Stanley Sporkin

“ Harm to Plaintiff's Business or Property It might at first seem surprising that a 94 page complaint, consisting of 305 paragraphs and alleging 31 racketeering acts, should fail to state an adequate pattern under RICO. A brief look at the content of that complaint, however, reveals that even if all the Committee's allegations were true, almost none of them are proper predicates for a civil RICO claim. Civil RICO, provides an action only to a person "injured in his business or property by reason" of a criminal RICO violation under § 1962. ”

“ A majority of the Moon Organization's alleged racketeering acts have nothing whatsoever to do with the Committee. Racketeering Act One, for instance, concerns Reverend Moon's prior conviction for obstruction of justice which occurred before this corporate plaintiff was even in existence. ”

“ See Tr. at 68.↑ Plaintiff correctly observes that in defining what constitutes a proper "enterprise" in a RICO action, some courts have observed that an organization is not an improper enterprise simply because it is a "victim" as well. See, e.g., Rose, 871 F.2d at 359. That line of reasoning misses the point in the current case. The question facing this Court is not whether the Moon Organization is a proper "enterprise," but whether the Committee is a proper "victim" or plaintiff. ”

“ In plaintiff's entire complaint, there is only one colorable claim of tangible damage to the Committee. That claim is plaintiff's "Racketeering Act No. 24," the allegation that the Moon Organization disbursed $179,783.18 on February 11, 1986, from the Committee's account to pay Editor's Press for the brochure advocating Moon's pardon. [3]
See Complaint at ¶ 203. All the other predicate acts alleged by plaintiff were acts preparatory to this one injury. They did not result in separate harm. For instance, one alleged predicate act is the writing of the Committee's corporate minutes. ”

“ A director cannot ignore his duties and fail to read the newspaper for two years and later claim that an applicable statute of limitations is tolled by his neglect.
D. Rule 11 Motion Grant Thorton, the accountant for the Committee, has filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the Committee, claiming that it was erroneously named as a defendant in the first complaints. Grant Thorton merely did normal accounting work for the Committee and was not even mentioned as part of the "enterprise" in the first complaint. Its actions seem beyond reproach. ”

“ This case comes before the Court on defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b) (6) . Because plaintiff, The Committee to Defend the United States Constitution ("Committee") has failed to state any cognizable federal claim, the motion is granted with respect to all defendants. [1]
Background On October 4, 1991, the Court conducted a hearing based upon the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ”

“ Committee formed by alleged theocratic enterprise brought action against persons and organizations allegedly associated with enterprise for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) . On motion to dismiss, the District Court, Sporkin, J., held that: (1) committee failed to allege sufficient "pattern" of racketeering activity; (2) committee could not qualify as legitimate or innocent business entitled to bring RICO action ”

“ These acts led to only one injury, a single disbursement of Committee funds. Taken together, the preparation and the single injury lack the required continuity to form a RICO pattern. [5]
Although the existence of only a single scheme is not dispositive, H.J. teaches that "proof that a RICO defendant has been involved in multiple criminal schemes [is] *573 certainly highly relevant to the inquiry into the continuity of the defendant's racketeering activity." 109 S.Ct. at 2901. Here, as in H.J. the predicate acts all relate to a single scheme. ”

“ Whether the individuals, such as Finzer, who were wronged by the Moon Organization have a valid RICO claim is not before me.
C. Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations argument advanced by defendants is actually dispositive of this entire action. ”

“ It is far more relevant to the inquiry that the defendants actions, however numerous they may be, result in a single instance of injury.
Finally, " 'acts extending over a few weeks or months' are not enough" to establish a continuity in the acts. Pyramid Securities Ltd. v. IB Resolution, Inc., 924 F.2d 1114, 1117 (D.C.Cir.1991) , quoting H.J., 109 S.Ct. at 2902. The Moon Organization's alleged predicate acts began, at the earliest, when the Committee was formed on July 11, 1985, and ended when the funds were disbursed, on February 11, 1986, a period of seven months. ”

“ Yellow Bus, 883 F.2d at 139, citing the S.Rep. No. 617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 76-78 (1969) . Congress intended to prevent such infiltration by allowing civil recovery by an innocent victim of such infiltration. ”