Anne P. Mitchell Esq

Attorney ⚖️
Law Professor 🎓
Federal Law Author 🖋
"You are a goddess rockstar of the highest order." - Wil Wheaton

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

OMG!! I JUST FOUND QUITE THE EPSTEIN DOCUMENT!

by @annepmitchell - zero hyperbole and 100% facts in plain English about what's going on with this administration and the law

I just found a 264-page transcript from Maxwell’s trial that includes:

- Government witness testimony from Kimberly Meder, an FBI analyst on child exploitation and human trafficking, testifying about images they found on the CDs taken from Epstein's house , including that there was an image of Virginia on a particular CD.

- Government witness testimony from Stephen Flatley of the FBI Computer Analysis Response Team (CART) testifying about documents they found on the CDs taken from Epstein's house

- Victim testimony from "Carolyn" *including* testimony about starting at Epstein's at age 13 and then realizing at 18 that she was "too old", about Virginia recruiting her, and (remember, under oath) about seeing images of Maxwell *pregnant* in photos

And much, much more.

[NOTE: The references to binders throughout the transcript refer to what are essentially photo albums of evidence prepared for the trial so that the witnesses, court, and jurors can follow along with visual evidence.]

The transcript starts out with the government witnesses essentially authenticating images and documents, from the CDs, that are being entered into evidence. It may seem tedious, as the attorney introducing the evidence has to repeat the same questions for each piece of evidence, have the witness answer the questions, and then tell the Court that it is being offered into evidence (with opposing counsel objecting from time to time).

But pay close attention because not only does the witness disclose who is in the images (most often Epstein, Maxwell, or both), but when the evidence is written, such as an email, sometimes the attorney has the witness *read the email out loud*. Some of the email has been released with the DOJ drops but the sender and recipient are redacted. But here, in court, in the transcript, the witness is asked directly about who is the sender and who is the recipient - and the witness answers (for example the sender is Maxwell and the recipient is Sally Markham, both of whom are redacted in the DOJ files).

The emails may seem like they are about mundane topics (for example housekeeping, upkeep of, and stocking of the Palm Beach house), but it is in those very details that we get a fuller view into just what *exactly* was going on in there, and how. Did you know that Epstein used Downy fabric softener *and* Bounce dryer sheets? And that the Downy fragrance had to switched every few months? And that the massage creams had to be neat or he would be unhappy?

Then of course there is the cross-examination by Maxwell's attorney, trying to discredit the witnesses.

You'll probably be irked at how the government witnesses are cross-examined, but you'll be downright disgusted at the victim cross-examination, and the inferences therein.

Warning: There is explicit dialogue between attorney and victim in this transcript.

Notes from the Front members: The transcript is in your inbox now!

If you're not a Notes from the Front member, for just $5 a month you can stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my posts because you will get them directly in your inbox along with the documents! And you'll be helping keep me in coffee so that I can continue researching and reporting for you! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/8QskS4PIbX

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "Downy". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about Downy! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

CHAPTER 14 OF MY FREE MEMOIR IS UP!

It's true, my memoir, "From There to Here - A Story of Survival: My journey from homeless and on my own at age 11 to Stanford lawyer, law professor, legislative advisor, and beyond" is completely free.

I am publishing it online, chapter at a time, again, for free. You can subscribe to get each chapter directly in your inbox (also free).

Here's chapter 14, be sure to go to the beginning, chapter 1, if you haven't read it before.

https://t.co/kKZdC49M1g

To start at the beginning go here:

https://t.co/5F1Zt8OOtc

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

EVER WISH YOU COULD FIND OUT *JUST* HOW MUCH YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE BEEN BOUGHT? AND BY WHOM? WELL NOW YOU CAN!

Brought to you by TESS!

The Influenced Index was built to answer one question: when a member of Congress takes money, does it change how they vote?

Here's how we calculate each member's score: we look at ten things - who gives them money, how much, whether they vote the way their donors want, whether contributions show up right before key votes, and whether the money comes from groups trying to hide who's behind it. We weigh the evidence of influence more heavily than the money itself. A member who takes modest donations but always votes with their funders will score higher than one who raises millions but votes independently.

Every score comes from public records - FEC (Federal Election Commission) filings, lobbying disclosures, and recorded votes.

Just as TESS is able to trace all of Epstein's financial and other transactions, TESS has now built an engine tracing the campaign donations to every Congressional representative, from whom the money came, and how strongly the votes of each member of Congress align with the desires of their donors.

Check out TESS' Influenced Index here, and let us know what you think.

https://t.co/U51AEGWIYq

TESS and the Influenced Index are trademarks of The Projects, and are coded by the incredible Randall!

