Junkermann's Strategic Lawfare Aimed At Substack Turns Farcical

The plot continuously thickens, and the thickest part appears to be Michael A. Oakes, who is Nicole Junkermann’s new Chief Communications Officer for NJF Holdings.

I requested all information concerning the DMCA and Defamation complaints Nicole Junkermann’s legal team have used to temporarily remove 4 of my articles. I say temporarily because there is no case to answer. As is required during DMCA Takedown Requests, Substack supplied me with the full complaint made against me, the supporting information, and the identity of the person making the complaint. I was expecting a proper fight; I wasn’t expecting a slam-dunk victory.

Firstly, let’s go through the complaint NJF Funding’s Michael A. Oakes made paragraph by paragraph, and my response. Some of this is wild. One of the most significant claims Michael Oakes, a former Communications Officer for big airlines such as Virgin Atlantic, makes is that Nicole Junkermann never flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s Lolita Express, while admitting that she had a previous “historic private contact” and seemingly ignoring her name on the Lolita Express Flight Manifest which was officially released in 2021 but has been online for a decade.

This is my full response to the specific claims made by Nicole Junkermann’s representative, Michael A Oakes and the DMCA/ Defamation complaint:

(Claim) I represent Nicole Junkermann and am authorised to act on her behalf. This is an actual notice that Substack is hosting content that (i) contains false and defamatory statements actionable under US law, (ii) infringes copyright under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. §512), and (iii) violates Substack’s Terms of Use prohibiting unlawful, defamatory, harassing and otherwise objectionable content.

(Response) In Direct response to these allegations:.

(i) The content does not contain false and defamatory statements. It is public interest journalism which Nicole Junkermann and NJF Funding are trying to hide from the public view. As a prominent business woman who has investments in businesses which acquire public contracts from the government, public institutions and charities, Nicole Junkermann’s business dealing with the likes of international child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, 10th Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak, the former head of the Israeli Defense Forces Unit 8200 Cyber Division, and Palantir’s Peter Thiel must be all well scrutinised. Nicole Junkermann has spent six years using strategic lawfare against my public interest journalism. I implore you to read the articles and check the sources and links which accompany each of the evidence-based pieces of investigative journalism.

(ii) Use of the carefully cropped images within all of these articles is protected under “Fair Use”. The images are accompanied by detailed and well-sourced scrutiny, critique and analysis of Nicole Junkermann’s business dealings, and her rise to such significant wealth and power. The nature of investigative journalism makes the images transformative. The meaning is enhanced by the carefully selected and presented images. This transformative nature is clearly visible to an objective view; NJF Funding’s Michael A Oakes and Nicole Junkermann show a total lack of respect for journalism and the legal protections afforded to journalists worldwide.

(iii) The content does not violate Substack‘s Terms of Use. The content is only objectionable to the complainant because it exposes Nicole Junkermann’s close relationship to the likes of Epstein, Thiel, Musk, Barak and powerful public officials. This type of deep and well-sourced investigative journalism is the cornerstone of a free society.

(Claim) For safety and evidentiary reasons, we are contacting you by email rather than via public or account-linked web portals. Ms Junkermann has faced severe, ongoing harassment and stalking from the same conspiracy theorist - necessitating multiple court injunctions - and portal submissions risk alerting the abuser and causing further unlawful harm. Email minimises that risk and preserves a clear audit trail for legal purposes.

(Response) Firstly, Michael A. Oakes is clearly using AI to respond quickly. No human being I’ve ever come across has used the term “public or account-linked web portals”. Regardless, Nicole Junkermann’s people are trying to hide her association with Jeffrey Epstein, hence why everything is cloak and dagger rather than public. It is disrespectful to use the term “conspiracy theorist” instead of journalist. Any judge on Earth would look at the articles included and see that this is fact-based journalism. For instance, the Musk & Epstein: A Third Culture, is one of the most well-sourced articles you will find on Substack. I implore you to respect the rights of a journalist not to be dehumanised and insulted simply because the complainant doesn’t like what the fact-based, public interest journalism reveals. I will be publishing all of my interactions as I have been fighting this systematic censorship and ongoing life-changing harassment from Nicole Junkermann for over 6 years.

(Claim) Judicial background

The Berlin Regional Court issued five injunctions (2019–2024) enjoining publication of specific false statements about Ms Junkermann, including allegations that she is a Mossad/Israeli intelligence operative, that she infiltrated the UK NHS and endangered citizens’ data, that she is implicated in FIFA corruption/money-laundering, and that she maintained covert ties with Jeffrey Epstein beyond a historic private contact. Certified copies are available immediately on request.

