With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". which would constitute unlawful activity for purposes of The Travel Act is extortion, and for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has not plead extortion. D. Additional RICO Infirmities The Complaint also fails to state a RICO claim for reasons unique to each subsection of § 1962. To state a violation of § 1962(a), Plaintiff must allege that Defendants used income received from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire an interest in or establish an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce. The Complaint fails to allege that Defendants received income from racketeering activity, acquired an interest in an enterprise, or established an enterprise. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, no violation of § 1962(a) has been stated. See Morin, 835 F.Supp. 126, 131-32 (<HOLDING>). No violation of § 1962(b) is stated because

A: recognizing that it is difficult to understand how a corporation can acquire or maintain an interest in itself through a pattern of racketeering activity and that 1962b may require that the person and enterprise be distinct entities
B: holding that to state a subsection 1962a claim plaintiffs must allege a use or investment injury that is distinct from any injury resulting from the racketeering predicate acts themselves
C: holding that to state a  1962a claim plaintiff must allege that the defendants received income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity and invested it in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of a rico enterprise
D: holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise
C.