EFTA00076625

But there was an expensive footnote about him and Bear Stearns. When two big Bear Stearns hedge funds 
collapsed in 2007 at the start of the financial crisis, Mr. Epstein's firm was one of the bigger losers, out more 
than $50 million. Mr. Epstein's firm also claimed in a lawsuit that he lost even more money when Bear Steams 
itself collapsed in 2008. 
Exactly what his money management operation did was cloaked in secrecy, as were most of the names of 
whomever he did it for. He claimed to work for a number of billionaires, but the only known major client was 
Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of several retail chains, including The Limited. 
Mr. Wexner is the chief executive of L Brands, which now operates Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works. 
Mr. Epstein also did work for Steven Hoffenberg, a financier who offered to rescue The New York Post in 1994, 
the year before he was charged with securities fraud. 
Mr. Epstein's townhouse was once owned by a company that he and Mr. Wexner both controlled. In 2011, it was 
transferred to a Virgin Island-based company called Maple Inc., of which Mr. Epstein is the president. 
A spokeswoman for Mr. Wexner said the retail magnate had "severed ties" with Mr. Epstein about a decade ago. 
Calls to Financial Trust's office in St. Thomas and to a lawyer for Mr. Epstein there have not been returned. 
Over the weekend, investigators smashed the tall wooden front doors of Mr. Epstein's $56 million Manhattan 
townhouse in a raid, and said they found a safe with lewd photographs. In arguing that his wealth and private jets 
made him a flight risk, they said he had six residences. 
They also emphasized his private island in describing his primary residence on Little St. James Island, in the 
Virgin Islands. They said he had a second home on the islands, along with places in New Mexico — a ranch he 
reportedly named "Zorro" — and Paris. 
They also described a fleet that included S.U.V.s and a Mercedes-Benz sedan. His New York State sex-offender 
listing, required after his deal in Florida in 2008, said he also had a 2017 Bentley. 
There was no mention of the Boeing 727 — decorated with mink and sable throws — that flew him to Africa 
with former President Bill Clinton and the actor Kevin Spacey in 2002. It also flew Mr. Epstein and other 
acquaintances to a TED Talk in California with lunch catered by Le Cirque, a Manhattan restaurant with a 
celebrity clientele. 
President Clinton "knows nothing about the terrible crimes" that Mt Epstein was charged with in New York or 
pleaded guilty to in Florida in 2008, a spokesman for the former president said on Monday. The spokesman, 
Angel Urena, said that Mr. Clinton had taken four trips on Mr. Epstein's plane in 2002 and 2003 — one to 
Europe, one to Asia and two to Africa. 
Mr. Urefta emphasized that Mr. Clinton was accompanied by staff members and supporters of Mr. Clinton's 
foundation "on every leg of every trip" and was accompanied by someone from his staff and his security detail 
when he made "one brief visit" to Mr. Epstein's home. That was around the same time as a meeting in Mt 
Clinton's office in Harlem in 2002, Mt Lire& said. 
"He's not spoken to Epstein in well over a decade, and has never been to Little St. James Island, Epstein's ranch 
in New Mexico or his residence in Florida," Mr. Urn& said. 
Not everyone who flew on Mt Epstein's planes was a boldface name. Models "have been heard saying they are 
full of gratitude to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret 
girls," Vanity Fair said in 2003 after noting, "Epstein is known about town as a man who loves women — lots of 
them, mostly young." 
Private as he was, he was apparently concerned about what the public thought of him. A mutual friend arranged 
for him to meet R. Court Hay, a public relations consultant. Mr. Hay said on Monday that their first meeting, at 
Mr. Epstein's townhouse, took place three years ago. 
EFTA00076645

Mr. Epstein was not ready to re-emerge in the public eye — not then, anyway. Three months ago, Mr. Epstein 
called and invited him over to discuss damage control, Mr. Hay said. 
"He hates every story starting with `billionaire pervert,'" Mr. Hay said. "Jeffrey had long stories about the 
difference between pedophilia with very young children and tweens and teens a little older." He added, "It was 
his way of trying to talk his way around it." 
Mr. Hay said he ultimately declined to work for Mr. Epstein. He said he had misgivings about Mr. Epstein's 
sincerity. 
