to invoke that right, and the consequences of doing so, are not “important issues” that involve a “substantial public interest.” Cfi United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua Cnty., Fla., 23 F.3d 359, 364 (11th Cir.1994) (“[A] blanket assertion of the privilege [against self-incrimination] is an inadequate basis for the issuance of a stay. Rather, a court must stay a civil proceeding pending resolution of a related criminal prosecution only when ‘special circumstances’ so require in the ‘interests of justice.’” (citation omitted)). That is especially true when a civil defendant is invoking his right against self-incrimination in a U.S. civil action to help him in a foreign prosecution. See, e.g., United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 669, 118 S.Ct. 2218, 2221, 141 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Third, the limited benefits of applying “the
holding that foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct holding that concern with foreign prosecution is beyond the scope of the selfincrimination clause holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause holding that foreign states are not persons entitled to rights under the due process clause holding that fedrcrimp 6e would prevent disclosure of witnesss testimony to foreign officials thereby negating fear of foreign prosecution and alternatively that the fifth amendment provides no shelter  against incrimination in a foreign jurisdiction where federal domestic immunity has been granted