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

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

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

& 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

EN D. WEBER RE: Board Determination and Risk Level Recommendation DATE: 8/19/2010 Pursuant to the Nev. York State Sex Offender Registration Act, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders has reviewed your conviction in another jurisdiction and has determined that you are required to register with the New York State Sex Offender Regi

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

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

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

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

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