Sarah Maslin Nir, Matthew Goldstein and Matthew Haag contributed reporting. 
Complex Frauds 
Ciyurc 
No l'rison for the Friars Club Boss Members Seem to Love or Hate 
The New York Times 
By Colin Moynihan 
7/8/19 
A former executive director of the Friars Club was sentenced to one year of supervised release on Monday, but 
there were few signs in the courtroom, filled to overflowing with bickering current and past members, that the 
proceeding would end the rancor that disrupted the 115-year-old club. 
Some critics of the former director, Michael Gyure, who pleaded guilty in January to having filed false tax 
returns, said his actions reflected a pattern of lax oversight at the club. 
Mr. Gyure's supporters, on the other hand, have dismissed the criticism as overblown and described his 
continued stewardship as vital to the club's future. 
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of Federal District Court in Manhattan repeatedly emphasized on Monday that 
Mr. Gyure, 51, was being sentenced only for his tax offenses. Gripes about his leadership, she said, were beyond 
the court's scope. 
"It's clear that there are factions within this club," she said at one point. "It seems to me that the dispute between 
the factions is essentially a civil dispute." 
His guilty plea covered tax returns for four years ending in 2015. He was charged with failing to include 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in supplemental income, including personal expenses covered by the club. 
Prosecutors had asked that Mr. Gyure be sentenced to 12 to 18 months in prison, saying that, beyond his tax 
offenses, he had sought to enrich himself at the expense of the club and its members. Defense lawyers said Mr. 
Gyure did not deserve prison time, noting, among other things, that many members want him to continue to help 
lead the organization and that he was given a new five-year employment contract, albeit in a different role with 
no oversight of the club's finances. 
There was little doubt that those supportive members outnumbered the critics in the courtroom and, after the 
sentencing, some returned to the club, now shuttered for the summer and undergoing renovations, for a 
celebration. 
EFTA00076646

Mr. Gyure acknowledged the divisions in his statement to the court, telling Judge Buchwald he had only himself 
to blame for his tax crimes. 
"I recognize that I have some detractors at the Friars Club," he said. "Sadly, I have given them ammunition." 
He quickly added that "the vast majority" of club members were on his side and promised "integrity and loyalty" 
to them. 
The club, whose members have included Frank Sinatra, George Burns and Johnny Carson, has served as a 
bastion for a type of humor symbolized by the insult-filled roasts that it has held for celebrities and which are 
often broadcast on television. 
Since 1957, the club's headquarters has been an East 55th Street townhouse, known as the "Monastery," which 
includes a barbershop, a gym and a second floor bar named after Barbra Streisand. 
Over the last decade or so, some members became concerned by what they viewed as poor oversight by the 
club's management. The club lost its tax-exempt status as a fraternal organization in 2010. Charity events took in 
$3 million but yielded only $13,000 for charity. The club was often late in paying bills and its state taxes. 
Prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memorandum to the court that even as the club was struggling financially, Mr. 
Gyure aimed to benefit himself. For example, they said Mr. Gyure had attempted to direct any profits from a 
roast of the former NFL quarterback Terry Bradshaw, which was aired on ESPN, to a company he led, instead of 
the Friars. 
Defense lawyers countered that the Friars typically created separate companies to handle roasts so the club 
would avoid liability, and that Mr. Gyure had not benefited because the roast did not turn a profit. 
Mr. Gyure began serving as executive director in 2007. 
"For the past 12 years Michael has been the glue that held the Friars Club together," Paul Shechtman, a defense 
lawyer told the judge on Monday. 
But three former Friars and one current member of the club vehemently disagreed, saying that mismanagement 
under his reign had led to multiple problems. 
One who spoke was Sondra Beninati, who said she became disturbed when she realized the Friars owed large 
amounts of unpaid sales tax. She agreed to wear a hidden recording device for federal investigators who raided 
the club in 2017 because of suspicion of financial improprieties. 
She said she and her husband had asked how club officials were handling the sales tax matter and sought several 
meetings with Mr. Gyure. 
"We were blocked at every turn," she said. 
But Judge Buchwald cut Ms. Beninati and two other speakers short, saying their assertions were not directly 
connected to the false tax returns that Mr. Gyure had filed. 
"How the club is run is up to its members," she said, and advised that one recourse might be the ballot box. 
