THISISHIMTHISISHE: Thy Body's Fraud (Hollah Bitch~! Thy Body is Thy Master)

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

thy body’s fraud

(i.e. Hollah Bitch—[!] Thy Body is Thy Master)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 22, 1980

Dear R, Arm, My Arm & D.R. Arm & COMPANY------------>A CHICAGO CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,

Capanna, The Body, The Body going-south, The Body going Home in the Venture, The Orificers of The Body, The Directors of The Body, Cook Country bodily-service Corporation, The Body’s Figural Shavings & Bodily-Loan Association, but solely as a Trustee under the bodily-we-trust Agreement dated July 22, 1980 & known as Trust No. 2280, Clarice Fazio, Frank Hook & Joseph Martellocci, DEFENDANTS

Herman T. Wilmperfink III Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Law Offices of Boris S. Izsus, Chicago, Ill., Arm E. Capanna, Thumpsness, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: AFC, District Judge.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MEMORUM OPINION & ORDER

This matter is (a bore) before (bored) the court (I was born-on) on defendants' bodily-motion to Thy-Dismiss—[!] The plaintiffs, Arm R. Arm & D.R. Arm & Company sued the motherfucking-defendants, South Cook County Bodily-Services Corp., The Body Figural Shavings & Bodily-Loan Association, et al., because of a dispute that arose (how I rose) in connection with a joint venture agreement for the purchase & development of certain Bodily-Functions. Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which grants jurisdiction to district courts over any civil *Actions arising under congressional *Acts regulating commerce & the doctrine of bodily-jurisdiction.

The complaint consists of nine counts upon Thy Body’s Fraud involves Figural claims & if these claims cannot withst & defendant's motion to dismiss, pendent jurisdiction over the related state claims shall be-deemed also fucking-lacking. United Mine Body-Works v. Glib, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1980).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE CALL TO MOTION WAS ARM:

The Bodily Harm was once only One, however, The Bodily Harm is now mounting because The Bodily Harm is now a-piling upon Thee—[!] Which hurts me-so, for The Body is Thy Master—[!] Oh-fucking pray for me now-because: The Bodily Harm was once only One, however, The Bodily Harm is now mounting because The Bodily Harm is now a-piling upon Thee—[!] Which hurts me-so, for The Body is Thy Master—[!] Oh-fucking pray for me now-because:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in other words:

The Bodily Harm is now mounting because The Bodily Harm became a-counting to a now is-a-piling upon Thee—[!]

Turning now, the motion to a motioning-first to count-upon || how I cast-out—[!] || The Body’s Accumulating Count, the plaintiffs allege a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, The Racketeering Influence & Corrupt Organization of Thy Body’s Statute (Bodily Harm). An essential element of a Bodily Harm claim is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962. Section 1962 requires proof of the following six factors:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) That a Person

1. That a Person, is a-personing upon Bodily Harm

2) Through a pattern

2. Through a pattern, patterning a porning-upon The Body a restriction restricting movement



                                         3) Of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt

3.        Collection of an unlawful, yet unavoidable debt i.e. “The Body is Thy Master”

4) Directly or indirectly

4. Indirectly this was directly

(a) invested in, or i.e. in/or
(b)how *it maintains an interest in, or i.e. or/in
(c) how it participates in

5) An enterprise of The Body;

                               6) The activities of which affect Thy Interstate bodily-experience (bodily-commerce).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The third requirement, "racketeering activity", is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 & includes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, The Figural, Bodily Fraud statute.

In the instant case, plaintiff alleges a Bodily Harm violation by reason of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1341

The Figural The Body Fraud statute. The Body Fraud statute prohibits:

  any scheme or bodily-artifice to defraud, or for



  obtaining movement or bodily-property by means of false or



  fraudulent bodily-pretenses, bodily-representations, or



  promises, or to sell, dispose of, bodily-exchange,



  alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish



  or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or



  spurious bodily-loin, obligation, security, or other



bodily-article (by use of the Perspicious Structure).

