Epstein Secrets

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

r a state registration and notification scheme like SORA have a protected liberty interest that entitles them to procedural due process. See Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456, 468 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also People v. David W., 95 N.Y.2d 130, 138 (2000) (holding that the imposition of a Level 3 SORA det

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

F SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 45 CONCLUSION 49 EFTA00181027 , EFTA00181028 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fr

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,

THE MANDATES OF SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 45 CONCLUSION 49 ll EFTA00232663 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fr

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

TH THE MANDATES OF SORA AND CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AND MUST BE VACATED. 45 CONCLUSION 49 EFTA00231543 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fr

counsel and sought a brief adjournment to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. See A.77 (Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz, dated Sept. 7, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SORA

y of N.Y., 61 A.D.2d 187 (2d Dep't 1978) 7 Chautauqua Cnty. Fed'n of Sportsmens Club, Inc. v. Caflisch, 15 A.D.2d 260 (4th Dep't 1962) 5 Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 24 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 30 Karasik u. Bird, 104 2

ounsel and sought a brief adjournment to provide counsel an opportunity to prepare for the hearing. See A.77 (Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz, dated Sept. 9, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SORA

that courts must apply a clear and convincing evidence standard when considering a Board recommendation and making its SORA determination); Doe v. Pataki, 3 F.Supp. 2d 456, 471-72 ( . 1998) (holding federal due process under SORA is only satisfied where each risk factor is supported by clear and conv