Epstein Secrets

nt to a criminal statute that provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. See Mantooth v. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where "the mentioned statut

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe v. Francis. No. 5:

n information and bolsters the conclusion that Fisher's tax return is entitled to protection from disclosure by the Government in this action. See Richards I Stephens. 118 F.R.D. 338, 339 (S.D.N.Y.1988) § 6103 is intended to protect the confidentiality of taxpayers' returns by " regulat[ing] ... discl

31, 1998. Federal government, as landlord, brought proceeding to evict tenants from building. Government moved for partial sum- mary judgment. The District Court, Chin, J., held that: (1) lease unambiguously provided that written consent to sublease was re- quired, precluding claim that government orally co

w. 546 So.2d 1037, 1038-39 (Fla.1989) (citations and emphasis omitted). 1 The district court in the present cast interpreted the above language in Richardson thusly: In light of the supreme court's decision in [Richardson ], virtually all claims formally [sic] cognizable by petition for writ of error M

7, mg. Petitioner sought writ of error MI The Circuit Court, Bay County, Dedee Costello, J., denied petition as IM -barred. Petitioner appealed. The District Court of Appeal, First District, 698 So.2d 293. affirmed and certified conflict. The Supreme Court, Shaw, J., held that limits contained in rule govern

ant to a criminal statute that provides no civil remedy, her complaint is properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. See Mantoothl. Richards, 557 So. 2d 646, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff's claim for parental kidnapping where "the mentioned statut

tection for their investigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe I. Francis. No. 5:

ho were charged in connection with alleged drug distribution and money laundering conspiracy, and government filed pretrial motions in limine. The District Court, Alesia, J., held that: (1) evidence and witnesses' testimony would not be suppressed as result of having been derived from leads attributable to

ticipant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant." Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 201-02, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 1704, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987). The Richardson court makes clear that the references to Clement Messi