El v. AmeriCredit Corporation GM Financial et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 7/11/2012:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BABA-DAINJA:EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION GM
FINANCIAL, CHRIS CHOATE
(D.B.A.) CHRIS CHOATE-CFO,
DANIEL E. BERCE (D.B.A.)
DANIEL BERCE-CEO,
Defendants.

Case No 12 C 153

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware Corporation,
d/b/a GM FINANCIAL,

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

Counterplaintiff,
v.
BABA DAINJA EL,
Counterdefendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case originated with a 165-paragraph, 31-page Complaint,
supplemented by two inches of exhibits.

The Complaint sought

compensatory damages in the amount of $34 million dollars and
punitive damages of $2.2 billion dollars.
jurisdiction

on

diversity

“Ministerial

Ambassador

.

The Plaintiff claimed

grounds,

alleging

.

the

.

of

that

he

is

a

Aboriginal/Indigenous

Choctaw/Cherokee/Murr/Moor-Wasat Region Tribe of the Aboriginal
Republic of North American Government.” The Plaintiff sought leave

to proceed in forma pauperis.

On March 5, 2012, the Court denied

leave based on the Court’s view that the Complaint did not rise
above the level of frivolity.

The Court did not dismiss the

Complaint with prejudice but suggested that the Plaintiff seek
legal assistance before refiling. With that in mind the Court gave
Plaintiff sixty (60) days to refile his Complaint.
On

May

4,

2012

the

Plaintiff

filed a

“Verified

Amended

Complaint for damage of injury,” consisting this time of 118
paragraphs,

spread

over

18

pages,

seeking

$24,256,998.32

in

compensatory damages, and $7,000,000.00 in punitive damages.
Jurisdiction
Maritime

is

now

alleged

Jurisdiction”

and

to

exist

diversity

based
of

on

“Admiralty or

citizenship

based

on

Plaintiff’s “documented indigenous Murr by Race and Nationality.”
The Amended Complaint now consists of ten alleged causes of action,
“Unconscionable

and

voided

contract”

(Count

One);

“Fraud

and

Misrepresentation” (Count Two); “Assumption and Duty Negligence”
(Count Three);

“Conspiracy”

(Count

Four);

“Conversion”

(Count

Five); “Unjust Enrichment” (Count Six); “Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress” (Count Seven); “Rescission” (Count Eight);
“Spoliation of Evidence and Accounting” (Count Nine); and “Breach
of Contract (Count Ten). Defendants have moved to dismiss and have
filed a Counterclaim.

Plaintiff in turn has moved to dismiss the

Counterclaim.

- 2 -

According to what the Court can make out of the Amended
Complaint and augmented by the allegations in the Counterclaim, it
appears that on March 18, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a 2007 Ford
motor vehicle from Al Piemonte Ford Sales, Inc. in Melrose Park,
Illinois.
which

A retail installment contract was entered into, under

Plaintiff

financed

the

principal

amount

payable in 72 monthly payments of $743.54.

of

$27,999.72,

Subsequent to its

execution, the contract was sold and assigned to the Defendant,
AmeriCredit.

Plaintiff made the first of the required payments,

but made no more.

Accordingly AmeriCredit, on August 23, 2011,

repossessed the vehicle and sent Plaintiff a notice and a standard
Affidavit of Defense form.
nor

returned

a

completed

Plaintiff neither redeemed the vehicle
Affidavit

of

Defense.

As

such,

AmeriCredit sold the vehicle at auction on September 28, 2011 and
applied the net proceeds from the sale to Plaintiff’s account.

A

final accounting showed that there was a deficiency of $11,322.28,
which forms the basis for the Counterclaim.
In response to the Motion and Counterclaim, Plaintiff has
filed a “Memorandum of Law in Response to Motion to Dismiss
Verified Amended Complaint for Damages of Injury, With Prejudice by
Affidavit,” a “Verified Petition in the Nature of Omnibus Motion,”
and “Verified Petition in the Nature of Motion to Dismiss with
Prejudice.”

All of these responses are filed by “appearance de

bene esse” which Plaintiff translates as “appearance in Writing”

- 3 -

but actually means “of well being” and is used to allow a person to
appear without submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction.

This is an

unusual tactic considering the Plaintiff filed the subject law
suit, which of course is an action that submits the filer to the
jurisdiction of the Court.
The Amended Complaint, like the original Complaint, makes no
sense.

Piecing together the Amended Complaint and Plaintiff’s

response to the Motion to Dismiss, it seems that Plaintiff is
claiming, as surety of the United States, that he had the right to
tender

in

full

payment

of

the

balance

due

AmeriCredit

an

“instrument . . . negotiated to the United States Treasury for
settlement” which is described as a “certificate of indebtedness of
the United States,” which he apparently claims to be legal tender
because when President Franklin Roosevelt took the United States
off the Gold Standard, he replaced it with a currency made up of
negotiable instruments backed by the labor and assets of the people
such

as

Plaintiff

which

constitutes

a

surety

relationship.

Consequently Plaintiff was entitled to use his labor and assets due
from the United States Treasury as a surety to satisfy the debt
owed to AmeriCredit.

Since AmeriCredit refused to erase the debt

and repossessed the vehicle, AmeriCredit is guilty of all of the
causes of action set forth in the Amended Complaint.
this makes no sense.

Of course

No more than submitting to the jurisdiction

of the Court by filing a lawsuit in contract and in tort and then

- 4 -

seeking to avoid jurisdiction on the Counterclaim by an appearance
de bene esse.

According, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Since

this is Plaintiff’s second bite of the apple it is dismissed with
prejudice. Since there appears to be no legal basis for dismissing
the counter claim, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice is
denied.
Plaintiff has also filed as noted above a Motion styled
“Omnibus Motion.”

By this Motion the Plaintiff seeks to “order”

the Court to make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

This

Motion makes no more sense than the Amended Complaint and is
therefore denied.
Finally, the Plaintiff has filed a document styled “writ of
error by affirmed affidavit for petition to return intellectual
property.

This appears to be an attempt to get the Court to

reconsider the Court’s response to Plaintiff’s attempt to have the
Court return the courtesy copy of the original Complaint filed with
the Court which the Court said that it would do at the conclusion
of the case.

So the Motion to Reconsider is denied.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court rules as follows:
1.

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice the
Counterclaim is denied.

- 5 -

3.

Plaintiff’s

Motion

styled

“Omnibus

Motion”

is

denied.
4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s order
denying immediate return of the original Complaint
is denied at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
DATE: 7/11/2012

- 6 -