Epstein Secrets

roffer and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically st

r.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf EFTA00223199 CAPTAIN DAVID DECEMBER 11,2008 PAGES is completely within the discretion of the Sheriffs Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. Judge Pucillo, who

roffer and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically st

t prior to the scheduled time." Both in this form and in Mr. Indyke's letter in support of Mr. Epstein's application, Mr. Indyke neglects to inform the Sheriffs Office of two significant facts. First, Mr. Indyke lives and works in the New York metropolitan area. He likely will not be present at Mr. Epstein's workp

roffer and imposed Mr. Epstein's sentence. She has not been consulted regarding Mr. Epstein's application for work release. I understand that Judge McSorley's standing order states that she "takes no position with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically st

estar.org/FinDocuments/1999/133/996/1999-133996471-1-F.pdf EFTA00176900 CAPTAIN DECEMBER 11, 2008 PAGE 5 is completely within the discretion of the Sheriffs Office. The purpose of this letter is simply to provide you with information concerning Mr. Epstein's offenses and his work situation. Judge Pucillo, who

f Corrections . . . . As I learned on Friday when I received the state court file, you neglected to inform our Office that, on July 21, 2008, Judge McSorley modified the judgment nunc pro tunc to an "Order of Community Control I." This same language was the basis for the objection in my letter of June 2

hiring Sheriff's Deputies to guard him as equivalent to imprisonment. Mr. Acosta specifically rejected that suggestion. It is our understanding from the Sheriffs Office that Mr. Epstein is paying off-duty Sheriffs Deputies to guard him while he "works" at Mr. EFTA00192626 Roy Bum, ESQ. NOVEMBER 24, 2008 PAGE 2

f Corrections . . . . As I learned on Friday when I received the state court file, you neglected to inform our Office that, on July 21, 2008, Judge McSorley modified the judgment nunc pro tune to an "Order of Community Control I." This same language was the basis for the objection in my letter of June 2

hiring Sheriff's Deputies to guard him as equivalent to imprisonment. Mr. Acosta specifically rejected that suggestion. It is our understanding from the Sheriffs Office that Mr. Epstein is paying off-duty Sheriffs Deputies to guard him while he "works" at Mr. EFTA00183588 ROY BLACK, EsQ. Novsmass. 24, 2008 PAGE