EFTA01085713

recommendation. For instance, the actual transcripts of the interviews 
on which the Probable Cause Affidavit is based reveal that A.H. could 
not provide firm or even approximate dates for her earliest interactions 
with Appellant: 
• A.H. Tr. 2:24-27 (A.H. stating that her date of birth is December 
30, 1986, which would have made her nearly 19 years old when 
she was interviewed by Recarey on October 11, 2005). 
• A.H. Tr. 4:12-23 (A.H. guessing about the timing of her first 
meeting with Appellant and stating that she does not know 
whether she was 16 or 17). 
• A.H. Tr. 11:42-12:4 (A.H. saying that she cannot keep track of 
specifically when different interactions with Appellant took place). 
Though A.H. could not say with certainty when she first met and 
massaged Appellant, A.H. stated unambiguously that she was 17 years 
old during their single instance of brief sexual intercourse, when she 
claimed that Appellant momentarily penetrated her in the midst of 
other consensual sexual conduct. See A.H. Tr. 17:21-33 (A.H. affirming 
that she was "definitely" 17 when she had sex with Appellant, but that 
she could not recall the specific date of when that took place). 
In addition to establishing that A.H. was 17 during her 
interactions with Appellant (and therefore, Appellant's conduct toward 
her is not scoreable under SORA), A.H.'s statements to Det. Recarey 
41 
EFTA01085753

further reveal that A.H. viewed her interactions with Appellant (both 
sexual and non-sexual), as well as her sexual interactions with a female 
named "Nadia," as consensual and entirely self-interested: 
• A.H. Tr. 15:1-21 (A.H. telling Recarey that Appellant would pay 
her to spend time with him, relax by the pool, and eat meals, 
without any sexual activity, and she did that to get paid). 
• A.H. Tr. 20:35- 46 (A.H. describing how she and Nadia once 
decided on their own to buy sex toys and engage in sex with each 
other as a "birthday gift" to Appellant). 
• A.H. Tr. 13:28-41 (A.H. stating that she "didn't want to burn [her] 
bridges" with Appellant because she viewed him as a "spectacular 
connection" and she used him for money and other benefits). 
• A.H. Tr. 27:12-27 (A.H. stating that she acted "crazy, promiscuous, 
whatever you want to call it," in order to receive money and gifts 
from Appellant). 
The interview transcripts make clear that A.H. -- inaccurately described 
in the Board's Case Summary as the "16-year old victim" who went to 
Appellant's home "at least 100 times", A.65 (Tr.) -- was not, in fact, a 
victim of reportable criminal conduct by Appellant, but rather, was an 
opportunistic young woman who, at 17 and 18 years of age, repeatedly 
decided to engage in promiscuous behavior that she believed was in her 
self-interest.13
13 
Notably, these transcripts were also furnished to the District Attorney's 
Office prior to the SORA hearing, providing grounds for the People's conclusion that 
the allegations concerning A.H. were not reliable and did not satisfy the heightened 
42 
EFTA01085754

Indeed, transcripts of police interviews with numerous other 
women who are cited in the Probable Cause Affidavit reveal multiple 
other troubling inaccuracies and exaggerations in the police paperwork 
on which the Board relied in making its unsupportable Level 3 
recommendation. Most significantly, to the extent that any of the 
women cited in the Board materials were under the age of legal 
consent14 at the time of their prostitution-related interactions with 
Appellant, these young women acknowledged in sworn testimony 
(again, provided to the District Attorney's Office prior to the SORA 
hearing) that they lied outright or otherwise sought to deceive 
Appellant about their ages and counseled others to do the same. Again, 
the primary source evidence provided to the People prior to the SORA 
hearing made abundantly clear that these women took proactive steps 
standard of clear and convincing evidence required to score Appellant under SORA. 
Other evidence provided to the District Attorney's Office further discredited A.H., 
including documents establishing: (1) that A.H. only agreed to speak to police about 
Appellant to curry favor following her own arrest for marijuana possession, and (2) 
shortly after speaking to police, A.H. was terminated from a job at a lingerie shop as 
a result of stealing merchandise. See Palm Beach Police Report for A.H., dated 
Sept. 11, 2005); Limited Brand Incident Report for A.H., dated Nov. 4, 2005). 
'4 
Notably, the age of consent under Florida law is 18, whereas under New York 
law, it is 17. CITE. Thus, many of uncharged allegations in the Probable Cause 
Affidavit concerning prostitution-related conduct with women who were 17, and 
thus under the age of consent pursuant to Florida law, do not even qualify as 
scoreable conduct under New York law. CITE. 
43 
EFTA01085755