"Elections, they have consequences." 
No jail time for tax-cheating Friars Club honcho, some members aren't laughing 
New York Daily News 
EFTA00076647

By Trevor Boyer 
7/8/19 
The tax-cheating former director of the Friars Club escaped a prison stint on Monday, the culmination of a court 
case that left some roast-ready members fuming. 
At his hearing in Manhattan Federal Court, disgraced club honcho Michael Gyure was sentenced to time served, 
a year of supervised release and 100 hours of community service, and fined $5,500. 
"I have no one to blame but myself," a contrite Gyure told the court, choking up as he described a happy 
childhood in England and loving parents. "I have betrayed their memory," he said, adding, "I am so sorry that 
they have had to suffer this disgrace." 
Gyure has paid the Internal Revenue Service a total of $156,920 for what he owed for three years of false tax 
filings, plus interest, said his lawyer, Paul Shechtman. 
Just by looking at these celebrities, we'd be none the wiser to know they are gay. Meanwhile, they have all 
publicly come out and are all in a relationship. 
The standing-room-only courtroom was packed with Friars members who were rooting for Gyure's freedom or 
howling for his scalp. 
The comedy world's most famous private club has endured tight finances and the prospect of declining 
membership. Gyure pleaded guilty in January to filing faulty tax forms following a two-year investigation by the 
Justice Department. The club is now closed for renovations. 
"In my opinion, Michael Gyure is a bad person," declared lawyer Irwin Cohen, asserting that on three occasions 
Gyure chiseled him out of thousands of dollars for work he did on the club's behalf. "I trusted him, and I believe 
he preyed on me," he said. "I think that incarceration is justified." 
Comedy writer Carol Scibelli also griped about Gyure's leadership, claiming he took a committee chairmanship 
from her and that "members were thrown out for ridiculous offenses, others left in disgust." 
When Friars board member Arthur Aidala rose to speak, a weary Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald quipped, "Which 
side are you on?" drawing laughter from an audience appreciative of a snarky jibe. 
"The groom's side, your honor," deadpanned Aidala. "I think it's obvious, your honor, that Mr. Gyure has the 
support of the board." 
Terrorism & Narcotics 
Wise Honest 
Their Son Died After Being Held by North Korea. Now They Want a $500M Ship as Payment. 
Vice News 
By Trone Dowd 
7/8/19 
The parents of Otto Warmbier are demanding compensation for the untimely death of their son, whether North 
Korea wants to cooperate or not. 
EFTA00076648

Fred and Cindy Warmbier have filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York putting a legal claim on a 
North Korean bulk carrier ship seized by the U.S. government last year. The Ohio couple are asking that the 
17,601-ton ship named the Wise Honest be used to pay off part of the $500 million settlement that North Korea 
owes the family, as determined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia last December. 
But North Korea has adamantly denied any responsibility in the 22-year-old student's death in June 2017 a few 
days after he was returned to the U.S. from more than a year in North Korean detention. The family believes 
Otto was tortured and holds the socialist state accountable. 
Seized assets could be the way the Warmbiers get compensation. There is a precedent for such lawsuits: Just two 
years ago, the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney determined that a $500 million building on Fifth Avenue could be 
used to pay off fines related to violations of Iran sanctions. 
The Wise Honest, which was North Korea's second-largest merchant ship, was caught illegally transporting coal 
near American Samoa in April 2018. U.S. officials determined that the ship was using the trade profits to fund 
North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, violating rules set by U.N. and U.S. sanctions. 
"We are committed to holding North Korea accountable for the death of our son Otto, and will work tirelessly to 
seize North Korean assets wherever they may be found," the Warmbiers said in a statement released Saturday. 
Otto Warmbier was arrested during a study abroad trip to North Korea in January 2016 at Pyongyang 
International Airport for allegedly stealing propaganda posters. He was detained and sentenced to 15 years of 
hard labor in March 2016 before being returned to the U.S. in June 2017. When Otto arrived back home, 
however, he was blind, deaf and brain dead. His parents decided to remove his feeding tube. Warmbier died just 
six days after his return to the U.S. 
A Hamilton County coroner could not identify what caused the college student's death, but both U.S. officials 
and Warmbier's parents have suspected that he was tortured during his 17 months in captivity. 
