EFTA02334777: Ghislaine Maxwell Email About Palm Beach Household Manual (2001)

UpdatedSeptember 14, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

A May 25, 2001 email chain documents Ghislaine Maxwell’s involvement in creating household checklists, monitoring staff, reviewing maintenance problems, and preparing Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach residence before arrivals. The record predates the household manual dated February 14, 2005, but does not establish that the 2001 draft and the later manual are the same document.

Evidence Snapshot

Document ID: EFTA02334777

Continuation pages: EFTA02334778 and EFTA02334779

Internal Bates range: EFTA_R1_01281790 through EFTA_R1_01281792

Document type: Internal email correspondence

Reliable date shown inside the chain: May 25, 2001

Subject: Re: Palm Beach

Sender identified in the chain: “G. Max,” attributed to Ghislaine Maxwell

Other correspondent: Name and address redacted

Primary individuals referenced: Jeffrey Epstein, John, Jerome, Sally, Alan, and Frank Steele

Primary location: Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach residence

Other locations referenced: Epstein’s mother’s house, a staff house, Palm Beach Gardens, and the New York area

Length: Three PDF pages

Collection: United States Department of Justice Epstein Files, Data Set 11

Primary subject: Household management, staff checklists, residence preparation, maintenance, hiring, and development of a Palm Beach household manual

Evidence classification: Direct operational correspondence concerning Maxwell’s role in household supervision

Central finding: The email shows Maxwell creating or supplying detailed checklists and exercising authority over staff and preparations at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence by May 2001.

Why This Document Matters

EFTA02334777 provides direct evidence that a structured household management system existed at Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach residence by May 2001. The system included written checklists, a draft household manual, signed preparation records, supply requirements, equipment inspections, staff scheduling, and possible management changes.

The unnamed correspondent states that Maxwell’s checklists had been faxed to “John” in preparation for the manual. The correspondent estimated that the lists were at least three quarters complete and said they had been reviewed with John three times.

The record therefore places Maxwell inside the development and enforcement of the Palm Beach residence’s operating procedures. She was not merely receiving casual updates. She identified deficiencies, demanded corrective action, questioned whether staff members were performing assigned duties, and asked where the manual stood.

The document also shows that household preparation was centered on Epstein’s anticipated reactions. The correspondent explains that John understood he was expected to inspect “Mr. E’s computer” before each arrival. Maxwell’s original message repeatedly evaluates problems according to whether Epstein would notice them or be unhappy.

This is significant because the household was later described in testimony and investigative records as a tightly managed environment in which employees followed detailed instructions from Maxwell and Epstein. The email does not prove that the management procedures were created to facilitate abuse. It does, however, establish the operational structure in which staff worked.

The record predates the 2005 Epstein Household Manual by nearly four years. Both records discuss arrival preparation, inventories, cleaning products, household supplies, vehicles, bathrooms, maintenance, and detailed checklists. Those similarities justify comparison. They do not prove that the 2001 draft became the exact manual dated February 14, 2005.

That distinction matters. The evidence supports continuity in household management practices, but the released files do not yet provide a complete revision history connecting the two records.

What the Document Shows

The email chain begins with a message attributed to “G. Max” and addressed to a redacted recipient. The message is dated Friday, May 25, 2001, at 12:05 PM.

Maxwell opens by acknowledging that “Sally” received unspecified “zorro stuff.” The record does not explain what the material was, where it came from, or whether “zorro” referred to Epstein’s New Mexico ranch. The term should not be assigned a meaning beyond the text without corroborating records.

Maxwell tells the recipient that the matter does not need to be handled during the weekend but should be addressed the following week.

She asks what list John is using and states that he is doing “a truly awful job.” She then identifies six deficiencies:

There was no drinking water in the black “Merc,” apparently an abbreviation for a Mercedes vehicle.
There were no pens in the same vehicle.
A bulb on Epstein’s desk was burned out when they arrived.
The pool deck was dirty enough that Epstein asked for it to be pressure washed.
A change to the computer’s color card had not corrected the display problem.
Massage creams and other items in Epstein’s bathroom had not been arranged neatly.

Maxwell asks whether pressure washing the pool deck was the gardener’s responsibility and questions why John had not ensured it was completed.

Her fifth complaint states that John had said he changed the color card in the computer. Maxwell argues that the result was visibly unchanged and that John should have realized Epstein would not be satisfied.

