Epstein Secrets

igned To Impose Reporting Requirements Upon Offenders In Proportion To The Threat They Pose To The Public So That They May Be Adequately Monitored New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et aL is intended to impose the most stringent reporting requirements on those sex offend

registration requirements here in New York -- if indeed it qualifies as registerable at all. At most, Mr. Epstein was guilty of a misdemeanor under New York law, and accordingly, his registration obligations under SORA should reflect this relative lack of severity of his offense. Even under the broader

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

n the Information, he received massages and engaged in sexual touching in exchange for money with A.D., a young woman over the age of consent under New York law for all but two months of the fourteen month period during which this conduct is alleged to have occurred Asut--just-under--1-8-fer--all-but-two

ng Requirements Upon Offenders In Proportion To The Threat They Pose To The Public So That They May Be Adequately Monitored As you are well aware, New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et at is intended to impose the most stringent reporting requirements on those sex offen

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey- Mr. Epstein presents a negligible risk

Sandra Lynn Musumeci DATE October 5, 2010 SUBJECT: SORA Determination for Jeffrey E. Epstein, NYSID # OSI909, Supreme Court Case # 30129-2010 New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law § 168 et aL is intended to impose the most stringent reporting requirements on those sex offend

t. 2010) (observing "the risk level designated in the RAI is merely presumptive, and a court may depart from it as a matter of discretion") (citing People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 568 n.2 (2009); People v. Johnson, 11 N.Y.3d 416, 418, 421 (2008)). As noted above, Jeffrey Epstein presents a negligible risk of r

f the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law Article 6-C. Remarkably, the People seek to validate their newly-adopted position on appeal

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim's statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dub

f the order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law Article 6-C, by wholeheartedly relying upon -- and even quoting in exacting and lurid detai

y proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. CITE. The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 N.Y.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio

f the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Correction Law Article 6-C, by wholeheartedly relying upon -- and even quoting in exacting and lurid detai

" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual ways"). The People acknowledge as much in their citation and repeated reference to People v. Mingo, 12 IMI.3d 563, 577 (2009) (noting the unreliability of a victim statement where it is "equivocal, inconsistent with other evidence, or seems dubio