December 2 - I did have a telephone call with Attorney Hayman, who filed
this motion to dismiss the entire case because it was not "short and
plain" and "concise and direct" however I think his other arguments bear
reading as well so I will retype the entire motion and the opposition
that I filed to it.  In his phone call Mr. Hayman's only suggestion as
to how we could agree was that I rewrite the lawsuit and make it 20
pages or less because he didn't have to want to write a 300 page

Mr. Hayman is representing the independent insurance broker
Betty Rae Poppo who sold me my Own-Occ Customax policy and then
encouraged me to file a claim after I asked her if a diagnosis of
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was going to cause any problems.

Here's the motion to Dismiss he filed the next day:


Pursuant to Fed. R. civ. P. Rules 8(a) and (e), the defendant, Betty Rae
Poppo, moves to dismiss the Complaint in its entirelty, because the
Complaint does not contain a short and plain statement of the
plaintiff's claim, and the allegations in the Complaint are not concise
and direct.

The plaintiff, Judy Morris, MD, is litigating this case Pro Se.  The
Complaint arises out of Dr. Morris' contention that her disability
income insurance carrier, UNUM Life Insurance Company of America,
wrongfully denied her claim for disability benefits.  The complaint
indicates that Dr. Morris filed it on her own behalf and on behalf of
Citizenz of Massachusetts and of the United States "to rid [UNUM] and
other insurance companies and regulatory agencies of influence of
organize (s9c) crime." (Complaint at p. 5)

Dr. Morris alleges that the purpose of UNUM's investigation of her
disability claim was inter alia "to confuse and torture [her and] to
induce [her] to commit suicide." ( pp 12-13). The Complaint
contains detailed allegations concerning numerous other alleged UNUM
claimant.  (Id. at p 227-243).  Dr. Morris alleges that UNUM's actions
amounted essentially to "lobbing psychological bombs into a crowd of
sick and weakened claimants, intending that some of them would commit
suicide as a result." (Id. at p. 225).  She alleges that "UNUM's
behavior...encourages unethical, illegal, malicious, willful, and
unconscionable behavior and psychological torture directed mostly at
claimants and their doctors but sometimes at their own employees." (Id.
at pp 13-14).  The Complaint includes references to President Clinton
and to the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. (Id at p. 173).

The Complaint is three hundred and one (301) pages long, plus exhibits,
and many pages of the Complaint are single spaced.  There are sixty (60)
differerent institutions and individuals named as defendants, plus
additional unnamed individuals identified as "John and Jane Does."
According to the Complaint, Dr. Morris seeks a pre-trial attachment of
all the defendants' "assets,...income, and other pecuniary interests."
(Id. at pp 103-104).  The legal theories upon which Dr. Morris relies
are not clearly defined, although she purports to assert RICO claims
against at least some of the defendants.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a Complaint must contain "a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief."  Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8 (a)(2).  In addition,
"[e]ach averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct."
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8(e)(1).  Where a Complaint is argumentative,
prolix, redundant, and verbose, and cannot be deciphered with the
expenditure of a great deal of time and expense, it should be dismissed
under Rule 8.  Newman v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 115FRD 341,
343-344 (D. Mass. 1987) (dismissing complaint that was 21 pages long and
included 70 pages of exhibits, with legal arguments and citations to
cases), see Kuehl v FDIC, 8 F 3d 905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993) (affirming
dismissal of 43 page complaint that was argumentative and contained
scandalous material). As one court observed, "[C]omplaints which ramble,
which needlessly speculate, accuse, and condemn, and which contain
circuitous diatribes far removed from the heart of the claim do not
comport with these goals and this system; such complaints must be
dismissed." Green v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 108 FRD, 217, 218
(D. Mass. 1985) . quoting Prezzi v. Berzak, 57 FRD 149, 151-152 (SDNY
1972).  Whatever leniency may be afforded a pro se litigant in some
circumstances, such litigants may not flout the requirements of Rule 8.
See Green supra.

