Sleuth Report: Sofia Fontaine Traces Epstein’s Dental Practice Talks and Licensing Questions
Snapshot
| Originating sleuth | Sofia Fontaine, previously Soror FV |
|---|---|
| Source publication | November 8, 2026, 4:47 p.m. America/Denver |
| Subject | Dental practice negotiations and Virgin Islands professional licensing |
| What is new | A connected documentary account of a proposed practice purchase and a later licensing application |
| Verification scope | Original read in full. Selected primary emails and public board records checked. This is a focused, provisional review of the wider investigation. |
Important points and key takeaways
Sofia Fontaine’s third Private Medicine investigation examines the relationship between a proposed dental practice purchase and the process through which Karyna Shuliak sought a Virgin Islands dental license. The relevant question is whether commercial discussions overlapped with regulatory responsibilities, and what records would establish how any potential conflict was handled.
- A proposed purchase preceded the licensing application. The April offer was rejected in the email checked here.
- Pomeranz discussed licensing rules with Epstein and subsequently relayed advice to begin applying.
- The approval correspondence does not identify the voting members or resolve disclosure and recusal questions.
- A current website listing conflicts with the board chair’s 2025 statement that Pomeranz had retired.
Evidence appearances and exact references
EFTA00636339, PDF page 1, Bates EFTA00636339 preserves Epstein’s April 6, 2015 proposal for Shuliak to buy half of Pomeranz’s practice and acquire the remainder later. Pomeranz’s reply, dated April 7 in UTC, says the proposed figures were unacceptable. The page establishes a negotiation and an immediate rejection, not a transfer of ownership, a payment or a licensing arrangement.
EFTA00634228, PDF pages 1 and 2, Bates EFTA00634228 and EFTA00634229 places the business discussion and licensing discussion within the same April 26 chain. Pomeranz described the value of continued mentoring and the practice’s goodwill. He also told Epstein that draft rules had reached the governor’s office and were awaiting review. This verifies what Pomeranz communicated. It does not independently establish when any rule legally took effect.
EFTA02299765, PDF page 1, Bates EFTA02299765 records Pomeranz relaying a conversation with the dental board president on May 28, 2015. His message advised starting the application despite unresolved rules. The file contains visible transmission damage, so its wording requires care. It supports an advisory contact, not proof of a board vote or a promise of approval.
EFTA00536541, PDF page 1, Bates EFTA00536541 is Shuliak’s May 28 request to start the licensing process. She identified passing the ADEX examination as the basis for her request and named de Jongh and Pomeranz as the people who directed her to the licensing official. The email is an application inquiry. It does not independently authenticate her examination result or show that a complete application was submitted that day.
EFTA00573373, PDF page 1, Bates EFTA00573373 contains the November 11 approval notification from Deborah Richardson Peter and Epstein’s subsequent forward to Richard Kahn, Shuliak and Cecile de Jongh. The notification refers to an attached approval package and tax clearance instructions. Its presence establishes notification of approval, but the reviewed PDF does not supply the board’s deliberations, voting record or the contents of those named attachments.
Trevor Connor’s October 28, 2025 legislative testimony, page 1 explicitly describes Pomeranz as retired. Pages 1 and 2 describe board composition and decision procedures at that later date. Page 5 says a 2016 draft of rules was never finalized. These later statements cannot establish the exact rules or membership governing Shuliak’s 2015 application.
Significance
Fontaine’s contribution is to connect a commercial negotiation with a regulatory chronology that might otherwise be read as separate correspondence. The overlap makes disclosure and decision records important. It does not establish that a license was bought, that an official accepted a benefit, or that an applicant failed the applicable requirements.
EpsteinWiki’s Karyna Shuliak profile provides related biographical context. The earlier Private Medicine review addresses proposed emergency facilities. A licensing inquiry, a professional credential and the operation of any particular facility are separate questions. None establishes who received care or whether abuse occurred in a medical setting.
Uncertainties and open questions
This report independently checks five email records and selected public board material. Fontaine’s wider account includes additional correspondence, company records, a DEA registration, photographs and litigation allegations. Those additional strands remain attributed to her reporting and are not independently verified here. Her account of unanswered questions and requests for comment is also her reported account.
The board’s public website still lists Pomeranz, whereas Connor’s 2025 testimony says he had retired. The discrepancy limits use of the website as a historical membership record. It does not establish continuous service during 2015 or wrongdoing by anyone listed.
- Who reviewed and voted on the application, and what do the contemporaneous minutes show?
- Was the proposed business relationship disclosed, and did any participant recuse?
- Which statute and signed rules governed the decision on the actual approval date?
- What became of the negotiations after the correspondence reviewed here?
The official DOJ PDF links did not load during this review. The five email records were read from public PDF mirrors bearing the cited Bates identifiers. The epstein data viewers returned loading screens, so their record contents could not be authenticated through that interface. This provisional scope should not be mistaken for verification of the whole series. No patient identity is inferred or reproduced. An appearance in these records does not establish wrongdoing.
Source recheck, November 10, 2026: The five linked public PDF mirrors were retrieved and their extracted text compared with the summaries above. The cited negotiation, application advice, licensing inquiry and approval-notification passages agree with those copies. This recheck does not authenticate the mirrors against DOJ originals, establish a completed practice purchase, or supply board minutes and missing attachments.
Sources
- Sofia Fontaine’s original investigation, published November 8, 2026, read in full.
- EFTA00636339, public PDF mirror. Page references and evidentiary limits appear above. Official DOJ original, unavailable to this review.
- EFTA00634228, public PDF mirror. Page references and evidentiary limits appear above. Official DOJ original, unavailable to this review.
- EFTA02299765, public PDF mirror. Page references and evidentiary limits appear above. Official DOJ original, unavailable to this review.
- EFTA00536541, public PDF mirror. Page references and evidentiary limits appear above. Official DOJ original, unavailable to this review.
- EFTA00573373, public PDF mirror. Page references and evidentiary limits appear above. Official DOJ original, unavailable to this review.
- Virgin Islands Department of Health, Board of Dental Examiners, public membership page checked November 8, 2026.
- Connor’s legislative testimony, October 28, 2025, pages 1, 2 and 5.