under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 is included in the definition of “racketeering activity." 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). 10 . RICO § 1962(d) provides in part "[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” 11 . Although the Court’s finding that the Business Council is immune from a RICO suit precludes a discussion on the merits of Plaintiffs’ RICO claims, the Court notes that this claim fails as a matter of law. The Business Council, as a govemmental entity, is not capable of forming the criminal intent necessary to support the alleged predicate RICO offenses. See Lancaster Community Hosp. v. Anelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094, 112 S.Ct. 1168, 117 L.Ed.2d 414 (1992) (<HOLDING>); County of Oakland v. City of Detroit, 784
holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute holding that equitable relief under rico is available only to the government holding that rico claims against a public hospital were properly dismissed because government entities are incapable of forming the malicious intent required under rico holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over rico claims and that plaintiffs federal rico claim was barred by res judicata since he failed to bring his rico claim along with his state fraud claims in prior state court action holding that plaintiffs cannot claim that a conspiracy to violate rico existed if they do not adequately plead a substantive violation of rico