reframed the payments, to themselves, as “a business deal.”

They protected the image they projected to their daughters, while exposing those same daughters to men like Epstein.

They did not consult lawyers or therapists first. They consulted Epstein. He was the expert they trusted.

They did not stop after his 2008 conviction. They continued, in writing, from their own email accounts, with their own names.

They assumed no one would ever read it. The DOJ archive is that assumption reversed.

This is the working definition of the Epstein class. Not a list. A pattern. A pattern that included presidents, princes, financiers, scientists, and at least one New York restaurateur whose foundation is still listed in the IRS tax filings of one of Manhattan’s most exclusive Catholic girls’ schools.

The pattern was not hidden. It was protected, by money, by mutual interest, by the assumption that men like these would never have their email accounts seized, indexed, and searched. The assumption held until it didn’t. The archive now exists. The pattern is now legible. The accountability is not.

Which raises a question no one in Hanson’s current world has been asked to answer. His latest venture, The Polo Room in Palm Beach, remains one of the hottest restaurants in the country. It is co-owned with Ignacio “Nacho” Figueras, the most famous polo player in the world and a global brand ambassador. Reservations are nearly impossible to obtain. The celebrity clientele continues to line up. Neither Figueras nor the restaurant’s investors have been asked, publicly, to account for what the DOJ archive now shows about their partner. The documents are public. The questions have not been asked.

That is the trickle-down no one talks about. Not wealth. Not opportunity. Suffering. The cost of a system in which money and proximity to it can purchase a decade of silence from a woman, can purchase the silence of partners, of staff, of institutions, of prosecutors, until, finally, the cost is paid by women and girls whose names we will not know, whose stories live in redacted FBI interviews and sealed depositions and the dehumanizing shorthand of men who called them “the girl” and “the California person” and “more than a dozen times.”

Plainsite exists because the documents exist. Our job is only to read them carefully, in order, and write down what they say.

XII. Two Women. No Answers. Yet.

Named nowhere in the archive. Hanson’s own words place her first in his life around 2004 to 2005, when she and her friends “would hang around” his Scottsdale hotel. She would have been in her teens or early twenties. No one has asked her for her account. The DOJ archive contains his words about her, not hers.

The unnamed Epstein victim in EFTA01250194.pdf spoke to the FBI in April 2021. She named Stephen Hanson. She described what was done to her. Her identity remains protected. So does her silence in public.

Two women. The record contains both of them. The record contains neither of their names.

What this series is asking. What accountability would require.

Was the Scottsdale woman a minor when the relationship began? Hanson’s own dating places the origin in his hotel-owner years. The question deserves an answer.

What were the sums paid to her over the decade-long “business deal”? Financial records exist.

What advice did Epstein ultimately give Hanson by phone and in person, beyond the lines we can read in email?

What did Brynn Hanson do on those visits to Jeffrey Epstein’s home?

"Who took Brynn to Jeffrey Epstein's home after 10 PM on a Sunday night? The sender of that five-word text, 'Be there in 10. With brynn,' is completely redacted in the DOJ archive (EFTA02505763.pdf). Brynn is named. The adult who brought her is not."

"Who is the young woman staying with Epstein that Brynn was brought to watch on Thanksgiving Day? Hanson writes that he will bring Brynn over to see a redacted name 'play with the cats' (EFTA01743243.pdf). That person was in Epstein's home on Thanksgiving. Their identity is protected by the DOJ."

How many more men in Epstein’s correspondence have archives that, read in order, tell a version of this same story?

Plainsite is reading them. We will keep reading the documents. One man at a time.

All findings are drawn from documents in the official DOJ public release and public financial records. Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what those documents contain.

EFTA documents referenced in this piece, in order of appearance:

EFTA02463523 · EFTA00667046 · EFTA02477498 · EFTA02392003 · EFTA00634942 · EFTA02458203 · EFTA00315076 · EFTA01738461 · EFTA00644503 · EFTA02505763 · EFTA02475176 · EFTA00336648 · EFTA01743243 · EFTA02669410 · EFTA02665313 · EFTA01250194 · EFTA01367909 · EFTA00390161

All documents available in the official DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act archive.

Public Record. Hidden Truth

Subscribe now

Newly unsealed emails show the chairman of one of America's most powerful law firms helping Jeffrey Epstein surveil, jail, and deport the woman who accused Leon Black.

In the summer of 2015, a woman was watched out of a Manhattan apartment building, moved through a parking garage into a car with tinted windows, and followed to JFK. Someone took down her license plates.

The man keeping the notes was not a private investigator and not a police officer. He was Brad Karp — then chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, one of the most prestigious law firms in the country — and the man he was reporting to was Jeffrey Epstein.

That exchange sat inside the roughly three million Epstein investigative files the Justice Department released in early February. It cost Karp the chairmanship he had held since 2008. And on March 2 it became the spine of a new lawsuit, filed in Manhattan, that argues the surveillance was never an aberration — it was one early move in what the complaint calls a decade-long campaign of intimidation against anyone who tried to hold the billionaire Leon Black to account.

The woman in the files

The woman in the emails is Guzel Ganieva, a former Russian model who had been involved with Black and who, Black would later allege in his own 2022 lawsuit, demanded $100 million from him in 2015 at a meeting at the Four Seasons. To Black’s people, that demand was extortion. Ganieva later sued Black for sexual abuse — a case a judge dismissed in 2023, and a related defamation claim a New York appellate court rejected, holding that a 2015 nondisclosure agreement covered her claims and that she had ratified it by accepting roughly $9 million from Black, including a $100,000 monthly stipend, before she ever sued.

Set the merits of that dispute aside for a moment, because the files reveal something that doesn’t depend on who was right about the money. They show the machinery two powerful men built around her while the public knew none of it.

Epstein, the convicted sex offender, was advising. Karp, running a firm that billed more than $2.6 billion a year and counted Black’s Apollo Global Management as its largest client, was executing. The surveillance was contracted to the investigations firm Nardello & Co., which produced transcripts of secret recordings. In the emails the two men refer to Ganieva only as “GG,” and they trade her movements like inventory — where she went, who she met, the plates on the car that carried her to the airport. Karp reports that “GG is in Moscow” and that a transcript would follow.

It did not stop at watching her.

“Both good ideas”

The files show Epstein and Karp working through the options for making the problem disappear. In July 2015, Epstein floated going after Ganieva’s immigration status — whether her contacts could pull her visa, whether they could file something to revoke it. Karp’s reply, as quoted in the records: “both good ideas; will work on this.”

A month later, Epstein pressed harder, asking whether Ganieva could simply be arrested — extortion charges, high bail, possible deportation. The plan ran through a name that appears again and again in the correspondence: “Lorin.” That is Lorin Reisner, who had run the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan before joining Paul Weiss roughly a year earlier — exactly the kind of former top federal prosecutor a firm would want signing a criminal referral. Epstein, growing impatient, told Karp law enforcement needed to be brought in and left the choice of agency to him: the FBI or the NYPD.

It went further still. According to reporting by the Financial Times, Karp personally called then-Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance in April 2021 to raise the possibility of investigating Ganieva for extortion.

None of it worked. The arrest never came, the visa was never revoked, the deportation never happened. But the effort is now a matter of record.

The keys to every kingdom

This is the part worth slowing down on, because it is the whole point.

When a woman accused Leon Black, the response from the people around him was not to argue the truth of her claims in open court. It was to reach for instruments most people don’t know exist and could never afford to rent: a private intelligence firm to follow her, a former chief of the criminal division of the most powerful U.S. Attorney’s office in the country to weigh a criminal referral, a Wall Street chairman with the standing to get a sitting district attorney on the phone, and a friend in Epstein who specialized in making other people’s problems vanish. The aim, stated in their own words, was to have her surveilled, deported, or jailed.

