Epstein Secrets

Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, Commentary at 5, ¶ 7 (2006). Accordingly, the Order 6 By previewing for the Appellate Court "[t]he People's evidence on remand," see Resp. Br. at 62, n. 7, the People have improperly introduced materials dehors the record. See Mount Lucas

hey espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Cor

he People's Attempt to Introduce Materials Outside the Record Was Improper and Reference to Such Contentions Should Be Stricken. By previewing for the Appellate Court in their brief "the People's evidence on remand," see Resp. Br. at 62, n. 7, the People have improperly introduced materials dehors the record. See

hey espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Cor

to which Appellant ultimately pled guilty.5 Resp. Br. at 62, n. 7. By so doing, the People themselves unwittingly concede that 5 By previewing for the Appellate Court "the People's evidence on remand," see Resp. Br. at 62, n. 7, the People have improperly introduced materials dehors the record. See Mount Lucas As

hey espoused on the record at the SORA hearing, the People oppose Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein's appeal of the Order of the New York Supreme Court, Criminal Term, New York County, determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without designation, under New York's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA), Cor