Epstein Secrets

to Procuring a Person Under 18 for Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.03, and Felony Solicitation of Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.07(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 heari

nreliable, based on allegations that were determined to be not prosecutable, and not provable by clear and convincing evidence? 3. In calculating Appellant's risk level under SORA, may the Court score points for consensual prostitution-related conduct involving 2 EFTA00792351 women who were seventee

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

e rating of Level 3, without meaningful inquiry into any of the underlying allegations or any consideration of other evidence which could bear upon Appellant's risk level. See A.93:21, 94:6-96:9, 96:11-13 (Pr.). 44 EFTA00181123 EFTA00181124 III. THE COURTS ORDER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE MANDATES OF

er of the New York Supreme Court determining Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, should be vacated, and Appellant's SORA level should be recalculated -- either by this Court based on the present record or upon remand to a different Justice in the lower court -

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

y in its response to hearing the District Attorney disavow the reliability of the Board's recommendation, in receiving the arguments of counsel for Appellant, and in rendering its Order as a whole. First, although the SORA statute clearly contemplates that the District Attorney may depart from the Board'

many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never make a downward departure like this.16 A.84:21-85:10 (Tr.). Later, when Appellant's counsel disputed that there were any credible -- much less prosecuted -- allegations that Appellant ever used force, the Court again began compar

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

to Procuring a Person Under 18 for Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.03, and Felony Solicitation of Prostitution, Fla. Stat. § 796.07(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 heari

nreliable, based on allegations that were determined to be not prosecutable, and not provable by clear and convincing evidence? 3. In calculating Appellant's risk level under SORA, may the Court score points for consensual prostitution-related conduct involving EFTA00232669 women who were seventeen y

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell