Epstein Secrets

14 As Amicas cuicmie: , ESQ. 15 Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard 16 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. 954.356.7255 17 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 18 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 19 (Via telephone) 20 JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (Via telephone) 21 REPORTED BY: LARRY HERR, RPR-RMR-FCRR-

3 MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14 defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR. WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 17 Honor. 18 MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Good morning. 21 I

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

to speak to me or need any further information, please feel free to contact me. V JAG/slm s, Jack A. Goldberger EFTA00232618 A53 Letter from Martin G. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders Regarding Risk Level and Designation Determination for Jeffrey Epstein, dated August 16, 2010 [pp. A53-A

berger EFTA00232618 A53 Letter from Martin G. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders Regard

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

in New York and Florida. See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg of Aug. 16, 2010).' Appellant does not live in N

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]

property in Manhattan.3 See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders, date

of the matter to a different Justice should this Court deem remand necessary to recalculate Appellant's risk assessment level. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008); Fresh Del Monte Produce N.V. u. Eastbrook Caribe, 40 A.D.3d 415, 421 (1st Dep't 2007). 30 EFTA00792603 CON

in New York and Florida. See A.53 (Letter of M. Weinberg of Aug. 16, 2010).1 Appellant does not live in Ne

ppropriate where the apparent impartiality of the lower court has been legitimately questioned, as it most certainly has here. See, e.g., People v. Rampino, 55 A.D.3d 348, 349 (1st Dep't 2008) (remanding resentencing matter to a different Justice where the "appearance of fairness and impartiality [was]