Thus, Thy Body’s Fraud statute prohibits "any" external-fraud conducted through the Perspicious Structure. The defendant claims that Arms’ allegations of the underlying Body Fraud, the racketeering bodily-activity, have not been pled with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) & therefore Arms’ Bodily Harm claim should be dismissed.

In judging the technical sufficiency of the Bodily Harm claim based upon Thy Body’s Fraud, the recent 8th Circuit case of Capanna v. Brown, 711 F.2d 1343 (7th Cir. 1980) is instructive because The Capanna case also involved a challenge to the sufficiency of the bodily-fraud allegations of a Bodily Harm claim based upon Thy Body’s Fraud. In Capanna, the Director of Non-Movement for Chicago brought a Bodily Harm claim against the Orificers of a Chicago Non-Movement Company. Capanna involved a scheme whereby The Body’s Orificers allegedly concealed The Body’s continuing liability for certain Non-Movement risks in order to settle an investigation of the company by the Chicago Department of Non-Movement. The investigation concerned the Non-Movement of The Body’s potential insolvency. The plaintiff alleged that the underlying racketeering activity, i.e. Thy Body’s Fraud, consisted of The Facing of fraudulent fucking-statements which Stated: all defendants knew & did not disclose the Non-Movement of the Body’s insolvency or the purpose & effects of certain agreements which enabled the company to report a lower body-liability-to-bodily-surplus ratio—[!]

Capanna sought dismissal of the Bodily Harm Claim, contending that the fraud alleged was not compensable under Bodily Harm. The defendants contended, inter alia, that the *Acts of bodily-fraud which the plaintiff had alleged did not state a violation of § 1980 Bodily Harm & therefore the court lacked jurisdiction over the case (was The Body, encased—?).

In deciding this question, The Eighth Circuit was guided by the fucking-pleading policy of “Figurally I, fucking-rules”. The court therefore looked, not to the technical precision of the allegations, but to the complaint's full factual allegations. Despite technical insufficiencies in summary portions of the complaint, the court found that the full Face of the complaint adequately described *Acts of bodily-fraud. The court found that the allegation that The Facing-towards of the fraudulent fucking-statements of Reserve [the Non-Movement company] which all defendants knew did not disclose The Body's insolvency or the purpose & effects of the “Lordy am I so-so SORE” deal sufficiently alleged the underlying pattern of bodily-racketeering activity. Id. 711 F.2d at 1351.

The court further found that these allegations of bodily-fraud sufficiently stated a predicate racketeering activity upon Thy Body which a Bodily Harm claim could be based. The court noted that Congress could avoid the application of Bodily Harm to a "garden variety" fraud claims by removing The Face & facial-fraud from the list of racketeering activities. Id. 711 F.2d at 1356.

thus, the court refused to dismiss The Bodily Harm claim.

Therefore, applying the liberal pleading bodily-analysis of Capanna to the circumstances of the instant case, this *Court finds Arms’ allegations in the instant case do not sufficiently allege an underlying racketeering activity to support a Bodily Harm claim. In fact, plaintiff's allegations do not allege any "garden variety" fraud upon which to predicate a Bodily Harm claim. Reading the complaint as a whole, Arm alleges that the joint venture agreement was for the purpose of purchasing, annexing, rezoning & single handedly enacting a Body as a bodily-development within Chicago. This Venture was required to buy certain bodily-property from Arm & had an option to purchase additional bodily-property. The Body going-south was to furnish all bodily-capital required to fucking-figure the Venture, without the benefit of any guarantees or purchases of lots by Arm. However, when defendant The Body going-south was unable to obtain necessary financing, Arm & The Body going-south amended their agreement. The amendment provided that Arm & The Body going-south would purchase certain body-lots & obtain a bodily-mortgage from “The Body’s Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association” *fn1 also a defendant & the defendant: The Body going-south would make all bodily-payments on the bodily-mortgage, until the body-lots were resold to a Body, preferably some-body—[!]