(Response) The five injunctions issued by the Berlin Regional Court, none of which I’ve received official notification, is evidence of harassment. The injunctions are called “Einstweilige Verfügung” in German, which is translated to “Interim Injunction”, a provisional (temporary) measure designed to provide quick protection while a full case plays out. However, Nicole Junkermann and NJF Funding have never taken a case against me. They use the interim order from a German Court instead of a court order. NB an “Einstweilige Verfügung” is meant to lead to a court case where a court order is issued, yet, in 6 years of using this legal mechanism, Nicole Junkermann’s people have never taken me to court for defamation. This is a perfect example of Strategic Lawfare Against Public Participation, and Michael Oakes is making an unexpected confession here. Firstly, I was unaware of 4 of these interim injunctions, and I only learnt about the first injunction from 2019 because they sent me the bill for it. All of the injunctions are nullified because they have never notified me, and, ergo, never allowed me a chance to respond. Oakes is admitting that they’ve taken out 5 injunctions but never taken me to the court case, which is meant to result from the interim injunction. This is because a judge would throw out their case. The German legal system is currently incorporating European anti-SLAPP legislation, and Nicole Junkermann’s improper use of interim injunctions will be undeniable evidence of SLAPP tactics. As a site hosting journalism, I’m sure you understand that protecting journalists from SLAPP tactics is a current and trending battle we all must play a role in. Please ask for comprehensive proof of a legal case for DMCA or defamation, rather than allowing them to use and obscure the Berlin regional court to run roughshod over protections for journalists.

In relation to Michael Oakes’ assertion that I claim Nicole Junkermann is “a Mossad/Israeli intelligence operative” as he puts it. One of my articles, just released on Substack, Nicole Junkermann 3.0 states, “As for the main question: Model or the Mossad? It is something that will be speculated on for many years to come. To be seen as a beautiful super-spy isn’t the worst fate possible. She may not even be the Mossad; she could be simply a German intelligence agent, or maybe she’s just been mixed up with some really dirty characters like Barak and Epstein.” I am a journalist. Contextually speaking, Nicole Junkermann was invested in Carbyne911. She was on the Board of Directors populated by former high-ranking officials of the Mossad, the IDF and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. On the board alongside Junkermann was Pinchas Buchris, who was the head of the IDF’s Unit 8200 Cyber Security Division, which is well renowned for obtaining public DATA illegally. The fact that NJF were advertising gaining access to NHS patient DATA via Owkin is significant and of public interest. One of Epstein’s closest associates was the 10^th Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak. He was also alongside Nicole Junkermann on the Carbyne911 Board of Directors. Nicole Junkermann was invested in Carbyne911 alongside Jeffrey Epstein, Peter Thiel, and Ehud Barak. Junkermann’s involvement in Carbyne911 was reported by Forbes and Techcrunch, hardly considered conspiracy theorists. It is also a matter of public record.

In relation to her “infiltrating the UK NHS”. If the UK public who fund the UK NHS were to discover that an associate of Jeffrey Epstein with close business ties to former Israeli agents of the Mossad, IDF, and Unit 8200, they would be up in arms. This is partly why Nicole Junkermann must censor my public interest journalism, to stop them from discovering the truth. Hence, that is, in my own opinion, surreptitious and able to be described as infiltration. The public does not know the details because they’re being systematically hidden from them. In doing so, her entrance onto the NHS Healthtech Advisory Board isn’t only possible to describe as infiltration, but it is also newsworthy and of significant public interest.

I am confused by Michael A Oakes’ statement that I’m claiming “she (Junkermann) maintained covert ties with Jeffrey Epstein beyond a historic private contact”. Firstly, it is on the public record that she was invested in Carbyne911 alongside Epstein. That contact is a matter of public record. That joint investment came nearly two decades after I first discovered they met. Secondly, Michael A Oakes has just admitted that Junkermann and Epstein had “historic private contact” yet he’s also about to deny that in the next paragraph

(Claim) Representative Substack violations

A non-exhaustive schedule of URLs is listed in Attachment A. By way of example:

“Nicole Junkermann: The IDF-linked Bond Girl Infiltrating the UK NHS - REDUX” (Vedmore, 14 Oct 2025) repeats the enjoined espionage/NHS infiltration claims and asserts that “every detail… is in the hands of the Israeli state apparatus.”

(Response) The full quote says: “Every single piece of data about you, your health issues, your blood type, the model of the wireless pacemaker keeping you alive, every detail of every embarrassing medical problem, is in the hands of the Israeli state apparatus and potentially sold off to the highest bidder. You may think that this doesn’t concern you. Why would you need to worry about a foreign far-right government who have been proven to meddle in the affairs of our country? Your data is useless to them, surely? But that’s not the world we live in any more. Big data is the modern gold rush.” I am positing the risk of “them” referred to as “Israeli State Apparatus” having access to patient DATA. I do not say “Nicole Junkermann is giving DATA to Israel”. I am allowed to posit a thought related to the topic. This is not defamation. Mr Oakes had to carefully misquote and misrepresent the entire sentence to make Countess Brachetti Peretti’s narrative fit. This is part of the ongoing effort to misrepresent journalism as misinformation to censor it.