According to the New York Daily News, North Korean officials called the seizure of the cargo ship a "gangster-
like flagrant act of robbery," and demanded that the vessel be returned "without hesitation." 
This is not the only time the Warmbiers made news recently. Earlier this year, President Donald Trump found 
himself in hot water after saying that he didn't believe North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un was complicit in 
Otto's death. 
"What happened is horrible," Trump said during the Hanoi Summit in February. "I really believe something very 
bad happened to him, and I don't think that the top leadership knew about it. [...] I don't believe he allowed that 
to happen. Prisons are rough. They are rough places and bad things happen. But I really don't believe that he 
[Kim] knew about it." 
Trump went back on his statement on Twitter the next day, but not without sharp criticism from the Warmbier 
family. 
"We have been respectful during this summit process," Warmbier's parents said in a statement. "Now we must 
speak out. Kim and his evil regime are responsible for the death of our son Otto. Kim and his evil regime are 
responsible for unimaginable cruelty and inhumanity. No excuses or lavish praise can change that." 
Last month, a 29-year-old Australian student Alek Sigley was detained in North Korea for spreading anti-
government sentiment over social media, according to the North Korean Central News Agency. Sigley, who was 
studying Korean literature at Kim II Sung University, was deported from the country on July 4, after a week in 
detention. 
EFTA00076649

Matters of Interest 
Trump Can't Block Twitter Followers, US Appeals Court Rules 
NY Law Journal 
By Mike Scarcella and Nate Robson 
7/9/19 
President Donald Trump's efforts to block certain critics from following him on Twitter is discriminatory and 
violates the First Amendment, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday. 
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a lower court ruling against 
Trump. The plaintiffs, represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, are Twitter 
users who were "blocked" from accessing his social media account. 
"Once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and 
participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with," Circuit Judge Barrington 
Parker wrote for the unanimous panel. 
The panel said: "In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment 
means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more 
speech, not less." 
The panel said the ruling does not consider private social media accounts that may be used by elected officials, 
and does not consider whether social media companies themselves are bound by the First Amendment when 
policing their platforms. 
In Trump's case, the panel said he uses the account as a way to communicate with the public about his 
administration. 
Trump blocked Twitter users who were critical of his presidency, and a trial court judge in Manhattan last year 
concluded that blocking these accounts violated the First Amendment. At the time, the Knight Foundation's 
Jameel Jaffer praised the ruling, which he said "reflects a careful application of core First Amendment principles 
to government censorship on a new communications platform." 
Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said in a statement Tuesday: 
"Public officials' social media accounts are now among the most significant forums for discussion of government 
policy. This decision will ensure that people aren't excluded from these forums simply because of their 
viewpoints, and that public officials aren't insulated from their constituents' criticism. The decision will help 
ensure the integrity and vitality of digital spaces that are increasingly important to our democracy." 
The appeals court, concluding Trump's account is a public forum, noted how often he uses his account—
@realDonaldTrump—to announce official news. Trump, for instance, announced his administration's move to 
ban transgender service members, and he used his account to announce that he had fired his chief of staff, Reince 
Priebus, and replaced him with John Kelly. 
"The president excluded the individual plaintiffs from government-controlled property when he used the 
blocking function of the account to exclude disfavored voices," the appeals court said Tuesday. 
Judicial Review of Claims of Government Misconduct in Parallel Investigations 
Law 360 
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan Sack 
719119 
EFTA00076650

Defending an individual who is the subject of parallel civil and criminal investigations is one of the more 
challenging aspects of white-collar defense practice. The situation is quite common, for example, in securities 
fraud investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice. Parallel 
investigations raise both pragmatic and legal concerns. As a practical matter, an individual may have to choose 
between invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which could have adverse consequences 
in civil proceedings, or, conversely, not remain silent and make statements detrimental in criminal proceedings. 
In addition, as a legal matter, parallel investigations pose the danger of prosecutors' behind-the-scenes use of 
civil investigations as a means of securing evidence they might not otherwise be able to obtain. 
