Epstein Secrets

nts under that sex offender designation, requiring him to report to Florida authorities only two times per year. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C). Similarly, New Mexico (another state where Mr. Epstein owns a residence) has d

ORA Will More Than Adequately Protect the People of the State of New York from Any Negligible Threat Posed by Jeffrey Epstein To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that intentions of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Jeffrey Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Florida conv

to do, Mr. Epstein -would be -Hquiring-hierequired -to report to Florida authorities only two times per year. _ See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C). SintilerlyMore importantly-, Jeffrey-Mr. Epstein is registered with the authori

evel I Under SORA Will More Than Adequately Protect The People Of New York From Any Negligible Threat Posed By Jeffrey Epstein To come full circle, the District Attorney's Office should take comfort that the intentions of SORA will be fully realized by imposing on Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein a Level 1 designation for his Flor

A is per se not reliable where it is actually proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. See, e.g., 5 N.Y. Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:98 (stating that hearsay "is not immune from impeachment" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual way

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

2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205. 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1974) (quoting Stone. 429 F.2d at 140). In accordance with its broad mandate to investigate po

of the police_cifficers. As a result, the-state investigation into the police officers' conduct concluded in approximately November, 1990. When the District Attorney's Office concluded its investigation, the United States conducted an independent review of the matter and concluded that a fedenlgord_ After furthe

e SORA is per se not reliable where it is actually proven false, and directly contradicted by non-hearsay evidence. See, e.g., 5 Prac., Evidence in New York State and Federal Courts § 8:98 (stating that hearsay "is not immune from impeachment" and that hearsay evidence "may be attacked in any of the usual way

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