Why Did the DOJ Redact *These* Names? I Have the Original Unredacted Document and They are *Not* Victims

by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. - attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law

Last year Todd Blanche pinky-swore that the only names that were being redacted in the Epstein drops were the names of victims (and they sure botched that, didn't they?)

Specifically, on December 19, 2025, Todd Blanche said - and the Justice Department X account quoted Blanche as saying - "The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law - full stop. Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim."

But in a document that Epstein sent to himself, containing no fewer than *30* names that the DOJ redacted - not a single one of them is a victim. But there are plenty of politicians, heads of state, and famous individuals. In other words, lots of redacted "names of individuals or politicians" who are very clearly not victims.

I know, because I have the fully-unredacted version, which I found through my investigations; to be clear this unredacted document was *not* part of any DOJ drop, I found it elsewise.

(And *this* is why I do not share documents like this publicly; and only share them privately with my group. And *nobody* should share this document publicly, for a multitude of reasons.)

What's more, I am confident that the only reason it's not *more* than 30 is because of Epstein's now infamous inability to type straight. For example, Donald Trump would likely have been redacted if Epstein hadn't typoed it to "donalad trup".

There are several redacted names that are Hollywood royalty - and several that are genuine royalty.

Now, this is a list of names that Epstein sent to himself. The fact that the names are on his list doesn't necessarily mean anything.

But the fact that THE DOJ REDACTED THEM means a *GREAT DEAL*.

Allow me to quote from the law (the EFTA) directly:

(b) Prohibited Grounds for Withholding. -

(1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.

(c) Permitted Withholdings. -

(1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that -

(A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A;

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

(D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or

(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.

(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

---

Nevermind that the DOJ has *blatantly* violated section 2, about putting in writing on the Federal Register the reason for *any* redaction; the names that I am sharing with Notes from the Front members are *very* *clearly* *not* *victims*.

Are some of them perpetrators? Who know?? But I'll tell you what - the fact that the DOJ *redacated* their names throws shade at them.

Put another way:

WHY THE FLOCK DID THE DOJ REDACT THESE NAMES??

Let's think for a moment about the redaction process.

EITHER the DOJ had a list of names for which it searched in order to redact them, and these 30 names were on that list, OR the DOJ set AI on it telling the system to redact any names it found other than the names which it was directed to leave unredacted.

If it is the first, then *why the hell were some of these names on that list*?... hrrmmm? Because, again, they are definitely *not* victims.

If it's the second, then *that* suggests the DOJ had a "let's give the public these names and redact and protect everyone else" policy.

Either way, the DOJ has broken the law.

But let's see what Blanche has to say about it. Oh yes:

"Through the process, the Department provided clear instructions to reviewers that the redactions were to be limited to the protection of victims and their families."

As you will see, the 30 names that the DOJ *redacated* in this document are very clearly *not* "victims and their families".

THIS ONE DOCUMENT VERY CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE DOJ HAS ABSOLUTELY BROKEN THE LAW.