None of that required breaking a law. None of it required corrupting a judge. That is exactly what makes it worth understanding. Real power at this altitude rarely looks like a bribe. It looks like access — the ability to point the legitimate machinery of surveillance and prosecution at a single person and ask, politely, on firm letterhead, whether anything can be done. Most of us live inside that machinery. People like Black can aim it.

This is the Epstein class. Not a conspiracy, not a cabal — a tier of wealth so far past ordinary money that it comes with keys to rooms the rest of the country can’t find the door to. Epstein’s genius was never only what he did in private. It was that he held a copy of those keys and would hand them to the right people. He was the man you called when the ordinary channels were too slow, or too clean. The men in his orbit weren’t all there for the same reasons. Some were there because he could solve things. The solving was the point.

The record that never gets made

Now watch the other side of the ledger — not what happened to the women, but what keeps not happening to Black.

This spring, a federal judge ordered Black to testify under oath. He had been named a “critical witness” in a lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims against Bank of America, which they accused of ignoring the money Black moved to Epstein through one of its accounts — roughly $170 million, the suit alleged, which the plaintiffs cast as a primary means of funding the trafficking operation.

That figure is worth pausing on, because it’s the same relationship described two opposite ways. The 2021 review Apollo’s own board commissioned, conducted by the law firm Dechert, put Black’s payments to Epstein at $158 million in fees for tax and estate-planning advice between 2012 and 2017, and concluded the work was legitimate and that Black had nothing to do with Epstein’s crimes. The Bank of America suit, counting transfers through a single bank, alleged roughly $170 million and called it fuel for the abuse. One number is Black’s house accounting, blessed by the firm he hired; the other is the victims’ accounting, filed in federal court. They describe the same river of money flowing to the same man.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff scheduled the deposition for late March: up to eight hours, under oath, on the record.

It never happened. Black’s lawyer persuaded Rakoff to push the date back ten days because the parties were “close to settling.” Then Bank of America settled — $72.5 million — and the deposition vanished with the case. Black, who is not a defendant and denies any wrongdoing or any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, was never asked the questions. The bank wrote a check, and eight hours of sworn testimony simply stopped existing.

It is the same on every front where Black might have to answer in public. Congress summoned him in March as part of its Epstein probe and asked him to sit for a transcribed interview; months later that questioning has not materialized, and the broader investigation has been reported to have stalled. Ganieva’s claims were ruled sealed inside an NDA she had been paid to sign. The surviving suit by the woman who says he raped her as a teenager goes on, but the firm that brought it has been sanctioned and pushed off the case.

Notice the asymmetry, because it is the entire story in miniature. When a woman threatened to make Black’s conduct public, his circle wrote down her license plates and weighed having her deported. When the public threatened to make Black account for himself, the record kept not getting made. They documented her exhaustively. The one moment his own sworn word was set to go on the record, it was bought back.

Not left, not right

It would be easy to file all of this under partisanship, and wrong. The judges cut straight across it.

The veteran judge who ordered Black deposed in the Bank of America case, Jed Rakoff, is a Clinton appointee — and one long known for refusing to let corporate defendants settle their way out of a full airing of the facts. He ordered the sworn testimony and rejected the bank’s bid to pause the case. And the judge who, on April 23, sanctioned Wigdor LLP — the firm pressing the cases against Black — is no captured Black ally either. U.S. District Judge Jessica Clarke is a Biden appointee, a former Chief of the Civil Rights Bureau in the New York Attorney General’s office. She found that a Wigdor partner had committed serious, sanctionable misconduct in the separate suit accusing Black of raping a teenager: that the attorney lied repeatedly to the court and opposing counsel about a related proceeding, directed her client to delete a social media account, and that the plaintiff had falsified sonogram images in journals the complaint relied on. Clarke ordered Wigdor to pay Black’s fees and weighed throwing the case out before letting it proceed. The firm no longer represents that plaintiff. Black’s lawyer, Susan Estrich, said the ruling destroyed the accuser’s credibility.

That sanction has to be in this story, even though it complicates the cleaner version. Two judges, appointed by two Democratic presidents, ruled in directions that cut against the easy read: one tried to put Black on the record, the other punished the firm chasing him. Both followed the documents. So should we. And note what still happened: Black avoided the witness chair anyway — not because a judge shielded him, but because a settlement between two other parties made the question moot. That is the tell. The protection here was never partisan. It was purchased.

The same holds for the long silence before any of this surfaced. Epstein’s network of enablers outlasted administrations of both parties; files sat unreleased for years, prosecutions that should have come never did, and the serious scrutiny arriving now is late by two decades. That is not a problem of left or right. It is a problem of a class that, whoever holds office, tends to keep its keys.

What the documents leave standing

Strip away everything that’s contested and here is what remains, in the men’s own words, written when they believed no one would ever read them: a woman accused a billionaire, and the billionaire’s lawyer and the billionaire’s friend went looking for a way to put her in handcuffs or on a plane. Whether her demand was extortion or her accusation was true, that response — surveil her, jail her, deport her — is the tell. It is what power does when it would rather make a person disappear than answer her.

The new lawsuit asks a court a narrow question: was Black’s litigation against the firm representing his accusers retaliation? The files, and the empty witness chair, ask everyone else a larger and older one. When the wealthiest people alive decide a person is a problem, what, exactly, is the legal system for?

This is why accountability so rarely reaches the Epstein class. The money bought the watchers and the plates, the prosecutor’s pencil, the settlement that closed the file, the silence on every side. It bought the whole apparatus — everything except the thing that would have had to sit in that chair and answer for it. That is the one item not for sale. Money can buy you anything but a soul, and the soul is precisely what never shows up on the record.

THE RECORD

• The Epstein–Karp correspondence comes from the U.S. Department of Justice’s February 2026 release of Epstein investigative files (reported by Business Insider, The Guardian, and others). “Their efforts were unsuccessful,” per The Guardian.

• The retaliation claims and procedural history are drawn from the complaint filed by Wigdor LLP on March 2 in New York County (Manhattan) Supreme Court, reported by Bloomberg Law and the New York Post. The retaliation allegations are the plaintiff firm’s characterization.

• The Bank of America matter: Black was ordered to sit for a deposition by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff and was called a “critical witness”; the bank settled for $72.5 million in March 2026, and the deposition (set for March 26) did not occur. The suit alleged Black moved roughly $170 million to Epstein through a BofA account. Reported by NBC News, AP, CBS News, and the Boston Globe. Black is not a defendant and denies wrongdoing. Rakoff is a Clinton appointee (1996).

• The April 23, 2026 sanctions ruling is Doe v. Black, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-06418, before U.S. District Judge Jessica Clarke — a separate case from the Ganieva and Bank of America matters. Clarke was nominated by President Biden and confirmed in March 2023.

• Karp’s April 2021 call to then-DA Cyrus Vance was reported by the Financial Times.

• The House Oversight Committee’s March 3 letter requesting Black’s testimony is published at oversight.house.gov; as of late May 2026 that interview had not taken place, and reporting (e.g., the Christian Science Monitor) described the broader congressional Epstein investigation as stalled.

• Black, through counsel, denies the underlying allegations and calls the Wigdor suit meritless. Karp has said he regrets his interactions with Epstein and stepped down as Paul Weiss chairman in early February; the firm says it never represented Epstein. Black separately paid $62.5 million to the U.S. Virgin Islands over claims tied to Epstein.

Plainsite — Public Record. Hidden Truth.

By Plainsite Investigations

Jeffrey Epstein died in a Manhattan federal jail cell in August 2019.

In 2023, four years later, his last girlfriend was admitted to a prestigious advanced residency program at Columbia University’s College of Dental Medicine. The senior administrator who oversaw that program arranged an unorthodox faculty internship for her beforehand. He and another Columbia dentist gave her their highest recommendations.

Columbia has now demoted that administrator, Dr. James Fine.

He remains on faculty.

