as to defendants Cynthia Reed and James Reed under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) because plaintiffs have alleged a multi-district conspiracy involving those defendants and the ends of justice are served by litigating plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants in one trial. Id. The RICO statute contains its own venue provisions, at 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) and (b), which are supplemental to those contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1391. See Anchor Glass Container Corp. v. Stand Energy Corp., 711 F.Supp. 325, 327, n. 7 (S.D.Miss.1989)(internal citations omitted); Michelson v. Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 1279, 1286 (S.D.N.Y.1989)(intemal citations omitted); see, also, Monument Builders of Greater Kan. City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass’n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473, 1477 (10th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). Section 1965(a) provides the venue is proper
recognizing that special venue statutes are supplemented by the 28 usc  1391 venue provisions applicable to all civil cases holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 holding that  103 supplemented special venue clause of xational stolen property act holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 regardless of whether defendant was doing business in the district within the meaning of 28 usc  1391