Emails leaked to the Daily Mail, relayed to Parliament, Alleging Blackmail by Jeffrey Epstein

The request was refused by House of Commons.

Dear House of Commons,
This may have to be directed to the Treasury Select Committee, or the information could be found in the email archive of John Mann or Mark Garnier held by Parliament.

On 2nd Nov 2015, The Times reported that the Daily Mail had been leaked emails from Jeffrey Epstein to Parliament or some connected source to blackmail Parliament into accepting Jes Staley as CEO for Barclays. Subsequently in August 2019 it was reported by Bloomberg that Staley had visited Epstein in prison and also on his island, travelling to the latter on Epstein's yacht.

URL for the Times article is here:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-e...

In the Daily Mail article John Mann MP and Mark Garnier MP were reported to have told the Daily Mail that Staley ought to face a grilling session as a result of the threats Epstein was alleged to have made to blackmail Parliament to accept his friend Staley as CEO of Barclays.

1. I would like a copy of any email disclosed to Parliament by the Daily Mail that forms the basis of these allegations

2. The recipient list of the emails, and any other meta data in the original copies sent to Parliament or the Treasury Select Committee or its members.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Anthony Taylor

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 8 August 2019, received
by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 6 September 2019.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

[2]Find out more about the General Data Protection Regulation and its
impact in the first year.

 

 

From: Mark Taylor <[FOI #595881 email]>
Sent: 07 August 2019 23:31
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Emails leaked to the Daily Mail,
relayed to Parliament, Alleging Blackmail by Jeffrey Epstein

 

Dear House of Commons,
This may have to be directed to the Treasury Select Committee, or the
information could be found in the email archive of John Mann or Mark
Garnier held by Parliament.

On 2nd Nov 2015, The Times reported that the Daily Mail had been leaked
emails from Jeffrey Epstein to Parliament or some connected source to
blackmail Parliament into accepting Jes Staley as CEO for Barclays.
Subsequently in August 2019 it was reported by Bloomberg that Staley had
visited Epstein in prison and also on his island, travelling to the latter
on Epstein's yacht.

URL for the Times article is here:
[3]https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-e...

In the Daily Mail article John Mann MP and Mark Garnier MP were reported
to have told the Daily Mail that Staley ought to face a grilling session
as a result of the threats Epstein was alleged to have made to blackmail
Parliament to accept his friend Staley as CEO of Barclays.

1. I would like a copy of any email disclosed to Parliament by the Daily
Mail that forms the basis of these allegations

2. The recipient list of the emails, and any other meta data in the
original copies sent to Parliament or the Treasury Select Committee or its
members.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Anthony Taylor

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #595881 email]

Is [5][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F19-395

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
us for information relating to the alleged threat made to Parliament,
which we have sought to answer below.

 

 

 1. I would like a copy of any email disclosed to Parliament by the Daily
Mail that forms the basis of these allegations

and

2. The recipient list of the emails, and any other meta data in the
original copies sent to Parliament or the Treasury Select Committee or its
members

 

 

We can neither confirm nor deny that the House of Commons holds this
information. Any information held by the House of Commons relevant to your
request is withheld under s.34 of the Freedom of Information Acts 2000
(FOIA).

 

Section 34 exempts information from disclosure so far as it is required to
avoid any infringement of the privileges of the House. Those privileges
include the right of any committee of the House to decide whether, when
and how to publish information relating to its proceedings. Correspondence
on the provision of written or oral evidence and records of the
Committee’s deliberations other than those published in its formal minutes
are therefore exempt information under Section 34 of the Act. This is an
absolute exemption and the public interest test does not apply. I am
afraid I must therefore refuse that part of your request.

 

 

Lastly, it may help you to know that the House hold no records of
correspondence sent to Members of Parliament. You may wish to consider
contacting the individual Members concerned to ask for the information you
seek, contact details are available at:
[1]http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-o.... However, Members
of Parliament are not public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom
of Information Act. This means that they are not obliged to respond to
requests made under the Act. Similarly, the Act does not apply to
political parties.

 

FOI applies to public authorities and both the House of Commons and House
of Lords are listed as institutions covered by the Act.  In addition,
information held by government offices in relation to ministerial
activities and responsibilities will also be subject to the Act’s
provisions. Further information about FOIA and Parliament is available on
our website: [2]http://www.parliament.uk/site-informatio....

