From www.skullandbonesjps.com
As mentioned yesterday, ETP has obtained a copy of the complaint filed by Jared Paul Stern against Ron Burkle, the New York Daily News, Mike Sitrick, Bill and Hillary Clinton et al. Sometimes you just get tired of typing names. It is, not surprisingly, a wonderfully juicy and florid document, dare we say pulpy, as befits a document detailing the seamy noir underbelly of the gossip world and those who would seek to tear it down through subterfuge, double-crossing and deception. Okay we were being a little purple here ourselves, but that's actually not a bad description. We've excerpted a few highlights below — we cannot speak to the truth or falsity of these allegations (just as certain daily newspapers apparently could not back in April 2006 — oh, zing!) but we most certainly can display them for your reading enjoyment, buttressed by he appropriate disclaimers. Welcome to yesterday, punk.
The Arch-Nemesis:
"Defendant Burkle, a powerful, politically connected billionaire who socializes with celebrities and carries on sexual liaisons with fashion models, some of whom are under the age of consent."
Accusing Burkle of statutory rape right off the bat — yowsers. This will not go down quietly.
The Sting:
"The March 22, 2006 meeting was in fact a "set-up" perpetrated by Burkl[sic] and secretly videotaped by Burkle's security team, directed by Defendant Renzi, an ex Secret Service agent formerly in the employ of Bill Clinton and head of security for Burkle's investment firm Yucaipa Cos., and disreputable private investigator Richard Di Sabatino.Burkle and Renzi had also run surveillance and "dirt" gathering operations on Page Six editor Richard Johnson, his family, and other Page Six staffers. "
Indeed. How detailed was this surveillance, and will that so-called "dirt" emerge at trial? And exactly how connected to Clinton is this dude? Note the innocently-slipped in adjective: "disreputable private investigator." This entire complaint plays out in black and white, with shadows thrown everywhere.
The crux:
"In this and subsequent articles written by Sherman...the New York Daily News falsely characterized the Burkle-Stern meetings as a "shakedown," "shakedown bid," "shakedown deal," "extort bid," "extortion attempt" and "extortion scam." These statements were all made as unqualified statements of fact, with no indication that they were merely baseless allegations, and without any confirmation whatsoever from the authorities qualified to render such judgments."
Note the lucky escape of other outlets who forgot to qualify such statements with "alleged" and are not named in the suit: Radar (see here), and the New York Times (see here and here).
Insult to injury:
"In claimed anticipation of Mr. Stern's arrest for extortion, which Burkle/Sitrick falsely assured them was imminent, the New York Daily News and other news agencies sent reporters to Mr. Stern's house in upstate New York, where they trespassed on his property, photographed his house and disturbed his dog before being removed by state police."
Poor confused doggie! This wrong shall be avenged.
The counter-smear:
"Burkle has a history of making false and misleading accusations, as set forth in lawsuits filed against him by his wife's ex-boyfriend, Charles Allen, and his former nanny, Chelsea Fesenmeier, in California last year. Burkle's business associate, Defendant Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton, a U.S. Senator from New York, also have a reputation for using such smear tactics, as evidenced by their forty plus scandals, including but not limited to Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate and a host of others that embroiled their administration in one scandal after another from 1992 to 2000."
When in doubt, bring in the Monica guns. The Clintons love that. Like they love this:
"Burkle and Bill Clinton spend upwards of 500 hours a year together, more time than Clinton spends with his wife."
On belief, sure, but information? Proving it is one thing — and demonstrating its relevance is another. There are many, many people who spend more time with work colleagues than with their spouses and families. Still, it's always been a useful stone to fling at Bill and Hill. (Here is where the New York Times can be useful, hmmm?)
This, however, is our favorite:
"In one passage indicative of the general inaccuracy and sloppiness that characterizes the New York Daily News' reporting, Mr. Stern was even falsely described as having 'dyed blonde hair' (it is a distinguished gray)."
