Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

on. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001704 Z0/l0 16989E8199 'ON XV.d Wd Z[170 L00?-Li-AVW EFTA00209883 'JOSEPH KATTERBURY ' 1 JACK A. GOLDBERGER JASON S.WEISS ' Board Certified Crgeloal Iri:ol Actorny I Member of Ncw Jersey x %cot% May 17, 2007 A. Marie Villafafia, Esq. Assistant United States Attorney

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

tion Level applicable to Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 12, 2010 A51-A52 ACTERBURY GO i DBERGER WE SS, R AT TERBURY ' I JACK A. GOLDBERGER ' JASON S.WEISS ' Board Certified Crimwai TrialAttorney I Member cd New Jersey a Florida Bars August 12, 2010 New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

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

ration Level applicable to Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 12, 2010 A51-A52 ACTERBURY GOLDBERGER ' JOSEPH R ATTERBURY ' 1 JACK A. GOLDBERGER ' JASON S.WEISS ' Board Certified Crimoal TrialAttorney I Member cd New Jersey & Florida Bars August 12, 2010 New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services