to ensure that Appellant did not know that they were underage when 
he hired them to provide massages: 
• H.R. Tr. 12:13-21 (H.R. telling police that she lied to Appellant 
and told him that she was 18 when she was only 17, and further 
reporting to police that "most of the girls lied" to Appellant about 
their ages). 
• J.L. Dep. 15:25-17:2 (woman testifying that she was told by H.R. 
that she had to be over 18 to massage Appellant, so she lied and 
claimed to be 19 because she wanted to make money). 
• F.P. Tr. 5:5-8 (woman telling police that Appellant did not know 
her age). 
• S.G. Tr. 38:21-39:18 (S.G. telling police that she told Appellant 
that she was 18 and in twelfth grade because H.R. told her that 
Appellant would not allow her in his house if she was under 18). 
• S.G. Dep. 32:17-19, 35:19-38:7 (S.G. testifying that she was told 
that Appellant would not allow her into his house if she was under 
18, and so she lied to Appellant and told him that she was 18 and 
went to a different school). 
• T.M. Dep. 6:11-20, 7:24-8:8 (woman testifying that she was 
instructed to tell Appellant that she was 18 if she wanted to give 
him a massage for money, and since she had a fake ID she decided 
to go). 
• M.L. Tr. 13:16-22 (woman telling police that Appellant never 
knew her age, but she was instructed to tell Appellant that she 
was 18 because women had to be a certain age to massage him). 
In fact, S.G., the sole 14-year-old cited in the Board's Case Summary, 
had a history of lying about her age and representing herself to be much 
older than she was, and engaging in sexual activity while underage: 
• S.G. Dep. 68:12-69:18 (S.G. testifying that she lied about being 18 
on her MySpace page). 
44 
EFTA01085756

• S.G. Dep. 108:7-110:1 (S.G. acknowledging that she was in a 
sexual relationship with a 22-year-old firefighter while she was 
still underage). 
• S.G. Dep. 121:3-21 (S.G. admitting that she was sexually active 
when she was 14, before she ever met Appellant). 
Moreover, the actual sworn testimony of H.R., a woman who 
recruited other women to provide massages to Appellant, lays bare how 
Det. Recarey extracted a particularly damning phrase from H.R.'s 
statement to police and emphasized it out of context in order to 
improperly and incorrectly build a case that Appellant had a propensity 
for underage girls. 
Indeed, the Probable Cause Affidavit and the 
People's appellate brief both underscore the extremely damaging claim 
that Appellant allegedly relayed to H.R. that his preference for female 
masseuses was, "the younger, the better." See A.9 (Probable Cause 
Affidavit); Resp. Br. at 22. But the actual transcript of H.R.'s police 
interview exposes that Recarey took the "the younger, the better" 
statement out of context and omitted from the Probable Cause Affidavit 
the critical qualification that Appellant specifically said that he liked 
females "between the ages of like 18 and 20." See H.R. Tr. 11:25-12:21. 
Such a shocking misrepresentation in a sworn document by a police 
45 
EFTA01085757

officer places the credibility of every statement included in the Probable 
Cause Affidavit is doubt. 
Indeed, the primary source evidence demonstrates multiple 
instances of egregious misstatements and material omissions in the 
Probable Cause Affidavit to manufacture inflammatory, demonstrably 
false allegations that should not have been considered in calculating 
Appellant's risk level under SORA: 
• F.P. Tr. 5:18-23, 11:6-22 (17-year-old woman telling police that 
Appellant did not touch her inappropriately, did not try to touch 
her, and did not masturbate while she gave him a massage, 
despite allegations in the Probable Cause Affidavit that Appellant 
"grabbed her buttocks and pulled her close to him"). 
• S.V. Tr. 2:25-3:12, 18:7-20 (woman telling police that she was 17 
when she first met Appellant and that Appellant never used any 
sex toys on her and touched her with his hands (as opposed to 
"something else"), refuting claim in the Probable Cause Affidavit 
that "on occasion, [Appellant] would use a massager/vibrator on 
her"). 
• F.E. Tr. 12:6-12 (woman telling police that she was 17 when she 
first met Appellant, in contradiction to the Probable Cause 
Affidavit which states that this same woman was only 16 when 
she first met Appellant). 
• J.L. Tr. 4:10-11, 11:4-7 (woman stating that her date of birth is 
February 8, 1987, which would have made her 17 years and 9 
months old during her sole contact with Appellant in November 
2004, and stating that her interaction with Appellant was entirely 
consensual, despite the Probable Cause Affidavit claim that she 
had "just turned seventeen" and suggestion that she was coerced 
or tricked into interacting with Appellant). 
• A.T. Tr. 3:18-4:1, 5:6-15 (clarifying that woman was 19 or 20 years 
old during her sole consensual encounter with Appellant). 
46 
EFTA01085758

