EFTA02463816: Epstein’s “Kadosh and Jean Luc Blackmail” Memo

PostedSeptember 26, 2026

UpdatedSeptember 26, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

EFTA02463816 is a one page email that Jeffrey Epstein sent to himself on May 3, 2016. Its subject was “kadosh and jean luc blackmail.” In the message, Epstein memorialized what he said was a seven minute telephone call with Michel Kadosh concerning French modeling executive [Jean Luc Brunel](/knowledge-base/jean-luc-brunel/).

According to Epstein’s account, Kadosh said that attorneys representing survivors had obtained “total immunity” for Brunel and that Brunel could avoid speaking for $3 million. Epstein also wrote that Kadosh wanted money for debts and a business, and said that Epstein and Kadosh could be friends again after payment.

The document is important because it was created on the same day that survivor attorneys were transmitting information supplied by Brunel to federal prosecutors. It also predates a related email in which Epstein told [Kathryn Ruemmler](/knowledge-base/kathryn-ruemmler/) that Brunel was expected to go to the United States Attorney’s Office.

The record does not establish that immunity was formally granted. It does not prove that Brunel personally demanded money. It does not show that Epstein paid $3 million. It is Epstein’s contemporaneous account of a reported conversation, written by a participant who had a strong personal interest in preventing Brunel from cooperating.

Snapshot

Field	Detail
Document	EFTA02463816
DOJ production	Data Set 11
Format	One page email
Date and time	May 3, 2016, 10:28 p.m.
Sender	Jeffrey Epstein
Recipient	Jeffrey Epstein
Subject	“kadosh and jean luc blackmail”
Event described	A reported seven minute call at approximately 5:04 p.m.
Principal names	Jeffrey Epstein, Michel Kadosh, Jean Luc Brunel, David Boies
Central claim	Kadosh allegedly said that Brunel had “total immunity” and would not speak for $3 million
Corroborated context	Brunel’s attorneys and survivor attorneys were discussing possible cooperation with federal prosecutors
Not established by this page	A formal immunity agreement, a completed payment, the identity of the proposed payer or payee with legal certainty, or the reason Brunel stopped cooperating
Evidentiary character	Contemporaneous self addressed email containing Epstein’s account of an out of court conversation

What the Document Says

Epstein wrote that he called Michel Kadosh at approximately 5:04 p.m. to ask about Brunel. He recorded the call as lasting seven minutes.

The email attributes several statements to Kadosh:

David Boies had obtained “total immunity” for Brunel.
Brunel planned to visit Kadosh during the coming weekend.
For $3 million, Brunel would not “go in to speak.”
Kadosh had counseled Brunel in a religious or personal capacity, describing himself as Brunel’s “rabbi.”
Kadosh said that attorneys were interested in money.
Kadosh wanted to pay debts and improve his business.
After Epstein paid him, Epstein and Kadosh could be friends again.
Kadosh asked Epstein to call again on Friday.

Epstein also recorded an argument he said he made during the call. He asked why Kadosh wanted Epstein in jail when Kadosh had known him for twenty years and regarded him as a brother.

The page ends with a damaged or incomplete line that appears to refer to an email sent to attorneys. The released text does not provide enough context to identify those attorneys with certainty.

Normalized Transcription

The following transcription removes email encoding artifacts such as equals signs inserted at line endings. Spelling, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation otherwise follow the released record as closely as possible. Bracketed text identifies an uncertain reading rather than silently repairing it.

From: jeffrey E.
Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2016 10:28 PM
To: Jeffrey Epstein
Subject: kadosh and jean luc blackmail

today at approx 504 pm i called michel kadosh to inquire about jean luc. the call lasted for 7 minutes. he told me that Boies had gotten jean luc total immunity, that jean luc was going to come to see him on the weekend. for 3 million dollars jean luc would not go in to speak. he kept telling me you dont need this tsuris.

he said that he told jean luc that he as his rabbi, and not to go to attnys who are only interested in money. he said he wanted to pay off his debt have some money to make his business better again. he said that after I paid him, we could be friends again. he said I told him why do you want jeffrey in jail, you told me you know him for 20 years and he is like a brother. he asked that i call him again on friday. I [unclear] sent an email to the attnys.

The phrase rendered as “tsuris” is a Yiddish word for troubles or problems. Its use is consistent with Epstein’s account of Kadosh trying to persuade him that he did not need the threatened consequences. The interpretation remains contextual because the document records only Epstein’s side of the reported call.

