Epstein Secrets

production of a personal calendar “would require mere surrender of the calendar, and not testimony” (internal quotation omitted)); United States v. Clark, 847 F.2d 1467, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988) (accounting records not subject to act of production protection; in producing records the defendant would not

tion for tax returns – as the magistrate judge specifically noted in rejecting Epstein’s argument. See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 442 (2nd Cir. 2008) (“. . . a taxpayer’s W-2 forms are required records not subject to the Fifth Amendment because they are a mandatory part of a civil regulatory

his claim is said to be Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), which reviews some decisions from within the Second Circuit and Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/2010 Page 15 of 27 CASE NO: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSO

d foray" into CBS's news files containing related information. Such a result, the court IS See Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark. 993 P.2d 50, 57 (Nev. 2000) ("Privileges relating to confidential communications, such as those between attorney and client, between doctor and pa

a. 2009) 12 Cooper Industries. Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group. Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) 12 Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark. 993 P.2d 50 (Nev. 2000) 18. 19 E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00728011 E

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

d foray" into CBS's news files containing related information. Such a result, the court IS See Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark. 993 P.2d 50, 57 (Nev. 2000) ("Privileges relating to confidential communications, such as those between attorney and client, between doctor and pa

a. 2009) 12 Cooper Industries. Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group. Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001) 12 Diaz v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark. 993 P.2d 50 (Nev. 2000) 18. 19 E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs.. Inc.. 33 Media L. Rep. 1413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) 2 iii EFTA00207334 E

to the defendant's continued newsgathering effectiveness of preserving the source's confidentiality." Id. at 596-98.5 Even in Circuits that, unlike the Second Circuit, have not recognized a federal reporter's privilege, the standards applicable under Rules 26 and 45 have resulted in rejection of private litigants

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because there is an insufficient nexus between Clark's conduct and the United States. We hold that, based on Clark's U.S. citizenship, application of § 2423(c) to his extra- territorial conduct is neither "arlitr ]or funda- mentally unfair." United States 905 F.

eal estate, bank accounts, investment accounts, a driver's li- cense, and a mailing address in this country. Fol- lowing a family visit in May 2003, Clark left Page 4 of 20 Page 4 Seattle and flew to Cambodia via Japan, Thailand, and Malaysia. He was traveling on a business visa that he renewed on

, 259 F. 35, 38, and De- moth United States, 144 F. 363, 366, 6 I.R.A., .S., 424, 7 Ann.Cas. 121; by the decision of the Circuit Court of ala of the Second Circuit in Reed ■ United States, 2 Cir., 96 F2d 785, 787, rtlorarl denied 305 U.S. 612, 59 S.Ct. 71, 83 LEd. 399; and by the rulin of the Supreme Court

ptions should be "narrowly construed." Bridges, 346 U.S. at 215-16 (citing United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633, 639 (1926)); see also Comm 'r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989) ("we usually read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the provision," particularly when

legislative history at issue did not clearly evidence Congress' intent regarding retroactivity. Id. That is not the case here. As Judge Katzman of the Second Circuit has recognized, unambiguous legislative history should not be disregarded: When courts construe statutes in ways that respect what legislators cons

v. Fultninante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) 22 Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2019) 54 Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (10th Cir. 1991) 29, 30 Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933) 27 Cunningham v. Shoop, F.4th 2022 WL 92594 (6th Cir. Nos. 11-3005/20-3429, Jan. 10, 2022) 50 Davis v. Bom

lse answer is just as 23 EFTA00155930 invidious as an intentionally false answer. United States v. Langford, 990 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir. 1993)." As the Second Circuit held in Langford: We read [McDonough] multi-part test as governing not only inadvertent nondisclosures but also nondisclosures or misstatements tha

t trial is the carefully limited exception."). 15 EFTA00093060 Case 21-770. Document 17-1, 04/01/2021, 3068296, Page18 of 31 In United States v. Clark, 448 F. Supp. 3d 1152, 1155 (D. Kan. 2020), the court emphasized that "[m]ost courts addressing a motion for temporary release under §3142(i) have

risonment for turning off a light in a lighthouse to expose a ship to danger). Even if there were evidence to back up the four anonymous accusers, the Second Circuit "require[s] more than evidence of the commission of a serious crime and the fact of a potential long sentence to support a finding of risk of fligh

J., 140 F.Supp. 82, rendered judgment declaring that they were payable in current British tender; the bondholder appealed. The Court of Appeals, Clark, Chief Judge, held that under "coupon gold" bonds, properly construed, issuer did not un- dertake to make bondholders whole in event Great Britain

. Nathan FLEISCHER, Petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REV- ENUE, Respondent Nos. 219-220, Dockets 31638-91639. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued April 9, 1968. Deckled Oct. 31, 1968. Proceedings on petition for review of decision and order of Tax Court that taxpayer's deductions f

ug Enforcement Administration his fi- nanci►l dealings with respect to his it legal drug deals. HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I join Judge Clark's dissent. The agree- ment in this case coven the subject funds. I hasten to add that nothing is gained by encouraging the government to enter into

ers, Inc., Petitioners-Ap- pellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. No. 474, Docket 95-6119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Aug. 81, 1996. Decided Oct. 17, 1996. Government appealed from order en- tered in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri

ssible to discharge in fact, and would serve no useful pur- pose." he same principle was stated in Russo United States, 2 Cir., 1957. 241 F.2d 5 (Clark, then Chief Judge. Lumbard and Waterman, C. JJ.). The Fourth Circuit rejected a taxpayer's contention which the court stated as follows: "The co

ates and could not be held liable for misdelivery of goods. BROOKS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. PO. 199, Docket 21917. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued March 13, 1951. Decided March 28,1951. John R. Brooks brought an action against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for We- delivery of goo