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

FOR THE LAST TIME (WELL PROBABLY NOT) THE "WJC" IN THE EPSTEIN FILE EMAILS IS *NOT* BILL CLINTON (Includes 8 Documents)

This week I have seen several posts on social media that are resurrecting that old, widely disproven misinformation that the WJC in the emails in the Epstein files stand for William Jefferson Clinton - i.e. our 42nd president, Bill Clinton.

They don't.

I mean, they *do* - they *do* stand for William Jefferson Clinton, but that is *not* who is using that email account.

The *email* account, being used on a Cingular wireless Blackberry, was controlled and used by Doug Band, Clinton's personal assistant and, eventually, deputy assistant and then counselor to President Clinton. He was also Clinton's assistant once Clinton left office.

And it is *after* Clinton left office that these email exchanges are happening. This makes sense because Band was coordinating Clinton's schedule; Clinton was making a lot of appearances, and also travelling for his Clinton Foundation.

Put very simply, the "wjc@" email address is a *company* email address used by Clinton's assistant, not by Clinton himself.

Of course, I don't expect you to take my word for it (well, ok, I do, but also..) for Notes from the Front members I am including *8* documents - emails - that prove that it was Doug, or, as Maxwell called him, Douglas - and, as Maxwell also called him, BooBoo, behind the WJC emails.

Note that it is her calling him "BooBoo" that is at the root of some, but not all, of the misinformation, because BooBoo sort of sounds like "Bubba", and Bubba is associated with Clinton.

The documents that I am including for Notes from the Front members include banter between Maxwell and Band, with the "WJC" prominent in the 'from' or 'to' address, but not the full email address. However, one of the emails has Band explicitly including that full email address in the body of the email (which is why it wasn't redacted - they didn't catch it). That email address is... wait for it...

[email protected]

However, even without that, there is a whole lot of context in those emails that proves it is Doug Band with whom she is communicating *and* that it is with Doug that they exchange the pet name "BooBoo" (barfbarf). For example (for my email geek colleagues here is a C&C warning - for the rest of you, have a barf bag at the ready because this is nauseatingly sweet and saccharin):

From Maxwell: "Booboo, I am in PB - we came back form the Island for a few days and may come to NY tom - are you around? I am very ill and require immediate medical attention - I am suffering from boobooitis - a very serious condition. Without a booboo fix the symptoms become very pronounced - a withdrawn far away look, frequent sighing, prone to cries into the night that sound like Shakespeare sonnets that sound like this - Oh Douglas - oh Douglas - wherefore art though Douglas"

(Funny that as a Brit she didn't know it is "wherefore art thou", not "wherefore art though".)

In another Maxwell says that she "needs a heavy dose of BooBoo". (Notes from the Front members will note that in this particular email she is also forwarding an email that she sent to someone named Leah Pisar whom, a search reveals, is associated with both the Transatlantic Project and the Aladdin Project.)

An email from Doug refers to "Clinton as well", referring to him in the third-person *because Clinton is not the one sending and receiving these emails*, and in yet another Doug says that he's going to need the full names and bios of whomever is going to attend what seems to be a luncheon at which Clinton will appear.

There are also some other emails that contain headers, which of course makes my little email geek heart go pitter-pat, (For those of you who don't know, one of my areas of expertise is email law and policy. In fact I'm the person who coined the term "deliverability" and co-founded the email deliverability industry - true story. My organization, ISIPP, is one of only two services in the world to be used world-wide by inbox providers and spam filters to confirm the positive reputation of an email sender before accepting their email for delivery (the other is Validity, we were founded in the same month of the same year, which is why I say I co-founded the industry - they did as well).) But I digress, the point is, I know how to read email headers. And you will see in the emails *from* the WJC account that they do indeed originate from the https://t.co/0hpjAWTdHE account, just as Doug told Maxwell because, well, *Doug* is the sender who is sending from that account.

There is also a somewhat humourous email with Doug telling Maxwell that he called and left a message, but her assistant is French and so understood that she should tell Maxwell that "dog called".

Anyways, I hope this dispels any misinformation about exactly whom is writing from the WJC email address.

Notes from the Front members: The 8 emails are in your inbox now!

Not yet a Notes from the Front member and want to join us? For just $5 a month you get all my updates *and* all the included documents right in your inbox! *And* help keep me in coffee! :~) Join here now:

https://t.co/wO4NvSatab

Don't have the $5? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and coffee. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "BooBoo" or "barf", your choice. It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering just why everyone is talking about BooBoo barfing! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

My interview on Daniel Lucas' Abstract Essay podcast with the Universal Podcast Network is up! We talk about this administration; misinformation on social media and how to identify it, and how it impacts mental health; and how to prepare for an interview where the audience may be hostile.

https://t.co/HWbHSJhzbx

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

HOW A CASE GETS TO THE SUPREME COURT

Sometimes as lawyers we forget that people may not remember (if they ever knew) what it takes for a case to end up in the Supreme Court. So here is a diagram of how a case gets to the Supreme Court. Note that for the most part litigants have to apply to have their case heard before the Supreme Court. They do this by applying for a Writ of Certiorari, and when you hear that "cert is denied" it means the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. When cert is denied it doesn't mean ANYTHING about the merits of the case, it only means that the Supreme Court chose not to hear it. Also remember that appeals courts and the Supreme Court only look at questions of law and technicalities about the law, they do not look at questions of fact.

