Marjorie Rawls Roberts

Snapshot

---

Key takeaways

• Forms 1099-MISC for 2003 through 2006 name Roberts as a recipient of reported nonemployee compensation from Financial Trust Company. They do not identify the underlying services.
• The 2010 American Yacht Harbor renewal chain names Jorie Roberts as local counsel in American Yacht Harbor’s 2010 EDC renewal process, which sought disclosures about Epstein as a 50 percent owner.
• Notes dated September 7, 2011 list Roberts at an EDA meeting about Wayne Barrett’s investigation. The notes describe a possible background response by her, but are not a verbatim or signed transcript.
• Her firm’s name in estate service lists does not establish that she administered Epstein’s estate or trust.
• Campaign invitations and a professional-network notification have narrower meaning than a meeting, financial transaction or criminal allegation.

---

Professional background

Marjorie Rawls Roberts is a tax and business lawyer whose career spans federal tax-policy work and the U.S. Virgin Islands’ revenue system. Her official biography records work at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher from 1981 to 1985, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy from 1985 to 1988, and the Virgin Islands Bureau of Internal Revenue as technical adviser and chief counsel from 1988 to 1995. She then held senior legal and management roles at Globalvest until 1999, when she founded her own practice.

She holds law degrees from Harvard, Cambridge and New York University. Her firm describes tax-incentive applications, corporate organization and territorial residency among its practice areas. That background explains why her name appears in business records concerning the territory’s incentive program. Expertise in those laws does not itself establish responsibility for a client’s misconduct.

---

Early office records: what they establish

A FedEx billing record from October 2001 identifies an envelope sent from Jeffrey E. Epstein’s New York office to Marjorie Roberts in St. Thomas, with delivery recorded on October 16. The record is evidence of an office-to-office shipment. It does not disclose the envelope’s contents or the legal matter involved.

A January 20, 2003 FedEx invoice records another package from Epstein’s New York office to Marjorie Roberts in St. Thomas, picked up January 2. Unlike the 2001 entry, the delivery and signature fields on this line are blank. It is evidence of a billed shipment, not confirmation of delivery or the contents.

A separate file inventory places an entry for Roberts invoices within “LSJ Operating File I,” alongside other island-operating subjects. This shows that an invoice file under her name was maintained in the records indexed. The inventory does not supply the underlying invoices, amounts, dates of service or advice. Its appearance is consistent with a professional billing connection but cannot establish the substance of any particular engagement.

These records are more informative than a name-only association list, but they remain fragments. They should not be converted into a claim that Roberts managed every Epstein company, designed his entire tax structure or had responsibility for the conduct occurring on Little St. James.

---

2003-2006: Financial Trust’s reported compensation

Forms 1099-MISC in the released subpoena-response bundle identify Financial Trust Company, Inc. as payer and Marjorie Rawls Roberts as recipient. Box 7 reports nonemployee compensation of $12,008.47 for 2003, $17,332.09 for 2004, $13,328.69 for 2005 and $22,373.16 for 2006. These forms provide more specific evidence of reported financial relationships than a contact entry or invoice-file label.

The four annual forms do not describe the services, attach corresponding invoices or establish when payments cleared. They are not IRS findings that the recipient or payer committed a tax offense. These records should not be used to infer knowledge of Epstein’s abuse or the scope of all work performed for him.

---

2010: American Yacht Harbor’s tax-benefit renewal

A detailed legal-business connection appears in correspondence about American Yacht Harbor’s Economic Development Commission benefits. In an August 27, 2010 message to Andrew Farkas, Mark Lande described the renewal application and said disclosures about Epstein were needed because he was a 50 percent owner. Lande identified Jorie Roberts as local counsel available to speak with Epstein or his advisers. Farkas forwarded the chain to Epstein on September 21, asking for guidance.

The requested information covered Epstein’s EDC companies, licensing restrictions, criminal charges, government investigations and insolvency proceedings. The criminal-history questions are important: the surviving text asks for disclosure, rather than directing anyone to omit Epstein’s conviction. It does not show the completed responses, final submission, government review or a private conversation with Roberts. Lande also expressly qualified his understanding that Epstein had recently renewed another company’s benefits as information he had not independently confirmed.

This marina matter should be distinguished from Financial Trust and Southern Trust. An attorney’s work on one company’s renewal is not proof that she controlled the applications or continuing compliance of every associated entity.

---

2011: Wayne Barrett’s questions and the agency response

By July 2011, journalist Wayne Barrett was seeking records about the EDC program, Epstein and associated businesses. In an internal July 19 email, Stacey Plaskett circulated his questions and proposed an explanation of the program’s benefits, vetting and compliance arrangements. One request sought lists of beneficiary companies represented by Roberts’s firm and by Hodge & Francois. Agency annotations questioned the burden and accuracy of producing attorney-based lists.