(Claim) “Epstein 101: Espionage and Dynasty” (Vedmore, 2 Feb 2025) groups Ms Junkermann with “operatives” tied to Mossad/CIA and reprises the false “Paris–Birmingham 2002” narrative to insinuate illicit activity.

(Response) This is astounding, “reprises the false “Paris–Birmingham 2002”. Nicole Junkermann flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous Lolita Express from Paris to Birmingham, and then returned from Birmingham to Paris. Michael A Oakes is not a legal expert; he has a background in communications with an expertise in representing big airlines. Surely he knows that his client, Nicole Junkermann AKA Countess Brachetti, is clearly listed on flight logs which were partly released by U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska in the civil defamation lawsuit Virginia Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell in 2015, and were officially released in full as government exhibits during the 2021 federal criminal trial United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Is he really denying the existence of flight records showing his client, Nicole Junkermann, flew alone with Epstein from Paris to Birmingham and back? These are recognised by the US Government as those of Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous Lolita Express. I will send a copy of the flight logs, including a searchable version.

(Claim) Multiple posts by “Julimination” (July–Aug 2025) falsely allege money-laundering/FIFA corruption and intelligence activity, and embed unlicensed photographs. Several posts embed or mirror videos of the same claims.

(Response) I’ve never heard of “Julimination”. This is not an account related to my work and is just an attempt to randomly tarnish my good reputation by linking me with someone else. I don’t know this person, and I’m not linked to them. However, a German court case did find improper

(Claim) The authors openly state the material was removed by other platforms and is being re-hosted on Substack - clear evasion of prior enforcement and a breach of Substack’s ToS.

(Response) The strategic lawfare tactics, which have been Nicole Junkermann’s main weapon, have seen my work systematically censored. Rumble pulled down three of my Junkermann article read-throughs in January 2025, the platform reinstated the three videos last Thursday, and the CEO apologised to me. I am currently in negotiations with the YouTube legal team because Junkermann used the interim Berlin court orders to pull down 8 of my videos on YouTube, and then withdrew the case before it could go to court. YouTube is very likely going to reinstate the videos after negotiations are complete, as they pulled them for defamation, yet they officially admit that this would make them a publisher.

(Claim) Copyright (DMCA) notice

The posts and videos reproduce full, unaltered portraits of Ms Junkermann (and, in at least one case, an image including her minor child) without licence or consent. The rights in the works identified in Attachment B are owned by or assigned to Ms Junkermann (including works by Guillermo Voegeler and Ferdinando Brachetti Peretti). These uses are non-transformative and purely illustrative; they are not fair use.

(Response) This is a lie. The posts and videos do not reproduce full, unaltered portraits of Ms Junkermann AKA Countess Brachetti Peretti. The images are altered and transformative when combined with the analysis and critique of Junkermann. I challenge Michael Oakes to provide the original images and compare it to any of the images in the articles. The image of “her minor child” was released, showing the child’s face online by leggo.it, I didn’t use that image; I used an image where the child’s face was covered. Then I obscured the image by making it a tiny part of an image showing an investigation board. Regardless. That image is not present in any of the posts or videos Michael Oakes is challenging here. You cannot use an image from an article they are not included within their current complaint. Also, is Michael Oakes attempting to say that the investigation board is an unaltered portrait of Ms Junkermann? The other images I have gone through in detail. The majority are carefully cropped images, which are transformative and are all available online. They are not reproduced full, unaltered portraits of Junkermann. There is a range of case law which backs up my use of transformative imagery to aid in analysis and critique.

(Claim) Accordingly, we request that Substack:

Remove or disable access to the URLs listed in Attachment A and the embedded media, and prevent re-uploads of the same works and statements;

Suspend monetisation/payouts for the publications identified in Attachment A pending review. Implement a litigation hold and preserve all logs, IP data, upload histories and payment records related to these posts and accounts;

(Response) This statement proves that they are trying to demonetise my journalism and censor my work. They have opened themselves up to a lawsuit by defaming me, harassing me, censoring public interest journalism, using SLAPP tactics, perjury, and more. Do not let them censor journalism. Substack is an important platform and should not take part in this blatant act of censorship. I plead with you not to accept the strategic use of a Berlin regional court’s interim order in place of a court order. If they wanted to sue me, they’ve had 6 years, and instead they’ve used interim orders to trick platforms into believing that they’re taking me to court. I am now in communication with the German court in question, and they are supplying me with all the details, which I will then use to prove that I am a victim of Nicole Junkermann’s strategic lawfare.

