Epstein Secrets

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

original). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "=" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

entencing recommendation."); see also People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc. 2d 319, 322-23, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) (observing "the Legislature did not intend to place upon the criminal courts of this State a burden to act merely as a regulatory body to confirm the determination of the Boar

V. SORA Hearing On January 18, 2011, a SORA hearing was conducted in New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, Part 66 before Hon. Ruth Pickholz. See A.81 (Handwritten Notations on Court Jacket); A.82 (Tr. generally). At the hearing, the People made a record that based on their investigatio

2)(f), for which Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months incarceration, followed by 12 months of Community Control. (Pickholz, J. at SORA hearing). Appellant seeks to vacate the Order because the Court's risk level determination was not supported by clear and convincing ev

tion was made, and providod such parson no longor meets the criteria for registration as a sexual offender under the laws of this state. (12) This Legislature finds that lanai offenders, especially those who haws committed offenses &rine. minors, often pt so a high rick of engaging in sexual offenses croon

of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00792402 iii PAGE Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuance of the Hearing, dated September 9, 2010 A77 Letter from Supreme Court to Sex Offender Registry Unit Enclosing Final Det

upreme Court Part 66 III Centre Street New York, NY 10013 FacsrmM www.lOrklang com September 7, 2010 / Re: SCID No. 30129-2010 Dear Justice Pickholz: I am writing regarding the hearing for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein in the above-referenced matter, which is currently scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday

riginal). However, by phrasing that principle in the permissive way—that the absence of indictment "may" be strong evidence (emphasis supplied)—the Legislature conveyed nothing more than the simple fact that there were circumstances under which the absence of formal charges would, in fact, cast doubt on th

Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTRODUCTION Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Ruth Pickholz, J.), entered on January 18, 2011, adjudicating him a level-three sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA"). By the under

ere was none. For those reasons, the Board recommended that defendant be designated a level-three sex offender. At the SORA hearing before Justice Pickholz, defendant essentially took the position that the level-three designation could not be supported by the crimes with which he had actually been char

entencing recommendation."); see also People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc. 2d 319, 322-23, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) (observing "the Legislature did not intend to place upon the criminal courts of this State a burden to act merely as a regulatory body to confirm the determination of the Boar

V. SORA Hearing On January 18, 2011, a SORA hearing was conducted in New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, Part 66 before Hon. Ruth Pickholz. See A.81 (Handwritten Notations on Court Jacket); A.82 (Tr. generally). At the hearing, the People made a record that based on their investigatio

2)(f), for which Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of 12 months and 6 months incarceration, followed by 12 months of Community Control. (Pickholz, J. at SORA hearing). Appellant seeks to vacate the Order because the Court's risk level determination was not supported by clear and convincing ev

nation was made, and provided such penem no longer moots the criteria for registration as a sexual offender untie the laws of this state. (12) lho Legislature finds that sexual offonders, especially those who bevel committed offenses against minors, often pose a high risk of origaginc In sexual offenses ae

of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00180924 iii PAGE Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuance of the Hearing, dated September 9, 2010 A77 Letter from Supreme Court to Sex Offender Registry Unit Enclosing Final Det

The Honorable Ruth Pickholz New York County Supreme Court Part 66 Ill Centre Street New York, NY 10013 Re: SCID No. 30129-2010' Dear Justice Pickholz: I am writing regarding the hearing for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein in the above-referenced matter, which is currently scheduled for 9:304.m. on Wednesday,

entencing recommendation."); see also People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc. 2d 319, 322-23, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) (observing "the Legislature did not intend to place upon the criminal courts of this State a burden to act merely as a regulatory body to confirm the determination of the Boar

er or the same as the one recommended by the Board of Examiners. Your hearing has been scheduled for September 15,2010 at 9:30 a.m.. before the Hon. Ruth Pickholz in part 66 located at 111 Centre Street. New York, N.Y. You have a right to attend this hearing. I fyou wish to waive your appearance tin• the hear

ickholz New York County Supreme Court Part 66 111 Centre Street New York, NY 10013 September 7, 2010 1. Re: $CID No. 30129-2010 Dear Justice Pickholz: I am writing regarding the hearing for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein in the above-referenced matter, which is currently scheduled for 9:30a.m. on Wednesday,

entencing recommendation."); see also People v. Jimenez, 178 Misc. 2d 319, 322-23, 679 N.Y.S.2d 510, 513 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty. 1998) (observing "the Legislature did not intend to place upon the criminal courts of this State a burden to act merely as a regulatory body to confirm the determination of the Boar

LE The Honorable Ruth Pickholz New York County Supreme Court Pan 66 III Centre Street New York, NY 10013 Re: SCID No. 30129-2010 Dear Justice Pickholz: I am writing regarding the hearing for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein in the above-referenced matter, which is currently scheduled for 9:30,a.m. on Wednesday