With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that “[t]his is one of those cases expressly resolved by H.J. Inc. when the Court observed: ‘Predicate acts extending over a few weeks or months and threatening no future criminal conduct do not satisfy [the continuity] requirement: Congress was concerned in RICO with long-term criminal conduct.’ ” 894 F.2d at 597 (quoting H.J. Inc., 109 S.Ct. at 2901). In the present situation, the predicate acts took place over a period of, at most, eight months. It would seem from the preceding cases that eight months of criminal activity with no threat of continuity into the future is simply not substantial enough to be considered long-term criminal activity. The great weight of authority supports this position. Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Aero Voyagers, Inc., 721 F.Supp. 579 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>); McCain v. Phoenix Resources, Inc., No.

A: holding one and onehalf months establishes causation while three months is too long and does not
B: holding that a six month closedended period did not satisfy the continuity requirement
C: holding that two acts of mail fraud within five months constituted a pattern
D: holding that a closedended period of less than thirteen months was not sufficiently long to be considered a pattern
D.