A Careful Reading of the $3 Million Claim

The subject line uses Epstein’s word “blackmail.” That is his characterization, not a legal finding.

The body contains ambiguous pronouns. Epstein wrote that “he” said Brunel would not speak for $3 million, then wrote that “he” wanted to pay debt, obtain money for a business, and restore a friendship after Epstein paid him. The grammar strongly suggests Epstein attributed the request to Kadosh, but the page does not contain a direct statement from Kadosh or Brunel.

The safest conclusion is therefore limited:

Epstein recorded that Kadosh presented a $3 million proposal connected to Brunel not speaking.
Epstein believed the proposal was coercive and labeled it blackmail.
The document does not prove that Brunel authorized the proposal.
The document does not prove that Kadosh accurately described Brunel’s intentions.
The document does not show that Epstein agreed to pay.
No reviewed public record establishes that the proposed $3 million payment occurred.

Calling the document proof of a paid bribe or completed blackmail scheme would go beyond the evidence.

“Total Immunity” Was a Reported Claim, Not a Documented Grant

Epstein wrote that Kadosh said [David Boies](/knowledge-base/david-boies/) had obtained “total immunity” for Brunel. The wording requires several qualifications.

First, the statement is double hearsay. The released page records Epstein’s account of what Kadosh reportedly said about discussions involving other attorneys and prosecutors.

Second, a private lawyer cannot independently confer federal criminal immunity. Immunity generally requires government action and may take different forms, including statutory immunity, a proffer agreement, a cooperation agreement, or an assurance concerning particular conduct. EFTA02463816 includes none of those instruments.

Third, the broader record shows that attorneys were exploring an immunity arrangement because Brunel feared prosecution and did not want to incriminate himself. That context makes an immunity discussion credible. It does not prove that prosecutors completed or signed a binding agreement.

The phrase “total immunity” should therefore be described as Epstein’s report of Kadosh’s claim. It should not be presented as an established prosecutorial decision.

The Same Day Timeline

The timing makes EFTA02463816 more significant than an isolated note.

Time or date	Event	Evidence
February 2015	Brunel attorney Joseph Titone contacted survivor attorney Brad Edwards and raised the possibility that Brunel possessed photographic evidence concerning Epstein	Reporting based on the released files
February 29, 2016	A federal prosecutor recorded that Brunel wanted to cooperate, feared prosecution, possessed photographic evidence, and did not want to implicate himself	EFTA01249012
May 2, 2016	Brunel reportedly met for hours with attorney J. Stanley Pottinger at Boies Schiller Flexner	Wall Street Journal reporting based on interviews and records
May 3, 2016, 12:02 p.m.	Pottinger forwarded a message identifying Daniel Siad, whom Brunel described as a scout or recruiter of girls or women for Epstein	EFTA00017956
May 3, 2016, about 5:04 p.m.	Epstein says he called Michel Kadosh about Brunel for seven minutes	EFTA02463816
May 3, 2016, 10:28 p.m.	Epstein emailed his account of the call to himself under the subject “kadosh and jean luc blackmail”	EFTA02463816
May 3, 2016, 2:28 p.m., as displayed in a related chain	Epstein told Kathryn Ruemmler that Brunel was expected at the United States Attorney’s Office the following Tuesday and that $3 million had been requested so he would not go	EFTA02464312
May 3, 2016, 7:41 p.m., as displayed in the chain	Ruemmler asked Epstein to call and explain	EFTA02464312
May 4, 2016, 10:05 a.m.	The related exchange was preserved in a reply from Epstein to Ruemmler	EFTA02464312
Later in May 2016	The anticipated cooperation did not occur and Brunel stopped communicating with the survivor attorneys	Wall Street Journal reporting

The displayed times in the records are not perfectly aligned. The self addressed email says the call occurred at about 5:04 p.m. The related chain displays Epstein’s message to Ruemmler at 2:28 p.m. on May 3. Time zone conversion, email export settings, or the inclusion of related but separately created messages may explain the mismatch. The available records do not resolve it.

The Related Email to Kathryn Ruemmler

EFTA02464312 contains a related exchange between Epstein and Kathryn Ruemmler, the former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama.

