# Profoundd archive — Epstein Files # Bates number: EFTA00205130 # Title: 吣。鬥犬嘞 为①仂℃。口Q # Dataset: 9 # Pages: 3 # Tags: epstein, doj, dataset-9 # Source PDF: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00205130/download # Doc viewer: https://profoundd.com/epstein-docs/EFTA00205130 # # Text below is what Profoundd has extracted from the source PDF. # 'ocr-enriched' tag means OCR was applied to scan-only pages. # Image descriptions are AI-generated factual captions (llava:13b). #---------------------------------------------------------------------- === SUMMARY === 呂剑NN 仙栅①尸尸厂 q 'm ’嘞 仂毛①①口＜、 〖。仂犬。老挥忡塌 》n 。仂＂P 巴uq 仁们I 仂剑H 仙仰吕， qq . ③口中H 『丁① m①。℃尸① 。『 什了① 仂什仰g 。－ z ①笔 吣。鬥犬嘞 为①仂℃。口Q ①j 什嘞 I 仙囵岂口们什－ 8 揉＂①＜ 閨·閂℃仂什巴口、 。①『①？Q 剑口什－游℃℃①：仙口＂. 犬一咧酉gq 伊 国尸尸＝ 「「巾塌z ①笔 吣。＂犬 艺仙＜ m ．「①饰片。菩g 。怖 。。仁j 们①七、 －。咧 仙℃℃①：仰＃. HjQ ' w8 闐④凡H 。 O n 竹 ＾。。昼①ng 。口 「仰老 仰＂什 ③I O 』嘞 仁口山吕当。仁仂尸＜ 仙揉＃吕①Q 、 老摔5 。＝什 n 。仂什仂． 2 ①仙栲 仙口Q 。。口＜旨n 写圜 ①＆Q ①’。巾、 一口2 仁Q 写圜 ＂①尸冒5 尸① 了①倒＂们仰＜ ＾仂①⑦ 怕⑦。℃幂 ＜鸶H 凸啕。嘞 尸闐 z 吣wQ 篙w 塌 驾一 「閥8 ④」」 仂仁℃℃。鴆什①Q 竹丁① 仙仂仂①仂们尽①口＂ 。『 ℃吕匀什仂 饰。栲 昌仂石 冒n 什。＂仂 。仙仂巾、 什5 ① 。。仁＂什 ℃咧。℃①＂尸＜ 鴆①~①Q 。j 了吕己＜ 咧①：吕H ① ℃咧。。－ 。呻 。栲 吕一 山尸 n 。＝q =n 什 『。栲 雹5 n了 q ①一 jq 仙，竹 毛仙们 j ① 什了①咧 一口Q 。什①Q 仂仁揉 8 ①’什 一。鬥 仰 H①＜①尸 ＂‘鴆①① 们①渊 吕饰①口Q ①鴆 倒Q 」仁昌8g 。廿 ＾。。＂栲①n 什 。口 「仙笔 吻 H 峦曲－口「w 一－· H匀 ＂丁① 。 栲。＝吕仂什仰’。①们 。『 什了 仂 EFTA00205130 including declarations against penal interest made by defendant's accomplice. In 2006, the Florida prosecutor obtained an indictment charging defendant with solicitation of prostitution. In 2008, the Florida prosecutor filed an information, this time charging procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. A few days after the information, defendant pleaded guilty to both accusatory instruments. Both instruments involved the same victim, who was only one of defendant's many victims. The Board and the hearing court are not limited to the underlying crime in determining an offender's risk level (see People v Johnson, 77 AD3d 548, 549-550 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 705 [2011]). "[T]he fact that an offender was not indicted for an offense may be strong evidence that the offense did not occur" (Sex Offender Registration Act: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary, General Principles 1 7, at 5 [2006]). However, here the strong evidence that the offenses against the other victims did occur outweighs any inferences to be drawn from the manner in which this case was prosecuted in Florida. The reasons for the actions taken by the Florida authorities remain unclear on this record. The record before us is insufficient to establish that those authorities reasonably believed the charges involving the other victims were unprovable. The record permits competing inferences. In any event, the hearing court was entitled to rely on the reliably proven facts themselves, and was not necessarily bound by any exercises of prosecutorial discretion. We reject defendant's argument that the People should be estopped from taking a different position on appeal from the position they took before the hearing court. At the hearing, the People mistakenly conceded that the conduct for which defendant was not indicted should not be considered, and that defendant should be adjudicated a level one offender. These were legal arguments that the court rejected, and it is the court's determination that we review on this appeal. Furthermore, when the court announced that it was rejecting the People's position and would consider the offenses against additional victims, defendant did not request any opportunity to challenge the reliability of the additional charges. Accordingly, defendant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to litigate the issue (see e.g. People v Strong, 276 AD2d 271 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 807 [2001]) . Defendant's remaining claims are improperly raised for EFTA00205131 the first time on appeal (see People v Windham, 10 NY3d 801 [2008]), and are unavailing in any event. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: NOVEMBER 17, 2011 CLERK EFTA00205132