For FMB unit: [EXTERNAL] FOIA Appeal / Request for Clarification – Epstein Records (EFTA01656139–41)

I do not believe due process has been followed in this matter, and I am extremely concerned by the way this has been handled. One of the things that raises serious questions for me is the fact that emails relating to my daughter which bear signature on them stating my daughter is not on the birth registration she was given on the registered in the country at all has just been left at that. No date given for when her details were removed and what the reason was. TO cap it all the family court under Judge Hollis allowed false information into the court without challenging it or correcting it with proper discovery Judge Holis now has a Baby P at his door as he has now let a min or in his jurisdiction disappear and not be where the court sent her 19 years ago. Does this render Family Court Criminal? Why is there no redress. coroner

Did they end her like her mother is this why they can provide not documents from the autopsy or the coroner records coroner. Why where her ashes left in the undertakers. Why did the lying social worker tell no family member that they were there and have now been destroyed.

Particularly why no one queried the name and you were told you could not attend. The Pauper’s funeral has been replaced by public health funerals paid for by the local authority where the relatives are either unwilling or unable to pay, or where no relatives can be found. So that would have been Hastings Councils responsibility. So that leads on to something else I have not come across before “Directed Cremations” that are cheaper than other options hence the attraction. But there are limitations, most significantly no one is allowed to attend, so that was the reason you were not able to, nor was anyone else who might have questioned the name. It also would not have benefited the Reading family, that even if they know, be paying out about a thousand pounds when no one could attend anyway would make no sense. Banfield and Pomphrey have a web page explaining their service, but several other local undertakers offer the same option.

On 20 September 2023, Hastings said there was no cremation or burial in that name in 2010. On 21 September 2023, after being given different name details, Hastings then said they did have details of a cremation for Cathryn Louise Peters, on 7 June 2010 at 2pm. They also said the ashes were collected by the funeral directors, Banfield and Pomphrey, and did not come back to the crematorium for scatter or interment.

no family member collected the ashes they were left at the undertakers and they were then destroyed while the family was not told,

The emails from Hastings Crematorium raise serious and obvious concerns. On 20 September 2023, I was told there was no cremation or burial in that name in 2010. Then, on 21 September 2023, after different name details were provided, Hastings confirmed there was in fact a cremation on 7 June 2010 at 2pm for Cathryn Louise Peters. They further stated that the ashes were collected by the funeral directors, Banfield and Pomphrey, and did not return to the crematorium for scattering or interment. However, the suggestion that the ashes were “probably collected by a member of the family” was plainly speculation, not a confirmed fact.

That leaves very serious unanswered questions. Who exactly collected the ashes? On what date were they collected? Under what name were they released? What identification or authority was required? What records exist from the undertakers? Why was no family member informed? Why was the family excluded from knowing where the ashes were? And if the ashes have now been destroyed, who authorised that, when, and on what legal basis?

I also question why Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as head of the Government, has remained silent while such serious safeguarding and accountability issues are being raised. As Prime Minister, he is ultimately responsible for the policy and decisions of his government, yet families like mine are left without answers, without protection, and without proper redress.[1]

What is most disturbing is that, instead of properly addressing the serious concerns being raised, it feels as though the priority has become silencing those who are speaking out. I cannot understand how raising concerns in an effort to protect Emily could be turned against someone as if they are doing something wrong.

If there is nothing to hide, there should be no reason for secrecy, avoidance, or any attempt to cover matters up. The truth should not be treated as contempt, and speaking out over serious concerns about Emily’s safety and wellbeing should not be punished.

I also find it deeply troubling that people in positions of authority appear unwilling to act or speak openly when such serious issues are being raised. Where is the protection for Emily? Where is the accountability for those who may have failed in their duty to protect her? Why does it feel like those asking questions are being targeted instead of those responsible for the harm and the failures?

As Yvette Cooper said in Parliament, anyone involved in covering up child abuse is just as bad as the person carrying it out and should be held accountable. That is why these concerns cannot simply be dismissed or ignored.

The truth is painful for those who are trying to hide wrongdoing, but that does not make it any less true.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/keir-starmer

FOIA/PA Unit

Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice

For FMB unit

Email: OLAF-COURRIER@ec.europa.eu
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Belgium

2026-04-18

Dear Sir or Madam

Dear Sir / or Madman

I am writing to request clarification and, if necessary, I wish to state I believe money is going out of the Uk country and you have a case which you wish them to be a party to in the European Union You may use my National Crime Agency CCG0000122359 which you reported to Action Fraud under. I am including my number Court Number 640MC413 I believe you should be a party notified in this case and would be grateful if you could act as a party.

I wish to formally appeal the redactions applied to documents identified as EFTA01656139–41, which include an email chain dated July 6, 2021 referencing an individual identified as “Epstein.”

The records contain statements including “Epstein does live in Colorado” and references to coordinating a debrief and contacting counsel. However, the identity of the individual referred to as “Epstein” appears to be redacted or otherwise obscured.

Under Public Law 119–38 (Nov. 19, 2025), records relating to Jeffrey Epstein’s detention or death—including emails and internal communications—are subject to disclosure requirements. The law explicitly states that records may not be withheld or redacted for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

While I recognize that limited redactions may be permissible under specific exemptions (e.g., personal privacy, active investigations, or properly classified material), I request that your office clarify:

Whether the “Epstein” referenced in EFTA01656139–41 is Jeffrey Epstein (alleged deceased August 10, 2019) or a different individual;
The specific legal basis (FOIA exemption or statutory authority) used to justify any redaction of identifying information;
Whether the redactions comply with the segregation and justification requirements outlined in Public Law 119–38, including written justification where applicable.

If the redacted information does not fall within a valid exemption, I respectfully request that the records be re-reviewed and released in a less-redacted form.

This request is made in the interest of ensuring compliance with federal transparency requirements and accurate public understanding of the records.

My case goes back to 2006. Is there going to be a special section which I can have direct contact with to give the details of my case as my daughter is still missing (with the system) 19 years. I therefore write to you concerning CCG0000122359 and Warrant wvxia7kd and 9q5lnhr as an important warning for families as a way of instruction. I provide About – The Stealing of Emily. I am being instructed by Gemini AI that my European Warrant is not sufficient in the USA and therefore request service in the USA for the purpose of a warrant in the USA for my Missing child Emily based on the 50 pages of evidence provided to your office. and 67k of material on the internet in my name.

Please note attachments to this email in regard to the situation in relation to my family

I have written by letter and received no formal response as my family is believed to be a victim of Epstein. My daughter https://stealingofemily.world/about/has been missing 19 years it is of great concern that information and evidence seems to point to the fact that this man Epstein and his organisations are still active and not been shut down as you are aware I have served data protection requests but have been provided no response to date.

It is of grave concern that my family is believed to have been directly affected by matters connected to Jeffrey Epstein, and my daughter, whose case is outlined here: https://stealingofemily.world/ has now been missing for 19 years, along with potentially 758,000 souls.

I should point out I have asked: Foreignprocess.rcj@justice.gov.uk, to provide a serviceable writ in the USA to which I believe they currently declined.

Yours Sincerely

Martin Newbold
http://www.martinnewbold.co.uk
www.thestealingofemily.co.uk stealingofemily.world

April 20, 2026