Epstein Secrets

ial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Com

episode, are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. The reason is that each prosecution involves separate sovereigns."); United States v. McCloud , F. Supp. 2d 2007 WL 1706353 (S.D. Ga. June 11, 2007) (same). Even if Epstein could assert a Sixth Amendment violation based upon the issuance o

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe I United States , 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis I United States , 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the Production of the Comp

l episode, are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. The reason is that each prosecution involves separate sovereigns."); United States I McCloud , F. Supp. 2d 2007 WL 1706353 (S.D. Ga. June 11, 2007) (same). Even if Epstein could assert a Sixth Amendment violation based upon the issuance o

cial entity, not a natural person, and therefore has no Fifth Amendment privilege at all. See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201, 206 (1988); Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 90 (1974). -15- EFTA00179114 B. The Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work Product Doctrine Also Do Not Bar the

l episode, are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. The reason is that each prosecution involves separate sovereigns."); United States v. McCloud, F. Supp. 2d , 2007 WL 1706353 (S.D. Ga. June 11, 2007) (same). Even if Epstein could assert a Sixth Amendment violation based upon the issuance