HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227.jpg

2.63 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
7
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
4
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Project update report / email
File Size: 2.63 MB
Summary

This undated report, addressed to Jeffrey (presumed Epstein), details an extensive online reputation management campaign. The author describes successes in manipulating Google search results by suppressing negative articles and 'hacking' Wikipedia to remove pejorative terms and replace his mugshot. The document also outlines financial arrangements with a contractor named Mike and questions whether Jeffrey wishes to continue funding the project.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Jeffrey Recipient / Client
The recipient of the report, presumed to be Jeffrey Epstein, for whom an online reputation management campaign is bei...
Jessica Content Contributor (unfulfilled)
Mentioned as someone who failed to provide original content for the 'science and the org site', only providing 'just ...
Mike Technical Contractor
Received $2500 for replacement servers and is owed a balance of $7500. The author needs to know if his services will ...
Unnamed Author Project Manager
The sender of the report, managing the online reputation campaign for Jeffrey.
daily beast foe Antagonist
An unnamed female individual associated with the 'daily beast' who is actively trying to promote sites against Jeffrey.

Organizations (7)

Name Type Context
Google
The search engine whose results are being manipulated as part of the reputation management campaign.
Huffington Post
A media organization with a negative article about Jeffrey that the author is trying to push down in Google search re...
daily beast
A media organization whose negative article was successfully pushed down in search results. An unnamed 'foe' from thi...
Wikipedia
The online encyclopedia where Jeffrey's entry was edited to remove negative information and replace his mug shot. The...
Epstein Foundation
Mentioned as a positive topic ('Philanthropic work, Epstein Foundation, Promotion of Scientists') added to Jeffrey's ...
Edge
A website or project that was successfully promoted to the front page of Google search results.
House Oversight
The document is marked with 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227', indicating it is part of a collection from the U.S. House Commi...

Timeline (4 events)

Ongoing (as of document date)
An online reputation management campaign conducted for Jeffrey to manipulate his Google search results and online presence.
Online
Prior to document date
The author claims to have 'hacked' Jeffrey's Wikipedia page to remove negative terms like 'convicted sex offender', replace his mug shot with a different photo, and add positive framing such as 'Philanthropic work, Epstein Foundation, Promotion of Scientists'.
Wikipedia
Prior to document date
Successfully pushed down a negative article from the 'daily beast' in Google search results.
Google
Prior to document date
Pushed a positive site called 'the Edge' from page 5 to the front page of Google search results.
Google

Relationships (4)

Unnamed Author Contractor/Employee to Client Jeffrey
The author is reporting on work performed for Jeffrey and discussing payment and continuation of the project.
Jeffrey Client to Contractor Mike
Jeffrey paid Mike $2500 for servers and owes him a $7500 balance for his fee.
Jeffrey Associate (failed) Jessica
Jessica was expected to provide content for Jeffrey's sites but did not deliver.
Jeffrey Adversarial daily beast foe
The 'foe' is actively working to promote negative sites about Jeffrey, in direct opposition to the author's work.

Key Quotes (4)

"We hacked the site to replace the mug shot and caption, and now has an entirely different photo and caption. This was a big success."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227.jpg
Quote #1
"Wikipedia was an important victory, as it will always be at the top of the search engine results. Now the head lines do not mention convicted sex offender or pedophile."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227.jpg
Quote #2
"You paid Mike $2500, which he applied for the purchasing of his replacement servers, but his fee of $7500 balance is now due if you want to continue."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227.jpg
Quote #3
"Your daily beast foe is still at it, and trying to promote her sites against you in the same way that we try to depromote you."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227.jpg
Quote #4

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (3,697 characters)

Jeffrey,
The bots did the sweep. Here are the new results taken as of a minute ago. You have only one negative article left on front page of google, which is the Huffington Post article. The Huffington Post is extremely hard to move, because it is so powerful, has millions of links to it, and uploads massive new and original content it on a daily basis with posting from outside readers. We managed to push it down the page, as it used to be at the top. If we were able to post original content to both the science and the org site (absolutely not a single word to this day by Jessica, just talk), we would have been able to push it down even further, and off the page. WE did manage to get rid of the daily beast article, which is now far removed, in spite of their own efforts to keep it prominent.
Toxic suggested search engine terms that popped up automatically when you typed in your name are also now removed.
Wikipedia was an important victory, as it will always be at the top of the search engine results. Now the head lines do not mention convicted sex offender or pedophile. Instead, Philanthropic work, Epstein Foundation, Promotion of Scientists. We have stopped the hacking on your wiki site, and that was a major effort. Your wiki entry now is pretty tame, and bad stuff has been muted, bowlerized, and pushed to the bottom. Careful editing and wording has muted the effect immensely. We hacked the site to replace the mug shot and caption, and now has an entirely different photo and caption. This was a big success.
We pushed the Edge all the way up to the front page, where it was previously buried on page 5 of google search.
We have promoted the other jeffrey epsteins, and other pages are also filled with your material.
And, while the sites are up, and in the direction we hoped, they are still new, and subject to volatility, especially if new original content is not added on a minimum of a weekly basis. I have been forbidden to add new content to the philanthropic site as well as the science site, and therefore, as a result our rating slipped down (still on the first page, but would have liked them (and some of the articles to been able to push Huffington off page). We also helped with you images, and the first images that come of you on a google search are not of your mug shot, etc.
Your daily beast foe is still at it, and trying to promote her sites against you in the same way that we try to depromote you.
As far as this site is concerned, and the continuation of this, I do not know what you wish to do. Clearly, you have no interest in my continuing. And, I am not sure if you want to continue the project at all. If the latter, and you stop, eventually it will just go into the way of entropy, and it will return to the old form. The major work has been done, but it needs to be maintained. For it to get better results, it needs to have constant input and supervision, and that means generating proper content, not just editing and grammatical fixes. Writers need to know what to write. The philanthropy site is at the bottom of the page precisely because you have not allowed us to add any content to it, and as a result it suffers.
You paid Mike $2500, which he applied for the purchasing of his replacement servers, but his fee of $7500 balance is now due if you want to continue. Please let me know what you want to do. I need to inform him, and if you are not going to use him, he needs to take on his other clients and devote his time there.
This needs to be contrasted with what we started with, which was a search on your name, which had nine/10 very toxic prominent stories, and toxic Wiki article and headline.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022227

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document