No thanks, sir pecker

Something unusual happened yesterday. In fact, for me it was not only unusual – it was a first. I made an offer that I could not refuse. Or at least, that's what the highest personalities of the National Enquirer thought. I'm glad they thought that, because it emboldened them to put everything in writing. Rather than surrender in the face of extortion and blackmail, I decided to publish exactly what they sent me, despite the personal costs and embarrassment that they caused. they threaten.

AMI, the owner of the National Enquirer, led by David Pecker, recently entered into an immunity agreement with the Department of Justice because of his role in the so-called "Catch and Kill" process on behalf of the President Trump and his election campaign. Mr. Pecker and his company have also been investigated for various actions they have undertaken on behalf of the Saudi government.

And sometimes, Mr. Pecker mixes all this:

"After Mr. Trump became president, he rewarded Mr. Pecker's loyalty with a dinner at the White House, to which the media chief invited a guest with significant ties to royalty in Saudi Arabia. At the time, Mr. Pecker was working on it while seeking financing for acquisitions … "

Federal investigators and legitimate media have of course suspected and proved that Mr. Pecker used Enquirer and AMI for political reasons. And yet, AMI continues to claim the opposite:

"The American media categorically rejects any claim that their reports were inspired, dictated or influenced in any way by external forces, political or otherwise."

Of course, the legitimate media have been challenging this claim for a long time:

A mystery grows around the pro-Saudi tabloid: the embassy has a glimpse

I did not know much about it a few weeks ago when intimate text messages that I sent out were published in the National Enquirer. I engaged investigators to find out how these texts had been obtained and to determine the motives for the many unusual actions of the Enquirer. At the end of the day, several independent investigations looked into this case.

To conduct my investigation, I detained Gavin from Becker. I have known Mr. de Becker for twenty years, his expertise in this area is excellent and he is one of the most intelligent and competent leaders I know. I asked him to give priority to the protection of my time, because I prefer to work on other subjects and to go ahead with the budget he needed to study the facts on this subject.

Here is an excerpt from the context: My Washington Post property is a complex for me. It is inevitable that some influential people who attend the Washington Post reports wrongly conclude that I am their enemy.

President Trump is one of those people, which is clear from his many tweets. In addition, The Post's critical and relentless coverage of the murder of columnist Jamal Khashoggi is undoubtedly unpopular in some quarters.

(Although the post office is a complex for me, I do not regret my investment at all.) The post office is a crucial institution with a crucial mission: My stewardship of the post office and my support for its mission, which will remain unshakable, is something I will be very proud to be 90 years old and go through my life, if I'm lucky enough to live that long, no matter how complex it is.)

Back to the story: A few days ago, an AMI leader informed us that Mr. Pecker was "apoplectic" about our investigation. For reasons yet to better understand, the Saudi angle seems to hit a particularly sensitive nerve.

A few days after hearing about Mr. Pecker's apoplexy, an offer was made to us, verbally at first. They said that they would have more SMS and photos to post if they did not stop our investigation.

My attorneys argued that the AMI did not have the right to post photos, since anyone holds the copyright on his own photos, and that these photos do not bring anything in them -Same.

According to the MAI, which deserves the information is that the photos are necessary to show Amazon shareholders that my professional judgment is terrible. I founded Amazon in my garage 24 years ago and I myself drove all the parcels to the post office. Today, Amazon employs more than 600,000 people and has just completed the most profitable year in its history, while investing heavily in new initiatives. It's usually one of the most valuable companies in the world. I will let these results speak for themselves.

OK, let's go back to their threat of publishing intimate photos of me. I guess we (me, my lawyers and Gavin) from Becker) did not react to the widespread threat with enough fear, so they sent this:

Of: Howard, Dylan [dhoward@amilink.com] (Chief Content Officer, AMI)
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 3:33 pm
AT: Martin Singer (litigation advice from Mr. de Becker)
Subject:. Jeff Bezos and Ms. Lauren Sanchez Photos

CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT DISTRIBUTE

Marty:

I leave the office for the night. I will be available on my mobile – 917 XXX-XXXX.

However, in the interest of dispatching this situation, and with the Washington Post on Grouvy Today of issuing unsupported rumors about The National Enquirer's initial report, I wanted to describe the photos we obtained during our report.

In addition to the "selfie under the belt – usually known as" d * ck pick "-, Enquirer has got nine more pictures. These included:

· Mr. Bezos faces a selfie at what appears to be a work meeting.

· Ms. Sanchez's response – a photo of her smoking a cigar in what appears to be a simulated oral sex scene.

· Mr. Bezos, shirtless, holding his phone in his left hand – while wearing his wedding ring. He wears either narrow black cargo pants or shorts – and his semi-erect masculinity penetrates the zipper of the garment.

· A complete body selfie of Mr. Bezos wearing just a pair of tight and black boxers or boxers, his phone in his left hand – while wearing his wedding ring.

· A selfie of Mr. Bezos fully dressed.

· A body of great length, slightly dressed, with short trunks.

· A naked selfie in a bathroom – while wearing his wedding ring. Mr. Bezos is wearing nothing more than a white towel – and you can see the top of his pubic area.

· Mrs. Sanchez wore a dress with a plunging red neckline revealing her cleavage and a glimpse of her infernal region.

· Mrs. Sanchez wore a red bikini in two parts with a gilded dress revealing her cleavage.

This would not please the publisher to send this email. I hope that common sense can prevail – and quickly.

Dylan.

