Epstein Secrets

To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 e€u laurk Supreme Trani APPELLATE DIVISION-FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,

d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t

• • a To be Argued By: JAY P. LEPKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 '.ex 'Dark Sul:mettle Tourt APPELLATE DIVISION-FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEI

d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t

r EFTA00231539 RECORD PRESS, INC., 229 West 36th Street, N.Y. 10018-28829 www.recordpress.com EFTA00231540 To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 Xeftr larrrit $upratte Txxurt APPELLATE DIVISION—FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPST

d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t

FTA00232659 RECORD PRESS. INC., 229 West 36th Street, U.Y. 10018-28829 www.reconlpress.com EFTA00232660 I To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFicowrrz New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 Nefn V.arit *inane &curt APPELLATE DIVISION-FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,

d an individual facing such a risk classification a constitutionally- mandated minimum level of due process. Doe, 3 F. Supp. 2d at 469, 471 (citing Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367 (1995)). While "the due process protections required for a risk level classification proceeding are not as extensive as t