Substack Removes Four Epstein Articles on Behalf of Nicole Junkermann

Nicole Junkermann, a confirmed associate of Jeffrey Epstein, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and Ehud Barak has spent 6 years using lawyers to delete my journalism. Will Substack reinstate them?

In 2019, I entered the Epstein case when I reported on his previously unknown connections to Nicole Junkermann, a millionaire German entrepreneur who flew on the infamous Lolita Express multiple times.

She was invested in a Mossad Unit 8200 front company called Carbyne911. That company had received initial investment from Nicole Junkermann, Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel and the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. Nicole Junkermann, now known as Countess Brachetti Peretti, was also on Carbyne911’s Board of Directors, alongside Barak and Pinchas Buchris, who was the former Commander of the IDF’s Unit 8200. When Nicole Junkermann became part of the UK’s NHS Healthtech Advisory Board, led by UK Member of Parliament Matt Hancock, I decided to expose her connections to Jeffrey Epstein as a matter of public interest journalism.

However, Junkermann wasn’t only involved in the Epstein scandal. She had also been centrally involved in a FIFA corruption scandal concerning bids for future World Cup international broadcasting rights; she had been named in the Panama Papers scandal, and she was becoming one of the most significant investors in the tech industry. She has since sold one of her satellite companies to SpaceX in return for a stake in Elon Musk’s company. When Junkermann started meeting the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, and became part of an official UK Parliamentary advisory unit, she also should have expected public scrutiny. However, Nicole Junkermann does not believe she has to play by the rules; she does not like to be held to account, and she uses her vast wealth and her elite legal teams to censor journalists instead.

When she first started using legal teams to censor my work, I was inexperienced and in disarray. I am not a wealthy elite, I don’t make a profit from my journalism, and I live a relatively frugal lifestyle. I was often caught with my proverbial pants around my ankles as she had my work deleted online. Vocal.Media bent to her whim, Whitney Webb’s UnlimitedHangout changed the date on my initial article in an attempt to avoid legal repercussions, YouTube deleted all the interviews about Junkermann, Flickr deleted my entire account, and even Rumble deleted all my Junkermann article read-throughs without even allowing me to object. On some platforms, she accused defamation. If that didn’t work, then she would use DMCA requests, and sometimes neither was applied, and my work was simply deleted.

There are a couple of notable mentions. Only a few Big Tech companies took my side. TikTok was one of the platforms to temporarily remove content before reinstating it after my response. Also, Trustpilot removed my review of Revolut, a company Nicole Junkermann is invested in, along with my notes about her associations, after they received my response. Still, most of the Big Tech giants involved bent over and took it.

So, when Substak removed four of my posts on 25 October 2025, I thought it’d be worth making the process public. Not only for the record, but to show you how I have to respond and to help other journalists fight against such surreptitious, disingenuous, and underhanded actions.

I will show you the original DMCA Removal Notification I’ve received from Substack, and I will also show my response. On this occasion, Nicole Junkermann’s legal team have falsely claimed that she has copyright over a screenshot from a public website. Interestingly, one of the videos she has had Substack remove is entitled Epstein List #4 with ‪@JohnnyVedmore‬ – Epstein’s High-Level Israeli Intelligence Partners, which is currently still available to watch on YouTube, X, TikTok, Facebook, Rumble, and NEWSPASTE.com.

Within this short video is a cropped screenshot showing the public Board of Directors of Carbyne911. It is totally legal for me to use this screenshot, especially while I critique the companies’ award of public contracts in the US and UK, which are funded by the taxpayers. Do not think that this information is protected by copyright law; it isn’t, and Nicole Junkermann’s legal team knows this perfectly well. In fact, here is a list of links to appropriate case law and legal guidance, which shows legal precedent:

As you will see from my official response to the Substack Team, the use of transformed screenshots when reporting on cases of public interest is considered Fair Use.

