Epstein Secrets

excluded, so long as the “externalities” —that which appears in public view outside the theater—is not obscene. I have kept my promise, and despite the Supreme Court’s continued insistence—most recently in the violent video games case—that “obscenity” is not protected by the First Amendment, porn is widely available

the judge need not view the film: no matter what its content, I said, it would be unconstitutional for him to enjoin the showing of any film. If the D.A. thought the film was obscene, he could wait until it was exhibited and then arrest those responsible for its being shown. Judge Alberti insisted, how

efore the scheduled performance, Carl Stork and Nathan J. Hagen—the co- presidents of the Quincy House Film Society—received telephone calls from the D.A.’s office directing them to be in Judge Charles R. Alberti’s courtroom at two o’clock for a hearing. Stork and Hagen tried to call me in my office. Bu

hearing had been scheduled to determine a risk assessment level, accompanied by a copy of the recommendation of the Board. See A.67 (Letter from Supreme Court, dated Aug. 26, 2010); A.65 (Recommendation of Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("Board Recommendation").). In stark contrast to the other

y interests and triggers due process safeguards). Courts evaluating that liberty interest under the procedural due process analysis articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing the private interest affected by state action, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that i

ENDER RISK ASSESSMENT RE: Jeffrey Epstein SCID. $ 30129-2010 Please refer to the attached: I) Notification to sex offender, defense attorney and D.A.'s office of the scheduled risk assessment; 2.) Recommendation from Board of Examiners 3.) Notice of Right to Appeal and Appeal Application. Pleas

RA hearing had been scheduled to determine a risk assessment level, accompanied by a copy of the recommendation of the Board. See A67 (Letter from Supreme Court, dated Aug. 26, 2010); A.65 (Recommendation of Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("Board Recommendation").). In stark contrast to the other

y interests and triggers due process safeguards). Courts evaluating that liberty interest under the procedural due process analysis articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing the private interest affected by state action, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that i

NDER RISK ASSESSMENT RE: Jeffrey Epstein SCID. fi 30129-2010 Please refer to the attached: I) Notification to sex offender, defense attorney and D.A.'s office of the scheduled risk assessment; 2.) Recommendation from Board of Examiners 3.) Notice of Right to Appeal and Appeal Application. Pleas

, New York 10022-4611 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 1. Attorneks for Defendant Jeffrey E. E PFetPth I LED FEB 0 9 2011 IESUPRUME COURT NEW YORK COUNTY APPSALn C41.1911eO1/41.3 EFTA00792406 A4 Order Appealed From, dated January 18, 2011 with Notice of Entr) [pp. A4-ASI • pa*

ENDER RISK ASSESSMENT RE: Jeffrey Epstein SCID. # 30129-2010 Please refer to the attached: I) Notification to sex offender, defense attorney and D.A.'s °thee of the scheduled risk assessment; 2.) Recommendation front Board of Examiners 3.) Notice of Right to Appeal and Appeal Application. Pleas

basis of race or ethnicity and so structure its selection process as to admit an essentially predetermined proportion of members of certain groups. The Supreme Court’s decision in Bakke accepted our argument against the sort of racial quotas employed by the medical school at issue, but it approved affirmative action

he charges. I thought that this was a perfect teaching vehicle and I invited the alleged victim’s lawyer to join in the class in which I assigned the D.A.’s memorandum seeking dismissal. It was a spirited class, after which several students told me they had changed their minds—both ways. One student des