okay everyone, I'm feeling a little conflicted here. I listed and traded on this market based on the news in the lead-up, which was that new names of associates would be listed (as provided in the screenshot/tweet above, and news articles quoted in earlier comments). now, it seems that there are many names that appear in these recently-unsealed documents which are: not new, not associates (and are in fact simply mentions without any illicit activity), etc.
imo the mismatched information between news/announcement and delivery/unsealing means this market doesn't feel entirely accurate and I'm considering an N/A. I don't want anyone to feel wronged by this approach, of course, but I also worry about resolving one way or the other in contradiction to the original spirit and intention of this market.
any objections to the idea of N/Aing this?
for me, it feels like the most integrous option. I'm open to disussing.

@NyanCatpital I'm sorry to see your response to my resolution that I could have "been smarter" about this and waited to go over the list. this explanation and my DMs have always been open, though my perspective today is still the same. also, there isn't "a list" - there are hundreds of documents most of which are courtroom transcriptions that mention many people, sometimes in the context of "did this happen with xyz?" "no never"

I resolved mindfully. if you think differently I'm happy for more constructive feedback. let's be kind and insightful with one another on this platform, please?

@shankypanky I support the NA. I was able to d/l the original PDF, all 900 pages, and it's a slog. The only IMO incriminating/accusatory statements are re: people already of interest ie, Prince Andrew, nothing really new about people.

I did learn a lot about Ghislaine and Jeffrey's proclivities, though, if that should ever come in handy.

here is the list
the site is overloaded due to traffic and I can't get page 2 to load without an error, but this is where it is hosted.
page 8 goes up to more than 1200 entries

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/business/jeffrey-epstein-documents-list-names/index.html?Date=20240103&Profile=CNN+Breaking+News&utm_content=1704326184&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Resolving this yes as CNN says they have documents with 200 names

@shankypanky where's the list

@DennyVonDoom right this may have been premature as the list is released to news outlets (and officially unsealed), many outlets are reporting that they're reviewing, but I suppose this doesn't meet the requirement for being "publicly available" so I'll unresolve for now.

sorry for the rapid fire.

some discrepancy about the number of people on the list - most outlets are saying nearly 200, but I've seen 166 and 170 in other articles

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/federal-judge-orders-documents-naming-jeffrey-epsteins-associates/story?id=105779882

Looks like it’s real, but they can appeal and I’m sure that many will. I expect this will be months before all the appeals are handled

more information on this case is here

curiously, there's a notable absence of any headlines on the major (US) corporate media sites like CNN, NYT, WaPo, Fox, etc. in search results? the article above is the top result and gives more information on why this list is apparently due to be unsealed, including:

Judge Loretta Preska issued the order on Monday unsealing materials connected to the case, which will identify 177 individuals previously only referred to as John Doe or Jane Doe.

The federal judge also ordered that several of Epstein victims named in the documents should be allowed to remain anonymous, as releasing their identities would “disclose sensitive information regarding an alleged minor victim of sexual abuse who has not spoken publicly and who has maintained his or her privacy.”

The order takes effect on 1 January 2024, and gives the individuals 14 days to appeal.

@shankypanky I’ve seen CBS news and ABC news headlines.

@NicoDelon got it - thanks Nico. admittedly I was going off first page search results and didn't see the usual more substantial players there.

I misspoke in the market title - I've updated it for accuracy/clarity. the news is for associates, not clients.

Do you have a sense of how you define high profile or is this mostly just if a client list is released?

to start, I think an important distinction is that the tweet above (and what news I could find) doesn't say it's a client list but an associates list.

I'll resolve yes if a list of minimum 177 associates is released, I suppose, though from Brian's tweets it's questionable (to me?) that housekeepers on the island would be considered high profile?

I'll try to do a little more reading and update the description accordingly.