Epstein Secrets

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

register under SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, because of his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.3 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Board outlining

osition of the Assistant District Attorney charged with representing the State and instead, 1 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

m to register under SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, given his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.2 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, in response, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Bo

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

m to register under SORA, despite not being a resident of New York, given his ownership of a secondary property in Manhattan.3 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, dated Aug. 16, 2010). Shortly thereafter, Appellant's counsel submitted a letter to the Board outlining