Epstein Secrets

[email protected] Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 485 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/10/201

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

Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983). As a result, the “required records” exce

cylaw.com Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80994-KAM Document 92 Entered on FLSD Docke

nd that tax returns have “public aspects”. See Rodrigues, 717 F. Supp. at 1426-27 (citing cases); accord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exception applies to the production of tax returns. In Rodrigues, the Court denied the Fifth Amendme

Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg

ents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S

8-80993, 08- 80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10th Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Wo

nt. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenfh 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2nd Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiffs overly broad request see

cylaw.com Katherine Warthen Ezell [email protected] Michael James Pike [email protected] Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg [email protected] Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 333 Entered on FLSD Do

and location of the documents are unknown; and (2) where production “implicitly authenticates” documents. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). It is the burden of the defendant to show that the act of producing responsive documents would entail testimonial self- incrimination. Unit

Paul G. Cassell [email protected] Richard Horace Willits [email protected] Robert C. Josefsberg

ccord Doe v. United States, 711 F.2d 1187, 1191 (2d Cir. 1983).1 Accordingly, the “required records” exc

0 Fax: ssmasexabuseattomev.com Counsel for Plaintiffs in Related Cases Nos. 08-80069, 08-80119, 08-80232, 08-80380, 08- 80381, 08-80993, 08-80994 Richard Horace Willits, Esq. Richard H. Willits, P.A. 2290 10ib Avenue North Suite 404 Lake Worth. FL 33461 Fax: Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 80811 Bra

t 1313. Hoffenberg suggests that United States v. Leonard, 50 F.3d 1152, 1158 (2d Cir.I995), suggests a high- er standard of proof. In Leonard, the Second Circuit instructed that "the district court should consider any evidence with a significant degree of probative value, and should rest its finding on evid