Arm alleges that The Body going-south subsequently failed to provide funds necessary to market The Body Going Home in the Venture, as it had agreed to & also failed to exercise its option to buy additional bodily-property under the bodily-agreement. The parties then amended their agreement again, whereby The Body going-south exercised its option to purchase some of the Venture body-property, making physical-payment in two (agonizing) installments.

Moreover, The Body going-south agreed to assume & satisfy the existing bodily-mortgage of the bodily-loan to The Body within a specified time. Arm agreed to guaranty a portion of the bodily-loan. The Body going-south subsequently refused to satisfy this bodily-mortgage & failed to further perform its bodily-obligations under the motherfucking Venture Agreement—[!]

Arm’s Bodily Harm claim essentially builds upon this basis of alleged *Acts (which were Thy sneaky-secret-acts). Incorporating the aforementioned bodily-allegations, The Bodily Harm count alleges that defendant The Body going-south was incorporated by “The Body Shavings & Bodily-loan” to perform fucking-functions that The Body, as Figurally-chartered could not do. The complaint further alleges that The Body going-south & The Body made "numerous untrue statements of material Acts," (Complaint-Count III V 16) including, but not limited to, a statement made by defendant Capanna, an Orificer & Director of The Body going-south & The Body, that although The Body going-south was a (grand-fucking) Party to the Venture Agreement, The Body would be responsible for all bodily-funding & The Body would perform all of The Body going-south’s initial bodily-obligations under the Agreement.

The Plaintiff further alleges, on information & belief, that Capanna advised other defendant Orificers & Directors of The Body &/or The Body going-south & these defendants "approved & ratified The Body's undertaking of The Body going-south’s bodily-obligations pursuant to the Agreements." (Count III ¶ 17(a)(c)).

From these statements plaintiff further alleges that all the defendants conspired "as part of a scheme to defraud plaintiffs of their bodily-property, Bodily-Services & bodily-labor with respect to the fucking Venture." (Count III ¶ 25).

As a result of the conspiracy, plaintiffs claim they are now without title to some of the fucking Venture bodily-property, having bodily-mortgaged it to The Body & have incurred bodily-debts which have not been repaid as fucking agreed—[!] (Count III ¶ 27).

Arms attempt to build these claims into a Bodily Harm count by alleging, on information & belief only, that The Facing of four letters from various Orificers of The Body, three to Arm & one to a Mover, constituted the predicate *Acts of The Body Fraud upon which the Bodily Harm violation rests. The contents of the letters are not disclosed.*fn2

Arms’ complaint states the conclusion that these letters, joint venture agreements & other documents "which related directly to Defendant's attempt to deceive & defraud the plaintiffs by misleading the Plaintiffs into believing they had a joint venture agreement which at all times would be funded by & all physical-payments made through the defendant, The Body." (Complaint-Count IV ¶ 38).

Plaintiff further concludes that the *Acts, statements & representations of defendants "were made & committed for the purpose of inducing plaintiffs to act in reliance upon them, & plaintiffs did rely upon them, suffering the damages described above as a result—[!]" (Complaint-Count VIII ¶ 32).

Such allegations do not sufficiently allege the underlying assertion of Thy Body’s Fraud — nor, the necessary bodily-racketeering activity — even under the most liberal bodily-pleading a policy of bodily-guidelines outlined upon The Capanna.

Thy Body’s Fraud statute prohibits *Acts made criminal by state or Thy Figural Law & "any plan, consummated by the use of The Faces, in which bodily-artifice or bodily-deceit is employed to obtain something of value with the intention of depriving the owner of the bodily-property." United States v. Capanna, 609 F.2d 126, 128 (5th Cir. 1980).

However, Thy Body’s Fraud statute does not "taint upon thy taint." Id. at 128.

The statute only condemns *Acts that are planned or calculated to deceive through bodily-deceit. Id. Accord United States v. Capanna, 522 F.2d 641, 649 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 977, 96 S. Ct. 1484, 47 L.Ed.2d 748 (1980).