Dr. Morris' 301 page Complaint is certainly argumentative, prolix, and
verbose.  Whether the court gives Dr. Morris' Complaint a cursory review
or a comprehensive examination, the conclusion is inescapable that the
Complaint does not comply with Rule 8.  Notwithstanding Dr. Morris's
status as a pro se litigant, it would be unfair and unreasonable to
require any or all of the 60 defendants to attempt to file Answers to
Dr. Morris' Complaint.  Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 8.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Betty Rae Poppo, respectfully
requests that the Court dismiss the Complaint.  If the court is inclined
to dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, Ms. Poppo respectfully
requests that the plaintiff be permitted no more than one additional
opportunity to file a Complaint that complies wit the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and that in the absence of such compliance, that any
second or amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Rae Poppo,
By her attorneys,

Thomas H. Hayman, BBO #557279
Michael L. Cuddire, BBO #638094



   Plaintiff  ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF
v.      )
 et al.    )


I, Judy E. Morris, MD, being a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, under pains and penalties of perjury do hereby
strongly oppose the motion put forth to dismiss the above complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P, Rule 8(a) and (e) filed by Thomas H. Hayman,
counsel for Betty Rae Poppo for the following reasons:
1) This is a knee-jerk motion by Mr. Hayman to dismiss a perfectly valid
complaint on a technicality that could be easily remedied at the request
of the court with some guidelines on how to do this without compromising
the details of the case.
2) Plaintiff is required by Fed. Rule Civ. P, Rule 9(b) to plead fraud
or mistake with particularity.  Because of the complexity of this case,
the multiple defendants, multiple causes of action and the possible lack
of familiarity of the court with the situation involving litigation of
disability claims, particularly those of a subjective nature, the ERISA
law, its history and misuse by the insurance industry and the serious
nature and public policy issues of the allegations involved, and in
order to avoid a conflict with Fed. Rul. Civ. P, Rule 12(e) "motion for
a more definite statement", plaintiff chose to plead her entire case
with particularity, and clarify issues in advance.
3) If Mr. Hayman had read the lawsuit, he would see this explained in
Paragraphs 1 and 5 of her complaint.  In his telephone "conference" with
plaintiff, Mr. Hayman suggested that Plaintiff's complaint be reduced to
20 pages or less.  This would be impossible to do without severely
compromising the integrity of the case and limiting the ability of the
courts to learn of the issues involved.  Attached please find a short
of other lawsuits and page lengths to see that Mr. Hayman's request is
totally unreasonable. Plaintiff is currently receiving notarized
affidavits from other UNUM claimants to back up her allegations of
racketeering and emotional torment directed at claimants by UNUM.
4) Plaintiff is a Pro Se litigant and while she is not asking for
special consideration from the courts is asking that her case not be
dismissed on conflicting rules that she found difficult to reconcile
without a chance to amend the complaint if necessary to comply with
5) The format for plaintiff's complaint is based on review of numerous
lawsuits filed by plaintiff's attorneys against insurance companies and
by the US Government against defendants in a racketeering case.  In no
instance did she find a statement of the type that would satisfy Mr.
Hayman and also satisfy the needs of the court to understand the issues
involved. Therefore
a short and concise statement would not comply with Fed. Rule Civ. P,
Rule 8(f) "All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial
6) Attorney Hayman being aware that his motion to dismiss could not meet
the standards imposed by Fed. Rules of Civ. Procedure, Rules 9(b) and
12(b) and (e) and would also defeat Fed. Rule of Civ. P, Rule 1 to
"secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action,"
as well as Fed. Rule Civ. P, Rule 11(b)(1) that the motion "is not being
presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation."
Furthermore a dismissal under failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted would have to be "treated as one for summary judgement",
and "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all
material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56" as stipulated in
Fed Rule Civ. P, Rule 12(b).
7) Furthermore Mr. Hayman's motion for a concise and definitive
statement and stating a claim upon which relief may be granted is so
vague and ambiguous that plaintiff does not know exactly what he
expects. She feels that her complaint, although not very concise,
clearly states that she is entitled to damages, and his client’s
culpability in her role as the insurance broker in this case. Damages
are stated in the section entitled Section 119 of Complaint, Prayer for
Relief.  Equitable and special damages will by their nature need to be
pleaded with specificity but are continuing to accrue and therefore are
fully unknown at this time.
8) The reference to Alice in Wonderland (pg. 173 of Complaint) is from
the testimony of Elmer Norman, Norman v. Colonial Penn, tried by noted
plaintiff's lawyer William Shernoff, in which Mr. Norman testified that
like the "Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, They used words to
mean whatever they wanted them to." (from How to Make Insurance
Companies Pay Your Claims and What to Do If They Don't, William M.
Shernoff, 1990, pg. 119.)  In Mr. Norman's case, a jury awarded him
punitive damages of $4,500,000 after his insurance company denied his
claim for a $48 hearing aide. Mr. Clinton's words and behavior speak for
9) Plaintiff stands by all accusations in this lawsuit and this motion
illustrates exactly why she wrote her complaint in such detail.  Anyone
who actually read this lawsuit can see that plaintiff not only has valid
reasons for all her averments, but ample evidence and witnesses to prove
them in court.  It is not necessary for defendants to respond with 300
page responses.  Much of the lawsuit is explanatory in nature for
purposes of giving them enough information and notice of evidence to
provide meaningful responses, instead of unsubstantiated accusations as
contained in many "concise" lawsuits.
10) Despite this, in good faith, plaintiff has attached a short and
concise statement of her averments and entitlement to relief
(Attachment A) which she hopes will satisfy Mr. Hayman.