Courts have held that when federal prosecutors use a civil investigation in furtherance of a criminal 
investigation, fundamental constitutional rights—including a defendant's right against self-incrimination—may 
be infringed. An important procedural question that arises is what preliminary showing a defendant must make in 
a criminal case to trigger discovery and judicial inquiry into the conduct of federal prosecutors. This issue was 
addressed in a recent opinion by Judge Jesse Furman in United States v. Rhodes, No. 18-cr-887 (S.D.N.Y.), a 
prosecution for securities fraud and related offenses in the Southern District of New York. 
In this article, we begin with a discussion of the basic limitations on federal prosecutors when they conduct 
criminal investigations at the same time as related civil enforcement investigations. We then discuss the Rhodes 
case and Judge Furman's decision, which required prosecutors to provide a substantial summary of their 
interactions with civil investigators before deciding whether further inquiry was warranted. The facts and ruling 
in Rhodes illustrate the importance of being sensitive to possible government overreach during parallel civil and 
criminal investigations, and of advancing constitutional arguments when appropriate to protect a defendant's 
rights. 
Parallel Civil and Criminal Investigations 
In United States v. Kordel, the Supreme Court held that the government may conduct parallel civil and criminal 
investigations without violating due process, so long as it does so in good faith and pursuant to proper 
procedures. 397 U.S. 1, 11 (1970). Prosecutors may use evidence obtained in a civil investigation in a subsequent 
criminal proceeding "unless the defendant demonstrates that such use would violate his constitutional rights or 
depart from the proper administration of criminal justice." United States v. Teyibo, 877 F. Supp. 846, 855 
(S.D.N.Y. 1995). An individual's rights would be violated if the government were to (I) bring a civil action 
"solely to obtain evidence for its criminal prosecution," or (2) "fail to advise the defendant in its civil proceeding 
that it contemplates his criminal prosecution." Kordel, 397 U.S. at 11-12 (emphasis added). 
In Kordel, a corporate executive was convicted of violating the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act partly on the basis 
of earlier answers to interrogatories served on his company by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a 
civil proceeding. The defendant argued that the use of civil interrogatories to obtain evidence in a nearly 
contemporaneous criminal prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-
incrimination. 
The Supreme Court rejected the claim, holding that the defendant's failure to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights 
in responding to the FDA's interrogatories foreclosed his claim of having been compelled to give testimony 
against himself. The Court affirmed the district court's finding that the FDA had not acted in bad faith in serving 
interrogatories, which the FDA regularly did in similar cases. Id. at 7-10. 
Applying Kordel, the Second Circuit has set out the procedural steps for a challenge to a prosecutor's handling 
of parallel investigations. United States v. Gel Spice Co., 773 F.2d 427, 434 (2d Cir. 1985). In Gel Spice, the 
Second Circuit held that a defendant who seeks discovery regarding potential misconduct in parallel civil and 
criminal governmental investigations must make "a `substantial preliminary showing' of bad faith before an 
evidentiary hearing or even limited discovery is to be held." Id. (quoting United States v. Tiffany Fine Arts, 718 
F.2d 7, 14 (2d Cir. 1983)). This standard recognizes the "special danger" of the government undermining the 
rights of a defendant in a criminal investigation "by conducting a de facto criminal investigation using nominally 
civil means." Sterling Nat'l Bank v. A-1 Hotels Int'l, 175 F. Supp. 2d 573, 579 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 
EFTA00076651

The 'Rhodes' Case 
In the Rhodes case, the defendant Jason Rhodes, a hedge fund manager, was indicted on several charges, 
including securities and wire fraud, investment adviser fraud, and conspiracy. The government alleges that 
Rhodes used investor funds to repay other investors, pay hedge fund expenses, and support his lifestyle rather 
than invest in the hedge fund's portfolio. No. 18-cr-887, ECF No. 8 (S.D.N.Y.). According to the indictment, 
Rhodes created false account statements to cover up the misuse of investor funds, which resulted in losses to 
investors of approximately $19.6 million. Id. 16. 