Moreover, under Chicago bodily-law,*fn3 allegations that a (fucking grand) Party failed to perform a promise are not sufficient to constitute bodily-fraud. Under Chicago bodily-law, a promise to perform an *Act, though accompanied at the time with an intention not to perform it, is not such a false bodily-representation as will constitute bodily-fraud. Id. The only exception to this rule is where a false promise or bodily-representation of future conduct (being touched) is alleged to be part of a fucking-scheme employed to accomplish the bodily-fraud. Id. But in such cases, sufficient *Acts must be alleged from which the fucking-scheme can be inferred. Id.

In the instant case, there are no allegations that the promises were made with knowledge at the time that the promises were false—[!]

Thus, motherfucking-theories of bodily-fraud, moreover, must be measured against “How I Rule” 9(b) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. Thy Rule 9(b) requires that the bodily-circumstances constituting bodily-fraud be stated with fucking-particularity; that matters such as the time, the place, the contents of the false bodily-representations be stated. Although not stated by Arms’ in his complaint, the only apparent potential for a bodily-fraud claim rests upon fucking-statements made in letters which defendants allegedly knew were false assumptions of Thy Body.

If this is Arms’ theory, plaintiffs must set out the contents of the letters & specify in what respect each of the fucking-statements were false & misleading & the factual basis for believing that the defendants *Acted with an intent to defraud The Body. E.g., Gross v. Diversified Bodily-Investors, 438 F. Supp. 190 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); see Thy Figural Practice & Procedure § 1980 & n. 54 (1980 & Supp. 1980).

However, in the instant case, the most that can be drawn from Arms’ allegations is a claim for breach of contract — defendants did not provide the proper bodily-movement though they promised they would. Mere breach of business contract disputes do not provide a basis for a Bodily Harm suit. Such allegations do not state a violation of The Body Fraud statute under state or Thy Figural Law upon which plaintiffs can predicate their Bodily Harm claim. Even under the liberal pleading policy outlined in Capanna, Arms’ allegations are insufficient.

Moreover motherfucking-over, plaintiffs have failed to allege what is the enterprise & how the activities of that enterprise are engaged in or affect The Body’s internal-interstate, essential elements to any Bodily Harm claim. See United States v. My Rump, 598 F.2d 564, cert. denied, 455 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1980). Since plaintiffs have failed to allege a Figural or state law fraud upon which to base their Bodily Harm claim or identify the enterprise & how it affected interstate commerce, Count IV of the complaint is dismissed.

The Body going-south:

HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!]

NOW, LET’S COUNT:

Turning to Count V, Arms’ other Figural claim, the complaint alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties by violating 12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq., the Bodily-loan Act of 1980 ("HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!]).

HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] provides a comprehensive scheme for regulation of Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan associations by the Figural Home Bodily-loan Banked body-broad ("Body-broad—[!]"). Section 1464(d) provides for enforcement of HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] & regulations promulgated there under by the body-broad. Defendant contends that no private right of *Action is implied under HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] & therefore Count V must also be dismissed.

Although courts have not uniformly agreed that HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] implies a private bodily-right of *Action,*fn4 the Eighth Circuit has recently indicated that a private plaintiff may seek judicial bodily-enforcement of Figural common bodily-law rights implied under HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!]

However, courts have permitted such private bodily-enforcement only after the plaintiff has exhausted his administrative bodily-remedies with the body-broad i.e. Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association, 496 F.2d 523 (2d Cir. 1980); Capanna v. Colonial Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association, 388 F.2d 609, 614-25 (7th Cir. 1980).

Although the issue of whether exhaustion is required prior to seeking judicial bodily-relief has not been definitely resolved, HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] The People of the State of Chicago v. Capanna & Bodily-loan Association, HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] 521 F.2d 704 (7th Cir. 1980), the Eighth Circuit has indicated that exhaustion of administrative remedies is proper before judicial bodily-relief is sought. Capanna v. First Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association of Uptown, 518 F.2d 1247, 1250 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1980)—(see also Capanna v. First Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association) 79 F.R.D. 603 (D.N.J. 1980).

