Epstein Secrets

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

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutional complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, t

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

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutional complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, t

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

onal right to due process (Brief for Defendant at 32-33). That notion was never mentioned below, so it has not been preserved for appellate review. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744 (2001)(constitutbnal complaints must be raised with specificity). In any event, the short answer is that, as set out herein, th