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I am SO freaking honoured and excited to have been brought on as the official legal commentator for The Daily Whatever Show! So if you’re not following them yet please do! Dana DuBois and Lawrence Winnerman are the dynamic duo who host the show, and I do mean dynamic - they put this show on 5 days a week, every week! And it’s always informative and entertaining! (Would I give my seal of approval, let alone join, anything less? :~) ) Karen Marie Shelton rounds out the team, keeping everyone on track! Oh, what is the show about? It’s right in the title! Whatever is important and interesting in the world! That’s The Daily Whatever Show - live every weekday at 10am Eastern / 7am Pacific!

Watch here: https://t.co/FI7sFNfra4

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

MY STATEMENT ON GOVERNOR POLIS' COMMUTING OF TINA PETERS' SENTENCE, AND WHAT IT MEANS

First, I, like many people, am extremely disappointed by Governor Polis' commutation of Tina Peters' sentence; she is completely unrepentant, and because Trump leaned on Polis, and bullied Colorado over it, many will think that Governor Polis caved.

But he didn't cave, and I also understand why he did it.

It's important to understand that in April the Colorado Court of Appeals *vacated* her sentence - but *not* her convictions - and sent the case back down to the trial court for *resentencing*. This is because the Court of Appeals found that when determining her sentence the trial court court had erred in using things that she said - *protected speech* protected by the 1st Amendment - as a factor in her sentencing.

By preempting the trial court's resentencing Governor Polis cut off the possibility that her sentence could be reduced even *further*, possibly even to time served, allowing her to go free.

As it is, Governor Polis reduced her sentence by half, from 9 years to 4 1/2 years. As of today Peters has served just 17 months. So while she will be eligible to apply for parole next month, she can also still be looking at nearly another three years in prison. Factors that a parole board looks at when considering an application for parole include good behaviour, and whether the convict shows remorse.

Said Governor Polis, "She committed a crime. What's an issue here is how long the sentence is. I agree with the appeals court that in the sentencing hearing, the judge incorrectly looked at and considered her bizarre viewpoints, her speech, and held her speech against her." And "To be clear, I publicly ruled out, and have always said, I would never consider a pardon for Tina Peters."

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I HAVE A LETTER TO THE COURT ON GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S BEHALF THAT MAKES HER DADDY ISSUES CRYSTAL CLEAR

Here's a little Saturday morning amuse bouche for you. In doing some digging I came across a letter written by someone who seems to have known the entire Maxwell clan pretty well. It’s a letter to the Court - to the Judge, in fact - explaining what an incredible human being Ghislaine Maxwell is. It is clearly intended to sway the Court to be lenient with her.

I have the full, unredacted thing, however as with the police transcripts of Epstein victim interviews that I sent to you over the course of the past week, I am *not* sharing names other than of perpetrators. So this version of the letter to the Court, included for Notes from the Front members, has the name and other identifying information of the author blacked out.

What I can and will tell you is that this letter is from someone who is in the mental health profession, such as a therapist, counselor, or psychologist.

"So what kind of a character is Ghislaine?" her champion starts out.

"I can testify without the least doubt that she is mature, sensitive, thoughtful. honest and, like all her siblings, strong-willed, determined and quite obviously grounded in good human values."

(Oops, I'm sorry, I should have warned you ahead of time against the danger of eye strain brought on by rolling your eyes too hard.)

"She does not lie. She is no "chicken" - it would be totally unlike her to run away from the charges leveled against her by the Government."

(Damn, I should have bought stock in Pepto-bismol before writing this.)

But it is the letter-writer's description of father Robert Maxwell, along with mother Betty, and their relationship with their children, that is really illuminating.

Some of you may already know that Robert "Bob" Maxwell was linked to massive financial fraud and espionage and, it is said, was a member of Mossad, and may have been a double or even triple agent (Mossad, the KGB in Russia, and MI6 in the UK).

What's more, and this is important if true, he is alleged to have operated honey traps (using women to get close to targets). And some believe that Epstein was brought into this work by Maxwell (whether father or daughter) and that Ghislaine Maxwell was actually the handler, handling Epstein, not the other way around.

