Epstein Secrets

lm Beach Sheriffs Office Booking Card for Jeffrey Epstein, dated June 30, 2008 A47 EFTA00181235 UI PAGE Letter from Jay P. Leflcowitz 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 It 1 Centre Street New York, NY 10013 Re: SCID No. 30129-2010 Dear Justice Pickholz: I ant writing regarding the hearing for Mr. Jeffrey Epstein in the above-referenced matter, which is currently scheduled for 9:30>a.m. on Wednesda

ocedure 6(e) also does not impact the planned disclosures. The victim list itself is not grand jury material, and, thus, disclosure of that list to the District Attorney's Office will not violate Rule 6(e). If you wish to supply any additional authority (other than citation to Rule 6(e) and to paragraph 13 of the Agre

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

pellant did not have a meaningful opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf because 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and discussion

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. 9, 2010). In October 2010, Appellant's counsel submitted a detailed memorandum to the Assistant District Attorney assigned to the SOR

osition of the Assistant District Attorney charged with representing the State and instead, 1 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

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

hts to which he is entitled and which deprivation of those rights their actions occasioned. 2 As set forth in greater detail in Section II, infra, the District Attorney's Office was already presented with, and had already considered, much of this countervailing evidence as part of its pre-hearing investigation and di

of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00231445 in PAGE Letter from Jay P. Leflcowitz 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

ocedure 6(e) also does not impact the planned disclosures. The victim list itself is not grand jury material, and, thus, disclosure of that list to the District Attorney's Office will not violate Rule 6(e). If you wish to supply any additional authority (other than citation to Rule 6(e) and to paragraph 13 of the Agre

of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00232565 in PAGE Letter from Jay P. Leflcowitz 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

ocedure 6(e) also does not impact the planned disclosures. The victim list itself is not grand jury material, and, thus, disclosure of that list to the District Attorney's Office will not violate Rule 6(e). If you wish to supply any additional authority (other than citation to Rule 6(e) and to paragraph 13 of the Agre