Maxwell concludes that, as long as they must continue working with John, there must be a list and the recipient must determine how to ensure that he follows it.

She then asks directly about the Palm Beach manual:

“How are we doing w/the PB manual where do we stand w/it?”

The unnamed correspondent replies at 6:46 PM on May 25, 2001. The response addresses Maxwell as “Ms. Maxwell” and says the correspondent is also “at a loss.”

The correspondent reports having discussed the importance of these details with John during the previous week.

The response states that Maxwell’s checklists had been faxed to John approximately two weeks earlier in preparation for the manual. The correspondent estimated that the lists were at least three quarters complete.

The correspondent says this was the third review of the lists with John since the correspondent began working in that role. John reportedly said the lists were complete, although the correspondent wanted to add material and edit them as Maxwell’s needs changed.

The response describes a white notebook on shelving in the kitchen. According to the correspondent, John kept the lists in that notebook and checked, signed, and dated them before each visit.

The correspondent states that five of Maxwell’s six complaints were already covered by the checklist.

The response expresses uncertainty about complaint number five and asks whether Maxwell meant changing the ink cartridge. Maxwell’s original message referred instead to the computer’s color card. The exchange therefore preserves an apparent misunderstanding about the equipment problem.

The correspondent says John clearly understood that Epstein’s computer had to be inspected before every arrival because the requirement had been discussed several times, including during the previous week.

Bandages were reportedly included on a list titled “Supplies needed in the house at all times.”

The draft household manual identified where cleaning products should be purchased. The specified stores were Publix and Sam’s Club in Palm Beach Gardens.

The draft also contained detailed laundry product instructions. It specified Tide with bleach, Downy fabric softener, periodically changing the fragrance, and Bounce dryer sheets.

The correspondent states that this information had been edited and reviewed during the previous week. An inventory checklist for supplies had not yet been completed.

The correspondent describes the manual as having a “GOOD start” but says it was not yet up to their standards and required more work and detail.

The response indicates that greater detail should be added before any change in management. The correspondent believed that a respectable draft could be produced within one or two uninterrupted days, but said uninterrupted working time was difficult to obtain.

The email also describes a possible personnel issue involving John. According to the correspondent, John said he was performing better and paying more attention to details.

The correspondent planned to delay speaking with John until after Maxwell left the residence. The message suggests John might attribute his distraction to the death of his father in law.

The response refers to interviews and states that six to eight résumés from the New York area remained available for follow up. This suggests that replacement or additional management personnel were being considered. The record does not show whether anyone was hired or whether John’s employment changed.

The correspondent confirms that Jerome pressure washed the pool deck.

The message also states that Jerome had been working on the staff house. John reportedly said Alan had a contract with Frank Steele and that Jerome was not performing that particular work on Epstein and Maxwell’s paid time.

The correspondent asked John to ensure they were receiving the hours for which they were paying.

In the uppermost reply, Maxwell focuses on Jerome’s schedule and compensation. She states that Jerome received additional money specifically to work for them beyond his normal hours.

Maxwell says those duties included going to Epstein’s mother’s house every Saturday.

She instructs the recipient to speak with John after Maxwell and Epstein had left. If Jerome was not providing the additional hours, Maxwell says she would need to review the arrangement or speak with him and give him an opportunity to perform the extra work.

Maxwell adds a postscript about a television near her desk. She reports that its universal remote had no batteries, other remotes were not working, and the television continued to display a doubled image.

She says she believed the television had already been repaired and demands to know why it had not been fixed and when the repair would occur.

Taken together, the messages show Maxwell monitoring both general management systems and extremely small household details.

What the Document Does Not Show

The document does not contain the Palm Beach household manual itself.

It does not include the checklists that Maxwell created or supplied.

It does not include the white notebook described by the unnamed correspondent.

It does not establish whether John consistently completed, signed, or dated the checklists. It reports what the correspondent said John had represented and what the correspondent observed.

It does not establish that every staff member followed the procedures.

It does not prove that the 2001 draft became the household manual dated February 14, 2005.

It does not provide a revision history, file metadata, correspondence trail, or testimony connecting the 2001 draft directly to the later manual.

It does not establish who wrote every section of the later manual. The 2001 email supports Maxwell’s involvement in supplying and revising checklists, but it does not prove that she personally wrote all subsequent manual language.