What the record shows.

This is not a complicated story. It is a simple one that powerful institutions have worked hard to make complicated.

In 2012, Epstein asked Columbia dentist Dr. Thomas Magnani to help get Karyna Shuliak, then a 22-year-old dental student from Belarus whose application had already been rejected, admitted to the dental school. A text message in the DOJ archive shows Dr. Fine met Shuliak in the lobby and brought her upstairs. Dr. Magnani texted Epstein that Fine would find out what would be on her admissions exam. Columbia has called that original admission an “irregular process.”

Dr. Magnani and the vice dean for academic affairs were disciplined in February 2026.

Dr. Fine was not, because his central involvement, Columbia said, came later.

In 2023, with Epstein four years dead, Dr. Fine arranged a special internship for Shuliak at the private practice he shared with Dr. Magnani, the same practice where Epstein had been a patient. Fine then wrote her his highest recommendation for the competitive residency program he oversaw. A third Columbia dentist who had advised Shuliak since 2015 also recommended her.

Columbia’s investigation found the 2023 admission technically proper. Shuliak met the qualifications, they said.

What they did not say: how many other applicants competed for that residency without the benefit of a faculty internship arranged by the program director himself, exam intelligence leaked a decade earlier, and three internal recommenders with a documented relationship to their applicant going back to Jeffrey Epstein.

The personal statement.

Karyna Shuliak’s admissions essay described her lifelong dream of becoming a dentist. She wrote warmly of her mentors, Dr. Magnani and Dr. Fine, crediting them with shaping her career.

She did not mention Jeffrey Epstein.

The man who got her into Columbia in the first place. The man whose phone she was on when he died. The man whose will names her as primary beneficiary of an estate currently valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

That omission was a choice. Admissions committees ask applicants to describe their path. Her path ran directly through Jeffrey Epstein. She described a different path.

What accountability has looked like so far.

Dr. Magnani: disciplined. Dr. Moss-Salentijn: disciplined. Dr. Fine: demoted but retains faculty position and directs the dental practices. Karyna Shuliak: completed her residency, holds her New York dental license, faces no stated consequences. Columbia: issued statements. Concluded its investigation. Moved on.

The pattern the Epstein files keep showing.

Epstein is gone. His network is not.

The files document, in granular detail, how access to Epstein translated into institutional access for the people around him: admissions, credentials, positions, favors. Not through dramatic corruption but through the ordinary machinery of recommendation letters, introductions, internships, and phone calls between colleagues.

That machinery did not stop when he died. It kept running on the relationships he built, the obligations he created, and the silence those obligations purchased.

Dr. Fine knew Epstein as a patient. He met Shuliak through those connections. He arranged her internship. He wrote her recommendation. He oversaw her program. Four years after Epstein’s death, the man’s last girlfriend got her New York dental license with his help.

Columbia calls its investigation concluded.

Plainsite calls it a case study.

Two questions Columbia has not answered.

How many other applicants competed for the 2023 residency that Shuliak received, and were any of them informed that the program director had arranged a private internship for a competing applicant before the selection process began?

And how many other institutions are sitting on similar conclusions, finding technical compliance while the human record of what actually happened goes unwritten?

Plainsite Investigations reports on public records. All findings in this piece are drawn from documents in the official DOJ Epstein File and Trust Archive, Columbia University’s public statements, and reporting by The New York Times. Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what those documents and statements contain.

Public Record. Hidden Truth.

THE DEMONSTRATION

Imagine you’re a journalist. You’ve done the work. You’ve verified the documents. You’ve given the subject their right of reply. The story is solid.

A source you need for the story sends over an interview agreement. Looks standard. Looks professional. You sign it.

Buried in the language is a clause that says if Peter Thiel’s company decides your story was wrong, you owe them money. No court. No jury. No appeal. Just a bill — due in two weeks.

That’s not a hypothetical. That’s Objection AI. And the case list they’ve already built tells you exactly what this is really for.

WHAT THEY’VE CHOSEN TO INVESTIGATE

• Objection AI launched on April 15, 2026. Here are the cases they have accepted so far:

• Did Joe Rogan promote animal-grade medication? — RULED FALSE

• Is the French First Lady biologically male? — RULED FALSE

• Sexual abuse at Kanakuk Christian summer camps — RULED TRUE

• Inhumane treatment at “Alligator Alcatraz” detention facility — PENDING

• Did the Biden administration selectively prosecute pro-life activists under the FACE Act? — PENDING

• Is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a war criminal? — PENDING

• Did Donald Trump sign Jeffrey Epstein’s birthday book? — PENDING

Read that list again. Every single case either defends a figure central to the current political coalition in power, or targets one of its critics. Not one case cuts the other direction.

That is not objectivity. That is an editorial position dressed as a tribunal.

WHAT OBJECTION AI ACTUALLY IS

The company is called Objection AI. It may be the single dumbest venture to crawl out of Silicon Valley and Peter Thiel’s increasingly warped imagination in a decade — and that is a genuinely competitive field. It calls itself “the first AI tribunal.” The public record reveals it to be exactly as dangerous as it sounds — and considerably more telling about its true purpose than its founders intend.

For $2,000, anyone who believes they’ve been defamed can open a case. Former intelligence professionals examine the disputed reporting. An AI system reviews the record and issues a verdict in as few as 72 hours.

The company’s own website states it is not a court, not a private investigation agency, not a publisher, and not a censor.

What the terms of service actually establish is a binding arbitration mechanism — with Objection AI as the designated authority.

• The terms are unambiguous:

• Any party can open a case for $2,000

• Objection AI’s process determines the outcome

• Damages are uncapped

• There are no appeals

• Payment is due within two weeks of a finding

• No limit on damages. No appeals. Two weeks to pay. For context, that’s a stricter timeline than most parking tickets.

WHO BUILT IT AND WHY

Founder Aron D’Souza was the legal architect behind Peter Thiel’s destruction of Gawker Media — the litigation that drove an entire media company into bankruptcy. He was explicit about the connection at launch.

“Peter Thiel and I used the legal system to prove that journalists are not immune from accountability. The Gawker litigation took ten years and millions of dollars. Objection industrializes this process.”

That is not a mission statement about truth. That is a threat dressed as a product description.

The seed round included Thiel, tech investor Balaji Srinivasan, and venture firms Social Impact Capital and Off Piste Capital.

Among the early clients: Michael Sackler — scion of the family behind OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma.

That is the clientele. That is who this tool is being built for.

THE GAWKER BLUEPRINT

In 2007, Gawker Media published a story outing Thiel as gay. He didn’t argue. He didn’t issue a statement. He waited, identified a weapon, and secretly financed Hulk Hogan’s unrelated privacy lawsuit against the company.

The jury verdict was $140 million. Gawker filed for bankruptcy. The company was gone.

When the New York Times asked Thiel about it, he called it one of the “greater philanthropic things” he had done.

Philanthropy.

The lesson Thiel’s team drew from that case was not that a jury found for a plaintiff on the merits. The lesson was that financial attrition works. Run legal costs high enough, long enough, and most outlets fold before a verdict comes.

Objection AI is that logic applied at scale. The goal is not to win individual cases. It is to make the threat of cases cheap enough to deploy routinely — against any journalist covering subjects Thiel and his network would prefer left alone.

THE TRAP IN THE FINE PRINT

The mechanism for trapping journalists is straightforward. A source presents an interview agreement containing an arbitration clause that locks the journalist into Objection AI’s jurisdiction.

Sign for the interview. Sign away your legal standing.

Let’s be honest about this for a second. No journalist in their right mind is going to agree to binding arbitration with a billionaire’s private AI court just to get an interview. The premise is so transparently absurd that it almost undersells how cynical the design actually is. Because the goal was never really to get journalists to sign willingly.

The platform also suggests this language could be embedded into a website’s terms of service or a publisher’s employment contracts. A reporter could end up inside Thiel’s private court system without ever knowing it happened.

