Re: Results
[{"sender": "Al seckel [aseckel@yahoo.com]", "recipients": ["Jeffrey Epstein [jeevacation@gmail.com]"], "timestamp": "12/16/2010 1:20:06 PM", "subject": "Re: Results", "body": "you can call as i am obviously up."}, {"sender": "Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>", "recipients": ["Al seckel"], "timestamp": "Thu, December 16, 2010 5:01:25 AM", "subject": "Re: Results", "body": "I was never told never, that there was a 10k fee per month„ you inittaly said the project would take 20.. then \nanother 10. then another 10. ."}, {"sender": "Al seckel", "recipients": ["Jeffrey"], "timestamp": "Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM", "subject": "Re: Results", "body": "Jeffrey, \n\nThe hots did the sweep. Here are the new results taken as of a minute ago. You have only one negative article \nleft on front page of google, which is the Huffington Post article. The Huffington Post is extremely hard to \nmove, because it is so powerful, has millions of links to it, and uploads massive new and original content it on \na daily basis with posting from out side readers. We managed to push it down the page, as it used to be at the \ntop. If we were able to post original content to both the science and the org site (absolutely not a single word to \nthis day by Jessica, just talk), we would have been able to push it down even further, and off the page. WE did \nmanage to get rid of the daily beast article, which is now far removed, inspite of their own efforts to keep it \nprominent. \n\nToxic suggested search engine terms that popped up automatically when you typed in your name are also now \nremoved. \n\nWikipedia was an important victory, as it will always be at the top of the search engine results. ow the head \nlines do not mention convicted sex offender or pedophile. Instead, Philanthrophic work, Epstein Foundation, \nPromotion of Scientists. We have stopped the hacking on your wiki site, and that was a major effor. Your wiki \nentry now is pretty tame, and bad stuff has been muted, bowlerized, and pused to the bottom. Careful editing \nand wording has muted the effect immensely. We hacked the site to replace the mug shot and caption, and now \nhas an entirely different photo and caption. This was a big success. \n\nWe pushed the Edge all the way up to the front page, where it was previously buried on page 5 of google \nsearch. \n\nWe have promoted the other jeffrey epsteins, and other pages are also filled with your material. \n\nAnd, while the sites are up, and in the direction we hoped, they are still new, and subject to volitility, \nespecially if new original content is not added on a minimum of a weekly basis. I have been forbideen to add \nnew content to the philanthrophic site as well as the science site, and therefore, as a result our rating slipped \ndown (still on the first page, but would have liked them (and some of the articles to been able to push \nHuffington off page). We also helped with you images, and the first images that come of you on a google \nsearch are not of your mug shot, etc. \n\nYour daily beast foe is still at it, and trying to promote her sites against you in the same way that we try to \ndepromote you. \n\nAs far as this site is concerned, and the continuation of this, I do not know what you wish to do. Clearly, you \nhave no interest in my continuing. And, I am not sure if you want to continue the project at all. If the latter, and \nyou stop, eventually it will just go into the way of entropy, and it will return to the old form. The major work \nhas been done, but it needs to be maintained. For it to get better results, it needs to have constant input and \nsupervision, and that means generating proper content, not just editing and grammatical fixes. Writers need to \nknow what to write. THe philanthrophy site is at the bottom of the page precisely because you have not \nallowed us to add any content to it, and as a result it suffers. \n\nYou paid Mike $2500, which he applied for the purchasing of his replacement servers, but his fee of $7500 \nbalance is now due if you want to continue. Please let me know what you want to do. I need to inform him, and \nif you are not going to use him, he needs to take on his other clients and devote his time there. \n\nThis needs to be contrasted with what we started with, which was a search on your name, which had nine/10 \nvery toxic prominent stories, and toxic Wiki article and headline."}]