It does not identify the redacted correspondent.

It does not provide surnames for John, Jerome, Sally, or Alan.

John may be Juan Alessi, who was also known as John and managed Epstein’s Palm Beach residence during this period. The first name, job duties, location, and date support that possibility. The released page itself does not print a surname, so the identification should remain qualified unless another record confirms it.

The document does not explain Jerome’s regular employer, full schedule, surname, or exact responsibilities.

It does not identify Epstein’s mother by name.

It does not explain the relationship between Alan and Frank Steele beyond the statement that Alan had a contract with Steele.

It does not identify what Maxwell meant by “zorro stuff.” The phrase may refer to property or materials connected with Zorro Ranch, but the email does not establish that interpretation.

It does not contain an allegation of sexual abuse, trafficking, recruitment, or coercion.

It does not mention a victim or survivor.

The reference to massage creams in Epstein’s bathroom is operational evidence about the condition of the room. Standing alone, it does not establish who used those products or for what purpose.

The document does not prove that the checklists or household manual were created for a criminal purpose.

It does not establish the precise Palm Beach address, although the subject, references, and broader archive support identifying the location as Epstein’s Palm Beach residence.

The outermost header displays an impossible year of 4501. That value cannot be treated as an authentic sent date.

Document Context

The released PDF preserves three pages of an email chain with raw HTML elements visible throughout the text. Tags and encoding artifacts such as “html,” “br,” “blockquote,” and “nbsp” appear in the reproduction.

Several email addresses and names are covered by black redaction bars. Because the underlying address information is unavailable, the identity of the unnamed correspondent cannot be established from this copy alone.

The uppermost message displays:

“Sent: Sat 1/1/4501 5:00:00 AM”

The year 4501 is plainly impossible. It appears to be a conversion, export, or metadata error. The substantive messages embedded below it both show May 25, 2001, providing the reliable date for the exchange.

The original Maxwell message displays 12:05 PM on May 25, 2001. The unnamed correspondent’s reply displays 6:46 PM with a time zone notation of minus 0700. The outer Maxwell reply followed that response, but its authentic transmission time cannot be recovered from the visible header.

The document’s internal references place the conversation within an ongoing management process. The correspondent says Maxwell’s lists were faxed approximately two weeks earlier, discussions occurred the previous week, a white notebook had been observed about six weeks earlier, and the lists had already been reviewed multiple times.

The manual was therefore not merely an idea raised for the first time on May 25. Work on the checklists and draft had already begun.

The later EFTA00075882 household manual is dated February 14, 2005 and spans 59 PDF pages. Its contents include arrival preparation, guest handling, shopping lists, supplies kept in the house, cleaning schedules, maintenance schedules, vehicles, bathrooms, office supplies, telephone procedures, and rules governing staff conduct.

The later manual also refers repeatedly to both “Mr Epstein” and “Ms Maxwell.” Its introduction tells employees that checklists would help ensure every task was completed and that even small details were not overlooked.

Those themes resemble the 2001 correspondence. The earlier email complains about overlooked details, describes signed checklists, requires preparation before each visit, and seeks a more complete household manual.

The similarity supports the conclusion that formalized household procedures existed years before the dated 2005 manual. It does not, without additional records, establish a direct documentary chain from the 2001 draft to Government Exhibit 606.

During Maxwell’s 2021 federal criminal trial, the 2005 manual was introduced as Government Exhibit 606. Reporting from ABC News about the household manual described testimony from Juan Alessi, who managed Epstein’s Palm Beach residence and said Maxwell imposed extensive household rules.

The Southern District of New York Maxwell case page provides the official federal case context. Maxwell was convicted in December 2021. Her conviction does not transform every household record into proof of a crime, but it makes accurate documentation of her operational role especially important.

Journalist Lisa Tait’s sleuth reporting, The Epstein House Manager Who Said He Saw Nothing, examines Juan Alessi’s role, his testimony, the household manual, and the conflict between the warning signs he described and his claims about what he understood.

People and Entities Named

G. Max

The sender name displayed for Maxwell’s messages. The salutation “Ms. Maxwell,” the subject matter, archival context, and connected records support identifying “G. Max” as Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ghislaine Maxwell

Maxwell supplied household checklists, demanded information about the manual, evaluated staff performance, instructed the correspondent about Jerome’s hours, and monitored preparation of Epstein’s Palm Beach residence.

