Epstein Secrets

ellarges-te-whia-Jefftest-Eptiteitt-pleatle4 ,uilty in Florida, it must be noted that sole offense for which Mr. Epstein is required to register in-New-York-untler-SORA a June-30;-2008-plea-in-the-Gireuit Court-fofrPalm Butch Courtly; Florida under an Information to the charge of Procuring a Person Under

-Mfr E-peteiri-pleeelerl-guitty-arki-the-Neve-Yerk-eegaater it-is-riet-even-elear-that-Mfr Epstein committed an offense which is registerable under Ncw York law. While the Florida law critninalistes-parronithig-a-prostitute-who-is-uridethe-itge-eleighteen-fiTerki-antl-1-7-years-e14 ihe-equivalent-New-Yer

& ELLIS LLP demonstrated a commitment to go beyond what is demanded of him to remain in full compliance with the law. Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that Mr. Jeffrey-Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any key factors that even remotely suggesting

ce New York, NY 10013 Telephone: 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of th

ror based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting

-FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, —against— JEFFREY E. EPsTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. APPENDIX CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New Yor New York 10013 Attorneys for Respondent JAY P. LEFKOWITZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KIR1CLAND & E

ror based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting

ace New York, NYilli m Telephone: 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THENATURE AND OBJECTOF THE CAUSE OF-ACTION OR SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of the

ror based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting

—FIRST DEPARTMENT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, —against— JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Respondent, Defendant-Appellant. APPENDIX CYRUS R. VANCE, JR. NEW YORK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One Hogan Place New York, New York 10013 Attorneys for Respondent JAY P. LEFICOWTIZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KIRK AND &

ror based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting

lace New York, NYili m Telephone: 5. COURT AND COUNTY, OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, FROM WHICH APPEAL IS TAKEN: New York Supreme Court (Criminal Term), New York County. 6. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION OR-SPECIAL PROCEEDING: Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) hearing, pursuant to Article 6-C of th

ror based, in part, on the following: (1) the Court improperly relied on untrustworthy double and triple hearsay contained in the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, even though the District Attorney, as the party appearing on behalf of the State, rejected much of the Board's recommendation as not constituting