Anti-SLAPP statutes currently provide meaningful protection against frivolous defamation suits in many jurisdictions. Binding arbitration agreements are specifically designed to route disputes away from those protections — into private forums where the rules are set by whoever built the forum.

THE METHODOLOGY

Objection AI claims its investigators are drawn from the best of former CIA and FBI personnel. When researchers began looking at who was actually listed on their completed cases, the named investigators were quickly replaced with “anonymous investigator” listings.

A platform demanding transparency from journalists extended none of it to its own operation the moment scrutiny arrived.

In their completed cases, investigators sourced findings from previously published journalism and open-reference websites — fed into an AI to produce a determination. No original documents. No primary evidence.

That is not fact-checking. That is Googling with extra steps and a $2,000 price tag.

WHY IT PROBABLY FAILS — AND WHY THAT MISSES THE POINT

For the arbitration mechanism to function, journalists and publishers must affirmatively consent to it. At scale, once the clause is understood, that consent is unlikely to materialize.

The platform as currently designed is probably too clumsy to achieve what its promotional materials imply.

But operational failure is not the point.

Thiel has a documented history of funding ventures that normalize ideas before those ideas become policy. Objection AI doesn’t need to bankrupt a single journalist to succeed. It only needs to exist — to make the concept of a private AI court feel like a reasonable feature of the information landscape, until a more competently built version of the same architecture arrives.

The public record of who built this, who funded it, what cases it has chosen, and how it responds to scrutiny is worth documenting now.

Before that window shifts.

SOURCES

• Objection AI launch announcement, Business Wire, April 15, 2026

• TechCrunch: “Can AI judge journalism? A Thiel-backed startup says yes,” April 15, 2026

• Popular.info: “An oligarch’s dystopian scheme to discredit journalism with AI,” April 2026

• New York Times: Peter Thiel interview on Gawker litigation, May 2016

• Sydney Morning Herald: “Defend the rich: Enhanced Games founder turns to AI,” 2026

Plainsite publishes investigative work drawn from public records, court filings, and primary documentation. This piece represents the editorial opinion of the author. Readers with documents relevant to this or related subjects may contact us securely.

PLAINSITE · INVESTIGATIONS · PUBLIC RECORD. HIDDEN TRUTH.

Full Document Transcript — EFTA Archive All findings drawn from official DOJ public release. Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what the documents contain. (Below)

THE CONFESSOR & THE PREDATOR

A Plainsite Investigation — Parts I and II

Source: DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act (EFTA) Archive · Public Financial Records

Published: April 2026

—————————————————————————————

COVER

—————————————————————————————

PLAINSITE INVESTIGATIONS

THE CONFESSOR & THE PREDATOR

How Steve Hanson used Jeffrey Epstein as a private crisis manager for his affair — and what five DOJ documents reveal about both men.

Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Hanson, Founder of BR Guest Hospitality, photographed together getting pedicures.

—————————————————————————————

EDITOR’S NOTE — PARTS I AND II

—————————————————————————————

SERIES: Five Parts · The Epstein Files · A Plainsite Investigation

SOURCE: DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act (EFTA) Archive · Public Financial Records

What follows is Parts I and II of a five-part Plainsite investigation. The subject is Stephen Hanson — New York restaurateur, founder of BR Guest Hospitality — and his deep, sustained, and documented relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

I. THE CONFESSOR AND THE PREDATOR

Part I focuses on one affair and the man Hanson trusted to help him manage it.

II. THE DAUGHTER HE NEVER WORRIED ABOUT

Part II examines what happened next. The same man who invoked his daughters six times as the reason he could never let the truth come out was, in the same two-year window, coordinating contact between his teenage daughter and Jeffrey Epstein. Seven emails in the DOJ archive reference or arrange those contacts — beginning six months after Hanson wrote that Epstein was “the only one I would trust with this nightmare.” The documents speak for themselves.

All findings are drawn from documents in the official DOJ public release and public financial records. Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what those documents contain.

WHAT FOLLOWS:

III. The GS 5017 Private Jet — PART III

The March 2016 purchase of a private aircraft through SFS, LLC — an entity formed solely for that purpose and listed as wholly owned by Stephen Hanson. The transaction documents appear not in Hanson’s files, but in the official DOJ Epstein archive. Epstein is present in the email chain, actively directing the purchase.

IV. The $2.5 Million — PART IV

Jeffrey Epstein’s undisclosed role in Stephen Hanson’s business dealings — and what Hanson provided in return. From the 2013 BR Guest separation, in which Sternlicht characterized Hanson’s payment as “your $2.5m blackmail payment,” to the Life Hotel collapse, in which Epstein advised Hanson to sell before the partners’ audit could proceed.

V. The Accounting — PART V

The question this entire series builds toward: what does it mean that a man with this documented history has never once been asked to account for it — not by the press, not by his industry, not by the institutions whose names appear in his family foundation’s tax filings?

PUBLICATION

Series: Five-part Plainsite investigation

Started: April 2026

Source: DOJ EFTA archive · Public financial records

Method: Document-based reporting. No allegations beyond what the documents contain.

—————————————————————————————

PART 1 — OVERVIEW: THE MAN HE TRUSTED

—————————————————————————————

Document Basis: EFTA00667046 · EFTA02477498 · EFTA02392003 · EFTA00634942 · EFTA02463525 · EFTA02458203

Cover Photo: EFTA01196242 · DOJ Public Release

Between June 2014 and July 2016, Steve Hanson — founder of BR Guest Hospitality, one of New York’s most prominent restaurant empires — sent a series of emails to Jeffrey Epstein about a woman. Not to his lawyer. Not to a therapist. Not to a close family member. But to Jeffrey Epstein.

The emails, now part of the official DOJ document release, trace a two-year arc in which Hanson grows increasingly frightened, increasingly obsessive, and increasingly reliant on Epstein’s counsel about a woman he had been involved with for a decade. They also trace something else: the gradual construction of a narrative weapon — the label of liar, the label of blackmailer — deployed against a woman before she has said a single public word.

What emerges from reading these emails in sequence is a portrait of two men who share the same fundamental instinct when a woman threatens their control: discredit her first. Build the story. Get ahead of the truth.

“there is no one else I would trust with this nightmare”

— STEPHEN HANSON TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN · MAY 1, 2016 · EFTA02463523

One of those men was a convicted sex offender who trafficked girls across international borders and whose estate would ultimately pay hundreds of millions in settlements to his victims. The other man chose him — above everyone else in his life — as the one person he could trust.

THE MEN:

Stephen Hanson — THE CONFESSOR

Founder, BR Guest Hospitality — the New York restaurant group behind Dos Caminos, Blue Water Grill, and Ruby Foo’s. Author of the emails.

Jeffrey Epstein — THE CONFIDANT

Financier. Convicted sex offender. Child trafficker. Recipient of the emails. Died August 10, 2019.

WHAT THE EMAILS SHOW:

Span: Jun 2014 — Jul 2016 (25 months)

Subject: A woman Hanson had been involved with for a decade.

Pattern: Escalating fear. Narrative construction. Pre-emptive discredit.

—————————————————————————————

SECTION I — THE AFFAIR HE COULDN’T END

—————————————————————————————

The woman at the center of these emails is never named in the documents we have. Hanson refers to her only as “that girl,” “the girl I have known for awhile,” and eventually “the California person.” She is systematically dehumanized through abstraction even as the evidence of their relationship accumulates in the very act of describing it.

He never calls her a woman. Not once. In five documents spanning two years, she is always “the girl.” Whether this reflects how Hanson genuinely thought of her, or whether it is a distancing mechanism, the effect is the same: she is diminished before she has been described.