Barrett’s August 17 questions to the governor identified Roberts among Virgin Islands attorneys who had represented Epstein. They sought explanations of Epstein-linked companies’ benefits, residency, character requirements and political relationships. The released copy reaches Epstein’s correspondence with Michael Wolff and Ian Osborne; Wolff recommended a brief, general reply through the governor’s press office. The questions are evidence of contemporary investigative scrutiny. Barrett’s factual premises are not court findings, and Wolff’s proposed strategy is not a statement by Roberts.

---

September 7, 2011: the EDA meeting

Two pages of notes headed as a meeting with Plaskett and Percy Clouden about a Newsweek article place Roberts and Jim Tagliaferri among those present at the EDA office on September 7, 2011. The notes discuss records requests, contact with beneficiaries, concern about the effect on the overall program, communication with Government House and a public-relations firm. They specifically identify Farkas and Epstein as central to the inquiry. The first page characterizes two EDA responses with the words “Tried to protect beneficiaries” and says Plaskett would provide copies.

The second page attributes to “Jorie” a willingness to speak on background if an article was definitely proceeding. This is the surviving account of her contemplated media response. It does not reproduce such an interview, identify all advice she gave, or establish that she approved every position recorded in the notes. The author is not identified on the two pages. Describing Roberts as present is supported; describing the document as her signed admission, a verbatim transcript or proof of an unlawful agreement is not.

---

2012: a separate tax-benefit inquiry

An April 10, 2012 email chain preserves Daily Caller reporter Matthew Boyle’s questions to the governor’s press office about an ICC/VITELCO tax-benefit application. Boyle named Roberts as an attorney helping with that application. Cecile de Jongh forwarded the inquiry to Epstein with proposed answers to questions about her own work for Financial Trust. Epstein suggested describing her role as office manager.

The forwarded questions and replies do not contain Roberts’s response, her engagement agreement, or an official determination on the ICC/VITELCO application. The chain establishes that the reporter’s inquiry reached Epstein; it does not make ICC/VITELCO an Epstein company or prove that Roberts took part in drafting the de Jongh response.

---

2013-2018: networking and political-event material

Roberts’s own professional biography describes service on Barack Obama’s National Finance Committee and Tax Policy Committee for the 2008 campaign, followed by the Obama Victory Fund 2012 finance committee and Lawyers for Obama. It also describes her as a Hillblazer for the 2016 Clinton-Kaine campaign. These are her account of her political roles, not evidence of political activity undertaken for Epstein.

An automated LinkedIn email dated August 11, 2013 tells Epstein that Marjorie Roberts accepted his connection invitation. The notification identifies her law firm. It supports a platform-level connection after Epstein’s conviction, but it is not a personal email from her or confirmation of an in-person meeting.

Three campaign invitations also name Roberts on host committees in formation for Stacey Plaskett: July 18, 2016 at Paradise Point, March 29, 2018 at Villa Botanica, and September 18, 2018 at Amalia Café. Other listed hosts included lawyers with Virgin Islands practices. The invitations document the advertised committees and events. They do not establish which recipients attended, which hosts ultimately participated, or what Epstein or Roberts contributed.

The distinction matters because a flyer can circulate through many inboxes. Its presence in Epstein’s records is not a substitute for a contribution report, receipt, attendance record or direct correspondence about a donation.

---

Contact metadata and privilege-review searches

A forensic contact extraction contains repeated Mac AddressBook entries under the name Marjorie Roberts. The entries show creation timestamps in 2011 and 2016 and later modification timestamps. Those are database metadata, not dates of meetings or proof that she created the entries.

A released list of search terms includes Roberts’s name and her firm’s domain. Separate February 2020 and October 2020 privilege-search reports tabulate hits for her name. A search term or hit count does not establish that a court found a document privileged, that each hit was a distinct communication, or that a crime was committed. These records also show why a profile should not equate the documents described here with every occurrence of her name in the archive.

---

The 2017 exempt-company correspondence

A May 16-19, 2017 email chain contains Roberts’s request to territorial officials about when her clients could pay initial fees and obtain incorporation and good-standing certificates. Officials initially discussed new disclosure requirements, annual reporting and revised contracts, then announced that actions concerning exempt companies were stayed indefinitely pending further discussion.

The chain gives a direct example of Roberts’s corporate-law practice. It does not identify the clients in her question, name a specific Epstein company as the applicant or establish that an exemption was granted. The exempt-company topic should also not be silently equated with the EDC benefit renewal discussed in the 2010 marina correspondence. The documents concern distinct administrative subjects.

