EFTA02782530 The Billionaire’s Playboy Club Manuscript
Snapshot
EFTA02782530 preserves Virginia Roberts Giuffre’s unpublished manuscript, The Billionaire’s Playboy Club, as an exhibit in Giuffre v. Maxwell. Its importance lies in the early narrative it preserves and the litigation surrounding its use. The manuscript is not sworn testimony, and its appearance in a court file does not establish the truth of every episode.
Giuffre’s lawyers described the draft as a “fictionalized account” while continuing to maintain her abuse allegations. That qualification is essential to interpreting the document.
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Record identifier | EFTA02782530 |
| Title | The Billionaire’s Playboy Club |
| Author | Virginia Roberts, also known as Virginia Giuffre |
| Record type | Unpublished literary manuscript filed as a civil litigation exhibit |
| Underlying case | Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 1:15-cv-07433, Southern District of New York |
| Original exhibit | Exhibit B to Document 229, filed June 20, 2016 |
| Later filing | Document 1090-26, filed July 30, 2020 |
| Principal limitation | Narrative claims require comparison with independent evidence and sworn accounts |
What the Document Contains
The court copy presents a retrospective account of childhood vulnerability, alleged exploitation, recruitment into Epstein’s household, travel, relationships, and eventual departure. The recruitment narrative depicts promises of massage training giving way to sexual exploitation. Later passages describe payments and pressure to recruit other girls. The Thailand sequence concerns training, meeting her future husband, and leaving Epstein. These are manuscript assertions; the text combines claimed personal experiences with information attributed to others.
The document has 72 PDF pages. Most contain two manuscript pages. The narrative ends on printed page 139 within PDF page 71; printed pages 140 and 141 are blank. The cover is a separate PDF page. These different numbering systems explain why a citation to “page 60” can lead to the wrong passage.
How the Manuscript Entered the Court Record
Laura Menninger’s declaration identifies the manuscript in paragraph 3 as Exhibit B, a copy drafted by the plaintiff and designated confidential under the protective order. Menninger was counsel for Maxwell. The declaration supported Maxwell’s opposition to extending the deposition deadline and her motion for sanctions concerning Rule 45. The court copy supplies the document’s legal attachment and attribution.
The July 30, 2020 filing notice explains the later appearance of these materials. Sigrid McCawley, writing for Giuffre, submitted documents pursuant to Judge Loretta Preska’s unsealing orders. The manuscript became attachment 1090-26. July 30, 2020 therefore dates this public filing, not the writing of the narrative or the events it describes.
The provenance has two distinct roles: Maxwell’s lawyer originally supplied the exhibit, and Giuffre’s lawyer later filed the released materials. Neither role changes who wrote the manuscript or turns every statement within it into a finding by the judge.
Filing chronology
| Date | Record event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Period in which the draft was written, as described in the parties’ later litigation positions | Rule 56.1 statement, pages 59 to 61 |
| June 20, 2016 | Manuscript attached as Exhibit B to Menninger’s declaration | Original docket 229 and attachment 229-2 |
| January 31, 2017 | Giuffre’s counsel describes the manuscript as fictionalized in response to Maxwell’s factual assertions | Rule 56.1 statement, page 60 |
| August 9, 2019 | That Rule 56.1 statement appears in the unsealed appellate record as Document 281 | Appellate filing header |
| July 30, 2020 | Manuscript refiled as Document 1090-26 under the district court’s unsealing process | Filing notice |
What the Fictionalization Statement Means
Page 60 of Giuffre’s Rule 56.1 statement contains counsel’s response to Maxwell’s paragraph 52, which concerned the manuscript and efforts to publish it. Counsel places the writing in the context of Giuffre’s 2011 interviews and psychological treatment, describing it as an effort to regain control over the narrative of her experiences.
The following page continues that explanation and says Giuffre ultimately chose not to publish the manuscript. The statement remained an adversarial filing in which she disputed Maxwell’s characterization of her conduct and maintained her allegations.
The wording establishes counsel’s characterization of the draft. It does not identify every passage that was fictionalized, provide a corrected edition, or determine the truth of each allegation. It also does not justify treating the entire narrative as false. Individual claims still require individual evaluation.
A passage should therefore be cited as something the manuscript describes, alleges, or attributes to another speaker. A stronger factual conclusion needs an additional evidentiary basis.
Selected Page Map
The original court PDF uses the same 72 page sequence as the indexed EFTA record. The table distinguishes PDF position, printed manuscript pagination, and EFTA page identifiers.
| PDF pages | Manuscript pages | EFTA page identifiers | Topic |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 to 2 | EFTA02782531 | Title, authorship and opening account |
| 12 to 14 | 21 to 26 | EFTA02782541 to EFTA02782543 | Alleged recruitment at Mar-a-Lago and introduction to Epstein |
| 21 to 22 | 39 to 42 | EFTA02782550 to EFTA02782551 | Recruitment incentives and payments |
| 58 to 65 | 113 to 128 | EFTA02782587 to EFTA02782594 | Alleged childbearing proposal, Thailand and departure |
| 71 | 139 and blank 140 | EFTA02782600 | Conclusion and authorship credit |
Surrounding Litigation and Connected Records
The Second Circuit’s July 2025 opinion traces the underlying case to Giuffre’s 2015 defamation action. She alleged that Maxwell defamed her by publicly dismissing her allegations. Extensive discovery produced material that was filed under seal. The parties settled on May 24, 2017, and the case closed the next day; disputes over public access continued.