What the documents establish, in Hanson’s own words: he had known her for a decade. He lent her money to purchase a diamond ring. He funded horses. He fielded her calls almost daily. He had been paying for her life, or a significant portion of it, for long enough that he calls the situation a “trap” — a word that appears across multiple emails, always describing the situation, never his own choices that created it.

He never once asks what she needs. He never expresses concern for her wellbeing. She is described exclusively in terms of the inconvenience she causes him. A nightmare. A trap. A source of panic that wakes him at 3 in the morning.

HOW HE NAMES HER — never “a woman”:

Email 1: “the girl”

Email 2: “that girl”

Email 3: “the girl I have known for awhile”

Email 4: “the California person”

Email 5: “the girl”

3 AM — A source of panic that wakes him at 3 in the morning. Not concern for her. Concern for himself.

—————————————————————————————

SECTION II — FIVE DOCUMENTS: THE FULL TIMELINE

—————————————————————————————

5 Emails · 25 Months

Jun 25–26, 2014 · EFTA00667046: Epstein Already Knows

Jan 7, 2016 · EFTA02477498: 3:16 AM — The Diamond Ring

Feb 6, 2016 · EFTA02392003: The Scottsdale Origin — Confirmed

Mar 13, 2016 · EFTA00634942: The Scottsdale Panic

May 1, 2016 · EFTA02463523: “How Are You” — The Disguised Subject

Jul 2016 · EFTA02458203: The Script Arrives

—————————————————————————————

DOC 1 OF 13 — EPSTEIN ALREADY KNOWS

EFTA00667046 · June 25–26, 2014

—————————————————————————————

In the midst of a condolence email chain about a mutual acquaintance’s death, Epstein inserts a single casual line: “yes i know,, how s the girl”. No clarification. No “which girl.” He already knows her, and Hanson’s response is: “I’m in Tahoe — business.” He does not answer the question.

By June 2014 this woman is already a standing topic between them. Epstein tracks her the way he tracked everything in his network. And Hanson, asked directly, deflects. He had no active company at this point — BR Guest sold, nothing yet in development. There is no documented business reason for Hanson to be in Tahoe in June 2014.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA00667046 — JUNE 25–26, 2014 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Shanson900 [REDACTED]

To: “jeffrey E.” <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: My Brother

Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 00:54:50 +0000

I’m in Tahoe - business.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 25, 2014 at 5:44 PM, “jeffrey E.” <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

yes i know,, how s the girl

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Shanson900 [REDACTED] wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Maury DiMauro [REDACTED]

Date: June 25, 2014 at 5:35:41 PM PDT

To: [REDACTED]

Subject: Fwd: My Brother

Begin forwarded message:

From: Faith Kates [REDACTED]

Subject: Fwd: My Brother

Date: June 25, 2014 11:50:57 AM EDT

It’s with the heaviest heart I send you this note. Yesterday June 24th Michael Kates passed away. He had a heart attack and died at home. We are all in shock and having a hard time understanding it all.

Caption: EPSTEIN: “YES I KNOW,, HOW S THE GIRL” — HANSON DEFLECTS TO TAHOE

—————————————————————————————

DOC 2 OF 13 — 3:16 AM — THE DIAMOND RING

EFTA02477498 · January 7, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Eighteen months after Epstein’s casual check-in, Hanson contacts him again — at 3:16 in the morning. Subject: “Need to talk to you.” He frames the diamond ring as a loan she never repaid. The sums and the daily calls accumulate into a portrait of a man who has been paying for years and is starting to panic.

He does not say “I made a mistake.” He says “some bs story being said about she and I.” The story exists. He needs Epstein to help him get ahead of it.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02477498 — JANUARY 7, 2016 · 3:16 AM · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 3:16 AM

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Subject: Need to talk to you

The girl I have known for awhile now is driving me nuts. Trying to make my life difficult One issue I need your help on how to resolve is I lent her money a year ago to buy a diamond ring she was supposedly going to resell - but never has - 20 I’m concerned my family could get tricked into thinking that / for one not knowing how she has been holding me up in taking care of her - I can’t tell you the amount of money I have loaned her Both Brynn and Deana where there when I helped her out and I can’t tell you how much I mind them - I would never want to be with out them ever

I’m so distraught - I have been concerned for a while now but it’s starting to really affect me - I can’t have it ruin my life

I love them so much - as I have told you often my family means everything to me I’ve always been there for them have always been able to help me figure things out - I need your help Let’s discuss the next time I see you Jeffrey - I never want to be with out my family - as a family best from my [device metadata follows in original]

Caption: 3:16 AM · DIAMOND RING · “SOME BS STORY BEING SAID ABOUT SHE AND I”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 3 OF 13 — THE SCOTTSDALE ORIGIN — CONFIRMED

EFTA02392003 · February 6, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Four weeks after the 3am diamond ring email, Hanson writes again. Subject: “Jeffrey.” This email does something none of the others do — it confirms exactly where this began.

His own words: “who I have known for many years — actually from when I had my hotel in Scottsdale and she and her friends would hang around.” The James Hotel Scottsdale opened 2004, sold 2006 — placing the start of this relationship at approximately 2004–2005, consistent with his “10 years ago” reference one month later.

This email is also where he names Brynn — his eldest daughter — for the first time. Epstein now has a named reference. Ten months later, Hanson will bring Brynn (then 15) to meet Epstein privately. That visit will be the subject of a future Plainsite installment.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02392003 — FEBRUARY 6, 2016 · 12:34 PM · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2016 12:34 PM

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Subject: jeffrey

I have mentioned before the issues I am having with this lady - who I have known for many years - actually from when I had my hotel in Scottsdale and she and her friends would hang around - it has now grown to the point where I am very concerned that I can’t get rid of her - its not that I want to be with her - I’ve always been dodging her n=to mention how she has been holding me up in taking care of her - I can’t tell you the amount of money I have loaned her both Brynn and Deana where there last week and I can’t tell you how much I mind them - I would never want to be with out them - ever

I’m so distraught - I have been concerned for a while now but it’s starting to really affect me. I can’t have it ruin my life or my family [device metadata follows in original]

Caption: “FROM WHEN I HAD MY HOTEL IN SCOTTSDALE” · ORIGIN CONFIRMED · BRYNN NAMED FOR THE FIRST TIME

—————————————————————————————

DOC 4 OF 13 — THE SCOTTSDALE PANIC

EFTA00634942 · March 13, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Subject: “Jeffrey.” He woke up in a panic. He describes a relationship that “started out 10 years ago as a business deal” — placing the origin at 2006, his Scottsdale years.

He admits the core truth in his own words: “years ago I made the decision to keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.” He has been paying for a decade. To prevent her from speaking. This is hush money in everything but name.

He mentions his daughters as “especially” important. His wife Deana is not referenced. She is not part of his moral accounting.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA00634942 — MARCH 13, 2016 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Subject: Jeffrey

Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 12:46:02 +0000

I have spoken to you so many times regarding the issue I am having with that girl from Scottsdale Punch line she is a rotten bitch that consistently makes shit up - think she is a total psychopath - great at making up stories that are convincing

I mentioned before what started out 10 years ago as a business Deal - flipped a house or two - then bought some stupid ring she was going to sell yet never did - then to horses which actually isn’t that bad on increased value but the game doesn’t stop- which I wish it could stop

My issue is that years ago I made the decision to keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family. Seems the easy way out is by spending 1 minute on the phone vs who knows whats next

Punch line is - I have been concerned for a while now - distraught -thinking that this could get out of control and effect my family -and effect my kids in how they see me as a dad - we have spoken many a times how I love my family - especially the girls - I could never imagine not being close to them - not living with them. I love them so much - they mean everything to me - I never want to be with them

So I need your help on trying to figure things out - or at least how I can personally. Calm down and not be so stressed out about anything ever coming between me and my family

If you can give it some thought - I think you said you would be around a week or two

Sorry for the ramble - but woke up in a panic today

Sent from my iPad

Caption: “10 YEARS AGO AS A BUSINESS DEAL” · HUSH PAYMENTS · “WOKE UP IN A PANIC TODAY”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 5 OF 13 — “HOW ARE YOU” — THE DISGUISED SUBJECT

EFTA02463523 · May 1, 2016

—————————————————————————————

The subject line reads: “How are you.” The email contains nothing about how Epstein is. It is entirely about the Scottsdale woman and Hanson’s escalating fear. He has disguised the subject because he doesn’t want a paper trail with her name on it.

