Epstein Secrets

(4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States v. Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a target of a grand jury investigation should be allowed to intervene once the claim of attorney-client privilege between the subpoen

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5. Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances. stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff 'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th C

the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a target of a grand jury investigation should be allowed to intervene once the claim of attorney-client privilege between the subpoen

3 (4th Cir. 1991) (Fifth Amendment does not protect the contents of voluntarily prepared documents, whether business or personal); United States I Hubbell , 167 F.3d 552, 567 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (same), aff'd on other grounds , 530 U.S. 27 (2000); In re Grand Jury Proceedings , 759 F.2d 1418, 1419 (9th Ci

the appearance of witnesses and production of the requested items. ARGUMENT I. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE MOTION TO INTERVENE, IN PART. The Eleventh Circuit has ruled that a target of a grand jury investigation should be allowed to intervene once the claim of attorney-client privilege between the subpoen

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see ado Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

). Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5, Fox Grove supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Broskv 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances, stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci

nces as here "the act of producing documents in response to a subpoena (or production request) has a compelled testimonial aspect." United States v. Hubbell 530 U.S. 27, 36, 120 S.Ct. 2037, 2043 (2000); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); McCormick on Evidence, Title 6, Chap. 13. The

Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5. Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances. stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci