Re:

could i have your views whether you think this type of expositions (ignore typos and grammar) is useful for a complaint

Over the past 10 years, Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of a repetitive stream the punching bag of tabloid publicity, improperly released police reports, wildly exaggerated (and if not contained in court proceedings they would be defamatory) litigation pleadings and vile media stories relating to his payment to young women, each that came to his home, to perform erotic massages. Females, some of whom unbeknownst to him were reported to be underage, for sexually charged massages most of whom came back time and again. Including calling asking for a time to return. In a community where 50 massage parlors offered the same service, and where many of the girls actually worked. However Florida has a statute, (3) IGNORANCE OR BELIEF OF VICTIM'S AGE.—The perpetrator's ignorance of the victim's age, the victim's misrepresentation of his or her age, or the perpetrator's bona fide belief of the victim's age cannot be raised as a defense in a prosecution under this section.

that says misrepresentation of age is NOT a defense. Putting the in some cases impossible burden on a defendant. Being shown drivers licenses from a women with piercing (18 years old required). Or works in a strip club, or bar (the two plaintiffs currently suing the govt. after taking advantage of the very same agreement that they now want to overturn, having received hundreds of thousands of dollars as a direct compulsory term of that very same agreement they now seek to overturn.

Turning local prostitution into the heinous crime of SEX TRAFFICKING was the goal of book. Sex trafficking gets attention, local prostitution, a state crime, would not have gotten her TV interviews.

From the very beginning, Due to Mr Epstein's wealth and prominence these reports, pleadings and stories have been tabloid fodder rife with exaggeration, omission, and outright falsehoods. Though over a decade has passed W the they told, which is and only ever really was a story about a wealthy Palm Beach john who frequently solicited local prostitution, became old news, some financially and politically motivated private individuals, lawyers and journalists have kept the story alive in a financially motivated attempt to breathe new life into it.

One of the most egregious in order to create a false and wildly exaggerated tale. She creates a delusion of and their participation in SEX trafficking and other detestable criminal behavior in order to sell books. Nothing more truth.

For a variety of legitimate reasons, including ongoing litigation unfairly seeking to invalidate Mr. Epstein's agreement with federal prosecutors and have him criminally prosecuted for the same events a second time, Epstein's express desire to limit further turmoil to those with whom he interacted in the scandal and those around him who had no part in it, and the seeming futility in trying to provide sorely needed balance to a story that has been spun completely off its axis, Mr. Epstein and his representatives have deliberately remained silent not given any interviews about these events. In fact they have remained so quiet that So much so that in January 2015, Jean Luc Brunel, a modeling agent, long time friend of Mr Epstein, who is also unfairly and falsely reviled portrayed, without any evidence whatsoever, as a sex trafficker in 's abhorrent creation, sued Epstein for filing to publicly renounce these false allegations leveled against Epstein and him, including those perpetuated by. In her book She makes wild accusations against an industry that legitimately hires young women to model. And, for obvious reasons, a dearth of individuals willing to risk their own reputations to defend persons and offensive events depicted with ever increasing severity, a vacuum has been created to allow, a shameless and delusional self-promoter, to peddle to a voracious but unsuspecting public an infantile distortion in the name of human rights. is a frighteningly irresponsible compilation of untested fantastical allegations, unsupportable assumptions, shoddily pieced together circumstantial evidence and paranoid speculation. It is poorly researched, carelessly sourced and alarmingly inaccurate. Though presented in style that includes fake footnotes in most chapters. Many of which upon researching do not exist.

clearly establish that: tells a tale of her having recently been terrified during an investigation in Mexico into true sex trafficking and government corruption, She says she read a few articles in which the lawyers representing few women prosecuting in civil cases against Epstein where were trying to create public pressure on Epstein. What is clear from her narrative is that from the beginning she assumed the truth of every negative statement asserted against Epstein and his associates and as a result of her first hand experience of government corruption and sex trafficking, immediately assumed similar conduct taking place in the Epstein case. All the research she conducted thereafter was clearly informed by this pre-conceived and her completely erroneous notion that Epstein's wealth and power were used to insulate him and his associates from the consequences of a serious criminal activity.

She draws her "facts" and conclusions from very obviously biased and unreliable sources without any scrutiny, due diligence or professional journalistic objectivity, choosing to accept without question any and all negative allegations against Mr. Epstein and his associates and to fully discard any and all evidence that demonstrates an absence of credibility of her sources or the implausibility of the information they provide.

Acting with full knowledge of her publishers skepticism and warnings and with clear malice in the face of so many voices saying your story is inaccurate, ██████ should have heeded those warnings as the numerous defamatory statements in ████████ have severely and irreparably damaged the reputations of Plaintiffs, two innocents unfairly caught in its destructive wake.

As has been reported over and over for the past 10 years. In March 2005 the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein when the father and stepmother of complained to police about a visit by their 14-year old daughter to Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home. What has not been reported is that Mr. and Mrs. informed police that they believed inappropriate conduct may have occurred between Mr. Epstein and their daughter. The police interviewed who had visited Mr. Epstein's home only once, but brought no charges after interviewing her, though monitored activity at Mr. Epstein's home through sporadic surveillance and occasional trash pulls.

There are several reasons that explain this result. told the Palm Beach Police on more than one occasion that she was instructed by the woman who brought her to Mr. Epstein's home, that had to tell Mr. Epstein she was 18 years old because, if she was not 18, he would not let her into his house. also informed the Police that she did in fact tell Mr. Epstein that she was 18 years old. She also informed police that Mr. Epstein had no sexual contact with her. Mr. Epstein took a lie detector test, the results of which confirmed that told him she was 18, that he believed when she told him her age, that he never threatened in any way and that no sexual contact occurred with. In addition, who had previous run-ins with the Police, maintained a "MySpace page at the time of the investigation on which she stated that she was 18 years old, posted naked and provocative photographs, admitted to having sex. that she was not a virgin, to using drugs, and to having beaten someone up, and to having shoplifted and claimed to earn $250,000 or more.

In addition, the persons who filed the police report, father and stepmother, both had criminal records. The father had served, and the stepmother had a. Moreover, Mr. and Mrs. 's true motivation for going to the police later became apparent when they held a press conference on the courthouse steps announcing their civil lawsuit seeking substantial monetary damages from Mr. Epstein. They commenced that lawsuit without authorization from though she was now an adult. and it was ultimately dismissed. Ms. did eventually file her own lawsuit in order to profit from these events, despite the fact that she had already confirmed to the police that she lied to Mr. Epstein, specifically telling him that she was 18 years old, and that no sexual contact with him occurred [need to confirm this from transcripts] on the one occasion that she went to his house. See March 13, 2005 Transcript of Interview with at 38:21-39:4, 39:9-18.

Q: At any time, did he speak to you and does know how old you are? Did he know how old you were?

A: . . .As a matter of fact, told me to say I was 18 because said tell him you're 18 because if you're not, then he won't really let you in his house. So I said I was 18. As I was giving him a massage, he's like, how old are you? And then I was like 18. But I kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make it sound like I was lying or anything. (Sworn Police Statement of ).

Let's discuss this. It is an advocacy piece, not a factual declaration. It won't be effective as currently drafted.

Sent from my iPad