 

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request complain to the
House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome
of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal
review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or requests for
internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights and Information
Security Service, Research and Information Team, House of Commons London
SW1A 0AA or [3][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure that you specify
the full reasons for your complaint or internal review along with any
arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

Following an internal review, if the decision to apply section 34
(parliamentary privilege) of the FOIA is upheld, a certificate signed by
the Speaker may be issued.  This certificate provides conclusive evidence
that the exemption was required for the purpose described in our response.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[4]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[5]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

[6]Find out more about the General Data Protection Regulation and its
impact in the first year.

 

 

 

From: Mark Taylor <[FOI #595881 email]>
Sent: 07 August 2019 23:31
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Emails leaked to the Daily Mail,
relayed to Parliament, Alleging Blackmail by Jeffrey Epstein

 

Dear House of Commons,
This may have to be directed to the Treasury Select Committee, or the
information could be found in the email archive of John Mann or Mark
Garnier held by Parliament.

On 2nd Nov 2015, The Times reported that the Daily Mail had been leaked
emails from Jeffrey Epstein to Parliament or some connected source to
blackmail Parliament into accepting Jes Staley as CEO for Barclays.
Subsequently in August 2019 it was reported by Bloomberg that Staley had
visited Epstein in prison and also on his island, travelling to the latter
on Epstein's yacht.

URL for the Times article is here:
[7]https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mps-e...

In the Daily Mail article John Mann MP and Mark Garnier MP were reported
to have told the Daily Mail that Staley ought to face a grilling session
as a result of the threats Epstein was alleged to have made to blackmail
Parliament to accept his friend Staley as CEO of Barclays.

1. I would like a copy of any email disclosed to Parliament by the Daily
Mail that forms the basis of these allegations

2. The recipient list of the emails, and any other meta data in the
original copies sent to Parliament or the Treasury Select Committee or its
members.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Anthony Taylor

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #595881 email]

Is [9][House of Commons request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Commons,
Can you please tell me the indivudal(s) who gave the order to apply section 34 to my request? I note that no FOI officer signed off the reply to the FOIA response.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

Thank you for you email and you further question.

 

We will be responding to you query shortly.

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

[2]Find out more about the General Data Protection Regulation and its
impact in the first year.

 

 

 

From: Mark Taylor <[FOI #595881 email]>
Sent: 07 September 2019 17:48
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Emails leaked
to the Daily Mail, relayed to Parliament, Alleging Blackmail by Jeffrey
Epstein

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Can you please tell me the indivudal(s) who gave the order to apply
section 34 to my request? I note that no FOI officer signed off the reply
to the FOIA response.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 7 September 2019,
received by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 4 October 2019.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

[2]Find out more about the General Data Protection Regulation and its
impact in the first year.

 

 

From: Mark Taylor <[FOI #595881 email]>
Sent: 07 September 2019 17:48
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: New request

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Can you please tell me the indivudal(s) who gave the order to apply
section 34 to my request? I note that no FOI officer signed off the reply
to the FOIA response.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

show quoted sections

FOI Commons, House of Commons

Dear Mr Taylor,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F19-433

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below.  Further to
our response to your original request for information from the Treasury
Committee of the House of Commons, you have now asked us to provide you
with a name of the “individual(s) who gave the order to apply section 34
to [your] request”, which we have sought to answer below.

 

Firstly, let us explain that the section 34 exemption in the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is applied when and only when disclosure would
constitute a breach of the privileges of either House of Parliament, in
this case the House of Commons, in the shape of one of its committees: the
Treasury Committee.  A breach of those privileges is commonly referred to
as a ‘contempt.’  Erskine May (the authoritative guide on parliamentary
procedure) states at para 38.56,  ‘Any disclosure of written evidence or a
committee’s internal working papers which has not been authorised by the
committee may be treated as a contempt.’ Therefore any information which
might be held by the Treasury Committee but which it had not itself
decided to publish would be exempt under section 34, to protect the
Committee’s privilege.

 

The information you require is held by the House of Commons.

 

 

FOIA requests to the House of Commons are answered by the relevant part of
the administration, in this case the staff of the Treasury Committee, but
any use of the section 34 exemption is authorised by the Clerk of the
Journals, Mark Hutton.