Finally, in deposition testimony that was furnished to the People 
prior to the SORA hearing,15 Det. Recarey himself acknowledged 
additional damning allegations contained in his police reports, 
including the Probable Cause Affidavit, that he failed to correct. For 
example, he failed to correct that certain objects recovered from 
Appellant's garbage, previously identified as sex toys, were in fact 
broken eating utensils, and that he knew that the "covert cameras" in 
Appellant's Palm Beach home were actually purchased for security 
purposes following a burglary in 2003. See Recarey Dep. 423:1-425:17, 
458:8-460:18. Det. Recarey also admitted in sworn testimony that the 
Florida prosecutor handling Appellant's case, whom he acknowledged to 
be an experienced prosecutor specializing in sex crimes cases involving 
children, concluded following her investigation that, "There are no real 
victims here." See Recarey Dep. 484:21-485:13, 506:18-507:21. 
In short, there is a wealth of evidence, gathered and considered by 
the Florida prosecutors who closely examined and investigated the 
allegations made against Appellant, which rendered the majority of 
15 
As referenced during the SORA hearing itself, the allegations made against 
Appellant were not only subject to investigation and scrutiny by prosecutors, but 
they were also the subject of protracted civil litigation which involved fact discovery 
and depositions. See A.95-A.96 (Tr.). 
47 
EFTA01085759

allegations unprosecutable, if not simply baseless. Accordingly, based 
on the merits (and not merely based on political expediency), the Palm 
Beach County State Attorney's Office appropriately exercised its 
discretion and made the affirmative decision not to prosecute the vast 
majority of allegations cited in the Probable Cause Affidavit. 
Many of these same materials were provided to the People prior to 
the SORA hearing and properly informed their conclusion that the 
Probable Cause Affidavit and the Board's Case Summary were 
unreliable. More to the point, as the People rightfully concluded and 
represented on the record at the SORA hearing, the Board materials 
were certainly not sufficient to satisfy the requisite clear and convincing 
evidence standard to sustain a Level 3 calculation under SORA. 
Accordingly, the Court's Order lacks legal basis and should be vacated. 
48 
EFTA01085760

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated herein, Appellant Jeffrey E. Epstein 
respectfully submits that the January 18, 2011 Order of the New York 
Supreme Court determining him to be a Level 3 sex offender, without 
designation, should be vacated, and Appellant's SORA level should be 
recalculated in accordance with the law. 
September 16, 2011 
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Jay P. Lefkowitz 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
.1.... 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone: 
Facsimile: 
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant 
Jeffrey E. Epstein 
49 
EFTA01085761

PRINTING SPECIFICATION STATEMENT 
This computer 
generated 
brief 
was 
prepared 
using a 
proportionally spaced typeface. 
Name of Typeface: 
Century Schoolbook 
Point Size: 
14-point type 
Line Spacing: 
Double-spaced 
The total number of words in the brief, inclusive of point headings 
and footnotes and exclusive of pages containing the table of contents, 
table of authorities, and printing specification statement is 
50 
EFTA01085762

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL-SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE 
The undersigned hereby certifies that: 
(1) all required privacy redactions have been made and, with the 
exception of those redactions, every document submitted in Digital 
Form or scanned PDF format is an exact copy of the written document 
filed with the Clerk; and 
(2) the digital submissions have been scanned for viruses with the 
most recent version of a commercial virus scanning program (McAfee 
Enterprise 8.5 Virus Scan, updated as of March 9, 2009) and, according 
to the program, are free of viruses. 
/s/ Jay P. Lefkowitz 
Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. 
Sandra Lynn Musumeci 
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 
601 Lexington Avenue 
New York, New York 10022 
Telephone 
Facsimile: 
51 
EFTA01085763