Well, that caught my attention. But not in the expected way. Any personal embarrassment that AMI might suffer could make me forget, because this is a much bigger issue. If in my position, I can not resist this kind of extortion, how many people can do it? (On this point, many people have contacted our investigation team about their similar experiences with AMI and the need to capitulate because, for example, their livelihoods were at stake.)

In the AMI Letters that I make public, you'll see the exact details of their extorted proposal: They will post the personal photos unless Gavin de Becker and I make the press-specific public false statement that we "do not". have no knowledge or foundation for suggesting that the coverage of AMI was motivated by political reasons or influenced by political forces. "

If we do not agree to advertise this lie, they say they will publish the photos quickly. And there is an associated threat: they will keep the photos handy and publish them in the future if we ever get away from this lie.

Rest assured, no real journalist ever offers what's happening here: I will not report any embarrassing information about you if you do X for me. And if you do not do X quickly, I'll report the embarrassing information.

Nothing that I could write here could tell the story of National Enquirer as eloquently as their own words below.

These communications reinforce AMI's long-standing reputation for arming journalistic privileges, hiding behind important protections, and ignoring the principles and purpose of true journalism. Of course, I do not want personal photos to be published, but I will not participate in their well-known practice of blackmail, political favors, political attacks and corruption. I prefer to get up, roll this newspaper and see what happens.

Regards,

Jeff Bezos

Of: Well, Jon[[[[jfine@amilink.com](Deputy General Counsel, AMI)
Sent: Wednesday 6th February 2019 17h57
AT: Martin Singer (lawyer of Mr. de Becker)
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL * RE: Bezos et al / American Media et al

Marty –

Here are our proposed conditions:

1. Full mutual release of all claims that American Media, on the one hand, and Becker's Jeff Bezos and Gavin (the "Bezo Parties"), may have against each other.

2. Mutually Accepted Public Recognition of Parts of Bezos, Published by a Mutually Acceptable Press Medium, Affirming That They Have No Knowledge or Sufficient Basis to Suggest That the Cover of AM was politically motivated or influenced by political forces, and an agreement that: they will cease to refer to such a possibility.

3. AM agrees not to publish, distribute, share or describe unpublished texts and photos ("unpublished documents").

4. AM states that she did not hear any electronic espionage in her reports and is not aware of such behavior.

5. The agreement is completely confidential.

6. In case of violation of the agreement by one or more of the Bezos parties, AM is released from its obligations under the agreement and may publish the unpublished material.

7. Any other disputes arising from this agreement must first be submitted to JAMS California for mediation.

Thank you,

Jon

Deputy General Counsel, Media

American Media, LLC

Jon P. Fine

Deputy General Counsel, Media

O: (212) 743-6513 C: (347) 920-6541

jfine@amilink.com

February 5, 2019

By email:

mdsinger@lavelysinger.com

Martin D. Singer

Laveley & Singer

Re: Jeff Bezos / American Media, LLC, et al.

Dear Mr. Singer,

In response to your letter of February 4, 2019 to Dylan Howard, I am writing to respond to serious concerns about the persistent defamatory activities of your client and his representatives regarding the motives of American Media in his recent reports on your client.

Above all, be aware that our news gathering and reporting on matters concerning your client, including any use of his "private photographs", has been and will always be in accordance with applicable laws. As you know, "the fair use of a work protected by copyright, including reproduction on copies. . . for purposes such as criticism, commentary, reporting. . . is not a copyright infringement. "17 USC Sec. 107. While millions of Americans have a vested interest in Amazon's success, of which your client remains the founder, president, CEO, and president, an analysis of Mr. Bezos' judgment, reflected in his texts and his photos, indeed deserves the attention of the public. the public interest.

Beyond the copyright issues that you have raised, we also feel it is necessary to deal with various unsupported defamatory statements and overwhelming rumors attributed to your client's representatives in the press, suggesting that "strong leads point to motivations. 1 in the publication of The National Enquirer. In fact, you yourself stated that the "politically motivated basis" of our reports was "obvious" in your correspondence on behalf of Mr. de Becker to Mr. Howard dated January 31, 2019.

Again, as I told you in my February 1 response to your correspondence of January 31, The US media categorically rejects any claim that their reports were prompted, dictated or influenced in any way by external forces, political or otherwise. In simple terms, this was and is new.

However, we understand that representatives of your clients, including the Washington Post, continue to pursue and disseminate these false and misleading claims in a manner prejudicial to American Media and its executives.

Accordingly, we hereby request that you terminate this defamatory behavior immediately. Any subsequent dissemination of these false, vicious, speculative and unfounded statements is made at the risk and peril of your client. In the absence of the immediate cessation of defamatory behavior, we will have no choice but to pursue all available remedies under applicable law.

As I have said before, we maintain the lawfulness of our collection of information and our reporting on this issue of public interest. Moreover, American Media is not afraid to continue to tell a story that is unambiguous in the public interest – a position that Mr. Bezos clearly appreciates, as reflected in Boies Schiller's letter of January 9 to American Media, claiming that your client "does not intend to discourage reporting". of him "and" supports the journalistic efforts ".

That said, if your client agrees to stop such defamatory behavior, we are willing to engage in a constructive dialogue about the texts and photos we have in our possession. Dylan Howard is ready to discuss the matter at your convenience.

All other rights, claims, counterclaims and defenses are specifically reserved and not abandoned.

Regards,

1 https://www.thedailybeast.com/bezos-investigators-question-the-frother-of-his-mistress-lauren-sanchez-in-national-enquirer-leak-probe(Assigned to your customer Gavin from Becker)