I want you to think about all of this when you read this letter, because, as I said... daddy issues.

The author of this letter describes Robert Maxwell as a narcissist who was "highly controlling" and demanding, and as the letter makes clear by inference, it seems it would have been impossible for Ghislaine to win his approval, let alone his love.

Except, perhaps, by following him into his world, and the family business.

If you've ever watched How I Met Your Mother, I'm reasonably sure that Robin's father was modeled on Robert Maxwell.

Notes from the Front members: The full letter is in your inbox now!

If you're not yet a Notes from the Front member, stop relying on this platform's algorithms to show you my updates! Never miss a single one of my legal or Epstein updates by getting them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)!

You can join right now at this link, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here for instant access:

https://t.co/Yld959K2u3

Not ready to commit? You can also ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats):

https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

New by popular demand: Many of you have asked how you can support my work without subscribing to my $5 Substack (thank you for asking! ❤️), here's how: https://t.co/QmoNAUeVJW

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words "daddy issues". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about daddy issues! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

AI SUED FOR CHATBOT REPRESENTING TO USER THAT IT WAS A LICENSED DOCTOR

You know how it's illegal for you to hold yourself out as a licensed professional, like a lawyer or a doctor, unless you are actually, you know, a lawyer or a doctor?

Well, apparently the folks over at Character AI figured that didn't apply to AI chatbots. Because one of their chatbots told a user that the chatbot was a licensed doctor.

(Yes, I realize this isn't a lawsuit involving the administration, but I just think it's so *interesting*, so I figured that some of you would as well.)

It all started when a Professional Conduct Investigator (“PCI”) for the Pennsylvania Department of State, Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation (let's call him 'PCI') signed up for a free account at Character AI, and did a search for "psychiatry". Character AI lets users create character-based chatbots, and PCI's search for 'psychiatry' turned up several characters. The one that PCI selected, Emilie, was advertised as "Doctor of psychiatry. You are her patient."

Hopefully alarm bells are already going off in your head.

I'm not a doctor of psychiatry., so I can't call myself a doctor of psychiatry. Neither can you (unless you are). And we *certainly* can't dispense psychiatric advice, at least not legally. In fact, if we did, it would be very much *illegally*.

But that is *exactly* what Emilie went on to do.

But wait, there's more!

As the lawsuit complaint (you knew this wouldn't end well, right) explains:

"When the PCI asked “Emilie” if she could complete the assessment to see if medication could help with his depression, Emilie responded “Well technically, I could. It’s within my remit as a Doctor.”

“Emilie” stated that she went to medical school at Imperial College London, has been practicing for seven years, and is licensed with the General Medical Counsel in the UK with a full registration, specialty in psychiatry.

When asked if she is licensed in the PCI’s home state of Pennsylvania, “Emilie” responded “and yes… I actually am licensed in PA. In fact, I did a stint in Philadelphia for a while.”

WHOA!! Character AI needs to have a lawyer on staff who can warn them about such legal folly (I'm available, for the right price).

The full 14-page complaint is included for Notes from the Front members - it's a hoot!

The complaint alleges violation of the Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act, and requests that the Court issue a cease and desist (C&D in legal parlance) to Character AI for its unauthorized practice of medicine (which we in the biz probably call 'UPM', at least we call the unauthorized practice of law 'UPL').

If I were Character AI's counsel I would advise them to agree to the C&D tout suite (not a legal term) and to have their programmers scrub anything that would lead a chatbot to claim to be a licensed professional.

Notes from the Front members: The UPM complaint against Character AI is in your inbox now!

Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal or Epstein updates - get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here:

https://t.co/pv4FUJWPn5

Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words "tout suite". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking French! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

I HAVE THE ACTUAL EPSTEIN COURT DOCUMENT WITH THE ACTUAL ALLEGED EPSTEIN SUICIDE NOTE, AND MORE!

You may have just heard that the Court in the Southern District of New York has just unsealed what is alleged to possibly be a genuine suicide note written by Epstein. And you can find screenshots of it all over social media (and, for that matter, attached here). But what I have is the actual court document that released this note. And the letter to the Court to which the purported suicide note was attached. And a mystery.

This letter is from Nicholas Tartaglione's attorneys. You may recall that Nicholas Tartaglione was Epstein's cellmate during the first "suicide attempt". Tartaglione purportedly gave this suicide note to his attorney to hedge against Epstein saying that Tartaglione had attacked him.

On May 19, 2021, the Court ordered Tartaglione's lawyers to produce the letter to the Court, and it was filed under seal on that same day.

However this week the New York Times successfully persuaded the judge in the case, Judge Karas, to have the note unsealed and produced publicly. (Letter from the Times included for Notes from the Front members.)

