Epstein Secrets

his own sexual perversions. Ile scores as a Level III Sex Offender with absolu►ely no basis for downward depanure. EFTA00232642 A77 Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuance of the Hearing, dated September 9, 2010 09/07/2010 09:55 FAX 0 2:00 2 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP NIO ar

hearing on this matter if that would be acceptable to the Court. We are available to discuss at the Court's convenience. Respe» fully submitted, . Lefkowitz, P.C. Chicago Hong Kong London Los Angeles Munich Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghai Washington. O. C. EFTA00232643 A78 Letter from Suprem

e calendar, matter of Jeffrey Epstein. Your appearances please. MS. GAFFNEY: Gaffney for the People. Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowdtz and Sandra Musumeci for Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: Mr. Epstein is not here. MR. LEFKOWITZ: That's correct. THE COURT: Are you waiving his appearance

e process safeguards). Courts evaluating that liberty interest under the procedural due process analysis articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing the private interest affected by state action, the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest, and

-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 Avenue New York, New York 10022 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant REPRODUCED ON RECYCLE

To be Argued By: JAY P. LEFKOWITZ New York County Clerk's Index No. 30129/2010 e€

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs u. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v. Arotin, 19 A.D.3

is own sexual perversions. l le scores as a Level ill Sex Offender with absolutely no basis for downward departure. EFTA00231522 A77 Letter from Jay P. Lefkowitz to Hon. Ruth Pickholz Requesting a Continuance of the Hearing. dated September 9, 2010 09/0T/2010 09:55 FAX rihon2,,no2 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP ANO

a hearing on this matter if that would be acceptable to the Court. We are available to discuss at the Court's convenience. Respectfully submitted, Lefkowitz, P.C. Chicago Hong Kong Lor1000 Los Angeles Memel Palo Alto San Francisco Shanghai Washington. 0 C. EFTA00231523 A78 Letter from Supreme

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs v. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v: Arotin, 19 A.D.3

R BEYER,LAWRENCE COHLAN,JOHN LEFKOWITZ,ELISE JAMES,JANET B HILL,MELANIE

AN A FAIRBANKS,DANIEL J HAMILTON JR,S. MATTHEWS SCAIFE,JENNIE K ECHAVARRIA,LOUISE

ly Grail" (Ex. F), a "journal" assertedly taken from Epstein's computer and cited by Edwards inn 16-18; correspondence between the U.S. Attorney and Jay Leflcowitz, Esq. (Exs. C and D and 9fq 6, 20, 25) and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. (Ex. L andl 28); a book receipt (Ex. I and 1 22), message pads (Ex. A. 1 24) and

v. Scalese, 799 So. 2d 382, 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (issues regarding the intent of the parties could not be decided on summary judgment). See also Matthews v. Storgion, 335 F. Supp. 2d 878, 886 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) (genuine issue of material 25 EFTA00808050 Epstein v. Rothstein and Edwards Case No. 502

llant. rI BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JAY P. LEFKOWITZ SANDRA LYNN MUSUMECI KnAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lex

9 (1998) 34, 35 Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. v. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep't 2007) 43 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) 48 Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) 32 New York State Bd. of Sex Exam'rs v. Ransom, 249 A.D.2d 891 (4th Dep't 1998) 18 People v. Arotin, 19 A.D.3