Epstein Secrets

offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Se

ulk of his time -- designated Mr. Epstein as the lower of two levels of sex offender under that state's sex offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit 3 The nearest cognate crime under New York law in 2005 was Patroni

his SORA designation reflect that fact. B. The Level 3 Calculation by the Board Is Not Supported by Facts or the Law Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that Jeffrey Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any key factors that suggesting that he might pos

of reporting requirements under that sex offender designation, requiring him to report to Florida authorities only two times per year. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C). Similarly, Jeffrey Epstein is registered with the authorities

offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Se

his SORA designation reflect that fact. B. The Level 3 Calculation by the Board Is Not Supported by Facts or the Law Curiously, the reviewer from the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended that Jeffrey Epstein be designated a Level 3 offender, notwithstanding the absence of any key factors that suggesting that he might pos

, requiring him to report to Florida authorities only two times per year during any period that he is a permanent resident of Florida. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit B). Florida authorities further advised Mr. Epstein, upon relocati

offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice S

th to abide by the law unconditionally, and the reasoned determinations of other jurisdictions having greater contact and control over Mr. Epstein, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders in New York has recommended that Mr. Epstein be categorized as a Level 3 sex offender. Such a harsh designation would subject Jeffrey Epstein to a

New York law) -- designated Mr. Epstein as the lower of two levels of sex offender under that Sstate's sex offender registration act. See Letter of Jack A. Goldberger to New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, August 12, 2010 (Exhibit C); see also Fla. Stat. § 775.21 (Florida sexual predator statute

. Letter of Stephen R. Alexander. Psy.D. to Jack Goldberger. Esq.. August 16. 2010 (Exhibit Indeed this has

& 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

, they're not here and SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00231386 40 1 I'll let rebuttal of any other 2 presentation, Mr. Goldberger, or, 3 Mr. Critton, you'd like to make. 4 MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, your 5 Honor. As to the last argument made by 6 Ms. Burns as to the appl

Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and EFTA00231423 JANE KREUSLER-WALSH 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

ttorney. His office coincidentally happened to be not only in the same building (and on same floor) as Epstein's lead criminal defense counsel, lack Goldberger, but it was actually located right next door to the Florida Science Foundation -- an Epstein-owned and -run company where Epstein spent his "work r

DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 14 As Amicas cuicmie: , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S.

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

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 W t Pal ch, FL 33401 and EFTA00232543 Counsel for Petitioner JANE KREU

e 26, 2009, 7 beginning at 9:59 o'clock, a.m., with appearances 8 as hereinbefore noted, to wit: 9 THEREUPON: 10 THE COURT: Epstein. 11 MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes, your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Let me call up the State 13 of Florida versus Epstein. Let's have 14 everyone announce their appearance, please

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

DEFENDANT: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. 9 Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street 10 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 11 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. 12 Atterbury Goldberger 250 Australian Avenue South 13 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 14 As Amicas Cunie: , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorn

51 Defense? MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. 4 THE COURT: Good morning. 5 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack 6 Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 7 THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from 8 the United States A

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

egal bases for its Level 3 determination falls short of the minimum due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. In the landmark case of Goldberg a Kelly, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, in relevant part, to demonstrate compliance with the procedural due process requirement 47 EFTA0018112

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