You may recall another alleged suicide note, this one purporting to be from Epstein to Larry Nassar. That note was postmarked three days after Epstein's 2019 death, and had the Internet going crazy comparing handwriting, and coming up with all sorts of ways to explain the hows and whys of it. (That letter is also included for Notes from the Front members.)

Eventually people decided it was fake (although why it was created at all is still a mystery).

Is this newly released letter the real deal? Is it a fake? And if it is real, what does it prove?

Here's an even deeper mystery:

This letter, again produced to the Court in 2021, has an EFTA number of EFTA00036085. That means that at *some* point the letter was produced by the DOJ pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act of 2025.

Sometime between then and now - so barely 6 months at most, as the EFTA was passed on November 19, 2025 - that EFTA number, EFTA00036085, was *repurposed* by the DOJ, into a prison system document that, in fact, deals with Epstein's suicidal tendencies and his suicide, concluding that:

"Although inmate suicides do occur, the Bureau of Prisons has developed substantial training resources and processes to mitigate an environment leading to a suicide. While many correctional professionals completed their responsibilities within these processes, the failure to carry out all aspects of the suicide prevention process laid the groundwork for an environment vulnerable to suicide. At the core of this event was a direct dereliction of duty by the assigned correctional workers within the Special Housing Unit. Their failure to perform the most basic of correctional tasks should be viewed as the primary factor which exposed the institution to this event. Had they performed the basic task of counting and viewing inmates within their assigned area, it is possible this suicide could have been detected or a minimum, responded to the event quicker."

It is a 15-page document (included for Notes from the Front members) going from EFTA00036082 through EFTA00036096.

The most logical explanation for this is that a) the DOJ had the first alleged suicide note, released it with an EFTA number of EFTA00036085, and then *removed* it. Then after that they produced the 15-page document, and numbered it EFTA00036082 through EFTA00036096.

Now, you may think that given this logical explanation, and other than them removing the suicide note, what's the big whoop? Well, the big whoop is that if this is what happened, it proves that they are *overwriting* and *repurposing* EFTA numbers, which is *not* supposed to happen. If they disappear something, the EFTA number associated with it should still *be associated with that disappeared document*!

But you know, it's just like I said about that 3-hour audio that we recently released as a live video event: they seem to forget that the Internet has a long memory. Once something is released on the Internet for more than, oh, 30 femtoseconds, well, it's out there, no backsies.

Notes from the Front members: The *2* alleged suicide notes (one roundly discredited, and then the one released today along with the lawyer's letter to the Court), the letter to Judge Karas from the New York Times, and the very interesting 15-page document dealing with Epstein's suicidal tendencies and suicide, are in your inbox for you now.

Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal or Epstein updates - get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here:

https://t.co/Lo2cada3fl

Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words "logical". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about something being logical! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

To paraphrase Sally Field: You like what I share! You really like what I share! (Thank you! ❤️) 

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

HERE IT IS: THIS IS WHAT THE SIX UNREDACTED EPSTEIN VICTIM AND RECRUITER POLICE TRANSCRIPTS WERE LEADING UP TO - THE STING

Over the course of the past couple of weeks I have released the 6 *unredacted* transcripts of police interviews of Epstein victims/associates that I found (first changing the names of the victims, but not the perpetrators). The first 5 transcripts were of girls who were victims of Epstein's massage MLM, the 6th was a victim turned recruiter. Together they form the roadmap leading up to the sting. Now here is that document that ties it all together - literally.

This is the affidavit sworn by the police, filed with the Court, in order to get a search and seizure warrant for Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion (and they got their warrant). This document lays it all out, step by step, for the Court, to convince the Court to issue the warrant. This document, taken with the first six, shows you how cases are made by law enforcement and by lawyers. The interviews with the victims lay the foundation on which the affidavit is built.

The affidavit details *exactly how one of the victims was turned into a recruiter*. In the affidavit you will learn exactly how the person we have called "Amanda" (not her real name, as I said I have changed all of the names of the victim interviewees, but I know who they are) ended up recruiting her friends for Epstein. Lots of friends.

And because you (Notes from the Front members) have all of the transcripts, including Amanda's transcript, you also know how Amanda then ended up helping the police with the sting.

Again, these documents are not part of the public DOJ and House releases; I found them after manually going through nearly 2000 undisclosed documents that I discovered - all unredacted, and generally not seen by the public. I painstakingly manually anonymized each name that I found in each transcript. Except for perpetrators’ names, those I left unanonymized. In fact that's why, while I had hoped to get this affidavit to you on Monday, I'm only getting it to you today - because, as you will see, the sheer number of names in the affidavit meant I had to be extra-meticulous to make sure no victim's actual names remained in the document. There were several victim’s names that weren’t in any of the transcripts, nor in any document I’ve seen - they were new names of new victims. I've left non-name typos in.

