Epstein Secrets

ble and triple hearsay directed toward filing charges against a defendant named See A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida State Attorney msly rejected the claims asserted in the police affidavit (which sought to charge as

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida Sta

r assessments of points on the RAI should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the

hearsay directed toward filing charges against a defendant named Sarah Kellen. See A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida State Attorney expressly rejected the claims asserted in the police affidavit (which sought to charge

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). Furthermore, the Florida Sta

assessments of points on the R.Al should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the

t submitted by police to the Florida prosecutor. See A.65 (Board Recommendation); A.6 (Palm Beach Police Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). The allegations, even when aggregated, were not deemed by the Florida prosecutor who reviewed them to constitute sufficient "p

lice Department - Probable Cause Affidavit of J. Recarey, dated May 1, 2006). The allegations, even when

r assessments of points on the RAI should render the Court's Level 3 determination invalid. B. The Court Improperly Allowed Personal Feelings and Matters Outside the Record to Influence Its SORA Determination. Next, the Court abused its discretion by allowing an apparent personal distaste for Appellant, the