EFTA02281985: Email Regarding Jeffrey Epstein Passport Revocation and State Department Letter

UpdatedSeptember 14, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Snapshot

EFTA02281985 and EFTA02281986 preserve a two page email chain dated April 3, 2019. The exchange concerns a request from an entity identified only as “G3” for confirmation that Jeffrey Epstein received a letter from the United States Department of State when what the correspondent called his “4 year passport” was revoked.

The chain reports that a person called Darren said Epstein had received such a letter. The unnamed correspondent asked Epstein for permission to relay that information to G3. Epstein did not provide a clear yes or no answer in the produced record. Instead, he wrote, “lets use somoen that doesnt have our whole story.”

A later message says David Mitchell had been added to the email by mistake when the sender meant to add Darren. The top reply, shown as coming from “J,” says only, “Whoops.”

The State Department letter is not included. The email does not disclose the passport number, the revocation date, the legal basis for the revocation, the identity of G3, or the full names of the redacted participants.

Document Details

Primary evidence range: EFTA02281985 through EFTA02281986
Release collection: DOJ Epstein Library, Data Set 11
Document type: Printed email chain
Date: April 3, 2019
Visible subject: Re: G3 Passport Agency
Top sender: “J,” with the recipient field redacted
Named people in the chain: Jeffrey Epstein, Darren, and David Mitchell
Named organization: United States Department of State
Other named reference: G3
Length: Two pages
Printed production numbers: EFTA_R1_01103211 and EFTA_R1_01103212

The first page contains the complete substantive exchange and the beginning of a standard confidentiality footer. The second page contains only the remainder of that footer.

Email Sequence

The printed chain shows four messages on April 3, 2019.

At 2:41 PM, an unnamed and redacted correspondent tells Epstein that G3 is asking whether he received a State Department letter when his four year passport was revoked. The writer says Darren answered yes but did not want that information passed to G3 without Epstein’s approval. The writer then asks whether G3 should be told that Epstein received the letter.

At 2:45 PM, “J,” using Epstein’s jeevacation Gmail account, replies that they should use someone who does not have their “whole story.” The spelling errors in the quoted line appear in the produced record and are preserved when directly quoted.

At 2:49 PM, the unnamed correspondent says David Mitchell was added to the email when the intended recipient was Darren. The writer says the message will be forwarded to Darren.

At 6:52:42 PM, the top message from “J” says, “Whoops.” The recipient is redacted.

The times appear in a logical order, but no time zone is printed. The redactions prevent a complete reconstruction of the sender and recipient list.

What the Record Establishes

The document establishes that people communicating with Epstein were addressing a passport matter in April 2019. The chain specifically discusses:

A passport described by the correspondent as having four years of validity
A reported revocation of that passport
A reported State Department letter connected to the revocation
A request from G3 for confirmation that Epstein received the letter
A person called Darren who reportedly knew a letter had been received
Epstein’s preference to use someone who did not have their “whole story”
The accidental addition of David Mitchell to the email

The exchange is evidence of administrative activity and information control surrounding the passport issue. It is not the revocation letter, a passport application, a decision by the State Department, or proof of the legal reason for the revocation.

The Missing State Department Letter

The most important referenced record is absent. The email repeatedly discusses a letter from the State Department, but neither page reproduces or attaches it.

Federal passport regulations provide that the State Department sends written notice to a person whose passport is revoked. The notice is supposed to state the specific reasons for the revocation and any available review procedures. The email’s reference to a State Department letter is therefore consistent with ordinary written notification procedure.

Without the letter, researchers cannot verify:

The date it was issued or delivered
The passport to which it referred
The specific legal authority cited
The reason for the revocation
Whether review or appeal procedures were offered
Whether Epstein or a representative responded
Whether the passport was later replaced or reissued

The missing letter should be treated as an unproduced attachment or related record that requires separate retrieval.

Passport Law Context

Several federal authorities could govern passport limitation or revocation. Their existence does not prove which authority applied to Epstein.

Title 22 CFR 51.62 identifies multiple grounds on which the State Department may revoke or limit a passport. Those grounds include circumstances in which the bearer could be denied a passport, a passport was obtained illegally, fraudulently, or erroneously, or a passport was fraudulently altered or misused.

Title 22 U.S.C. 212b, enacted through International Megan’s Law, provides that the State Department may revoke a passport previously issued without a required unique identifier to a covered sex offender. The State Department’s public guidance likewise explains that passports issued to covered sex offenders without the identifier may be revoked.

That legal framework is relevant because the email concerns a revocation involving Epstein. However, EFTA02281985 does not cite International Megan’s Law, the Angel Watch Center, a passport identifier, any regulation, or any statutory section. It would be inaccurate to state that the document proves the passport was revoked under that law.

The description “4 year passport” may suggest a limited validity passport. The State Department explains that limited validity passports expire sooner than full validity passports and may be issued in several circumstances. The email does not call the document a limited validity passport, explain why it was valid for four years, or show the passport itself.

G3 Passport Agency

The subject line identifies “G3 Passport Agency,” while the body refers simply to “G3.” The produced record does not provide a company name, address, representative, website, contract, or application form.