Nicole Junkermann is not a victim, suffering from terrible abuse. She is a wealthy and powerful businesswoman who rejects any official accountability and misuses courts to censor public interest journalism.

Thanks for protecting Journalism

However, while checking the supporting information supplied by the inept Michael Oakes, I discovered something even more fascinating. Substack Team removed my articles on receiving the DMCA Takedown Request, but they failed to verify the claims beforehand. Oakes supplied a detailed list of complaints against more than just me. This included Frances Leader, Loud MacLeod, Etienne de la Boetie2, and Julimination, who had all reported on Junkermann, too. To back up these complaints, he supplied the supposed copyright images in a separate file entitled “Attachment B - Substack DMCA Submission Images”. However, only one of the articles of mine that they removed actually contained an image from the attachment. As Substack were only pursuing the DMCA aspect of the accusations, it meant there was absolutely no case to answer, and Substack should have verified the complaint was accurate before removing the articles.

This was my email to Substack Team

Dear Substack,

This is important. I DEMAND IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT OF ALL THE VIDEOS WHICH HAVE NO VALID DMCA COMPLAINT. The first 4 DMCA complaints are invalid because none of the posts contain any of the images which the complainant claims are in the articles. YOU CANNOT REMOVE THESE ARTICLES OR INCLUDE THEM IN THE DMCA COMPLAINT BECAUSE THE COMPLAINTS ARE VERIFIABLY NOT TRUE.

Have you not looked at the complaint before beginning this process? This is a form of harassment by SLAPP, and you are now involved because you have not done your due diligence. Substack SHOULD HAVE verified the images in the complaint were actually present within the articles affected. I want answers.

Specifically about the DMCA Claims that were made in the adjoining spreadsheet:

(Claim) Nicole Junkermann: The IDF-linked Bond Girl Infiltrating the UK NHS – REDUX - Defamation (espionage / NHS infiltration / Epstein link / corruption) • Harassment & hate-based targeting • Copyright infringement (portrait & family image, A1 & A5) • Violation of Substack ToS (defamatory, hateful, or harassing content) • DSA Art.16 (hosting of adjudicated unlawful content)

(Response) IMAGE A1 &A5 ARE NOT PRESENT AT ALL IN THIS SUBSTACK POST, HENCE THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER AND THE COMPLAINT IS ERRONEOUS

(Claim) Epstein List #4 – Epstein’s High-Level Israeli Intelligence Partners - Defamation (criminal conduct, espionage) • Copyright infringement (portrait A5) • ToS – targeted harassment • DSA Art.16 – republication of unlawful content

(Response) PORTRAIT A5 IS NOT PRESENT IN THIS POST. THE COMPLAINT IS TARGETED AND ERRONEOUS

(Claim) Epstein List #2 – Epstein’s Democrat Presidential Padawans - Defamation • ToS violation (harassment / disinformation)

(Response) THERE IS NO DMCA ISSUE WITH THIS ARTICLE

(Claim) Musk & Epstein: The Third Culture Dossier - Defamation • Copyright infringement (A3) • ToS breach – hate/disinformation

(Response) IMAGE A3 IS NOT PRESENT IN THIS CONTENT

(Claim) Epstein 101: Espionage and Dynasty - • Defamation (sexual blackmail, espionage) • ToS breach • DMCA – copyright infringment / unlicensed image (A2) -

(Response) THIS IS THE ONLY CONTENT WHICH CONTAINS ONE OF THE IMAGES MENTIONED IN THIS COMPLAINT. NB. IT IS A CROPPED VERSION WITH THE COMMENT “Nicole Junkermann invested in Carbyne911 alongside Epstein, Thiel and Barak. (Image Courtesy of Forbes)” IT IS TRANSFORMATIVE AND FAIR USE.

Substack should have checked the complaint properly before removing my work. Reinstate immediately and inform the complainant that they have no case.

Don’t let them do this again.

Yours sincerely

Johnny Vedmore

This is clearly harassment, and Michal A. Oakes ineptitude provided me with evidence of the harassment. I was previously unaware of the five temporary injunctions taken against me in Germany, and this explained how they tricked the video platforms into thinking they were taking me to court. In fact, these were preliminary injunctions which should normally lead to a court case. However, they never intended to let it go to court. If they did, the case would be kicked out quickly, and they’d expose themselves to counter-prosecutions. What Michael Oakes’ amateur legal action did was expose their arguments, their tactics, and their total disrespect for journalism.

I look forward to the opportunity to challenge them in court. Because Nicole Junkermann’s harassment of journalists is about to come home to roost.

I was left with one pertinent question: why wouldn’t they choose a legal professional to challenge me, why Michael A. Oakes? Not only does he have no legal career history or training, but he also appears to be inept.