He is still waking at 3am. He still calls it a trap. Now he imagines dying and not being there to defend himself. He worries about his daughters’ perception of him. He does not mention his wife.

And he writes the line that gives this entire investigation its name: “there is no one else I would trust with this nightmare.” The man he is writing to has, by this point, served time for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02463523 — MAY 1, 2016 · 6:34 PM · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2016 6:34 PM

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Subject: How are you

Need your help trying to figure out what best course of action should be regarding my dilemma with that girl I told you about from Scottsdale The entire situation is taking a toll on me -each day it seems that I feel more remorse of having fallen into this trap - with no way out As I said before it’s been a nightmare and it’s been a nightmare especially for me - I sometimes wake up at 3am - in a panic. As now I’m concerned -what if I dye one day in the near future - I’m not around to defend my self-and prove that there was nothing between us - I’m sure she will conjure up some lies - and my worst thoughts are how it will effect the girls - they are great kids and this could throw them off - who knows the psychological affect it could cause - and all from made up stories I know your busy , but maybe if you could give this some thought - as there is no one else I would trust with this nightmare

Sent from my iPad [device metadata follows in original]

Caption: SUBJECT: “HOW ARE YOU” — DISGUISED · “NO ONE ELSE I WOULD TRUST WITH THIS NIGHTMARE”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 6 OF 13 — THE SCRIPT ARRIVES

EFTA02458203 · July 3 + July 30, 2016

—————————————————————————————

July 3: Hanson emails about “the California person” — horses, phone calls, 3000 miles away. Still “the trap I’m in.” He asks for a way out of the “horrible situation.”

July 30: Epstein replies. This is the moment the coaching completes. Hanson came to Epstein over two years with vague anxiety. Epstein sends him back with a weapon.

Epstein tells him she is a blackmailer. Tells him to cut her off completely. And references — explicitly — operations in China that “are set up to only do that.” To get rid of female blackmailers.

“its a shame you cant send her to another country where they deal with blackmailers more effectively. in china there are cos that are set up to only do that.”

— JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO STEPHEN HANSON · JULY 30, 2016 · EFTA02458203

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02458203 — JULY 3 + JULY 30, 2016 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

[HANSON TO EPSTEIN — July 3, sent from iPad]:

The California person - actually its great she lives on the west coast 3000 miles away

I invested in what started off to be one horse - has grown into a expensive hobby - but keep her from breaking my balls - except for the excessive prone calls - consistently listening to crap about horses - I can’t stan= the calls - as short as they are - they are still a pain

Any ideas on how to get out of the call loop or suck it up as its part of t=e trap I’m in ?

Call after u have some ideas - when your free

Sent from my iPad

[EPSTEIN TO HANSON — July 30, 12:13 PM]:

From: jeffrey L. <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, July 30 2016 12:13 PM

To: Stephen Hanson

Subject: Re: Jeffrey

she is such a bitch, and money hungry, you have to be careful, she will try to hold you and your family up, she will make up crazy stories, tell many lies and try to bring havoc when she realizes her money machine is no longer available / its a shame you cant send her to another country where they deal with blackmailers more effectively. in china there are cos that are set up to only do that get rid of female blackmailers. they move them to other cities countries and try to find them real work

please note

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

Caption: EPSTEIN: “GET RID OF FEMALE BLACKMAILERS” · CHINA OPERATIONS · THE SCRIPT INSTALLED

—————————————————————————————

SECTION III — WHAT THE WORD “LIES” REALLY MEANS

—————————————————————————————

Hanson’s Chosen Word, Unpacked.

Hanson does not say she is lying about an affair.

He says she is lying about someone — and that those lies are destroying his family.

01. He never denies the relationship.

Not in the 3:16 AM email. Not in the Scottsdale confession. Not in the “how are you” email that is not about how Epstein is. He never once writes: “nothing happened.”

02. What he says she is lying about.

“Lies” in his telling means — in his own written words — “someone” and “something more than a business thing going on.” He needs to neutralize a specific claim she is making about him.

03. The money kept the story buried.

He chose — his phrase — to “keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.” He paid so she would not speak. This is the working definition of hush money.

04. Who he was protecting.

Not himself — his daughters. “especially my daughters.” The thing she would say — whatever it was — was something he could not let his daughters hear.

05. Who he consulted.

A convicted sex offender. Not a lawyer. Not a therapist. Not a priest. A man whose expertise was how to make young women with inconvenient stories stop talking.

—————————————————————————————

SECTION IV — THE MAN HE CHOSE TO CONFESS TO

—————————————————————————————

A Federal Sex Offender · By Choice.

Hanson writes that Epstein is “the only one I would trust with this nightmare.” The person he is entrusting with a crisis about a woman threatening to tell his daughters something he must suppress at all costs — is a man convicted of paying underage girls for sex.

That choice is not collateral to the story.

It is the story.

JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN — Convicted Sex Offender · Financier · Co-trafficker

2008 — Pleads guilty in Florida to soliciting prostitution from a minor — a state felony. Required to register as a Tier 1 sex offender.

2008 — Serves 13 months under a controversial non-prosecution agreement, during which he is allowed work release for up to 12 hours daily.

2014–2016 — Runs a known sex-offender household while Hanson writes him thirteen documented emails for advice on women, daughters, and family.

2019 — Arrested on federal charges — sex trafficking of minors, including victims as young as 14. Indictment describes a decade-plus pattern.

2019 — Found dead in his Manhattan federal jail cell on August 10. Ruled suicide. His co-conspirators — and his donors — remain a matter of public record and unanswered questions.

2021 — Ghislaine Maxwell convicted on five of six federal counts of sex trafficking minors, conspiracy to entice minors, and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sex acts.

—————————————————————————————

SECTION V — THE WIFE HE NEVER MENTIONS

—————————————————————————————

A Silence That Reads As A Decision.

“Across thirteen emails spanning 2014–2016, discussing fear, money, a decade-long relationship with another woman, and his moral reckoning — Hanson names his wife exactly once. In a forwarded chain, in passing, about stock in a vitamin company.”

DEANA HANSON — Wife of Stephen Hanson. Mother of his children. The woman most directly affected by a decade of payments to another woman. She does not appear as a subject, a concern, or a consideration in any email where Hanson is planning his response to the Scottsdale crisis.

Total emails in Part 1 of this investigation: 13

Emails in which Hanson mentions his daughters as the reason for his fear: 6

Emails in which Hanson mentions his wife Deana as a consideration in the crisis: 0

Emails in which Hanson uses the phrase “the family” — meaning him and his daughters: 4

Emails in which Hanson asks how Deana will feel when this becomes public: 0

Emails in which Hanson asks Epstein to keep Deana from finding out: 0

Emails in which Hanson considers coming clean to Deana: 0

—————————————————————————————

SECTION VI — WHAT THE DOCUMENTS PROVE

—————————————————————————————

What the documents prove — in his own words.

Six Facts That Are Not Subject To Interpretation.

01. A RELATIONSHIP LASTING A DECADE

Hanson’s own phrase: “started out 10 years ago as a business deal.”

Origin: Scottsdale, 2006.

02. PAYMENTS TO SILENCE

“Keep the bs business going rather than take the chance that she attacks the family.”

Payments made specifically to suppress speech. Hush money by definition.

03. PROTECTION OF DAUGHTERS — NOT SELF

“Especially my daughters.” Six emails cite the daughters as the reason for concealment. Zero cite the wife.