Below is the notice I received from Substack:

Subject: Substack Standards & Enforcement – Post Removed Due to Valid DMCA Infringement Notice

Alastair (Substack, Inc)

Oct 25, 2025, 5:00 PM EDT

To Whom It May Concern:

This message is to notify you that the Support team at Substack has taken down your post at the following links, pending the resolution of an allegation of copyright infringement.

https://newspaste.substack.com/p/nicole-junkermann-the-idf-linked
https://newspaste.substack.com/p/epstein-list-4-with-johnnyvedmore
https://newspaste.substack.com/p/musk-and-epstein-the-third-culture
https://newspaste.substack.com/p/epstein-101-espionage-and-dynasty

Consistent with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Substack removes allegedly infringing content when we receive a DMCA-compliant “takedown request.” On Monday Oct. 21st 2025, Substack received a DMCA-compliant takedown request from Michael A. Oakes, on behalf of Nicole Junkermann alleging copyright infringement.

Please read the following carefully, as it describes your right to counter this DMCA action as well as the risks of doing so.

Under the DMCA, you have the right to respond to this allegation of infringement by sending us a counter notification detailing why you believe your use of this content is not infringing. We recommend you use this form to submit any DMCA counter notification. If you would prefer to submit your counter notification in writing, please refer to our copyright dispute policy and the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3) to ensure your submission is actionable. If you’re looking for guidance on preparing a counterclaim, we think that the guide produced by Github is a good one.

Upon receipt of a counterclaim, Substack must notify the complaining party and send them a copy of your counterclaim. The complaining party then has 10 days to file a legal action seeking a court order and send Substack evidence that it has done so.

If you file a counterclaim and the complaining party fails to provide Substack evidence of a pending court case within ten days, Substack will re-publish the disputed content.

The decision to file a counter notification is yours alone. Keep in mind that while a counter notification may result in the reactivation of your post, the rightsholder in question may instead respond by filing a lawsuit. Please note that Substack has adopted a repeat infringer policy that will, in appropriate circumstances, terminate the user accounts of repeat copyright infringers.

Finally, you should know that Substack offers legal support to writers that are facing threats as a result of their work through our Defender program. More details about eligibility and how to apply for assistance are available here.

Thank you for using Substack!

Alastair 

Substack

In response to this Takedown Notice, I have had to detail all of the specifics. To reply to each DMCA Takedown Request takes about 2 hours, which is part of Junkermann’s strategy. They assume that I won’t take the time to respond to each. However, I intend to fight her every step of the way.

This is my response to one of the Takedown Notices:

October 25, 2025

Substack Inc.

Attn: Designated DMCA Agent

111 Sutter Street, Suite 650

San Francisco, CA 94104

Email: legal@substack.com

Re: Counter-Notification Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 512(g) – Restoration of Removed Content

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to submit a counter-notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 512(g), in response to the DMCA takedown notice dated 25th October 2025, which resulted in the removal of a video from my Substack post titled Epstein List #4 with @JohnnyVedmore – Epstein’s High-Level Israeli Intelligence Partners. This removal was erroneous, as my use of the material constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Identification of Removed Material:

The removed material is a single screenshot image embedded in a video in the aforementioned post, originally published on 4th August 2025. The post was accessible at https://newspaste.substack.com/p/epstein-list-4-with-johnnyvedmore. The screenshot depicts a publicly available webpage from Carbyne911, under its publicly available webpage entitled “Team”, which has since been archived and is no longer live in its original form. A copy of the removed image and the full post are attached as Exhibit A.

Statement of Good Faith Belief:

I have a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

Specifically: The Material is a Screenshot from a Publicly Available Website: The image is a faithful capture of a webpage that was openly accessible to the public at the time of capture. Screenshots of public websites for journalistic purposes are routinely protected under fair use, particularly when documenting information of public concern. As the original site is now archived https://web.archive.org/web/20190606162815/https://carbyne911.com/team/ its content remains a matter of public record, not private or proprietary material.

Fair Use Under 17 U.S.C. § 107: My use qualifies as fair use for news reporting, commentary, and criticism, especially given the transformative nature of the work and its focus on matters of substantial public interest.