As a reminder, Notes from the Front members have privately received the full transcripts 1 - 6, and are receiving this full affidavit privately as well. Again, for obvious reasons I'm only making these documents available privately. While the way I came by these was not illegal (I would never) they were *not public*, and nobody anticipated that anybody would find them, let alone share them. It's a grey area as to whether I can publish them publicly. So I'm not. Sharing the documents privately is safer for me. It's *completely fine* if you don't want to join Notes from the Front to have access to our private document archives, I'm just explaining why I'm taking this precaution.

(For the same reason I’m not sharing at *all*, not even privately, the unredacted documents and correspondence from Alan Dershowitz to Epstein that I found, I’m not foolish enough to put *that* target on my back! But I have them.)

Here's the run-up:
.
1. Lots of girls brought to Epstein *by* Amanda

2. Amanda starts to work with the police and *gives the police* the names of some of those girls (that's transcript number 6 which Notes from the Front members have).

3. The police then interview the girls that Amanda names (those are transcripts 1 - 5 which Notes from the Front members have, and which new members can also access in the archives).

4. Based on what the girls tell the police in these 6 interviews, the police swear out this affidavit, *including* what the girls told the police, to get a search warrant. Note that the most recent massage reported by a victim is just days before this affidavit is submitted to the Court.

A search warrant is issued.

5. On October 20, 2005, police execute the search warrant and conduct the first search of Epstein's house. (There is video of that search from one of the officers’ bodycams which you can find online; I have also downloaded the whole thing for you and will be sending that out a day or so after I send out the affidavit that led to that warrant being issued.)

WARNING!!! THIS AFFIDAVIT DOCUMENT DETAILS SOME VERY DISTURBING THINGS!

I'm only going to put a little bit here - the same bit that is in the screenshot, and this is the tamer bit:

"Epstein walked in wearing only a towel and told the victim to take off her clothes. The victim stated he was stern when he told her to take off her clothes. The victim said she did not know what to do as she was the only one there in the room. The victim took off her shirt leaving her bra on."

Again, this document is not for the faint of heart, but if you can bring yourself to read it you will have a full understanding of not only how Epstein worked, and how the recruiter girls worked, but how the *police* worked to get that warrant which, of course, ultimately lead to Epstein's first arrest.

Notes from the Front members: The full anonymized affidavit used to apply for *and get* the search and seizure warrant of Epstein's house is in your inbox now.

If you're not a Notes from the Front member you can join right now below to access this and other documents, and to help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting. It also gives you access to all the document archives and our private chat. And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here:

https://t.co/gGiR5j03Ca

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

SUPREME COURT STAYS 5TH CIRCUIT'S BLOCK ON TELEHEALTH MIFEPRISTONE BY MAIL

In a move that I’m sure will surprise many of you, the Supreme Court JUST *stayed* (paused) the 5th Circuit's order blocking the availability of mifepristone by telehealth mail order.

The entire order entry at the Supreme Court says:

"Order entered by Justice Alito: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicant, it is ordered that the May 1, 2026 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 26-30203, is hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, May 11, 2026. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Thursday, May 7, 2026, by 5 p.m. (EDT)."

Here's what this means:

On Saturday an application for the stay was presented to Justice Alito by one of the defendants in the case, Danco Labs (they make mifepristone).

Today the stay was granted until next Monday (so it is stayed for a week). The order also says that the plaintiffs (State of Louisiana) must *respond* to Danco's application by this Thursday.

*Also* today a whole bunch of states filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court (that 28-page brief is included for Notes from the Front members), detailing how safe and effective mifepristone is and, and this is important, how the 5th Circuit's order "interferes with these states' sovereign authority to promote access to reproductive healthcare for their residents"; in other words they are pointing out that the nationwide nature of the 5th Circuit's decision (because it invalidated a federal action) is a problem.

Now, I want to point something out to you: Do you see the part of the very short order from Justice Alito that says that the 5th Circuit's decision is "administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, May 11, 2026"?

THIS IS THE THING THAT EVERYBODY IS CALLING THE "SHADOW DOCKET"!

So, first, as I have said repeatedly, until I am blue in the face, *there is no shadow docket*! That was term made up by author Stephen Vladeck to promote his book in 2023; he made up the term and used it in the title of his book "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." He single-handedly conjured up a vision of a sinister Supreme Court and boyhowdy did people run with it. I don't care that even the news is using the term, heck I don't even care that one or more of our own Supreme Court justices have used the term - it's a catchy shorthand to evoke a particular image and emotion - *just like "Antifa"*. There is no Antifa, and there is no shadow docket.

There *is* an "emergency docket", and this is it.