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request complain to the
House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the outcome
of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an internal
review of any decision regarding your request. Complaints or requests for
internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights and Information
Security Service, Research and Information Team, House of Commons London
SW1A 0AA or [1][House of Commons request email].  Please ensure that you specify
the full reasons for your complaint or internal review along with any
arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

Following an internal review, if the decision to apply section 34
(parliamentary privilege) of the FOIA is upheld, a certificate signed by
the Speaker may be issued.  This certificate provides conclusive evidence
that the exemption was required for the purpose described in our response.

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[2]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Joanna Antoniewska | IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Tel: 0207 219 4810 | Text Relay: 18001 219 4810 | Sixth Floor, 14 Tothill
St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[3]Supporting a thriving parliamentary democracy

[4]Find out more about the General Data Protection Regulation and its
impact in the first year

 

From: Mark Taylor <[5][FOI #595881 email]>
Sent: 07 September 2019 17:48
To: FOI Commons <[6][email address]>
Subject: New request

 

Dear FOI Commons,
Can you please tell me the indivudal(s) who gave the order to apply
section 34 to my request? I note that no FOI officer signed off the reply
to the FOIA response.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Taylor

show quoted sections

J Rossouw left an annotation ()

Mr Taylor, do you know if J Epstein and/or J Staley met with Andrew Bailey, or any other senior executive from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), at the time of considering J Staley as the next Barclays CEO (2015)?

J Staley, still Barclays CEO in 2018, was relatively speaking ‘let off the hook’ by the same Andrew Bailey (when he was still CEO of the FCA) with what many people considered to be a ‘small change’ fine for J Staley (fine in the region of £600k). The public interest concern reported at the time was that J Staley should have been sanctioned under the FCA’s new SMCR, but was not; this despite all the additional information the FCA had about J Staley which was withheld from the public. If there was blackmail (speculative) at the time of J Staley’s appointment as CEO, was there blackmail again around the protection of J Staley in 2018, when the FCA should have properly sanctioned him, but failed to according to public interest concern reported again at the time?

Also, why did the FCA fail to properly investigate J Staley’s links with J Epstein at the relevant points? Were they just ‘asleep at the wheel’? The FCA were aware of the problem of J Epstein’s notoriety, criminal conviction, and the friendship with J Staley before it was made public by the British Virgin Islands Authorities. At this point they were supposedly investigating J Staley for more than a year with no findings!

It seems Andrew Bailey has consistently upheld J Staley. Why and what relationship does/did Andrew Bailey hold with J Staley and/or J Epstein (now deceased), through the relevant years (and to date with J Staley)? There are more questions than answers here. It needs a good investigative journalist to get to the answers in my opinion.

Mark Taylor left an annotation ()

Dear Ms Rossouw,
I believe Martin Wheatley and Tracey McDermott would have been responsible for allowing Staley to take the helm of Barclays, as Bailey was not the Chief Executive of the FCA until July of 2016.
I do not have proof that Bailey knew about Epstein and Staley’s relationship, but it would be absurd for him to claim ignorance when it was in the public domain in 2015, and it would have been his duty to challenge Staley.

Also, I have written a number of letters to the Treasury Select Committee and the Justice Select Committee regarding Staley, particularly the FOIA responses for on this website in my name regarding Staley. Nobody on either committee was in ignorance of Staley’s blackmail. Parliament confirmed it had received and studied my documents.

The following is a list of members/former members of the FCA, the NCA and other parties that knew Epstein’s ring was laundering money through Deutsche Bank and using the blackmail operation to avoid prosecution in Germany of the UK:

Dave Eaton dave.eaton@fca.org.uk
Graeme Biggar Graeme.Biggar@nca.gov.uk
Dave Eaton Dave.Eaton@fca.org.uk
Liam Ccoleman" liam.coleman@fca.org.uk
Bernadette Conroy Bernadette.conroy@fca.org.uk
Jeanette Lichner Jeanette.lichner@fca.org.uk
Alice Maynard alice.maynard@fca.org.uk
Charles Randell charles.randell@fca.org.uk
Nnikhil Rrathi nikhil.rathi@fca.org.uk
Tommaso Valletti tommaso.valletti@fca.org.uk
Sam Woods sam.woods@fca.org.uk
Clare Montgomery claremontgomery@matrixlaw.co.uk
The Office of the Attorney General correspondence@attorneygeneral.gov.uk
Dominic Raab ps.dominicraab@justice.gov.uk

They all received an email from me on 23rd January 2022 with id: CANCCXD609YQstO5yzx6nzMMYUK83F4c6frmi=RJKiF5xkC5LHw@mail.gmail.com

The executive FCA had asked me for the email and delegated Dave Eaton to handle it. Eaton’s last email to me was on the 21st January 2022. After that he stonewalled my emails.