The four statutory factors weigh decisively in favor:

Purpose and Character of the Use: This is transformative journalism, not mere reproduction. As an independent journalist, I graphically altered the screenshot by cropping the image from the publicly available site to analyze and critique the organization’s ties to high-profile figures—including Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and the complainant, Nicole Junkermann—and its acceptance of public contracts in the United States and her involvement in the United Kingdoms NHS, as well as her involvement in a FIFA corruptions case, the Panama Papers scandal, and her multiple recorded trips on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express. This adds new expression, insight, and commentary on potential conflicts of interest in tech and national security funding, transforming the raw screenshot into an illustrative tool for public discourse. Such uses are explicitly favored for news reporting and criticism. Courts have upheld similar transformative screenshot uses in journalistic contexts as fair, even in commercial media settings.

Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The original webpage is factual and informational showing the high profile Board of Directors of Carbyne911. This included former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Commander of the IDF’s elite Unit8200 Cyber Unit Pinchas Buchris, and Nicole Junkermann herself, it’s not highly creative fiction, which reduces the level of protection. Publicly posted business disclosures like these are entitled to lesser copyright safeguards.

Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: I used only the necessary portion of the webpage cropped to focus on the Board of Directors, and my alterations further minimize any substantial reproduction by integrating it into a broader analytical narrative. This minimized and targeted use is justified for illustrative purposes in reporting.

Effect on the Potential Market: There is no harm to any potential market for the original work. The screenshot does not serve as a substitute for the archived webpage; instead, it promotes public awareness and may drive interest toward the organization’s disclosures. As a journalistic post on Substack, it competes with no licensing market for such factual content.

Overall, this aligns with established precedents protecting journalistic screenshots for public interest reporting, where fair use safeguards free speech and the public’s right to know. Attached as Exhibit B is a detailed fair use analysis memorandum, including references to U.S. Copyright Office guidelines and relevant case law.

Consent to Jurisdiction and Service of Process:

I consent to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California (the district in which Substack resides).

I will accept service of process from the complainant (Nicole Junkermann or her authorized agent) in that judicial district.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on October 25, 2025, at Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. John Vedmore

John Oliver Lewis Vedmore

Attachments: Exhibit A1 and A2: Copy of removed screenshot and redacted post.

Exhibit B: Fair Use Analysis Memorandum (including evidence of public availability, archive link, and annotations).

Exhibit C: Screenshots or documentation of the original public webpage and funding disclosures documenting Junkermann’s ties to Carbyne911.`

One of the articles Substack has removed only has a passing mention of Junkermann

Alongside the above response to the DMCA Takedown, I also included exhibits to prove my contentions. One of those should be documented here also. It is a list of links from various official sources which back up my claims.

Links and Sources Proving Nicole Junkermann’s Involvement in Carbyne911

Nicole Junkermann, a London-based investor and founder of NJF Holdings/NJF Capital, has been linked to Carbyne (a public safety technology company focused on next-generation 911/emergency response systems) through investments and a board role. Carbyne was originally founded as Reporty Homeland Security in 2014 and rebranded to Carbyne (sometimes stylised as Carbyne911) in early 2018. Evidence of her involvement primarily stems from company announcements, archived websites, and investigative reports. Her venture capital fund (NJF Capital) participated in funding rounds, and she served as a director starting around 2016–2017. Specific investment amounts are not publicly detailed, but her stake is confirmed via board appointments and portfolio listings.

Key connections include co-investors like former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (chairman and co-founder) and ties to Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund. Below is a compilation of links, documentation, and evidence from credible sources.

Note: Some details appear in investigative journalism (e.g., Unlimited Hangout, Johnny Vedmore).

Carbyne’s Wikipedia entry confirms the name change from Reporty Homeland Security and Junkermann’s role. “Reporty Homeland Security… rebranded [to Carbyne] in early 2018.” “International tech investor Nicole Junkermann joined the board in 2017 after her venture capital fund invested in the company.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbyne_(company)

TechCrunch reference: Carbyne raises $15M for its next-gen 911 service, as Founders Fund invests in its first Israeli startup… Founders Fund invests (Aug 2018) – https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/14/carbyne-raises-15m-for-its-next-gen-911-service-as-founders-fund-invests-in-its-first-israeli-startup/

Calcalistech (Ctech) article on Ehud Barak’s network details her investment and board role.

“In 2017, Junkermann was appointed to Carbyne’s board of directors, where she serves alongside Barak…” She “participated in Carbyne’s funding rounds,” including a “$50 million Series C round in 2016.”