04. 3:16 AM — PANIC OUTSIDE BUSINESS HOURS

The tone of the January 7, 2016 email is not a business inquiry. It is a man in crisis, writing before dawn, seeking a fixer.

05. 13 EMAILS ON THIS TOPIC

Across 2014–2016. A sustained correspondence with a convicted sex offender — selected, chosen, returned to. Not an accident.

06. CHINA — EPSTEIN’S RESPONSE

“Cos that are set up to only do that” — get rid of female blackmailers. Hanson is given a script. He accepts it.

THESE ARE NOT ALLEGATIONS. THEY ARE THE RECORD.

DOJ Epstein File & Trust Archive · Accessed October 2025

—————————————————————————————

PART 2 — THE DAUGHTER HE NEVER WORRIED ABOUT

SECTION VII — THE CONTRADICTION

—————————————————————————————

In Part 1, Stephen Hanson invoked “especially my daughters” six times as the reason he must suppress a woman’s story.

In Part 2, he does something that cannot be reconciled with that fear.

He brought his 15-year-old daughter to Jeffrey Epstein’s home. Repeatedly.

The man he described as “the only one I would trust with this nightmare” was invited into his family. Not kept out of it.

Brynn — his eldest, then a high-school student at Marymount — was brought to Epstein’s Manhattan residence for school-project advice, college advice, term paper topics, cosmetic demonstrations, and Thanksgiving-day visits. The documents span April 2015 to December 2016.

This is the contradiction this series documents. A father whose stated fear was that his daughters would learn something was, in the same period, giving them a reason to know the man himself.

Brynn’s Age · Apr 2015: 14

Brynn’s Age · Dec 2016: 15

Documented Visits: 7

—————————————————————————————

DOC 7 OF 13 — THE SCHOOL PROJECT

EFTA00644503 · April 4, 2015

—————————————————————————————

Hanson emails Epstein: “Brynn / oldest would like your advise on a school team project. We have horse back riding but can be to u anytime after 130 — so what is best.”

Steve Hanson graduated from NYU’s Stern School of Business. He built a restaurant empire generating $200 million in annual revenue. He negotiated multi-million dollar transactions and managed hundreds of employees. The Stephen P. Hanson Family Foundation lists Marymount School among its grantees in public IRS tax filings — one of Manhattan’s most exclusive Catholic girls’ schools, where Brynn was enrolled.

According to the DOJ documents, her father could not help her brainstorm a school team project without consulting a man with no children, no academic credentials, and a federal conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA00644503 — APRIL 4, 2015 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Shanson900 [REDACTED]

To: “jeffrey E.” <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Today

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 13:00:03 +0000

[EPSTEIN to HANSON, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:51 AM]:

can we do imax tomor with good seats?

[HANSON to EPSTEIN, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:45 AM]:

Brynn / oldest would like your advise on a school team project. We have horse back riding but can be to u anytime after 130- so what is best

Tonite furious 7. Which actually has good reviews

For both the 7 pm -imax reserved seats. C25-27. Off to the side some what - best they had.

But if we don’t like the seats we have 4 to the 740 show-regular screen

Sent from my iPad

[EPSTEIN to HANSON]:

Lady said the seats where good since the screen is so large

Sent from my iPhone

Caption: “BRYNN / OLDEST WOULD LIKE YOUR ADVISE ON A SCHOOL TEAM PROJECT”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 8 OF 13 — “BE THERE IN 10. WITH BRYNN.”

EFTA02505763 · April 5, 2015

—————————————————————————————

The following evening — Sunday April 5 at 10:19 PM — someone sent Epstein a five-word text: “Be there in 10. With brynn.”

The sender’s identity is completely redacted in the DOJ archive. The email address field is blank. Jmail lists the sender as “Unknown.”

A teenage girl. Sunday night. After 10pm. Arriving at Jeffrey Epstein’s home.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02505763 — APRIL 5, 2015 · 10:19 PM · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: [SENDER IDENTITY COMPLETELY REDACTED BY DOJ]

To: Jeffrey E / Epstein

Subject: Be there in 10. With brynn

Date: Sunday, April 5, 2015 10:19 PM

Be there in 10. With brynn.

Sent from my iPhone

[device metadata follows in original]

Caption: SENDER FULLY REDACTED BY DOJ · “BE THERE IN 10. WITH BRYNN” · SUNDAY 10:19 PM

—————————————————————————————

DOC 9 OF 13 — A SERIOUS SITUATION

EFTA02475176 · January 6, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Hanson emails Epstein multiple items. After arranging household staff for Epstein, he writes: “I have a serious situation to tell you about — need your advice but can I text you rather then in email — Then [REDACTED] keeps asking if she can get your advice on college — starting to freak out on not being admitted to a good school.”

Two things are notable. He has a serious situation he will only discuss by text — not in writing. And the name of the person freaking out about college is redacted by the DOJ.

In documents where Brynn is named freely, this name is not. That redaction — in a document about yearbook clubs and resume building — is a distinction the DOJ made for a reason.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02475176 — JANUARY 6, 2016 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson <shan[REDACTED]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 2:42 PM

To: jeevacation@gmail.com

Subject: Few items

Made contact with placement agency/ lady. Mellisa Piltos She has placed couples / property mgrs / chefs-after a review of your needs she seems to have an understanding of the type of employees you want and has worked with all the big boys you know Shall I connect her with lesley ?

I have a serious situation to tell you about - need your advice but can I text you rather then in email - Then [REDACTED] keeps asking if she can get your advice on college- starting to freak out on not being admitted to a good school - she actually is studying hard and even joined the class year book club so it looks good on her resume. Are you still around thur and free after 330 ?

[device metadata follows in original]

Caption: REDACTED NAME FREAKING OUT ABOUT COLLEGE · “SERIOUS SITUATION” FOR TEXT ONLY

—————————————————————————————

DOC 10 OF 13 — “SHOW HER FACE.”

EFTA00336648 · October 28, 2015

—————————————————————————————

Lesley Groff — Epstein’s personal assistant — emailed Hanson: “Hello Steve...Jeffrey is here in NY at the house and says you can stop by! He says to bring your daughter if she is available so she can show Jena her face (and how great Accutain works)”

Hanson: “I’m 5 blocks away. I’ll see where brynn.” Groff: “Great!”

Epstein was not a physician or dermatologist. He had no medical credentials. He did have, documented across the DOJ archive, a pattern of directing the physical routines of young women in his circle. Brynn was being brought to demonstrate results to another young woman in Epstein’s home. Hanson was five blocks away and went to find her.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA00336648 — OCTOBER 28, 2015 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Lesley Groff [REDACTED]

To: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Subject: Re: Jeffrey Epstein

Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:38:41 +0000

Great!

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 28, 2015, at 2:35 PM, Stephen Hanson [REDACTED] wrote:

> I’m 5 blocks away. I’ll see where brynn .

> Sent from my iPad

>> On Oct 28, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Lesley Groff [REDACTED] wrote:

>> Hello Steve...Jeffrey is here in NY at the house and says you can stop by! He says to bring your daughter if she is available so she can show Jena her face (and how great Accutain works)

>> Let me know!

>> Thanks, Lesley

Caption: LESLEY GROFF: “BRING YOUR DAUGHTER... SO SHE CAN SHOW JENA HER FACE” · HANSON: “I’M 5 BLOCKS AWAY”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 11 OF 13 — THANKSGIVING DAY

EFTA01743243 · November 24, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Hanson: “We need to be home then at 2. But if ok I’ll bring brynn over to see [REDACTED] play with the cats.”

The person Brynn was brought to watch on Thanksgiving Day is redacted by the DOJ.

