Epstein Secrets

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

e Seeks To Recover Personal Injury Damages Significantly, Fla. Stat. Chapter 772., the Florida Civil Remedies Criminal Practices Act (hereinafter "FCRCP' or "Florida's RICO Statute) is patterned after the Federal Rico Act, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). Therefore, as set forth in Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, Flo

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

e Seeks To Recover Personal Injury Damages Significantly, Fla. Stat. Chapter 772., the Florida Civil Remedies Criminal Practices Act (hereinafter "FCRCP' or "Florida's RICO Statute) is patterned after the Federal Rico Act, 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). Therefore, as set forth in Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, Flo

, citing Zimmerman v. HBO Affiliate Group, 834 F.2d 1163, 1169 (3d Cir. 1987)(congress intended RICO to exclude personnel injuries). 14. at 348. In Connor v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center, 135 F.Supp.2d, 1198, 1219 (M.D. Fla. 2001), the court held that claims for money damages relating to nursing home patients' deaths following massi

orida's legislative history and state case law are devoid of any explanations or rulings allowing for the recovery of personal injury damages under FCRCP. Therefore, this court must look to and rely on Federal law as it has done in the past, which states clearly around the United States that RICO is n