Epstein told Ruemmler that Michel Kodesch, spelled differently in that record, had said Boies obtained full immunity for Brunel and planned to take him to the United States Attorney’s Office the following Tuesday. Epstein again referred to a request for $3 million so Brunel would not go in. He also wrote that Brunel feared arrest if he failed to appear.

Ruemmler replied that Epstein should call when he had time to explain. Reporting on an additional message says she later wrote that she was awake and would speak with “Poe” in twenty minutes. Gregory Poe was an attorney working for Epstein in Washington.

Ruemmler’s spokesperson later said that Epstein was trying to involve her in a matter she knew nothing about and that she appropriately directed him to legal counsel. Ruemmler has said she never represented Epstein and regrets the association.

Poe told The Wall Street Journal that he never discussed Brunel with Ruemmler or Epstein. He said his scheduled call with Ruemmler concerned a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Epstein. He also said his engagement was limited and ended in August 2016.

The emails establish communication. They do not establish that Ruemmler or Poe interfered with Brunel’s cooperation. The contents of any telephone calls remain unknown.

Evidence That Brunel’s Possible Cooperation Was Real

EFTA02463816 is not the only record concerning Brunel’s approach to prosecutors.

EFTA01249012 contains handwritten notes taken by a federal prosecutor on February 29, 2016. The notes state that Brunel had helped obtain girls, wanted to cooperate, feared prosecution, and possessed photographic evidence. They also state that he did not want to implicate himself.

The notes describe information relayed by survivor attorneys. They do not establish that prosecutors verified every assertion. They do show that the prospect of Brunel cooperating was presented to federal authorities before Epstein wrote the May 3 memo.

EFTA00017956 adds a second contemporaneous marker. On May 3, survivor attorney Stan Pottinger forwarded contact information for Daniel Siad and wrote that Brunel had described Siad as a scout or recruiter of girls or women for Epstein. This occurred hours before the call described in EFTA02463816.

The convergence of the prosecutor notes, the Pottinger email, the self addressed memo, and the Ruemmler exchange supports the conclusion that Brunel was seriously discussing cooperation. It does not establish that an immunity agreement had been finalized.

The People Named or Implicated

Jeffrey Epstein

[Jeffrey Epstein](/knowledge-base/jeffrey-epstein/) wrote the email to himself and described the call. He had an obvious interest in knowing whether Brunel would provide information to prosecutors. His choice to memorialize the conversation, contact Ruemmler, and seek more information demonstrates concern. His account remains a statement by an interested party, not a neutral report.

Jean Luc Brunel

[Jean Luc Brunel](/knowledge-base/jean-luc-brunel/) was a French modeling executive closely connected to Epstein. Epstein provided financial backing for MC2 Model Management. Brunel appeared in travel records, emails, financial records, jail visitor logs, and survivor allegations.

Brunel denied wrongdoing. French authorities detained him in December 2020 and placed him under formal investigation for rape of a minor over fifteen and sexual harassment. He died in custody in February 2022 before trial, so the charges were never adjudicated.

Michel Kadosh or Kodesch

The target record spells the name “Michel Kadosh.” A related email spells it “Michel Kodesch.” Epstein described him as Brunel’s friend. The available documents also attribute to him a claim that he served Brunel as a “rabbi,” which may have meant a religious adviser, a trusted counselor, or both.

The reviewed public sources do not establish Kadosh’s occupation, formal legal role, or authority to negotiate for Brunel. No charge or judicial finding concerning the alleged $3 million proposal was located.

David Boies

[David Boies](/knowledge-base/david-boies/) and lawyers at Boies Schiller Flexner represented survivors in Epstein related civil litigation. The firm’s lawyers helped arrange contacts concerning Brunel. EFTA02463816 attributes the immunity claim to Kadosh, not to Boies directly.

J. Stanley Pottinger

J. Stanley Pottinger was an attorney working with the survivor legal team. Records and reporting place him in communications with Brunel and his counsel. His May 3 email transmitting information about Daniel Siad provides important corroboration that Brunel was supplying names at the time.

Bradley Edwards

[Bradley Edwards](/knowledge-base/bradley-edwards/) represented numerous Epstein survivors. According to reporting, Brunel’s attorney contacted Edwards in 2015 and raised the prospect that Brunel held photographic evidence. Edwards treated the approach cautiously because he could not know whether it was a genuine break with Epstein or a tactic.