---

Estate service lists and claims about authority

The certificate of service attached to Epstein’s first quarterly estate accounting, dated January 31, 2020, lists Sean Foster of Marjorie Rawls Roberts, P.C. among recipients. It establishes that a lawyer at the firm was served with that filing. A service list alone does not identify the client he represented or make Roberts an executor, trustee or administrator of the estate.

The distinction between a person, a law firm and an individual lawyer receiving court papers is essential. Wider estate roles should be established from appointments, appearances and signed instruments. See the separate profile of Darren Indyke and the record on Erika Kellerhals; their documented roles cannot be transferred to Roberts by association.

---

Independent reporting, responses and evidentiary gaps

Corey Lynn’s August 2019 independent investigation discussed Roberts’s tax practice and political fundraising as part of a broader St. Thomas network. That reporting is useful as an early public research trail. Its network framing is not substituted here for the more precise legal-business documents. Political activity, representation of controversial clients and proximity to other lawyers do not by themselves establish criminal collaboration.

No substantive public response by Roberts specifically addressing the records examined here was located in the sources reviewed. The September 2011 meeting notes contain a contemplated background response, not a later denial or admission. That limited research result is not evidence that she declined a request for comment.

Unresolved matters include the underlying invoice file, the full scope and dates of any personal representation, the completed AYH renewal disclosures, and the client represented by Foster in the estate proceeding. The cited records establish professional and public-affairs contact. They do not establish that Roberts recruited victims, participated in abuse, knew of trafficking or committed a tax offense.

---

Evidence Appearances and chronology

---

Sources

1. Marjorie Rawls Roberts: official professional biography. Firm biography. Self-described education, employment and practice.
2. EFTA01319379: courier billing record. October 22, 2001 invoice, p. 9, describes an envelope picked up October 15 and delivered October 16, 2001.
3. EFTA00299870: office and island file index. Undated inventory, p. 2, Bates EFTA00299871, “LSJ Operating File I,” item 18.
4. EFTA00755943: American Yacht Harbor EDC renewal correspondence. August 27 to September 21, 2010 email chain, pp. 1-2; Roberts reference on p. 2, EFTA00755944.
5. EFTA00598040: EDA response to Wayne Barrett records request. July 19, 2011 internal correspondence, pp. 1-4; firm-list request on p. 2.
6. EFTA00640384: Barrett questions forwarded to Epstein’s media advisers. Barrett message August 17, 2011; Wolff response August 19, 2011; pp. 1-2. Roberts named on p. 2.
7. EFTA01088636: notes of EDA meeting about Newsweek article. September 7, 2011, pp. 1-2; names Roberts as present and describes her possible background comment on p. 2.
8. EFTA00717796: LinkedIn connection notification. August 11, 2013, p. 1.
9. EFTA00591684: Plaskett reception invitation. July 18, 2016 event, p. 1.
10. EFTA00794351: Plaskett re-election reception invitation. March 29, 2018 event, p. 1.
11. EFTA00796253: Plaskett reception invitation. September 18, 2018 event, p. 1.
12. EFTA00639886: exempt-company correspondence. May 16-19, 2017, pp. 1-3; Roberts request on p. 3.
13. EFTA00082467: estate first quarterly accounting. Certificate of service dated January 31, 2020, p. 4, Bates EFTA00082470.
14. Corey’s Digs: Jeffrey Epstein’s St. Thomas Network, Comms, and an Elite School. Corey Lynn, August 9, 2019, section about Marjorie Rawls Roberts. Independent advocacy/sleuth reporting, used only to identify an early public line of inquiry.
15. EFTA01259808: January 2003 courier billing. January 20, 2003 invoice, p. 4, EFTA01259811.
16. EFTA00101080: search-term list. Undated, p. 2, EFTA00101081.
17. EFTA00099346: privilege-search report. Generated February 14, 2020; name entries on pp. 3 and 6.
18. EFTA00092410: search-warrant-return privilege-search report. Generated October 12, 2020; name and domain entries on pp. 2 and 5.
19. EFTA00511526: forensic contact extraction. Mac AddressBook entries under Marjorie Roberts, pp. 3-4. Contact details omitted here.
20. EFTA00702259: April 2012 press-inquiry chain. April 10, 2012, pp. 1-3; Roberts named in reporter’s question across pp. 1-2.
21. EFTA01338175: subpoena-response and financial-record bundle. Forms 1099-MISC: 2003 at p. 80/EFTA01338254; 2004 at p. 74/EFTA01338248; 2005 at p. 71/EFTA01338245; 2006 at p. 67/EFTA01338241. Reported compensation, not findings on services or legality.