In March 2019, Rhodes filed a motion seeking discovery regarding possible improper coordination between the 
SEC and DOJ. Id., ECF No. 29. Rhodes's chief argument is that DOJ improperly secured personal emails and 
text messages by means of productions compelled by SEC subpoenas (later turned over to DOD instead of a 
valid search warrant issued by a judge on the basis of probable cause. In support of this contention, Rhodes 
explained that the SEC had served him with a subpoena for documents in February 2017, after one of Rhodes's 
co-founders had pled guilty to fraud charges and shortly before a grand jury returned indictments of co-
conspirators in Rhodes's case. According to Rhodes, DOJ was aware of his role at the hedge fund at the time the 
SEC first subpoenaed him but nevertheless chose not to charge him. Instead, the government allegedly "laid in 
wait for nearly two years" while Rhodes produced documents to the SEC and appeared for SEC testimony. Id., 
ECF No. 37 at 6. 
In a criminal complaint against Rhodes, DOJ relied on information gathered by the SEC, including text messages 
Rhodes had produced pursuant to SEC subpoena. Rhodes was later indicted on criminal charges, including 
securities fraud, but, unusually, the SEC did not file a civil complaint. Rhodes now argues that, under these 
circumstances, the district court should infer that DOJ "used the civil discovery process in the SEC proceeding 
[solely] to develop the criminal case against [Rhodes,] in violation of his due process rights," id., ECF No. 29 at 
9, and thus should order broad discovery to the defense relating to the prosecutors' dealings with the SEC. 
DOJ opposed the motion, arguing that Rhodes had offered "mere conjecture" that there "may have been 
improper coordination." Id., ECF No. 32 at 8 (emphasis added). In the government's view, Rhodes has not 
alleged any misleading representations to Rhodes or his counsel concerning an ongoing criminal investigation 
when Rhodes received and responded to the SEC's subpoena. The government also noted that Rhodes 
understood he faced possible criminal prosecution throughout the SEC's investigation, as made plain by his 
invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights during SEC testimony. 
The District Court's Order 
On June 18, 2019, following a hearing and the government's submission of an affidavit, Judge Furman ordered 
the government to provide additional information regarding the prosecutors' coordination with and involvement 
in the SEC's civil investigation for the court's in camera review. Id., ECF No. 47. 
As an initial matter, the court noted that both parties had invoked the wrong standard for determining whether 
Rhodes should be allowed to conduct discovery. Relying on decisions addressing claims of selective prosecution, 
Rhodes argued that he was entitled to discovery if he provided "some evidence tending to show the existence" of 
the essential elements of a due process violation. Id., ECF No. 37 at 5 (quoting United States v. Armstrong, 517 
U.S. 456, 469 (1996)). The government pointed to a standard typically applied in suppression cases—i.e., that 
discovery is appropriate only "if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and non-
conjectural to enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact ... are in question." Id., ECF No. 32 at 8 
(quoting United States v. Mahaffy, 446 F. Supp. 2d 115, 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). Judge Furman rejected both 
positions and applied the test set forth in Gel Spice, 773 F.2d at 434, which called on the district court to 
determine whether Rhodes had made a "substantial preliminary showing" of bad faith by the government. 
The court held that, on the present record, Rhodes had failed to make that showing, but observed that the Second 
Circuit had adopted the "substantial preliminary showing" standard in Gel Spice against the backdrop of (1) 
multiple affidavits of government lawyers concerning the relationship between the civil and criminal 
investigations at issue, and (2) documents given to the district court for in camera review. Rhodes, No. 18-cr-
887, ECF No. 47 at 2. In the Rhodes case, in contrast, the government had submitted only a single affidavit by 
EFTA00076652

one of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys responsible for DOJ's criminal prosecution. The affidavit was limited to that 
AUSA's knowledge and attested that he "neither directed nor requested the issuance of [the SEC's subpoena]" 
and that he "had no role in formulating the [subpoena's] content." Id., ECF No. 44-1 ¶ 6. Because the affidavit 
did not say anything about the knowledge or involvement of others involved in the criminal investigation, Judge 
Furman found that the affidavit did "nothing to advance the ball." Id., ECF No. 47 at 2. 
Accordingly, Judge Furman ordered the government to "make a more substantial showing in camera." Id. 
Specifically, the court directed the government to submit a detailed affidavit that sets forth "the nature and extent 
of any and all communications between the SEC and those involved in the criminal investigation of Rhodes," 
along with copies of any substantive communications. Id. at 2-3. Only after reviewing these materials in camera 
would the court decide whether the requested discovery is warranted. Id. The government submitted its 
supplemental affidavit and exhibits in camera on July 1, 2019. Id., ECF No. 48. 
