Opinion ID: 548692
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: List the alleged predicate acts and the specific statutes which were allegedly violated....

Text: 37 [Response: ] The predicate acts upon which the plaintiff's RICO claim are based consist primarily of incidents of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951(a), commonly known as the Hobbs Act. 38 b. Provide the dates of the predicate acts, the participants in the predicate acts, and a description of the facts surrounding the predicate acts.... 39 [Response: ] The acts of the defendants have occurred on numerous dates commencing prior to 1986 and continuing through the present. Several dates upon which the actions of the defendants and/or some of them have occurred in West Hartford are April 1 through April 3, 1989, April 4, 1989, April 17, 1989, June 17 through 19, 1989 and June 24, 1989. These dates correlate to the dates of the April 1, 1989 and June 17, 1989 rescues at the Summit Women's Center, the continuing incarceration of the protesters arrested at those protests by the West Hartford Police Department and the subsequent press statements/news conferences held by the protesters regarding their past and threatened future actions. 40 f. Describe how the predicate acts form a pattern of racketeering activity.... 41 [Response: ] The definition of racketeering activity contained in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(1) specifically includes violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1951 (the Hobbs Act). Operation Rescue, as well as the other named defendants acting in conjunction with others, have repeatedly extorted or attempted to extort from providers of abortion services a closure of their facilities. In addition, the defendants have attempted to extort, on repeated occasions, softened police response to their criminal actions in furtherance of their goal of closing abortion facilities. These extortionate activities are a part of the defendants' well-organized efforts to prevent abortions from taking place anywhere in this country. 42 15. Describe the alleged injury to business or property. 43 [Response: ] The primary injuries caused to the plaintiff by the enterprise is the hinderance [sic] of normal routine police activities within the Town of West Hartford as well as the cost of increased manpower and equipment needed to respond to the illegal activities conducted by the enterprise within the Town of West Hartford. In addition, the enterprise has resulted in injury to at least one police officer, albeit minor, within the Town of West Hartford for which the plaintiff may be liable. 44 16. Describe the direct casual [sic] relationship between the alleged injury and the violation of the RICO statute. 45 [Response: ] The plaintiff Town of West Hartford is, in effect, an innocent bystander which has been injured as a direct result of the Operation Rescue efforts to shut down the Summit Women's Center in West Hartford. The goal of Operation Rescue is, in part, to prevent police response to Operation Rescue activities from being effective. As a result, increased manpower is needed to deal with Operation Rescue-sponsored protests as is a correlative reduction in police protection for the balance of the Town. 46