Epstein Secrets

rns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." Id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

ndants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. Ev. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(eX6) [now Rule 11(f)] is to promote the unrestrained candor which pr

rns have been considered `confidential,' pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §6103." id. Because of the principle of confidentiality, it further noted, "courts in the Second Circuit have found personal financial information to be presumptively confidential or cloaked with a qualified immunity," and must, therefore, "balance the

ndants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition agreement is reached"); Fed. It Crim. P. 11, Advisory Committee Notes, 1979 Amendment ("the purpose of Fed. R. By. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(eX6) [now Rule 11(01 is to promote the unrestrained candor which pro

' The Government moves to file a redacted version this letter motion. The proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although this letter motion is a judicial document subject to the common law pr

f office and with official duties in the district or political subdivision where the record is kept. Fed. R Civ. P. 44(a)(1); see Fed. R. Evid. 902 Advisory Committee Notes ("Rule 44(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 27 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure have provided authentication procedures of this n

citations omitted). ht determining how much weight to accord the presumption after the defendant has come forward to meet his burden of production, the Second Circuit explains: A judicial officer conducting a detention hearing should, even after a defendant has come forward with rebuttal evidence, continue to giv

ion rinstdeten- tion *1033 (United States Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85, 94 (3d Cir.1 9)), in 1972 Fed.R.App. ("Rule 9(c) was adopted ex- pressly (1972 Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule): to allocate to the defendant the burden of establishing that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to any other perso