Conclusion 
In white-collar criminal matters, parallel investigations are routine. In addition to a grand jury investigation, 
federal or state civil enforcement authorities—e.g., the SEC, CFTC and New York State Attorney General or 
Department of Financial Services—may conduct their own civil investigations, and a company often conducts an 
internal investigation. The multiplicity of investigations poses an inherent danger: that prosecutors could use 
non-criminal investigations to secure statements or tangible evidence that might otherwise not be available to 
them. 
This issue was recently addressed in the context of a company internal investigation in United States v. Connolly, 
2019 WL 2120523, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2019). Chief Judge Colleen McMahon held that the extensive 
involvement by the CFTC, SEC, and DOJ in an internal investigation conducted by counsel for Deutsche Bank 
—combined with the government's failure to conduct a meaningful investigation of its own—meant that the 
bank and its counsel "were de facto the Government." Because the government "outsourced" its investigation, 
the government in a criminal prosecution could not use statements an employee had given during interviews with 
the bank's counsel—under the threat of termination—because the statements were effectively compelled in 
violation of the employee's Fifth Amendment rights. Id. at *14. 
As the Rhodes case illustrates, the issue of misusing non-criminal investigations also arises in the context of a 
parallel investigation conducted by civil enforcement authorities. Proving any such misuse may be very difficult, 
but the recent order in Rhodes, requiring prosecutors to provide details about their dealings with civil 
investigators, lays out a procedural path by which the government may be called upon to describe the 
coordination between prosecutors and civil enforcement authorities. This case highlights the importance of being 
alert to possible misuse of civil investigations by prosecutors and pursuing discovery and judicial relief when 
appropriate. 
Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan Sack are members of Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C. Mr. 
Abramowitz is a former chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
New York. Mr. Sack is a former chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern 
District of New York. Justin Roller, an associate of the firm, contributed to this article. 
Barr Says Legal Path to Census Citizenship Question Exists, but He Gives No Details 
NYT 
By Katie Benner 
7/8/19 
President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr began working to find a way to place a citizenship 
question on the 2020 census just after the Supreme Court blocked its inclusion last month, Mr. Barr said on 
Monday, adding that he believes that the administration can find a legal path to incorporating the question. 
"The president is right on the legal grounds. I felt the Supreme Court decision was wrong, but it also made clear 
that the question was a perfectly legal question to ask, but the record had to be clarified," Mr. Barr said in an 
EFTA00076653

interview. He was referring to the ruling that left open the possibility that the citizenship question could be added 
to the census if the administration came up with a better rationale for it. 
"It makes a lot of sense for the president to see if it's possible that we could clarify the record in time to add the 
question," Mr. Barr added. 
But he also acknowledged that the career Justice Department lawyers who had worked on the census question 
had little appetite to continue on the case after Mr. Trump inserted himself into the process. "We're going to 
reach a new decision, and I can understand if they're interested in not participating in this phase," Mr. Barr said. 
The Justice Department announced a day earlier that it was replacing them, a nearly unheard-of move. 
In a court filing on Monday in New York, though, plaintiffs in the case asked a judge to block the lawyers' 
withdrawal because they did not demonstrate "satisfactory reasons" for the change. 
The talks between Mt Barr and Mr. Trump and the decision to replace the legal team underscore administration 
officials' difficulty in adding a citizenship question to the census. Democrats have criticized the pursuit as an 
effort to reshape the results of the census — which affects the allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars 
each year — to benefit Republicans. 
Mr. Barr said that the Trump administration would soon reveal how it plans to add the question, but he would not 
detail potential legal pathways. The main challenge, he said, would be adding the question without disrupting the 
census. 
At a news conference later on Monday after touring a federal prison in Edgefield, S.C., with Senators Lindsey 
Graham and Tim Scott, the Republicans who represent the state, Mr. Barr declined to say whether the president 
would issue an executive order to add the question. It was not clear what such an order would accomplish; the 
Constitution makes Congress responsible for overseeing the census, not the president, though the administration 
carries it out. 
The Trump administration's handling of the census has already put Mr. Barr in the cross hairs of House 
Democrats, who strongly oppose the addition of a citizenship question. And the hostilities may soon spike. 
