EFTA01620164: Steven Kaplan’s 2013 Texts to Jeffrey Epstein About a School Donation and a Clinic for Young Girls
Snapshot
EFTA01620164 and EFTA01620165 are consecutive pages of an SMS export supplied as the two-page PDF KaplanPissed2013. The first page records seven visible messages on January 14, 2013, pressing the recipient over paperwork for a Jewish day school matching grant. The sender signs one sequence “Kaplan,” insults the recipient, and says he can no longer open a New York endodontics clinic in the recipient’s name “for young girls.” The second page records an August 23 invitation to the sender’s son’s bar mitzvah, signed “Dr Kaplan,” followed by a brief reply, “Iraqi food.”
The name in the messages, the specific MATCH dispute, and independent correspondence identify the sender in context as Dr. Steven D. Kaplan, the New York endodontist who treated Jeffrey Epstein. The export itself masks one contact and labels another “Unknown”; it does not independently display the recipient’s name or a complete conversation. Contemporary emails to and from Epstein’s staff provide the stronger basis for identifying the person being pressed and the subject of the dispute.
This record is evidence of a pointed solicitation, a proposed naming of a clinic serving young girls, and continued social outreach later that year. It is not evidence that the clinic opened, that any girls received treatment there, that the matching application was accepted, or that Kaplan possessed compromising information about Epstein. The troubling wording deserves exact attention without turning an unfulfilled statement into an established institution or a blackmail finding.
| Feature | What the supplied PDF shows |
|---|---|
| Document | Two-page rendered SMS conversation; Bates stamps EFTA01620164–EFTA01620165 |
| Displayed platform and timezone | SMS; UTC+0000 |
| January page | January 14, 2013, seven visible bubbles between 2:25:20 p.m. and 4:03:54 p.m. |
| August page | August 23, 2013, invitation at 9:40:43 p.m. and reply at 9:53:40 p.m. |
| Names visible in content | “Kaplan” and “Dr Kaplan”; contact header otherwise redacted or “Unknown” |
| Central issue | A donor form for a Jewish day school MATCH application following an Epstein donation |
| Significant phrase | A proposed “New York endodontics clinic in your name for young girls” |
| Proof the clinic existed | None in these pages |
What Kind of Record Is This?
The PDF reproduces a rendered conversation view, not a signed affidavit, contemporaneous clinical chart, project proposal, school ledger, or complete phone extraction. Each page has a Bates stamp at bottom right. The January page has a redacted contact name above the messages and an “Unknown” participant in the header. The August page continues the same supplied extract, but neither page supplies an unredacted phone number, device owner, or export methodology.
The display is labeled “Timezone: UTC+0000,” while individual bubbles show familiar 12-hour times. Those are the times as printed in the exhibit. The January run has an initial message at 2:25 p.m., four successive pieces of the longer message at 2:29 p.m., a postscript at 2:30 p.m., and a further education remark at 4:03 p.m. The sender’s text breaks midword between bubbles: “cont” continues as “ract,” “thank yo” as “u,” and “now I ca” as “nnot.” Read together, these are continuations of one thought, not distinct promises made in isolation.
The January page contains no visible answer from the recipient. On the August page, the short “Iraqi food” bubble appears as a response after the invitation, with a “Read” indicator beneath it. The export does not explain whether this was a menu answer, a private joke, or a response to another unshown exchange. It does not establish acceptance of the invitation.
The January 14 Messages, in Order
The first page records the following sequence. Its spelling and punctuation are inconsistent; the descriptions below distinguish the words on the page from an interpretation of them.
| Displayed time | Content and evidentiary significance |
|---|---|
| 2:25:20 p.m. | An insult starts “You’re a Nazi web sites” and contrasts that phrase with fear of an organization for Jewish day schools. The opening is grammatically garbled. It cannot safely be rewritten as a clear allegation that the recipient operated, visited, or supported Nazi websites. |
| 2:29:36–2:29:39 p.m. | A four-bubble run says the organization has a matching program for first-time donors; the sender offers to sign a contract covering an additional donation if needed; acknowledges concern about attaching the recipient’s name; thanks the recipient for past help; asserts that the organization matches half of the gift; and says the clinic can no longer be opened in the recipient’s name for young girls. It ends “love Kaplan.” |
| 2:30:24 p.m. | A postscript calls the recipient “such a pussy,” adding insult to the appeal. |
| 4:03:54 p.m. | The sender says he does not want the recipient to feel bad about depriving young children of a good Jewish education. This is plainly an attempt to increase the pressure over the school form. |
The phrase about not wanting the recipient to feel bad is sarcastic in context. The more important distinction is between the already discussed donation and the additional matching application. The sender argues that the organization will match part of what “you gave,” while the recipient apparently objects to putting his name on further paperwork. The PDF itself does not attach a donation receipt or the application, so those details must be checked against separate records.
