Share
The Well Pled Civil Racketeering Complaint In Federal Court, An Attorneys Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 Shield Or Sword: A Litigation Survival Tool (in English)
Jd Joe Pappacoda
(Author)
·
Ghostwriter Paralegal Chartered
(Author)
·
Independently Published
· Paperback
The Well Pled Civil Racketeering Complaint In Federal Court, An Attorneys Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 Shield Or Sword: A Litigation Survival Tool (in English) - Pappacoda, Jd Joe ; Chartered, Ghostwriter Paralegal
$ 19.16
$ 23.95
You save: $ 4.79
Choose the list to add your product or create one New List
✓ Product added successfully to the Wishlist.
Go to My WishlistsIt will be shipped from our warehouse between
Friday, July 05 and
Monday, July 08.
You will receive it anywhere in United States between 1 and 3 business days after shipment.
Synopsis "The Well Pled Civil Racketeering Complaint In Federal Court, An Attorneys Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 56 Shield Or Sword: A Litigation Survival Tool (in English)"
GhostWriter Paralegal, Chartered is a legal research and complex technical litigation law office support organization located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is not a law firm. The topics included in this publication were critically analyzed for Attorneys who considered their veracity. For further information contact: www.GhostWriterParalegal.com. Joe Pappacoda is a former senior trial attorney, former prosecutor, and former special agent.The information provided in this publication is a recitation of excerpted information published in the federal cases cited; reformatted in logical sequence mirroring the legal technical requirements of a well pled federal RICO Complaint, as summarized in the table of contents. The second part of the book is a case study analysis, applying the principles learned from part 1 to specific factual averments made in an actual 2017 federal RICO Complaint filed by Geico against numerous health care providers, law firms, physicians, and attorneys, to examine whether technical RICO pleading requirements were met, and to foster critical thinking regarding other potential issues that could have been raised by defendants, that if raised, may have altered the outcome of that case.
