A central issue in California Coalition’s racketeering lawsuit–as with any lawsuit alleging complex collaboration between criminal elements–is the existence of “enterprise” and “conspiracy”-type collaborations between the defendants we’ve named. Not just everyday “how-do-ya-do” interaction qualifies as “enterprise” or “conspiracy” under federal law.
But it turns out this isn’t going to be half as hard as we thought. Federal conspiracy law is straightforward–an agreement to violate the law, and an act in furtherance toward that end. “Enterprise” is more challenging–its requires a “pattern”; repeated actions by one or more persons or entities to achieve one or more criminal purposes. Of course in bringing California Coalition’s racketeering and civil rights lawsuit we did our due diligence, investigating various operative elements we believed to at the root of the suffering of Family Court litigants, including the Family Justice Center Alliance, the San Diego City Attorney, the City of San Diego and its in-house Family Justice Center, the County Courts which operate domestic violence restraining order clinics, and the lawyers, social workers, and judges themselves. In our July 24, 2013 cease and desist letters and recently-filed amended complaint we alleged, as we must, that these defendants collaborate to violate the law in “enterprise” and “conspiracy.” Because of the technical requirements of pleading under these extraordinarily complex statutes, the lawsuit reads as easily as a neurology textbook.
Defendants responded as if we’d accused them of growing a tail. They claim not to operate in collaboration, but entirely independently, and always according to law. Since we’ve heard the “who, me?” explanation from California public officials before, we set out to prove our conspiracy and enterprise case in baby-step fashion.
[More at Weightier Matter]