Epstein Secrets

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (I Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October I, 1981. 3 EFTA00728576 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page 4 of 10 790, 800

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

nner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11i° Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 3 EFTA_R1_00012688 EFTA01734468 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

nner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11i° Cir. 1981) (en bane), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981. 3 EFTA_R1_02213296 EFTA02725753 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/0312010 Page

participants in the criminal justice process. As the Fifth Circuit explained in reversing a trial court which had al

interests of the victim. 774 Having seen the Advisory Committee proposal and accompanying note, I am concerned that the limits on subpoenas found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Nixon 734 might be vitiated by a broad rule. To ensure courts consistently apply Nixon's substantive and procedural stan