That history separates three questions: what the manuscript says, why a party submitted it, and why the public can read it. An unsealing decision concerns access to judicial records. It does not, by itself, decide the truth of a manuscript scene.
| Connected record | Relationship to EFTA02782530 | Research value |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA02782527, Document 1090-25 | Immediately preceding declaration; identifies Exhibit B | Establishes attribution and the original litigation purpose |
| Document 1090 | Notice accompanying the July 2020 filing | Explains why the documents were submitted again |
| Document 1090-27, indexed as EFTA02782602 | Following exhibit; excerpts from Giuffre’s May 3, 2016 deposition | Provides a separate source type that must retain its own transcript citations |
| Appellate Document 281 | Giuffre’s response to Maxwell’s asserted facts | Preserves the fictionalization qualification and its surrounding argument |
Virginia Roberts Giuffre, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein have separate EpsteinWiki biographies. The Government Exhibit 662 RR article provides context for evaluating flight records. Such records can assist a chronology comparison without independently proving what happened at a destination.
Copies Redactions and Text Accuracy
The indexed EFTA text omits some words and names visible in the earlier court copy. Missing words can reflect redaction or text extraction failures; a blank in searchable text alone does not reveal which occurred.
The page map cites court copy images and indexed EFTA page identifiers. Exact redaction boundaries in the DOJ stamped image edition remain unverified. A name visible in the court copy should not be represented as visible in the EFTA edition, and no withheld identity should be reconstructed from surrounding clues.
For a reliable citation, identify the edition, the PDF page, and the printed manuscript page. When comparing testimony, add the transcript page and line numbers. This prevents a literary paragraph, an attorney’s argument, and a sworn answer from being merged into one undifferentiated claim.
Evidentiary Significance
The record is useful for tracing the development, circulation, and legal treatment of Giuffre’s narrative. Its presence in the case supplies a documented text that can be compared with other records. It does not supply independent corroboration merely because the same text later appears under another filing number.
| Question | What this record supports | What requires additional evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Who supplied the exhibit? | Menninger’s declaration identifies its attachment and authorship | A complete history of drafting and editorial contributions |
| What did Giuffre’s lawyers say about its form? | They characterized the draft as fictionalized | A passage by passage account of alterations |
| Was an allegation adjudicated? | The filing shows that the allegation appears in a submitted narrative | A ruling, verdict, admission, or other relevant evidence |
| Is a repeated account independently corroborated? | Copies can establish textual continuity | Evidence independent of the copied account |
| Does a named person’s appearance prove wrongdoing? | A passage can establish how the narrative mentions that person | The conduct alleged, the source of knowledge, and corroboration |
The most defensible use is precise attribution followed by comparison. Neither sensational extraction nor wholesale dismissal resolves the factual questions surrounding individual events.
Unanswered Questions
- Which passages were fictionalized, compressed, or otherwise altered, and do surviving drafts or correspondence identify those changes?
- What editorial assistance, if any, shaped this particular version, and which records document it?
- How do its dates and event sequences compare with independently authenticated travel, employment, financial, and investigative records?
- Where do later sworn accounts confirm, qualify, or contradict particular passages?
- Which differences between the EFTA edition and earlier court copies reflect redaction, and which reflect text extraction?
Sources
- EFTA02782530 on Epstein Data. The Billionaire’s Playboy Club, Exhibit B, Giuffre v. Maxwell, Document 1090-26, July 30, 2020. Original court PDF.
- EFTA02782527 on Epstein Data. Laura A. Menninger declaration, originally June 20, 2016; refiled as Document 1090-25. Paragraph 3 identifies the manuscript. Court PDF.
- Document 1090. Sigrid McCawley’s July 30, 2020 filing notice to Judge Preska.
- Giuffre’s Local Rule 56.1 statement. Dated January 31, 2017; unsealed as Second Circuit Document 281 on August 9, 2019. Relevant printed pages 59 to 61 correspond to PDF pages 171 to 173 in this compilation.
- Document 1090-27. Exhibit D, excerpts from Virginia Giuffre’s May 3, 2016 deposition; indexed as EFTA02782602.
- Giuffre v. Maxwell, July 23, 2025 opinion. Second Circuit discussion of the defamation action, settlement, and unsealing litigation.
- Giuffre v. Maxwell docket index. Entries 229, 229-2, 1090-25, 1090-26, and 1090-27.