Epstein Secrets

even when the information would incriminate the client "in the very case in which the Firm was engaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who p

aged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who paid him more than $10,000 cash, and Lefcourt was fined $25,000. Lefcourt sought to avoid

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes of Doe , production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating . Butcher , 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei

even when the information would incriminate the client "in the very case in which the Firm was engaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. I United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who pa

gaged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. I United States , 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who paid him more than $10,000 cash, and Lefcourt was fined $25,000. Lefcourt sought to avoid

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes of Doe , production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating . Butcher , 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei

et with counsel for Mr. Epstein. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney ...••••••• By: Chief, Criminal Division cc: Roy Black Gerald B. Lefcourt R. Alexander Acosta EFTA00179084 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM NUMBERS OLY

aged to provide criminal defense representation." Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States, 125 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, Attorney Lefcourt refused to identify in an IRS reporting form a client who paid him more than $10,000 cash, and Lefcourt was fined $25,000. Lefcourt sought to avoid

Even if the act of production were testimonial for purposes ofDoe, production can be refused only if the act of production also is incriminating. Butcher, 753 F.2d at 469-70. In other words, the act of authentication is incriminating only if the documents are incriminating. As explained above, Epstei