The following judges all knew about the Epstein-Staley paedophile ring in 2017 and refused to challenge Staley:

HHJ David James Stewart Worster
Former judge HHJ Martin McKenna

In 2022, the following judges all knew about Staley’s blackmail of Parliament and did nothing except block litigation that attempted to expose it:
Master Judge of the Court of Appeal - Marie Bankroft Rimmer
Maser Judge of the Court of Appeal – Sally Elizabeth Meacher
Lord Justice Stephen Martin Males
Lord Ian Duncan Burnett

Jamie Dimon, Jes Staley and Anshu Jain were all laundering money for Jeffrey Epstein’s paedophile ring at one time or another.

It is clear that the blackmail operation not only was against Parliament, but the Judiciary, the regulators and international prosecutors.

I believe the blackmail operation is still in effect – as the FCA and PRA refuse to hold Staley to account for Epstein having him put into power. Since Epstein is dead that only leaves Staley as the blackmailer.

No investigative journalist has responded to the FOIAs, and many were contacted.

List of newspaper that refuse to cover the FOIAs:
The Financial Times. (The husband of Brooke Alison Masters, NY editor for the FT is married to John Leo Farry, General Counsel of Deutsche Bank. The bank was laundering to Epstein’s ring.
The Daily Mail, the Express, the Socialist Worker website, the Morning Star, The Sun, The Mirror, the Sunday Mail, Bloomberg, AP, Reuters, The Times, the BBC, the New York Post, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Miami Herald, Forbes, the Daily Beast, the Independent.

List of UK political organizations that refuse to cover the FOIAs:
The Liberal Party, The Labour Party, the Conservatives, The Green Party, UKIP, The BNP, The SNP, Sinn Fein, The UDP, the English Democrats, Respect, The Communist Party of Great Britain.

Given the scale of money laundering from the Russian Mafia that was handled by Deutsche Bank ($1.4 trillion), while it had Epstein on the books, we can assume that all the parties, right, left, nationalist, socialist or otherwise, had been corrupted, along with all the press.

The following parties in Gina Miller’s judicial review were aware of Deutsche Bank’s fake bullion audits during the review, and that Deutsche Bank was Gina Miller’s former business partner. Their role in the hearing is prepended to their name in parenthesis.

(Attorney General) Jeremy Wright
(Lord Chancellor) Elizabeth Truss
(Lord Chief Justice) Baron Thomas
(Lord Justice) Terence Etherton
(Lord Justice) Phillip Sales
(President of the Supreme Court) David Neuberger
(Prime Minister) Theresa May

As you can see were Deutsche Bank demanding the EU a liquidity fund of €133 billion at the time, and also laundering money for Epstein’s blackmail ring, it was able to corrupt both all sides of the Judicial Review. This would have exposed they named parties to further blackmail.

Everyone on Exiting the EU Select Committee knew that all parties in the Miller hearing had covered up Deutsche Bank’s bullion frauds. Nobody held any of the judges or anyone in government to account.

Regards
Mark Anthony Taylor

J Rossouw left an annotation ()

Mr Taylor thank you for your reply.

Andrew Bailey was the Deputy Governor of Prudential Regulation and Chief Executive Officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) at the Bank of England in 2015.

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is responsible for the prudential regulation and supervision of banks, building societies, credit unions, insurers and major investment firms. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is responsible for the conduct regulation of all financial services firms and the prudential regulation of those not supervised by the PRA.

The PRA and FCA are two separate entities but they work closely together on certain issues/firms.

Andrew Bailey was in the mix (from 2015 and earlier).

He has been a common denominator all the way through - just in different roles of power holding.

That is all I want to mention. Thank you for your reply.

Mark Taylor left an annotation ()

Jon Thompson was head of HMRC when I sent him the emails in 2016 exposing Deutsche Bank's money laundering. He ordered the SFO to begin an investigation. It was given the case number #9551. The SFO was instructed to quash the investigation. I believe this was ordered by Jeremy Wright, who was Attorney General at the time. There was no denial from his office staff that this was the case. The SFO refused to admit who ordered the quashing of the investigation.

Thompson later went on to head the PRA and stonewalled my emails that exposed Staley. Clearly the PRA knew what was happening and let Staley run Barclays anyway, and refuses to challenge him on the blackmail.