Hanson confirms they needed to be home by 2pm — a brief, scheduled visit on a family holiday, to a convicted pedophile’s home.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA01743243 — NOVEMBER 24, 2016 · THANKSGIVING · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 5:34:07 PM

To: “jeffrey E.” <jeevacation@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Brynn and I where going to stop over at 1 today. Ok?

We need to be home then at 2

But if ok I’ll bring brynn over to see [REDACTED] play with the cats.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

2 better

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stephen Hanson [REDACTED] wrote:

Sent from my iPad

[Epstein confidentiality footer follows in original]

Caption: THANKSGIVING DAY · “BRING BRYNN OVER TO SEE [REDACTED] PLAY WITH THE CATS”

—————————————————————————————

DOC 12 OF 13 — THE TERM PAPER

EFTA02669410 · November 27, 2016

—————————————————————————————

Subject: “Brynn wanted me to ask.” Hanson asks Epstein for term paper topic ideas.

Epstein replies: “transgender? life on mars. self driving cars. genetic engineering. living to 120 years old.”

Hanson: “Tks I’m sure she will want you to proof read once she picks a topic.”

The girl in these documents was attending one of New York City’s most academically rigorous private schools — joining clubs, building her resume. She did not need Jeffrey Epstein to suggest term paper topics. Her father chose to make him available to her anyway.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02669410 — NOVEMBER 27, 2016 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Shanson900 [REDACTED]

Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2016 8:45 PM

To: jeffrey E.

Subject: Re: Brynn wanted me to ask

Tks I’m sure she will want you to proof read once she picks a topic If your swamped just let me know

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 27, 2016 at 3:24 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

transgender? life on mars. self driving cars. genetic engineering. living to 120 years old

On Sun, Nov 27, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Shanson900 [REDACTED] wrote:

You for some Ideas For a term paper She needs 3 ideas to start - if u have one or two

“A contemporary topic of your choice not focused on US.”

Sent from my iPhone

[Epstein confidentiality footer follows in original]

Caption: “BRYNN WANTED ME TO ASK” · TERM PAPER TOPICS · EPSTEIN TO PROOFREAD

—————————————————————————————

DOC 13 OF 13 — A HOLIDAY GIFT FOR KARINA

EFTA02665313 · December 27, 2016

—————————————————————————————

“When are u free today. Brynn also has a holiday gift for Karina — would like to see her at some point.”

Epstein: “1030 morning or 430?” Hanson: “430.”

Karyna Shuliak is the woman Epstein left $100 million, his private island, and his properties to in his will. She was among the closest young women in his circle.

By December 2016 Brynn had a holiday gift for her and wanted to see her. The relationship between Epstein’s world and the Hanson family had become social, reciprocal, and normalized.

DOCUMENT TRANSCRIPT — EFTA02665313 — DECEMBER 27, 2016 · DOJ ARCHIVE:

From: Stephen Hanson [REDACTED]

Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2016 2:56 PM

To: jeffrey E.

Subject: Re:

430.

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 27, 2016 at 7:04 AM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote:

1030 morning or 430?

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Shanson900 [REDACTED] wrote:

When are u free today

Brynn also has a holiday gift for Karina - would like to see her at some point

Sent from my iPhone

[Epstein confidentiality footer follows in original]

Caption: “BRYNN ALSO HAS A HOLIDAY GIFT FOR KARINA” · CONFIRMED FOR 4:30 PM

—————————————————————————————

SECTION VIII — WHAT THE EPSTEIN CLASS LOOKED LIKE

—————————————————————————————

One Man’s Correspondence As A Portrait.

The Epstein archive is often discussed as a list of names — a flight log, a black book, a client list people keep demanding be released. That framing makes it sound like a conspiracy. It isn’t. It’s a pattern of behavior — among a recognizable class of men — that the documents render fully legible.

Stephen Hanson is not the most famous name in that archive. That is precisely what makes these emails useful. He is a competent, successful American businessman — a restaurateur, a philanthropist, the founder of a family foundation — whose correspondence with Epstein, read in order, shows what proximity to Epstein actually looked like in practice.

It looked like a man paying another woman for a decade to keep his daughters from finding out something. It looked like asking a sex offender how to make her stop. It looked like bringing his teenage daughter to that same man’s home — seven times — within the same two-year window.

The word for that is not “scandal.” It is not “affair.” It is a category of behavior the documents require us to name honestly.

TRAITS OF THE CLASS — What the emails show about the men who wrote to Jeffrey Epstein:

01. They treated women as problems to be managed — not as people with stories of their own.

02. They paid to silence those stories — and reframed the payments, to themselves, as “a business deal.”

03. They protected the image they projected to their daughters — while exposing those same daughters to men like Epstein.

04. They did not consult lawyers or therapists first. They consulted Epstein. He was the expert they trusted.

05. They did not stop after his 2008 conviction. They continued — in writing, from their own email accounts, with their own names.

06. They assumed no one would ever read it. The DOJ archive is that assumption reversed.

Plainsite exists because the documents exist.

Our job is only to read them carefully, in order, and write down what they say.

— PLAINSITE INVESTIGATIONS · EDITORIAL BOARD

—————————————————————————————

SECTION IX — TWO WOMEN. NO ANSWERS. YET.

—————————————————————————————

The Unresolved Human Record.

THE SCOTTSDALE WOMAN

Named nowhere in the archive. Hanson’s own words place her first in his life around 2004–2005, when she and her friends “would hang around” his Scottsdale hotel. She would have been in her teens or early twenties. No one has asked her for her account. The DOJ archive contains his words about her — not hers.

BRYNN HANSON

Then 14 and 15 years old. Brought to Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan residence across 2015–2016 — with several documented emails coordinating her visits — beginning six months after her father wrote that Epstein was “the only one I would trust with this nightmare.” She has never been asked publicly what she remembers of those visits.

QUESTIONS THE RECORD LEAVES OPEN:

Q.01 — Was the Scottsdale woman a minor when the relationship began? Hanson’s own dating places the origin in his hotel-owner years. The question deserves an answer.

Q.02 — What were the sums paid to her over the decade-long “business deal”? Financial records exist.

Q.03 — What advice did Epstein ultimately give Hanson by phone and in person — beyond the lines we can read in email?

Q.04 — What did Brynn Hanson do on those visits to Jeffrey Epstein’s home?

Q.05 — Who is the redacted teenager mentioned across the Brynn-era documents — the one “freaking out about college,” the one watching “cats” on Thanksgiving?

Q.06 — How many more men in Epstein’s correspondence have archives that, read in order, tell a version of this same story? Plainsite is reading them.

We will keep reading the documents. One man at a time.

— PLAINSITE INVESTIGATIONS · END OF SERIES ONE

—————————————————————————————

SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED IN THIS REPORT

—————————————————————————————

EFTA00667046 — June 25–26, 2014 — Epstein Already Knows

EFTA02477498 — January 7, 2016 — 3:16 AM, The Diamond Ring

EFTA02392003 — February 6, 2016 — The Scottsdale Origin

EFTA00634942 — March 13, 2016 — The Scottsdale Panic

EFTA02463523 — May 1, 2016 — “How Are You” / This Nightmare

EFTA02458203 — July 3 + 30, 2016 — The Script Arrives

EFTA00644503 — April 4, 2015 — The School Project

EFTA02505763 — April 5, 2015 — “Be There In 10. With Brynn.”

EFTA02475176 — January 6, 2016 — A Serious Situation

EFTA00336648 — October 28, 2015 — “Show Her Face”

EFTA01743243 — November 24, 2016 — Thanksgiving Day

EFTA02669410 — November 27, 2016 — The Term Paper

EFTA02665313 — December 27, 2016 — A Holiday Gift for Karina

All documents sourced from the DOJ Epstein File Transparency Act (EFTA) Archive.

Public financial records sourced from IRS tax filings, public corporate records, and court documents.

Plainsite makes no allegations beyond what the documents contain.

plainsite.com · A Plainsite Investigation · April 2026