Jeffrey Epstein

Referred to as “JE” and “Mr. E.” The residence was prepared around his arrivals and preferences. The complaints concerned his desk, computer, vehicle, bathroom, pool deck, and expected reactions.

The redacted correspondent

The individual who responded to Maxwell, discussed the manual with John, reviewed Maxwell’s lists, observed the white notebook, followed up on staff performance, mentioned management interviews, and offered to take immediate action. The person’s name and address are redacted.

John

A household worker or manager expected to use Maxwell’s checklists, inspect the residence before visits, check Epstein’s computer, supervise Jerome’s time, and respond to maintenance and supply problems. John may be Juan Alessi, but the page does not state a surname.

Juan Alessi

Alessi is not named in full in EFTA02334777. He is relevant because he managed Epstein’s Palm Beach residence during this period, was sometimes called John, and later testified about Maxwell’s household rules and the 2005 manual.

Jerome

A worker who pressure washed the pool deck, worked on the staff house, received additional compensation, and was expected to perform duties outside his normal hours. Maxwell says his duties included visiting Epstein’s mother’s house every Saturday.

Sally

A person said to have received unspecified “zorro stuff.” No surname, title, or further role is provided.

Alan

An individual whom John said had a contract with Frank Steele. No surname or job title is provided.

Frank Steele

A person identified as being in a contractual relationship with Alan. The email provides no further information about Steele’s role.

Epstein’s mother

An unnamed person whose house Jerome was expected to visit every Saturday as part of his additional paid duties.

Publix

One of the stores identified in the draft manual as a source for cleaning supplies.

Sam’s Club

Another store listed for cleaning supplies, specifically the location in Palm Beach Gardens.

Palm Beach Gardens

The Florida location associated with the Sam’s Club mentioned in the draft manual.

New York area

The region connected to six to eight résumés that the unnamed correspondent planned to review or pursue.

Palm Beach residence

The household discussed in the email. The EpsteinWiki Palm Beach Residence page provides broader property and investigative context.

Chronology

Approximately six weeks before May 25, 2001, the unnamed correspondent reportedly saw a white notebook containing preparation lists on shelving in the Palm Beach residence’s kitchen.
Approximately two weeks before May 25, Maxwell’s checklists were faxed to John in preparation for the household manual.
During the week before May 25, the unnamed correspondent and John discussed the importance of household details and reviewed portions of the manual.
By May 25, the lists had reportedly been reviewed with John three times and were estimated to be at least three quarters complete.
At 12:05 PM on May 25, 2001, Maxwell sent a message complaining about six failures involving the vehicle, Epstein’s desk, the pool deck, the computer, and Epstein’s bathroom.
Maxwell instructed the unnamed correspondent to determine what list John was using and how to ensure he completed the required work.
Maxwell asked for the status of the Palm Beach manual.
At 6:46 PM on May 25, the unnamed correspondent replied that five of the six complaints were already on the checklist.
The correspondent described Maxwell’s lists, the white notebook, the draft manual, supply requirements, cleaning products, incomplete inventory work, management concerns, and available résumés.
The correspondent also reported on Jerome’s pressure washing and work at the staff house.
In the uppermost reply, Maxwell instructed the correspondent to verify Jerome’s additional work hours and his Saturday duties at Epstein’s mother’s house.
Maxwell added complaints about the television and remote controls near her desk.
The uppermost reply was assigned an impossible year of 4501 during preservation or conversion. The authentic date is not visible, although the message logically followed the May 25 exchange.
On February 14, 2005, a later household manual now preserved beginning at EFTA00075882 was dated and eventually became Government Exhibit 606.
In December 2021, Juan Alessi testified at Maxwell’s federal trial about the Palm Beach household, Maxwell’s authority, and the later manual.

Key Excerpts

Maxwell writes:

“I need to know what if any list John is using and he needs to understand that he is doing a truly awful job.”

She identifies several arrival preparation failures:

“There was no drinking water in the black Merc”

“There were no pens in the black Merc”

“The bulb on JE desk ws burnt out when we arrived”

Maxwell also complains:

“The massage creams etc in JE’s bathroom were a mess no one had tidied up and arranged them so it was neat”

She then asks:

“How are we doing w/the PB manual where do we stand w/it?”

