Epstein Secrets

ted, and Appellant's SORA level should be recalculated in accordance with the law. September 16, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Jay P. Le owitz. P Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-4800 Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 Counsel for Defendant-Ap

autauqua Cnty. Fed'n of Sportsmens Club, Inc. v. Caflisch, 15 A.D.2d 260 (4th Dep't 1962) 5 Doe v. Pataki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 24 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 30 Karasik u. Bird, 104 2d 758 (1st Dep't 1984) 5 Kilcer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 86

level should be recalculated in accordance with the law. September 16, 2011 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jay P. Lefkowitz Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRICLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone Facsimile: Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein 4

is Court deem remand necessary to recalculate Appellant's risk assessment level. See, e.g., People u. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008); Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. u. East brook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415, 421 (1st Dep't 2007). 27 EFTA00798147 In opposing Appellant's appeal, the People endeavor to construct a p

g evidence, to wit, the undisputed conduct encompassed by Appellant's registerable crime of conviction. February 22, 2011 Respectfully submitted, Sandra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: Facsimile: Counsel for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein E

ki, 3 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 32, 33, 35, 36 E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1109 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews u. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32