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.

AMERICREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES,

INC., a Delaware Corporation,

d/b/a GM FINANCIAL,

 Counterplaintiff,

v.

BABA DAINJA EL,

 Counterdefendant.

Case No 12 C 153

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

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. The Plaintiff claimed

jurisdiction on diversity grounds, alleging that he is a

“Ministerial Ambassador . . . of the Aboriginal/Indigenous

Choctaw/Cherokee/Murr/Moor-Wasat Region Tribe of the Aboriginal

Republic of North American Government.” The Plaintiff sought leave

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:464
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 is now alleged to exist based on “Admiralty or

Maritime Jurisdiction” and diversity of 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 -

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:465
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. A retail installment contract was entered into, under

which Plaintiff financed the principal amount of $27,999.72,

payable in 72 monthly payments of $743.54. 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. Plaintiff neither redeemed the vehicle

nor returned a completed 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 -

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:466
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. Of course

this makes no sense. No more than submitting to the jurisdiction

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

- 4 -

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:467
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 -

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:468
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 -

Case: 1:12-cv-00153 Document #: 40 Filed: 07/11/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:469