The unnamed correspondent replies:

“About two weeks ago I faxed your check off lists to John in preparation for the manual.”

The correspondent estimates:

“These are the lists you made and I’d say they are at least 3/4 complete.”

The response describes the notebook system:

“He showed me a white notebook on the shelves in the kitchen where he keeps the lists that he checks off, signs and dates before each visit.”

The correspondent states:

“I believe we have a GOOD start on the manual but it’s certainly not up to our standards and needs further work and detail.”

The upper Maxwell reply states:

“I give him an additional sum of money specifically to work for us which includes going to JE’s mothers hse every Saturday.”

The excerpts preserve the spelling, capitalization, abbreviations, and grammatical errors visible in the released record. Obvious HTML encoding has been removed for readability.

Related Evidence

The complete three page email chain begins with EFTA02334777 and continues through EFTA02334778 and EFTA02334779.

The Epstein Household Manual dated February 14, 2005 contains detailed instructions concerning arrival preparation, supplies, cleaning, maintenance, vehicles, guest treatment, privacy, and staff conduct.

The EpsteinWiki analysis of EFTA00075882 provides a section by section examination of the later manual.

The Juan Alessi profile documents the Palm Beach house manager’s role and testimony. It is relevant to evaluating whether the “John” in the 2001 chain was Alessi.

The federal prosecution memorandum and Juan Alessi interview summary provides additional evidence about Maxwell’s authority within Epstein’s residences and Alessi’s responsibilities.

The FBI interview attributed to Juan Alessi provides further context concerning the Palm Beach household and the individuals who worked there.

The videotaped deposition of Juan Alessi preserves sworn testimony concerning Epstein’s Palm Beach residence and household practices.

The EpsteinWiki sleuth report Juan Alessi Saw Epstein’s Household Machinery While Claiming He Knew Nothing places the manual within Alessi’s testimony and the larger Palm Beach investigative record.

Lisa Tait’s Substack investigation, The Epstein House Manager Who Said He Saw Nothing, examines the contradictions between Alessi’s observations, duties, warnings, and later claims about what he understood.

The Ghislaine Maxwell profile provides legal and documentary context for Maxwell’s management role.

The Jeffrey Epstein profile provides broader context concerning Epstein, his residences, employees, and criminal history.

The Palm Beach Residence page connects the property to the Palm Beach investigation, employee testimony, and other documentary evidence.

Questions for Investigators

Who was the redacted correspondent responsible for reviewing Maxwell’s checklists and discussing the manual with John?
Was the person identified as John actually Juan Alessi?
Do unredacted versions preserve the correspondent’s name, email address, title, or employer?
Where are the checklists Maxwell created and faxed to John?
Has the white notebook containing signed and dated preparation lists been preserved?
Do any surviving lists show the dates of Epstein’s arrivals and the employees who prepared the residence?
Can those dates be compared with flight records, calendars, visitor records, massage schedules, and staff testimony?
Did the 2001 Palm Beach manual draft survive in another EFTA file?
Who wrote and edited each portion of the draft?
What changes were made between the 2001 draft and the manual dated February 14, 2005?
Was the later 2005 manual created from Maxwell’s 2001 checklists, or was it a separate document?
Who approved the final manual?
What did Maxwell mean by “zorro stuff,” and what exactly did Sally receive?
Who was Sally?
What was Jerome’s surname and formal job title?
What additional compensation did Jerome receive?
What work was Jerome expected to perform at Epstein’s mother’s house every Saturday?
Were those duties documented in payroll, calendars, invoices, or employment records?
Who were Alan and Frank Steele, and what work did their contract cover?
What was the “staff house” referenced in the email?
Which employees were being considered for replacement or additional management roles?
What happened to the six to eight résumés from the New York area?
Did the contemplated management change occur?
Was John formally disciplined or dismissed after this exchange?
What did the checklist require staff to inspect on Epstein’s computer before each arrival?
Were the computer problems purely technical, or did staff perform additional preparation not described here?
Were massage supplies routinely inventoried, purchased, or placed according to written instructions?
Do purchase records identify the quantities, brands, and frequency of those supplies?
Why does the outermost header display the impossible date of January 1, 4501?
Can the native email file recover the authentic timestamp, routing information, and missing identities?

Sources

EFTA02334777 Download

PostedFebruary 24, 2026