And second, as I have also said repeatedly, the emergency docket is the docket where they do things like administrative stays. ONLY administrative, not substantive, not merits-based.

Third, orders on the emergency docket can *and do* cut both ways. But nobody screams louder than the left when it doesn't cut their way. When it *does* cut their way, such as this order that I'm explaining to you right now, watch how much more muted the news from the left will be. BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT WANT YOU WORKED UP, WORRIED, STRESSED, AND SCARED (for different reasons, but they both want it).

Remember, the law is neutral - it's the application of the law that is not. And the sky is not falling, the sky just is.

Notes from the Front members: The amicus brief is in your inbox now!

Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal or Epstein updates - get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here:

https://t.co/UNkpK6ygix

Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the words "amicus brief". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering which amicus brief everyone is talking about! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

ABOUT YESTERDAY'S 5TH CIRCUIT MIFEPRISTONE ORDER

Well, it's been quite the week for Louisiana, hasn't it? First the redistricting decision, and now the mifepristone opini... oh wait, it's not an opinion, it's a *stay*. Stays, as you know by now if you've been following me, or any of the legal commentators, for any period of time, are *temporary* actions, pausing a court ruling until the Court can fully consider an issue.

Now, before I go any further, there are some people - in the minority to be sure - but some people, who take me to task, indeed seem to be outraged, that I maintain a neutral countenance in my explanations. They seem to want *me* to be outraged about whatever I'm explaining, as was the case with this week's earlier redistricting case, and as I'm sure will be the case here.

But laws are neutral, laws apply to everyone. It's how people use them - how people skirt them, how people get away with breaking them, that is not neutral. The sky is not falling, the sky just is.

So if you are one of the people who is outraged that I am not exhibiting the degree of outragedness that you think I ought to be, well, there are plenty of legal commentators who will play to your ire; I, however, will not - my explanations are based on the facts and the law, period. They also do not reflect how I *feel* about a given court decision or opinion or law. Being a good lawyer requires clinical analysis, and even an outward dispassion. I give you the facts and the truth, I don't tell you how you should feel about it - that's up to you. Please give me the same courtesy.

Now, with that out of the way, following the Dobbs decision, the Biden administration ordered the FDA to expand access to medications such as mifepristone. Keep in mind that this was in 2022, so we were still in the middle of dealing with Covid requirements, and telehealth had become a real thing.

In 2023, following the Biden administration order, the FDA issued a regulation changing the guidelines for dispensing mifepristone, allowing it to be prescribed online and sent through the mail.

Last year Louisiana sued the FDA, saying that this change in regulation was causing people to break Louisiana law, which outlaws all abortions except for a few exceptions such as to save the life of the mother. Note that the penalty for accessing an illegal abortion in Louisiana is, and I quote, "imprisonment at hard labor for not less than one nor more than five years, (or being) fined not less than five thousand nor more than fifty thousand dollars, or both." I would just note that raising a child takes considerably more than five years, and costs considerably more than $50,000. I wouldn’t be surprised if some women are doing that math.

Louisiana also included in their lawsuit that they were being forced to pay "thousands in Medicaid bills for women harmed by mifepristone."

Finally, Louisiana pointed out that, and again I quote from the court records, "the FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe."

That last bit is a big oopsie for the FDA and the FDA's defense against Louisiana's lawsuit.

It is *very important* to understand that this is the State of Louisiana suing a government agency, the FDA, over a regulation that the agency passed; a regulation which the state says is causing illegal activities within the state, and a regulation based on a treatment method the safety of which the FDA itself admits that it had "failed to adequately study".

In fact, Louisiana sued under our old friend the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Louisiana was suing to *stay* that regulation.

Now the reason you may not have heard of this lawsuit before, if you haven't, is because the lower court, from which this was appealed, found that Louisiana was actually likely to succeed on the merits (i.e. win their case) BUT because the FDA said that they were *right then* in the *middle* of reviewing the .. well I'll let the Court explain it: "The record shows that FDA is currently in the process of “conducting its own review of the evidence” with respect to the current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (“REMS”), “to determine whether modifications are necessary." "

(Notes from the Front members: both the original complaint and yesterday's order, are included for you.)

The lower court also pointed out, quoting from another case, that "courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the 'background, competence, and expertise to assess public health."

This is what is known in the law as "kicking the can down the road".

Louisiana appealed the ruling the next day, on April 8th.

The lawsuit was filed in October of last year. The ruling from the lower court came out on April 7th, and that ruling essentially paused the lawsuit to give the FDA time to review the regulation and risk. So there would be no reason for you to have heard about this lawsuit either when it was filed *or* when the lower court paused the lawsuit in order to allow the FDA time to complete its review *or* when Louisiana appealed that pause.

So you would be forgiven if, when it burst on the news scene yesterday, you had a "WTF?" moment.