Sigrid McCawley

[Sigrid McCawley](/knowledge-base/sigrid-s-mccawley/) was another survivor attorney involved in the litigation. In the related EFTA02464312 chain, Epstein referred to information McCawley had presented to a judge in camera concerning an investigation. An in camera presentation is made privately to the judge. Epstein’s comment does not reveal what was presented or how he learned of it.

Joseph Titone

Joseph Titone represented Brunel. He later told The Wall Street Journal that he advised Brunel to cooperate and to stop communicating with Epstein. Titone said Brunel did neither. EFTA02464312 shows Epstein disparaging Titone and Kodesh as untruthful or as scammers. That is Epstein’s opinion, not a judicial finding.

Kathryn Ruemmler

[Kathryn Ruemmler](/knowledge-base/kathryn-ruemmler/) received the related email from Epstein and asked him to explain it by telephone. Her spokesperson has denied that she knew about the Brunel matter and said she directed Epstein to counsel.

Gregory Poe

Gregory Poe was an attorney engaged by Epstein for limited work in 2016. Poe denied discussing Brunel with Epstein or Ruemmler and said his scheduled call with Ruemmler concerned a subpoena motion.

Daniel Siad

[Daniel Siad](/knowledge-base/daniel-siad/) does not appear on EFTA02463816, but his name is part of the immediate evidentiary context. Pottinger wrote on the same day that Brunel described Siad as a scout or recruiter of girls or women for Epstein. That wording is Pottinger’s report of Brunel’s description. It is not an independent FBI conclusion.

What Happened Before the Memo

Brunel and Epstein had a long personal and financial relationship. Released records and litigation describe Epstein’s financial support for MC2 Model Management, apartments used by models, international travel, and frequent contact.

Brunel’s public relationship with Epstein fractured after survivor allegations received renewed attention. In January 2015, Brunel and MC2 sued Epstein in Florida. The complaint alleged that Epstein’s notoriety damaged the agency and that Epstein had interfered with Brunel’s participation in an earlier deposition. The dispute was later settled on confidential terms.

During that period, Titone approached survivor attorney Edwards. According to The Wall Street Journal, Titone raised the possibility that Brunel had photographic evidence concerning Epstein. Survivor attorneys then worked over many months to connect Brunel with federal prosecutors.

The February 2016 prosecutor notes show the resulting presentation. Brunel was described as afraid of prosecution but willing to cooperate if he could protect himself. By May 2, he had reportedly met with Pottinger. By May 3, his information concerning Daniel Siad had been transmitted. Epstein then learned of the anticipated meeting and documented the disputed $3 million proposal.

What Happened After the Memo

Brunel did not appear for the anticipated cooperation session. He stopped communicating with the survivor attorneys. The available records do not establish why.

The federal prosecutor who took the February notes later said she discussed the matter with colleagues in the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI, but no investigation was opened at that time. A 2021 court filing addressed the meeting while redacting the Brunel details then visible in later releases.

Federal prosecutors did not charge Epstein in New York until July 2019. An FBI investigative record from that year identified Brunel and Ghislaine Maxwell among alleged potential coconspirators. That label records an investigative assessment and is not a conviction.

French authorities opened an investigation after Epstein’s 2019 arrest and death. Brunel was arrested at Charles de Gaulle Airport in December 2020 while preparing to fly to Senegal. He was placed under formal investigation in France. Under French procedure, that status did not amount to a conviction.

Brunel was found dead in La Santé Prison on February 19, 2022. French authorities treated the death as suicide. He died before trial, leaving the allegations unresolved by a verdict.

In February 2026, Paris prosecutors announced that they would reexamine material related to Brunel and analyze the newly released Epstein records for possible offenses involving French nationals.

Evidence Assessment

Proposition	Assessment	Reason
Epstein called Kadosh on May 3, 2016	Strong documentary support	Epstein created a dated self addressed email memorializing the call
Brunel was considering cooperation	Strong support	Prosecutor notes, survivor attorney communications, interviews, and related emails converge
Brunel feared prosecution	Strong attributed support	Recorded in prosecutor notes and Epstein’s related email
Brunel possessed photographic evidence	Substantial attributed support	Recorded in prosecutor notes as information from Titone, but the photographs have not been publicly authenticated in this context
A formal immunity agreement existed	Unproven	The phrase appears in Epstein’s account of Kadosh’s statement; no agreement is attached
Kadosh requested $3 million	Substantial attributed support	Epstein recorded the claim twice, but no direct statement by Kadosh has been located
Brunel authorized a $3 million demand	Unproven	The page does not establish authorization
Epstein paid $3 million	No public proof located	No reviewed payment record confirms it
Ruemmler or Poe stopped Brunel from cooperating	Unproven	Communication is documented, but both the content and causal effect of calls are unknown; Poe expressly denied discussing Brunel
Brunel ultimately declined to cooperate	Strong support	Survivor attorneys, later reporting, and the absence of a proffer confirm that the planned cooperation failed

