Epstein Secrets

to speak to me or need any further information, please feel free to contact me. V JAG/slm s, Jack A. Goldberger EFTA00231498 A53 Letter from Martin G. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Se: Offenders Regarding Risk Level and Designation Determination for Jeffrey Epstein, dated August 16, 2010 [pp. A53-A

berger EFTA00231498 A53 Letter from Martin G. Weinberg to NYS Board of Examiners of Se: Offenders Regard

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

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

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

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

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa

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

prosecutors to be unreliable to support charges against Appellant), and assessed points against Appellant based on these unprosecuted allegations. See A.65 (Board Recommendation). The Board recognized Appellant's conduct on Community Control as satisfactory and noted that he has no history of substance abuse. See A.65 (Boa