forever. And there is no reference to what the remedies would be. So under the guidance of Schwartzle, the criteria that had been laid out by the Fourth DCA have clearly not been met. That's defect Number 1 in the confidentiality provision. Defect Number 2 is that obviously because this confidentialit

asked about whether there is any appellate authority that assists the Court in addressing this issue, and the answer to that question is there is Fourth DCA precedent that is in fact very directly on point. PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 561-471-2995 PJW@PalTseacWPotftscp EFTA00617917 12 1 2

nderlying wrong of continued childhood sexual abuse brought against the Archdiocese did not allow for recovery under RICO). Finally, even Florida's Fourth DCA confirms that in order to have a claim for RICO, there must be damage to "business or property." Petrol. LTD. v. Radulovic, 764 So.2d 878 (Fla. 4th

esponse in Opposition to Epstein's Motion to Amend Exhibit List. McKenzie v. Prince, 718 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Binger). As the Fourth DCA aptly stated in Tomlinson-McKenzie: The objecting party is prejudiced by the admission of such evidence if the party might have taken some action

ck is a DRAFT ONLY !!!! NOT PROOFREAD EFTA00792856 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fourth DCA decision called Frazier versus Security and Investments, 1993. What does Frazier tell us? Not only do we build off the US Supreme Court and say yo