and 3) not be dismissed at this juncture. Since Idaho’s racketeering statute closely tracks the federal statute, Counts 4, 5, and 6 should also not be dismissed. 2. Whether the RICO Claims are Barred by the Securities Fraud Exception. The Court will next address whether the Plaintiffs federal RICO claims are barred by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). That statute provides that no RICO plaintiff “may rely upon any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase and sale of securities to establish a violation of section 1962.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). This is true even if the acts that form the basis of liability would independently qualify as mail fraud or wire fraud under the federal criminal law. See, Bald Eagle Area Sch. Dist. v. Keystone Fin., Inc., 189 F.3d 321, 327 (3rd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Armstrong v. American Pallet Leasing, Inc.,
holding that securities fraud claims cannot rest on speculation and conclusory allegations holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that the rico bar applies even where the plaintiff does not have standing to bring a securities fraud action holding that wire and mail fraud statutes are construed identically holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule