Epstein Secrets

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00722697 M v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224

ir. 2004), cited in Fla. Stat. 772.102, annotated, (analysis applied to claims under the Federal Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997)

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729113 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

simple - personal injury damages are not cognizable under FCRCP. To hold otherwise would fly in the face of the several RICO decisions interpreting Florida Rico and its application, and would open the flood gates for every personal injury claim to be transformed into a Rico claim. In line with the cases cit

ts have held that cases interpreting the Federal Rico Statute, title 18, U.S.C., are persuasive as to the meaning of Florida's Rico statute. . . "); Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, EFTA00729108 Doe v. Epstein Page No. 5 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 i . Fla. 2001); and Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 253 Fed.Appx. 2

simple - personal injury damages are not cognizable under FCRCP. To hold otherwise would fly in the face of the several RICO decisions interpreting Florida Rico and its application, and would open the flood gates for every personal injury claim to be transformed into a Rico claim. In line with the cases cit

Stansfield v. Starkey, 269 Cal.Rptr., 337, 348 (Cal. App.3d, 1990) 5. Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987). 6. Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F. Supp.2d 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001). EFTA00614427 v. Epstein Page 2 7. Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia , 253 Fed. Appx. 224 (3d

ir. 2004), cited in Fla. Stat. 772.102, annotated, (analysis applied to claims under the Federal Rico Act is equally applicable to claims under the Florida Rico statute). 2. Moore v. Potter, 142 Fed. Appx. WL 1600194 (11Th Cir. 2005). 3. Pilkington v. United Airlines 112 F.3d 1532, 1536 (11th Cir,1997)