The Donation and MATCH Paperwork Behind the Argument
EFTA00422095 places the discussion in motion by December 29, 2011: Lesley Groff told Kaplan that Epstein wanted information about his yeshiva and wished to make a $25,000 donation. EFTA00420991 records a January 2012 instruction from Richard Kahn to drop the matter. The proposal later revived. EFTA02559163 records Groff’s September 2012 report that Kaplan believed Epstein had first discussed $50,000 and then $25,000; that is Kaplan’s reported account of a prior conversation, not a record of a $50,000 payment.
EFTA02158852 shows Epstein choosing “25” when staff asked whether he intended $25,000 or $50,000. EFTA02158371 contains Kahn’s statement that Epstein approved a $25,000 yeshiva contribution. These records explain the January sender’s references to what the recipient “gave,” but an approval, pledge, or staff report should not be confused with proof of every downstream grant result.
The school was Yeshiva Tifereth Moshe in Queens. EFTA00398088 preserves Groff’s January 8, 2013 email to Kahn about the MATCH donor application for Kaplan’s children’s school. She said Epstein had allowed her to fill it out but wanted to see it before full approval and asked whether the $25,000 donor was Epstein or a foundation. The forwarded MATCH correspondence said the complete application was due by January 15, 2013. EFTA00398082 further documents Groff’s attempt to obtain a printable application that Epstein could review before online submission.
EFTA00668457 records another request for permission to submit the form on January 10. EFTA01907210 records Epstein’s January 11 instruction to tell the other side that they could not submit it. EFTA02521246 contains Kaplan’s January 14 request for an explanation. Thus the SMS burst landed one day before the stated deadline and after the reported refusal. This chronology gives the urgency and anger on the first page a documented subject; it does not prove whether the donor ultimately reversed course or the program awarded a grant.
The correspondence also shows why the application mattered personally to Kaplan. EFTA01976754 and EFTA01980674 report that matching the donation could save him about $12,000 on his children’s following year’s tuition. A July 2012 tuition contract, on page stamped EFTA00283633, records a household school obligation. The possible tuition saving is a staff account of a prospective benefit, not evidence it was received. The January text does not mention $12,000, and its “matches half” phrase should not be converted into a verified grant formula for this particular application without a final program determination.
The “Clinic for Young Girls” Line
The long January message culminates in the sender saying he can no longer open a “New York endodontics clinic in your name for young girls.” This is a specific and unsettling statement because Kaplan was an endodontist, Epstein was a convicted sex offender, and the proposed population is described as young girls. The sentence ties a possible clinic named for the recipient to the quarrel over visibility on the donation form.
The text leaves crucial points unresolved. It supplies no address, incorporation or license record, grant proposal, funding amount, patient list, date of opening, or description of how the clinic would operate. It does not say whether the clinic idea had been discussed seriously before, whether Kaplan was speaking sarcastically, or whether “young girls” meant a proposed charitable patient population. An existing Manhattan practice and a hypothetical new clinic are different things. The only proposition established by this exhibit is that Kaplan said he could no longer open one in the recipient’s name.
The first message’s phrase “Nazi web sites” is equally resistant to confident interpretation. It is printed exactly in that awkward form. No screenshot, browser history, or independent website evidence appears in the PDF. The article cannot responsibly transform the broken sentence into a proven fact about Epstein’s web activity.
Was This Blackmail?
The January messages use insult, guilt, the schoolchildren’s education, the recipient’s previous help, and the loss of the proposed clinic naming to push for cooperation. The sender also acknowledges that the recipient might not want his name on the application. This supports describing the exchange as pressure over donor visibility and matching funds.