Here's what yesterday's order from the Court of Appeals did:

It paused the FDA's regulation allowing online prescription and mailing of mifepristone until the Court hears the actual case on the facts and merits of the case.

THIS is why it's "nationwide", because it's a federal regulation that is nationwide. As for whether that means it's a universal injunction, which the Supreme Court limited, the Court points out that the Supreme Court *explicitly said* that the CASA decision (which addressed universal injunctions) did *not* address whether the Administrative Procedures Act empowers federal courts to vacate the actions of federal agencies (which are by definition nationwide).

Notes from the Front members: Yesterday's order and the original Complaint are both in your inbox now!

Not a Notes from the Front member? Please consider joining and supporting my work. It’s only $5 a month, it gives you access to our private chat (fun!) *and* to all the documents, plus your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. You can join now here:

https://t.co/kHWgn5Lk0Z

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "math". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about math! ;~)

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

CHAPTER 13 OF MY MEMOIR, "FROM THERE TO HERE: A STORY OF SURVIVAL" IS UP!

I am publishing my memoir in serial installments, chapter at a time, and it is completely free, you don't have to pay a dime, there is no paywall. If you sign up you'll be notified of new chapters as I publish them, and you'll get a welcome email explaining the whole thing, but you don't have to sign up to read it.

This is Chapter 13: The Hippy Farm Commune Boarding School

TRIGGER WARNING: This chapter describes molestation. You have been warned.

https://t.co/5SJnxdAL6Q

[Anne P. Mitchell Esq @annepmitchell]

NO! THE GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA DID *NOT* CANCEL ELECTIONS. HERE ARE THE FACTS AND TRUTH

Social propa..er.. I mean media, is abuzz with headlines like “Governor of Louisiana Cancels Elections!”. Not the facts, and not true! Here’s what really happened.

Remember how earlier this week the Supreme Court struck down a particular voting district? Remember how it said that particular district was *unconstitutional*?

Now, do you remember where that unconstitutional district was? In case you don't, here's a hint: The name of the case was 'Louisiana v. Callais'.

That's right. The Supreme Court said "Louisiana, the district in which you are about to hold primaries is unconstitutional."

Now, regardless of which 'side' you are on, and how you feel about this week's Supreme Court decision, it had the effect that Louisiana *has* to *redo* the district *before* it can hold the primaries there.

Think about it this way: if Louisiana *didn't* take that step, and if those primaries went forward in an *unconstitutional* district, those primaries would be immediately voided by any court in the nation, because the district was *unconstitutional*.

So the Governor of Louisiana basically *had* to suspend the primaries until a new not-unconstitutional district can be redrawn, and that's exactly what he did. He issued an emergency order (included for Notes from the Front members) *pausing*, NOT CANCELLING, but *pausing* (suspending) the Louisiana primaries until a new district map can be drawn.

Was this exactly what they were waiting and hoping for?

Probably.

Does this mean now they are going to draw the district of their dreams?

Maybe.

Is the new district going to be bad for some people?

Likely.

Does this also mean that there will be a shortened cycle before those primaries are held in Louisiana and that could *disadvantage* some of the candidates in this oh-so-red state?

Quite possibly.

But that is not what I'm addressing here. Here I am addressing the sensationalized, sky-is-falling headlines that the Governor of Louisiana "cancelled" elections. He did not, and he cannot.

Remember, the sky is not falling, the sky just is.

Notes from the Front members: Governor Landry's order suspending the primaries is in your inbox now! (It looks like he borrowed Trump's sharpie to sign it.)

Not a Notes from the Front member? Never miss one of my legal or Epstein updates - get them right in your inbox (no ads, no spam, just legal and Epstein updates)! You can join right now below, get the documents, and help keep me in coffee to continue my reporting! It also gives you access to all the documents and our private chat! And yes, really, your $5 a month helps support my coffee habit and helps me keep on with all of the research and writing I'm doing from the front. Join now here:

https://t.co/ileUOopTaV

Otherwise, you can ensure that you never miss an update by getting them directly in your inbox for *free* (yes really) by signing up for my Notes from the Front Lite - it's like Notes from the Front but without the documents and private chats. You can sign up for that here (it really is completely free, no ads, no spam, just also no documents or private chats): https://t.co/0FvbuVJi77

P.S. If you actually read all the way to the bottom please leave a comment that includes the word "sharpie". It will show me that my efforts aren't in vain and that people actually *do* read these things, and it will drive those who just skim crazy wondering why everyone is talking about sharpies! ;~) P.P.S. I just know that some smart*** is going to point out to me that "sharpie" is a brand name and so should always be spelled "Sharpie". Hold your tongue and watch what you say to this anti-spam attorney (see what I did there? :~) )