Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng and what other material has she published related to Epstein or political figures?
Executive summary
Lisa Noelle Voldeng is a Canadian Substack writer who runs the newsletter "Outlaws of Chivalry" and has drawn international attention for posting unverified audio interviews attributed to an alleged Jeffrey Epstein survivor named Sasha (or Sascha) Riley; media coverage consistently notes the recordings and the allegations they contain have not been independently verified [1] [2] [3]. Voldeng says she conducted phone interviews in July 2025 and later published a briefing with unredacted audio and a mapped selection of incidents she describes as evidence, while critics and mainstream outlets urge caution because no court or police confirmation has been produced [4] [5] [3].
1. Who is Lisa Noelle Voldeng: Substack identity and public profile
Voldeng is presented across multiple reports as a prominent Substack creator and the author of the newsletter Outlaws of Chivalry, with her online bio locating her on Vancouver Island, Canada, and describing her work as spanning broad historical and cultural themes [1] [2] [6] [3]. Her Substack profile and the About page attached to her site frame her as an independent writer who publishes long-form material and "briefings," which positions her as an alternative‑media publisher rather than a credentialed investigative reporter working for legacy outlets [5] [3]. The attention she now receives stems less from prior mainstream scoops than from her choice to host and disseminate incendiary, unverified audio material that rapidly circulated on social networks and niche forums [6] [3].
2. The Riley recordings: what Voldeng published and when
Voldeng says she recorded a series of phone interviews with a man identified as Sasha (sometimes spelled Sascha) Riley between July 19 and July 24, 2025, and later released a "briefing" containing six unedited audio recordings and supporting material described on Substack as Part 1 (unedited audio) and Part 2 (selected incidents mapped to evidence) [7] [4] [5]. Multiple outlets reporting on the viral audio summarize that these files contain allegations that link Riley’s account to Jeffrey Epstein and name several high‑profile figures; those outlets uniformly emphasize that the tapes and the assertions within remain unverified by independent authorities [1] [2] [8] [3]. Voldeng has claimed publicly that additional evidence exists and that Riley was moved "to safety" after an alleged FBI contact, but those claims have not been corroborated in public records cited by major news organizations [2] [3].
3. Other material Voldeng has published related to Epstein or political figures
Beyond the Riley audio, Voldeng’s Substack output as cited in reporting appears focused on publishing the full audio briefing and a mapped selection of incidents she says connect Riley’s testimony to broader allegations tied to the "Trump/Epstein orbit," and she has framed these posts as being released in the public interest [4] [5] [3]. Secondary reporting and commentary threads note she has offered unredacted recordings and stated a willingness to present supporting evidence, but the public portfolio described in the sources is primarily the Riley material rather than a back catalogue of independent Epstein investigations or authenticated document dumps [6] [4] [3]. Discussion in forums and analysis pieces has also amplified her posts, turning her Substack into the central repository for these specific allegations while mainstream outlets continue to treat the content as unverified and newsworthy mainly for the names involved [6] [9] [3].
4. Reception, skepticism and the broader media context
Reporting makes clear there is a twofold reaction to Voldeng’s publications: supporters and forums amplify the recordings as a revelation about alleged trafficking rings, while reputable outlets and many analysts urge caution because there is no independent verification, no public legal filings tied to the tapes, and serious reputational stakes for the named public figures [1] [2] [6] [3]. Some writeups explicitly note ethical questions about releasing unredacted alleged victim recordings and emphasize that mainstream verification—police reports, court filings, or corroborating documents—has not been produced as of the cited coverage [6] [3]. The sources used here do not provide independent confirmation of the allegations or a broader dossier of earlier investigative reporting by Voldeng into Epstein‑linked figures; they document a single, high‑impact publication and the attendant controversy [1] [2] [5].