Epstein Secrets

.C. S dra Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, Nellii4611 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Esptein. -2- EFTA00231600 March 20, 2011 To whom it may concern: I served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida from 2005 through 2009.

ne: September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffre,y Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and

CLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein respectfully submits that the January 1

CLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein respectfully submits that the January 18

the prosecutors and agents in this case met with Mr. Epstein's attorney, Roy Black. Mr. Black is perhaps best

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

A51 Letter from Jack A. Goldberger to NYS Sex Offender Registry Regarding Florida Registration Level applicable to Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 12, 2010 A51-A52 ACTERBURY GOLDBERGER ' JOSEPH R ATTERBURY ' 1 JACK A. GOLDBERGER ' JASON S.WEISS ' Board Certified Crimoal Trial

e of Florida that required sex offender registration. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the level of registration that was applicable to Mr. Epstein's case Under Florida's registration scheme there are two levels of registration available based on a risk assessment. Florida characterizes these t

garding Florida Registration Level applicable to Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 12, 2010 A51-A52 ACTERBU

garding Florida Registration Level applicable to Jeffrey E. Epstein, dated August 12, 2010 A51-A52 ACTERBUR

the level of registration that was applicable to Mr. Epstein's case Under Florida's registration scheme there

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

w 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, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAY P. LE•FKOWITZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Aven

E OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. BRIEF FOR DE

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. BRI

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. BRIE

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

iv EFTA00792573 INTRODUCTION In a stunning reversal of the position they 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 designati

YWELL Notary Public State of New York No Qualified in Kings County Commission Expires November 15. 2012 /s/ Howard Daniels Case Name: People v. Epstein EFTA00792607

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. REP

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. REPL

of the matter to a different Justice should this Court deem remand necessary to recalculate Appellant's risk assessment level. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008); Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. u. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415, 421 (1st Dep't 2007). 30 EFTA00792603 CON

rk 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. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. rI BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAY P. LEFKOWITZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KnAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Aven

E OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. rI BRIEF FO

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. rI

MENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OP NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. rI

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]