The above-linked EFTA file is a “Notice of Appeal and Petition to Review” filed against the Epstein estate in 2021.
Normally these things are drier than a fart in the Sahara – and really, don’t expect anything different now – but it was just something that came up today when I was trying to find a transcript of the USVI probate court proceedings I read several months ago.
But what first caught my attention – and I mean beyond the fact that they have moved many (most?) of the PUBLIC probate court records off the “Court Records” section of the main DoJ Epstein library – is that these PUBLIC records are now all redacted.
Okay, fine. I’ve seen enough redacted instances of the word don’t to know what they’re doing.
But I’m looking through this and noticing they’re redacting unrelated place names, and select individual names, that have nothing to do with anything but the filing itself, and are themselves not only public record, but in the news.
For example, in every mention of St. Thomas, the name Thomas is redacted.
In every mention of Denise George, the Attorney General of the USVI, the name George is redacted.
Yet a great many other proper names are NOT redacted. Denise, Carol, Shari, Daniel and Marc are just fine with the DoJ. Even Andrew is in there a few times, unredacted for all the world to see.
So out of curiosity and maybe a bit of spite, I found an unredacted version of this very public (and honestly quite boring) record and compared them side by side, and found a pretty clear pattern.
These are all the unique redactions. Do you see it too?
THOMAS
GEORGE
JACOBS
CHRISTOPHER
ALLEN
FERGUSON
ROYAL
WHITE
SMITH
FOSTER
RUSSELL
SINGER
GORDON
PARRIS
First, this is very clearly auto-redaction. No human did this, inasmuch as it makes zero sense to redact the partial name of the court where the filing was made, in every instance where it appears, for example. Or half an attorney’s name, or half of the name of a public official. So I think it’s safe to conclude as a hypothesis that these are machine redactions.
If that’s true, then we’re looking at a list of specific terms fed into a program to be redacted no matter where they appear, whether in whole or in part. We know this because partial and not whole names are redacted, and the same parts are consistently redacted.
So you’d expect to see victim names redacted, right? Or female names? No. Except for a handful, they are ALL male first names, or could be. No female first names were redacted.
But then there’s Royal, lol. And Ferguson. (But not Andrew.)
Parris is best known as Parris Island, a military training center off the coast of South Carolina, but it could refer to a number of people (including at least one in politics) or places.
Singer and White also fall into this latter “could be anyone or anywhere” category, but these too are not self-evidently victim names, which are the only names, by law, that EFTA files are supposed to have redacted. They’re just the partial names of rando attorneys attached to a mundane probate filing in the USVI.
Below are the actual page by page redactions, for anyone interested.
The REDACTED file (also linked above)
The UNREDACTED version (scroll down to get to the actual document)
The redactions, in bold by page:
Page 1
In the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
THOMAS
Page 2
(no redactions)
Page 3
DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs
CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQUIRE
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Virgin Islands Department of Justice
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802
GEORGE
THOMAS
JACOBS
Page 4
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN KROBLIN , ESQ.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Royal Palms Professional Building
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802-3602
WHITE & CASE, LLP
By: /s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs
CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQUIRE
CHRISTOPHER
ALLEN
FERGUSON
ROYAL
THOMAS
WHITE
JACOBS
Page 5
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
Ariel Smith, Esq., Chief of the Civil Division
Attorneys Ariel Smith and
THOMAS
SMITH
Page 6
In the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas and St. John
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.
Sean Foster, Esq.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Christopher Kroblin, Esq.
Attorney Thomas-Jacobs
Attorney Foster’s Joinder
THOMAS
JACOBS
FOSTER
FERGUSON
CHRISTOPHER
Page 7
Attorneys Ariel Smith and
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.
filed by Sean Foster, Esq.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Christopher Kroblin, Esq.
SMITH
THOMAS
JACOBS
FOSTER
FERGUSON
CHRISTOPHER
Page 8
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.
THOMAS
JACOBS
Page 9
Division of St. Thomas / St. John
THOMAS
Pages 10 and 11
(no redactions)
Page 12
Division of St. Thomas / St. John
John-Russell B. Pate,
Linda Jill Singer,
Carol Laura Thomas-Jacobs,
Ariel M. Smith
Gordon C. Rhea,
Christopher A. Kroblin,
Sean Foster, Esq.
Denise N. George, Esq.
Cheryl Parris, Court Clerk III
My personal conclusion is that the DoJ is redacting directly from a list of known co-conspirators, and/or anyone whose ongoing involvement with Epstein would prove to be even more of a liability to certain governments around the world.
For example, Sarah Ferguson still has daughters that are directly in line to the British throne, and while many of her public contacts have cut ties, she is still very much a face of the British royal family whether they like it or not. Also, Andrew did not generally use his own name in written communications, preferring “The Duke” and other such light pseudonyms, arrogantly assuming that that was enough. And of course now his involvement is open knowledge, and presumably the truly bad stuff is either behind black boxes or in the documents still withheld from release.
So to me, both “royal” and “Ferguson” being redacted makes perfect sense, even where “Andrew” is not.
I believe that the DoJ is redacting from a specific “VIP list” not just because some male names are redacted and others are not, but because Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-FL) said in his interview with Heather Cox Richardson this week that, in his own experience viewing the still-redacted “unredacted” files available to him as a member of Congress, the DoJ seems to be “really focused on redacting specific ones that keep you from connecting the dots.”
But from what I’m seeing now, in a completely unrelated, non-criminal, boring probate filing in the U.S. Virgin Islands, I think that anyone with the technical capacity to do so can unredact redactions from public duplicates, and create a list of non-victim (iow, perpetrator and co-conspirator) names that are actively being redacted.
Thanks for this digging. Yes, they are certainly weaponising the files. Which is so incredibly Donnie’s fingerprint. This is so “I need you do do us a favor though”.
The ones who don’t favour him enough are left unredacted. His complete disrespect for women, “Quiet piggy”. And the ones he needs protection from or are paying enough tribute can be redacted.
The lack of redactions on anything UK (“I’m not happy with the UK”), Norwegian (he doesn’t know the difference with Denmark) and he thinks they personally robbed him from the Peace Prize.
It is insanely obvious that what they have released so far is to attempt to cause trouble for countries who haven’t been ‘complete cucking subordinate allies’.