It appears that G3 was assisting with or seeking information about Epstein’s passport matter. That is an inference from the question attributed to G3. The email does not establish whether G3 was a private courier, an application service, a law firm, a government passport agency, or another type of intermediary.

Researchers should not attach this exchange to a particular company with a similar name without a confirming record.

Darren and David Mitchell

The chain names “Darren” without a surname. The unnamed correspondent says Darren confirmed that Epstein received the State Department letter but did not want that information relayed without Epstein’s approval.

Given the larger Epstein record, researchers may examine whether this was a reference to Darren Indyke. EFTA02281985 itself does not print a surname, title, email address, or other identifier for Darren. The identification should therefore remain unconfirmed unless another copy of the chain or a connected record supplies it.

David Mitchell is named because the correspondent says he was added to the email by mistake. The document does not explain who Mitchell was, what he learned from the message, whether he opened it, or whether he had any role in Epstein’s passport matter.

An appearance in this email does not establish wrongdoing by either person.

Information Control and the “Whole Story” Remark

Epstein’s most significant visible response is his preference to use someone who did not have their “whole story.” The wording indicates concern about how much background a person or service knew. The accidental addition of David Mitchell, followed by “Whoops,” reinforces that the participants were attentive to who received the discussion.

The record does not define the “whole story.” It could refer to the revocation, the passport history, the State Department correspondence, a broader legal issue, or something else. The phrase should not be presented as an admission of criminal conduct or proof of concealment from authorities.

What the email does support is narrower. Epstein preferred an intermediary or person with less prior knowledge of the matter, and the participants corrected an apparent recipient error.

Redactions and Privacy

The top recipient and several names or email addresses are covered by black redaction bars. EpsteinWiki does not attempt to reverse those redactions or identify hidden participants by guesswork.

The email does not display a passport number. If the missing State Department letter or a related passport record is later located, personal identifiers should be minimized or redacted unless publication is necessary to authenticate the evidence.

The standard confidentiality footer mentions attachments. That boilerplate language does not establish that this chain included an attachment. No attachment is present in the two page PDF.

Evidentiary Limits

The exchange contains statements made by an unnamed correspondent about what Darren reportedly said. It is not a direct statement from Darren, a State Department official, or G3. Epstein’s reply does not expressly confirm that he received the letter.

The document does not establish:

The identity of every sender and recipient
The full identity of Darren
The identity or legal status of G3
The reason Epstein’s passport was revoked
The official validity period printed in the passport
Whether International Megan’s Law caused the revocation
Whether the State Department letter was still available in April 2019
Whether information was ultimately provided to G3
Whether G3 submitted an application or obtained a replacement passport
Whether David Mitchell had any involvement beyond being added accidentally
Any crime arising from this email exchange

The document is a lead to additional evidence, not a complete passport history.

Chain of Custody and Verification

The file appears in Data Set 11 of the DOJ Epstein Library. Page one bears EFTA02281985 and the earlier printed identifier EFTA_R1_01103211. Page two bears EFTA02281986 and EFTA_R1_01103212.

The document must be cited as a two page range. The second page contains no new substantive message, but it completes the produced PDF and confirms the endpoint of the record.

This article was checked against both rendered pages and the extracted text. The rendered image controls where OCR differs from the page. Visible misspellings were not silently rewritten when text was quoted. Redacted fields remain unidentified.

Surrounding released pages were also reviewed. EFTA02281983 and EFTA02281984 concern a separate travel ticket exchange. EFTA02281987 begins a separate FlightAware alert. Those adjacent records do not provide the missing State Department letter or explain the passport revocation.

Fact Check

Reviewed September 10, 2026.

The email chain is dated April 3, 2019.
The subject line reads “Re: G3 Passport Agency.”
The evidence file contains two pages, EFTA02281985 and EFTA02281986.
The chain reports that Epstein’s four year passport had been revoked.
The chain reports that a State Department letter was received.
That report is attributed to an unnamed correspondent relaying what Darren allegedly said.
Epstein does not clearly confirm receipt of the letter in the produced exchange.
The State Department letter is not included.
No passport number appears in the document.
The reason for the revocation is not stated.
International Megan’s Law is relevant legal context, but the email does not identify it as the basis for the revocation.
G3 and the redacted participants cannot be conclusively identified from this record alone.

Questions Still Unanswered

Where is the State Department revocation letter referenced in the email?
What date, passport number, and legal authority appeared in that letter?
Why did Epstein’s passport have a four year validity period?
Was the passport revoked because it lacked an identifier required by International Megan’s Law?
What person or organization did “G3” identify?
What service was G3 providing to Epstein?
Did anyone ultimately tell G3 that Epstein received the letter?
Who was the unnamed correspondent who communicated with Epstein?
Was “Darren” Darren Indyke?
Who was the David Mitchell added to the chain, and did he receive or retain the message?
What did Epstein mean by “our whole story”?
Which alternative person or service did Epstein want to use?
Are there passport applications, courier records, billing records, or later emails connected to this request?

Related EpsteinWiki Pages

Sources

EFTA02281985 Download

PostedFebruary 11, 2026