Ctech: The Ties That Bind: Ehud Barak’s Business Network (Jul 2019) – https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3766639,00.html

Archived Company Page (Direct Evidence) – Archived Reporty website lists her as a director pre-rebranding. The “Team” page shows Nicole Junkermann as “Director” alongside Barak and others. This is the primary documentation of her early involvement in Reporty Homeland Security. – https://web.archive.org/web/20170123154036/http://reporty.com/team

Unlimited Hangout investigative report lists Reporty as part of her portfolio, with board confirmation. “Junkermann’s investment portfolio includes Reporty Homeland Security, which became Carbyne911.” “Nicole Junkermann is one of the directors of Carbyne…” References her personal site for investments. Promotional video: “Nicole Junkermann presents Carbyne.”

Unlimited Hangout: The Epstein Associate Nobody’s Talking About (May 2022) – https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/05/investigative-reports/the-epstein-associate-nobodys-talking-about-the-idf-linked-bond-girl-infiltrating-the-uk-nhs/

Johnny Vedmore’s article cites her dual investment (personal + NJF Capital) and original board role.

“She was one of the only members of the original Carbyne911 board… invested in with both her private equity firm, NJF Capital, and with personal investment.” Notes her “very active role” initially; later removed from site.

Johnny Vedmore: Nicole Junkermann 3.0: Model or Mossad? (Mar 2020) – https://johnnyvedmore.com/2020/03/15/nicole-junkermann-3-0-model-or-mossad-carbyne911-their-covid-app-world-3-0-how-to-censor-news/

Forbes Mention in Funding Context – Forbes article on Carbyne’s COVID-era adoption references her as an investor. “NJF Capital founder Nicole Junkermann” joined advisors/investors, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund, for Carbyne’s 911 app rollout.

Forbes: To Fight Coronavirus… New Orleans is Using a 911 App Backed by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund (Mar 2020) – https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2020/03/17/to-fight-coronavirus-new-orleans-is-using-a-911-app-backed-by-peter-thiels-founders-fund/

Additional Notes

Total Funding Context: Carbyne has raised over $100M across rounds (e.g., $15M in 2018 with Founders Fund). Junkermann’s stake is via NJF Capital, but exact figures aren’t disclosed in public filings.

Reporty Homeland Security Board of Directors Archived Page

Carbyne911 Board of Directors Archived Page https://web.archive.org/web/20190606162815/https://carbyne911.com/team/

These are Johnny Vedmore’s Junkermann Articles with all sources included via links within the documents:

Nicole Junkermann: The IDF-linked Bond Girl Infiltrating the UK NHS – https://newspaste.com/2019/07/18/nicole-junkerman-the-idf-linked-bond-girl-infiltrating-the-uk-nhs/

Epstein & Junkermann: September 1, 2002 – The Secret Senators and the Wexner War on Iraq – https://newspaste.com/2019/08/15/epstein-junkermann-september-1-2002-the-secret-senators-and-the-wexner-war-on-iraq/

Nicole Junkermann 3.0: Model or Mossad? – https://newspaste.com/2020/03/15/nicole-junkermann-3-0-model-or-mossad/

The third of my Epstein articles is due to go up on Substack in a few days, and it will also receive a similar DMCA Takedown Request.

So, will Substack respect Fair Use? Will they reinstate the posts and protect a journalist’s right to report on matters of significant public interest?

I have made Substack central to my work recently. I have hope that they are different. Many people have told me that they are on the side of journalists, and we’ll soon see.

Being a journalist in the modern world is becoming harder and harder, especially when we’re reporting on intelligence-linked Epstein associates who often own the Big Tech platforms where journalists like me ply our trade. When I reported on X about Musk and Epstein’s relationship, they put a limiter on my account to hide my work, and they even informed me they were doing it. Platforms like Substack have become the frontlines of the 5th Generation Warfare, which fill our many screens.

I am a grunt in the trenches, and I need your help to survive.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donate $10 One Time to NEWSPASTE
Donate $20 Monthly to NEWSPASTE
Donate $10 Monthly to NEWSPASTE