Blackmail would require an additional factual premise that the two pages do not supply: a demand backed by threatened disclosure or use of damaging information. The SMS does not say Kaplan possessed a secret, threatened to expose the recipient, or conditioned silence on payment or submission. The “Nazi web sites” insult is not accompanied by a stated threat to publish anything. Nor does concern about placing a name on a donor form prove that Kaplan knew of covert wrongdoing. The reason for the recipient’s reluctance remains open. These pages can prompt a search for surrounding communications, but they do not establish blackmail.
The August 23 Invitation and Reply
The second page is dated August 23, 2013, about seven months after the argument. The sender says an invitation addressed to the recipient came back the previous day. He invites the recipient to his son’s bar mitzvah that Sunday, on a boat from 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m., asks for a call if he can attend, and signs off “Love Dr Kaplan.” The address in the bubble is blacked out and need not be reconstructed.
At 9:53:40 p.m., the next displayed bubble says “Iraqi food.” Its placement indicates a response in the rendered conversation; its meaning is uncertain without the missing context. The “Read” indicator is a display feature, not a record of attendance. Nothing on the second page confirms that the invitation reached the recipient by mail, that he called, boarded the boat, or attended the celebration. It does document an attempt to maintain social contact after the January dispute.
Other records show that Kaplan had previously proposed family contact. EFTA02381005 records a February 2012 proposal to bring his wife and children to meet Epstein, and EFTA02550396 and EFTA02550630 show scheduling messages. These do not prove that a meeting took place. The August invitation likewise should not be inflated into participation in a family event.
Kaplan’s Later Account and the Wider Dental Relationship
In a February 2026 interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Kaplan described meeting Epstein through root canal treatment, discussing Judaism, and asking him to support a Jewish school after Epstein offered help with his office. Kaplan said he was unaware of Epstein’s 2008 conviction at the time. JTA reported a $25,000 contribution and noted that it could not independently verify every part of Kaplan’s account. His retrospective account explains his stated charitable motive but does not resolve the clinic line or establish the grant outcome.
The dental relationship is independently documented by appointment correspondence, a root canal invoice discussion, and later bills and payment decisions. The fuller person-level record is covered in Dr. Steven Kaplan and Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein dental network. Those connections make the sender identification and donation context stronger than the redacted SMS header alone. They do not turn this two-page exhibit into proof of sexual misconduct by Kaplan.
Key Takeaways
- The PDF is exactly two consecutively stamped SMS pages, with a January donation dispute and an August family invitation.
- The January messages are tied by contemporaneous correspondence to Epstein’s $25,000 Yeshiva Tifereth Moshe contribution and the separate MATCH donor form due January 15, 2013.
- Staff correspondence describes a possible $12,000 tuition saving for Kaplan’s household, but the text pages do not show that the matching benefit materialized.
- Kaplan’s remark about a New York endodontics clinic “in your name for young girls” is real text on the page. The exhibit does not document a clinic that was built or operated.
- The messages exert pressure. They contain no explicit threat to reveal damaging information and do not establish blackmail.
- The August invitation shows continued outreach, while the short reply and read marker do not establish attendance.
Questions That Remain
- Who owned the exported device, and what unredacted extraction records establish the recipients and directions of every bubble?
- What preceded the garbled “Nazi web sites” opening, and was there any earlier discussion of a clinic named for Epstein?
- Was the proposed clinic a serious project? Are there contemporaneous plans, budgets, licenses, site records, or correspondence?
- Did Epstein or staff ultimately sign and submit the MATCH donor application before the January 15 deadline? Was any grant or Kaplan tuition benefit awarded?
- How do the school’s receipt, donor account, and payment records reconcile the $25,000 approval with the completed gift?
- What did the “Iraqi food” reply refer to, and did Epstein attend the bar mitzvah?
Sources
- EFTA01620164, January 14, 2013 SMS page, and EFTA01620165, August 23, 2013 SMS page; examined in the supplied KaplanPissed2013(1).pdf.
- EFTA00422095, EFTA02158852, and EFTA02158371, donation discussion and authorization.
- EFTA00398088, EFTA00398082, EFTA00668457, and EFTA01907210, MATCH application and Epstein’s response.
- EFTA02521246, Kaplan’s January 14 request for an explanation.
- EFTA01976754, EFTA01980674, and EFTA00283632, prospective tuition benefit and school contract.
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency, February 26, 2026, interview with Kaplan.
- U.S. Department of Justice Epstein Library, release repository.