Epstein Secrets

ICT OF FLORIDA Fon Lauderdale Division IN" RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENIELDT .ADLER, P.A. Debtor. CASE NO. 09-347

1972. 2. Movant is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant designates RONALD G. NE1W1RT14, ESQ., of FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A., who is qualif

ICT OF FLORIDA Fon Lauderdale Division IN" RE: ROTHSTEIN ROSENIELDT .ADLER, P.A. Debtor. CASE NO. 09-347

1972. 2. Movant is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant designates RONALD G. NE1W1RT14, ESQ., of FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A., who is qualif

Judith Stevenson Arco, Esq., State Attorney's Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; William J. Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las

otSet&mt... 6/8/2009 EFTA00182793 Page 2 of 11 Westlaw. 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) C United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond CASTANEDA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-40307. Dec. 9, 1998. Defendant was convicted i

32:7 risk 9:6 10:6,7 18:25 38:6 40:10 41:6,11 risks 21:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 role 25:13 37:7 Room 2:23 Rosenfeldt 1:17 rose-colored 11:16 Rothstein 1:17 RPR-CM-RMR-F... 44:21 RPR-RMR-FCRR... 2:21 rule 39:9 42:13 rules 22:3 25:134:24 40:15 42:13 ruling 8:25 42:7 rulings 192123:8 25:2 27:

ard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 9 Lewh:Fein n. 3059 CUPID AWNIJI, Syllt 340. Cocowl GROW, flow 33131 9 01316 EFTA00180361 Case 9:08-cv-8080

in. The Fifth Circuit then remanded the matter to the district court to determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victims’ rights.° The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Dean has been cited favorably in four recent district court decisions, which provides further support for the conclusion that the CVRA ap

ch Police Department: Police Case No. 05- 368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at http://goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text a

e leading case to date to assess this question is the Fifth Circuit's decision in In re Dean. °° There, a wealthy corpo

ach Police Department: Police Case No. 05-368(1) (May 1, 2006), available at http://goo.gl/fAPFw5; see also Statement of Undisputed Facts, Epstein v. Rothstein, No. 50 2009 CA 040800XXXXMBAG (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 22, 2010), available at hitp:-//goo.gl/DzMbe8. 196 See supra notes 178-95 and accompanying text