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

lassification and that a SORA hearing was scheduled for September 15, 2010. See A.68 (Letter from Supreme Court to Jeffrey E. Epstein Informing of SORA Level Determination Hearing, dated Aug. 26, 2010); A.71-A.76 (Letter from Supreme Court to Counsel Informing of SORA Determination Hearing, dated Aug. 26, 2010). Appellant pr

ocedure 6(e) also does not impact the planned disclosures. The victim list itself is not grand jury material, and, thus, disclosure of that list to the District Attorney's Office will not violate Rule 6(e). If you wish to supply any additional authority (other than citation to Rule 6(e) and to paragraph 13 of the Agre

aring, dated August 26, 2010 A68 Order Sheet for Jeffrey Epstein, dated August 26, 2010 A69 Letter from Supreme Court to Counsel Informing of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00231445 in PAGE Letter from Jay P. Leflcowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuan

ocedure 6(e) also does not impact the planned disclosures. The victim list itself is not grand jury material, and, thus, disclosure of that list to the District Attorney's Office will not violate Rule 6(e). If you wish to supply any additional authority (other than citation to Rule 6(e) and to paragraph 13 of the Agre

earing, dated August 26, 2010 A68 Order Sheet for Jeffrey Epstein, dated August 26, 2010 A69 Letter from Supreme Court to Counsel Informing of SORA Level Determination Hearing (with attachment), dated August 26, 2010 A71 EFTA00232565 in PAGE Letter from Jay P. Leflcowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuan