describes the purposes of the enterprise as: (1) "[e]nriching defendant MICHAEL SEGAL and the members, associates, partners, employees and agents of the enterprise through, among other things, mail fraud and wire fraud”; and (2) "[p]reserving and protecting the power, territory, and wealth of defendant MICHAEL SEGAL and the enterprise, and promoting and enhancing the size and strength of the enterprise.” (R. 19, Superseding Indictment, Count Nine ¶ 2.) 2 . Further, the underlying district court decision in Richmond affirmed by the Seventh Circuit focuses specifically on the separateness requirement for pleading a RICO enterprise. Richmond v. Nationwide Cassel L.P., 847 F.Supp. 88, 90-93 (N.D.Ill.1994) (citing Haroco v. Am. Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 747 F.2d 384, 400-01 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>)). In their affirmance, the Seventh Circuit
holding that to violate a specific intent statute the defendant must act with the purpose of violating the law holding that a person involved in a motor vehicle accident with a customer of enterprise was not a consumer or competitor of enterprise or other business person affected by enterprises conduct holding that a defendant may be charged with violating section 2422b even though he is mistaken about the true age of the person with whom he communicated holding that the person charged with violating  1962c must be distinct from the rico enterprise holding that although plaintiffs failed to adequately allege  1962c claim against professional broker and its officer based on operating or managing enterprise they adequately alleged rico conspiracy to violate  1962a against same defendants