In a warning shot on Monday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi informed colleagues that she intended to schedule a full 
House vote "soon" to hold Mr. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of Congress for defying 
subpoenas for documents related to the census question. Ms. Pelosi called the census dispute "essential to who 
we are as a nation" and asserted that the materials in question would "shed light on the real reason the 
administration added a citizenship question." 
The House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating the Trump administration's decision to add 
the question, voted last month to recommend that the two cabinet officials be held in contempt, mostly along 
party lines, despite protests from the administration that it was working in good faith to meet the requests. 
If the House follows through with a contempt vote on the floor — and no date for a vote has yet been set — it 
would be empowering the Oversight Committee to take Mr. Barr and Mr. Ross to court to ask a judge to enforce 
their subpoenas. Doing so is an exceedingly rare step and puts a black mark on both officials' public records. 
The House has already threatened to hold Mr. Barr in contempt once over a separate case related to a subpoena 
for material connected to Robert S. Mueller III's investigation as special counsel. But in the end, lawmakers 
struck a deal with the attorney general and voted on a resolution that merely authorized them to go to court to 
enforce the subpoena rather than formally accusing Mr. Barr of being in criminal contempt. 
House Democrats intend to go further this time, formally accusing both officials of criminal defiance of their 
summons if the administration does not relent beforehand, according to a senior Democratic aide familiar with 
EFTA00076654

the plans. Still, the practical outcome could be the same since the Justice Department would almost certainly 
refuse to bring a criminal case against the men. 
Kern Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on the contempt issue. 
The conversations between Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump came amid a series of abrupt reversals on the issue. After 
the Supreme Court delayed the administration's effort to add the citizenship question, ruling that its rationale was 
"contrived," Mr. Ross and Justice Department lawyers declared the issue all but dead last week in the near term. 
Mr. Ross said that the Census Bureau, which the Commerce Department oversees, would focus on conducting "a 
complete and accurate census" and had begun to print forms that did not include the citizenship question. Justice 
Department lawyers, who had argued that they faced a strict June 30 cutoff for printing the census forms, also 
concluded as that deadline passed that the question would have to wait for the next census in another decade. 
But Mr. Trump, who had been strategizing with Mr. Barr to come up with a way to add the question, overruled 
Mr. Ross and the lawyers a day later, denouncing their statements as "fake news." 
"We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question," Mr. 
Trump said on Twitter. 
His discussions with Mr. Ban- did not appear to make their way to the Commerce Department officials or the 
Justice Department lawyers working on the case. Mr. Barr did not say why, and a Justice Department 
spokeswoman would not say whether he had told aides about the discussions or instructed the lawyers on the 
case to keep pursuing the issue. 
A Justice Department official said that even though Mr. Trump told Mr. Barr immediately after the ruling that he 
still wanted the question added, Mr. Barr, and subsequently the department, thought the issue was settled for the 
time being, in part because the census forms were already being printed. 
Because of their conversations, however, Mr. Barr was not surprised by the message on Twitter and he knew he 
had to get the department to switch gears. 
But the lawyers expressed surprise last week at the president's assertion, telling a federal judge who had 
summoned them to a conference call that they would most likely recant their earlier admission of defeat. 
"The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the president's position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs 
and your honor," Joshua Gardner, a lawyer working on the census issue, told Judge George J. Hazel of the 
United States District Court in Maryland. 
But Mr. Barr said on Monday that the president's statement did not surprise him because "he and I had talked" 
about the census issue "several times" after the Supreme Court tossed out the citizenship question. 
Mr. Barr confirmed that lawyers in the Justice Department's federal programs branch, who typically defend the 
administration's positions in court, would no longer work on the census question. He said that James Burnham, 
the No. 2 official in the department's civil division who had led the census team, recommended that lawyers in 
its consumer protection branch work on the question instead. 
The Justice Department was still seeking lawyers to work on the census case on Monday, reaching out to lawyers 
in the office of immigration litigation to work on the matter, according to an email reviewed by The New York 
Times. 
'They did a super job," Mr. Barr said of the departing team. "They were very professional." 
EFTA00076655

Mr. Barr said that he did not know whether any of the original team members wanted to stay on. "I didn't really 
get into the details," he said. 
EFTA00076656