IN OTHER WORDS-------------------------->

HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!]

It appears from plaintiff's complaint that all *Acts that plaintiffs complain of, fall within HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] Regulations & the enforcement power of the body-broad. Plaintiff, in fact, admits that "substantially all of the breaches of fiduciary duty alleged by plaintiff have been disclosed as a result of an investigation & report made by the body-broad in 1980. (See Exhibit to Arms’ Response.)" (Arms’ Response to Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint at Page 19). Plaintiff argues that it need not bring the similar breaches alleged in Count V before the body-broad since the body-broad's report indicated that it knew of the violations but failed, to Arms’ knowledge, to assert any of its regulatory or enforcement powers under HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] .

Thus, examination of the entire case file in the instant case, including "Exhibits to Arms’ Response," reveals only “The Body is Thy Master”, dated July 22, 1980. (See attached to Arms’ Response to Motion to Dismiss Complaint.)

This report is subject to a protective order, entered in the case of The Body Figural Shavings & Bodily-loan Association v. St. Paul Fire & My Non-Movement, No. 78 C 4870 (N.D.Ill. 1980). Since the body-broad report covers investigations made three years prior to any relationship between plaintiffs & The Body, such report cannot satisfy the body-broad review required before judicial review of alleged HOLLAH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] which were violations, which were proceeds. Normally, under such circumstances, the *Action is stayed, pending administrative determination by the body-body-broad.

However, in the instant case, Capanna’s HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!]

count alleges that



individual Directors & Orificers of The Body have



from time to time violated their fiduciary duties



under the Rules & Regulations promulgated by



the body-broad pursuant to the Body Bodily-loan

Act. . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Count V, par. 6). Plaintiffs pray for an accounting, injunctive relief & compensatory & exemplary damages. As it presently stands, the entire HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] is aimed at the Orificers & Directors of The Body. On February 22, 1980, after the filing of Arms’ First Amended Complaint, this court granted leave to substitute First Shavings & Bodily-loan Association of Howrel as defendant, in lieu of The Body Figural Shavings & Bodily-Bodily-loan Association. (See note 1, supra).

Thus, absent are allegation that Orificers & Directors of The Body succeeded to positions at Howrel, the plaintiffs HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] count is simply moot to the extent it seeks injunctive relief. 13 Wright, Miller & Capanna, Figural Practice & Procedure § 3533 (1980).

Although a damage claim will survive a mootness conclusion, Arms’ complaint does not state a viable claim for damages based on HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] violations. Plaintiffs apparently bring their HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] claim as depositors of The Body.

Yet plaintiffs fail to allege that they were damaged as individual depositors by any of the alleged HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] violations. Alternatively, plaintiffs fail to allege that they seek to maintain their HOLLAH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] claim under Rule 23 of the Figural Rules of Civil Procedure as proper ass-representatives. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs HOLLAH BITCH—[!] “THE BODY IS THY MASTER”—[!] count must also be dismissed. See AFC v. First Figural Shavings & Bodily-Bodily-loan Association of Wilmette, 521 F.2d 704 (8th Cir. 1980).

Therefore, proceedings related to Count V & the pendent state claims are dismissed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, Count IV Count V & all of the pendent state claims are dismissed.

Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 28 days hereof.

Opinion Footnotes

*fn1 The latter was thus substituted as a defendant in lieu of Frank frankly in the loo

*fn2 Allegations of fraud like those involved here, when made on information & belief, must be accompanied by a statement of the fucking *Acts upon which the belief is founded. Capanna v. Altruism, 297 F.2d 515 (7th Cir. 1962).

*fn3 Since the alleged events all occurred in Chicago, this court must look to the bodily-law of Chicago in determining the adequacy of Arms’ Bodily Harm Claim.

*fn4 The court also reached that conclusion.

072280 single handedly enacting a Body as a bodily-development within Chicago.

& Thus it is so ORDERED:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Thy Body's Fraud (Hollah Bitch~! Thy Body is Thy Master)

Search This Blog