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

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

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

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

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

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell

a Lynn Musumeci KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022-4611 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey E. Esptein. -2- EFTA00181143 EFTA00181144 • , FEB 2 3 zoit AP 1.AL:3 RECORD PRESS, INC., 229 West 36th Street, N.Y. I0DIS-28828—(212) 619.4949 www.reco

r the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein respectfully submits that the January 18, 2011 O

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

t's SORA determination, made in the express absence of clear and convincing evidence, 18 constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting reversal of the Court's Level 3 determination and Order. Moreover, given the Court's demonstrated lack of judicial objectivity toward Appellant, should remand be required, Appell