(no subject)

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

Over the past 10 years, Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of a repetitive stream of tabloid publicity, improperly released police reports, wildly exaggerated litigation pleadings and vile media stories relating to his payment to young women, some of whom 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. However, Florida has a statute that says misrepresentation of age is NOT a defense. Putting the impossible burden on a defendant. Being shown driver's licenses from a woman with piercing (18 years old required), who 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 Sarnoff's 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, the story 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, had not some financially and politically motivated private individuals, lawyers and journalists kept the story alive in a financially motivated attempt to breathe new life into it. They have fed and continue to feed a public accustomed to tabloid hyperbole with ever more salacious and conspiratorial allegations about alleged sex trafficking, power brokering and political corruption. One of the most egregious examples in book form separate and apart from allegations of underage sex with princes, academics, biz people, world leaders is the new book, TrafficKing, first published on July 6, 2016, irresponsibly assembles the worst of these allegations and fabricates even more inflammatory ones of her own in order to create a false and wildly exaggerated tale, sold as non-fiction about Mr. Epstein and the Plaintiffs. She creates a delusion of their participation in SEX trafficking and other detestable criminal behavior, that bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the truth.

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 Sarnoff's abhorrent creation, sued Epstein for failing to publicly renounce these false allegations leveled against Epstein and him, including those perpetuated by Sarnoff. In her book, she makes wild accusations against an industry that legitimately hires young women to model. And through her distorted lens turn every modeling agent into a criminal.

With Epstein's silence 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 Sarnoff, a shameless and delusional self-promoter, to peddle to a voracious but unsuspecting public an infantile distortion in the name of human rights. Sarnoff's "TrafficKing" 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.

Pages 94 through 108 of TrafficKing clearly establish that Sarnoff, tells a tale of her having recently been terrified during an investigation in Mexico into true sex trafficking and government corruption, was already primed to accept as given a link between sex trafficking and government corruption. She says she read a few articles in which the lawyers representing a few women prosecuting in civil cases against Epstein 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. All the research she conducted thereafter was clearly informed by this preconceived and 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.

Sarnoff's bias has made her recklessly indifferent to the truth in the Epstein case and singularly unwilling to exercise even a modicum of critical analysis or objectivity. 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.

Consequently, in TrafficKing, Ms. Sarnoff has published a fabrication riddled with blatant defamation, particularly relating to the Plaintiffs, their relationships with Epstein and their involvement in the matters giving rise to Mr. Epstein's legal problems. In fact, Sarnoff ignored clear warnings about the problems with her book, concluding at page xii-xiv that "publishers were afraid to print my book for fear of" libel and legal action and that 6 different publishers rejected her manuscript. 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, Sarnoff should have heeded those warnings as the numerous defamatory statements in TrafficKing have severely and irreparably damaged the reputations of Plaintiffs, two innocents unfairly caught in its destructive wake.

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

tried to call