Why the Document Matters

EFTA02463816 captures Epstein reacting in real time to the possibility that a longtime associate might speak with federal prosecutors.

It matters for five reasons:

It shows that Epstein knew about the cooperation effort before it collapsed.
It records a reported attempt to attach a multimillion dollar price to silence.
It connects the possible cooperation to survivor attorneys and the United States Attorney’s Office.
It sits beside records showing that Brunel was supplying information about recruitment contacts.
It illustrates how critical evidence can remain inconclusive when the available record consists of private communications, reported conversations, and meetings that did not produce a public agreement.

The most responsible interpretation is neither dismissal nor exaggeration. The cooperation effort was real. Epstein knew about it. A $3 million proposal was recorded by Epstein. The released evidence does not establish who authorized that proposal, whether it was genuine, or whether money changed hands.

Survivor Centered Context

The legal and evidentiary questions should not obscure the people affected by the delay.

Survivor attorneys were trying to bring a potentially important witness and source of evidence to federal prosecutors. David Boies later said the failed cooperation set the effort back by years and stated that civil cases showed more than fifty girls were trafficked during the period that followed. That numerical claim is Boies’s assessment based on survivor litigation. It is not quantified within EFTA02463816 itself.

The institutional question is larger than whether the $3 million proposal can be proven. Federal authorities received information in 2016 that a close Epstein associate allegedly helped obtain girls, had photographs, feared prosecution, and wanted immunity. When the witness withdrew, no investigation was opened at that time.

For survivors, the consequence was another lost opportunity for earlier intervention and accountability.

Evidence Appearances

EFTA record	Date	Relevance
EFTA02463816	May 3, 2016	Epstein’s self addressed memo titled “kadosh and jean luc blackmail,” recording the alleged $3 million proposal and “total immunity” claim
EFTA02464312	May 3 and 4, 2016	Related Epstein and Ruemmler email chain about Brunel, immunity, the planned prosecutor meeting, and the requested explanation
EFTA01249012	February 29, 2016	Federal prosecutor notes concerning Brunel’s possible cooperation, fear of prosecution, and claimed photographic evidence
EFTA00017956	May 3, 2016, forwarded December 6, 2018	Pottinger email transmitting contact information for Daniel Siad and relaying Brunel’s description of him as a scout or recruiter
EFTA00029100	2021 filing	Litigation addressing the 2016 prosecutor meeting and the government’s later account of what followed
EFTA00038617	2019 investigative chronology	FBI record concerning the 2019 Epstein investigation and service of subpoenas on associates including Brunel

Sources

Questions

Did prosecutors prepare any written immunity, proffer, or cooperation agreement for Brunel?
Who first used the phrase “total immunity,” and what precise protection was contemplated?
Did Kadosh have Brunel’s authorization to discuss $3 million with Epstein?
Was the proposed $3 million intended for Kadosh, Brunel, business debts, legal expenses, or another purpose?
Did Epstein or an Epstein controlled entity transfer money to Kadosh, Brunel, Titone, MC2, or a related party after May 3, 2016?
Which attorneys received the email referenced in the damaged final line of EFTA02463816?
What information did Sigrid McCawley present to the judge in camera?
What photographs did Titone say Brunel possessed, where are they now, and were they ever reviewed by law enforcement?
Why did the United States Attorney’s Office and FBI not open an investigation after the February 2016 briefing?
What caused Brunel to stop communicating with survivor attorneys?
What was discussed in the calls among Epstein, Ruemmler, and counsel on May 3 and May 4, 2016?
Why do the timestamps in the self addressed memo and the Ruemmler email chain appear out of sequence?
Were Michel Kadosh and Michel Kodesch the same person, and which spelling is correct?

EFTA02463816 Download

Tags:

Communication Records