← Back to home

Document 2614674

AI Analysis

Summary: The document discusses Jeffrey Epstein's alleged failure to comply with New York sex offender registration requirements and his alleged misconduct while on work release in Florida. It cites news articles and court records to support these claims. The document argues that these facts undermine Epstein's defense counsel's argument that he should be released due to his 'perfect compliance' with sex offender registration obligations.
Significance: This document is potentially important because it highlights Epstein's alleged non-compliance with sex offender registration requirements and misconduct while on work release, which could be relevant to his current detention and release arguments.
Key Topics: Jeffrey Epstein's sex offender registration compliance Epstein's alleged misconduct while on work release Relevance to Epstein's current detention and release arguments
Key People:
  • Jeffrey Epstein - defendant
  • Judge Pickholz - judge who issued an order related to Epstein's sex offender status
  • Brad Edwards - attorney to one of Epstein's victims
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
1
Folder
IMAGES001

Full Text

Case#: 918-002190-RMB Document#: 82 Filed: 07/18/2019 Page: 20 of 33 was unanimously affirmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's order, according to a July 10, 2019 investigative report by the New York Post, as noted, Mr. Epstein has never reported as a sex offender to New York law enforcement. See July 10, 2019 NY Post Article. "The NYPD cop assigned to monitor Epstein has repeatedly complained to [the New York County District Attorney's] Sex Crimes Unit that Epstein wasn't in compliance, according to a source familiar with the matter." Id. Mr. Epstein's alleged failure to comply with his New York sex offender obligations would appear to undermine defense counsel's premise that Mr. Epstein's "perfect compliance" and "meticulous obedience," Dkt. 6 at 1, 5, to his sex offender registration obligations should lead to his release. See LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 135 n.6 (where the Court ordered detention noting that the defendant "had previously disregarded court orders"). The Court has also read the story in the July 17, 2019, New York Post in which attorney Brad Edwards contends that while Epstein was serving his Florida state sentence (after pleading guilty to procuring a minor under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution), Epstein was allowed to leave the jail on work release. While on work release "[h]e was having . . . female visitors . . . and continuing to engage in . . . [sexual] conduct . . . while he was in 'jail'." Mr. Edwards is counsel to one of Mr. Epstein's victims. See Reuven Fenton and Kate Sheehy, Jeffrey Epstein had sex den while serving time; lawyer, New York Post, July 16, 2019. The Court is also aware of an article published by Palm Beach CBS local news which reports that the Palm Beach County Sherriff's Office "disputes [the] claim that Jeffrey Epstein had sex on work release." A spokeswoman for the sheriff's office is quoted as saying "If he violated any conditions of his 20 DOJ-OGR-00000803