    as per Local Rule 7.1(D)
To avoid the necessity of filing and responding to multiple frivolous
and meritless motions of this type, plaintiff respectfully requests a
meeting of counsel representing all defendants and the plaintiff with a
court officer or judge at the earliest possible time to establish the
ground rules for this litigation including the requirement of all
parties to avoid filing unnecessary motions, incurring unnecessary costs
and delays, and to establish appropriate penalties and sanctions for
parties that do not abide by the rules set up by this court.
Plaintiff also feels obligated to advise the court that based on her
observation and belief, as stated with particularity in her complaint,
she is engaged in a hostile negotiation, and it is unlikely any true
justice will be achieved outside of a Court of Law.  With this in mind,
plaintiff requests an early trial date, admonitions and strict
guidelines for both sides to comply with discovery, and penalties and
sanctions set up for parties that do not comply.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this 7 day of December, 1998.

Judy E. Morris, MD
       PRO SE

    I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served
by United States Postal Mail, postage prepaid upon US District Court,
District of Massachusetts, Thomas Hayman, and upon all other defendants
in Morris v. UNUM, et al.

       Judy Morris, MD
       PRO SE



1) RACKETEERING - United States District Court Northern District of

v. Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO

43 defendants, 110 pages (single spaced), approximately 220 if double

2) MALPRACTICE - Mendala v. Andrews, Morris, Utzschneider, Hamad,

and Commonwealth of Massachusetts

6 defendants, 41 pages (single spaced), approximately 82 pages if double


3) BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTURE -  Wallock v. Pacificare (HMO Case)

5 defendants, 30 pages


13 pages, 1 defendant

5) FRAUD -  Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Ellis and Ellis - Multiple

indictments totaling over 242 pages.




   Plaintiff  ) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF



                       RICO STATEMENT

I, Judy E. Morris, MD, being a citizen of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, under pains and penalties of perjury do hereby
submit this document as a brief statement of her case to clarify

issues according to Fed. Rule 8 (a) and (e).

Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint submitted to the Court as Civil
Action Case Number CA98-30204-FHF, United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts the following, in brief:

1) Multiple violations committed by defendants constituting violations
   of 18 USC 1962, which states:
   (A) that a person
   (B) has employed a pattern of racketeering activity or the proceeds
   (C) so as to affect an interstate enterprise
   (D) in one or more of the four ways prohibited under Section 1962
       (i) investing the income derived from a pattern of racketeering
           in the enterprise Section 1962 (a);
       (ii) acquiring or maintaining an interest in an enterprise
           through a pattern of racketeering, Section 1962 (b);
       (iii) conducting the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern
           of racketeering, Section 1962(c).
   and (iv) conspiracy to commit RICO violations, Section 1962 (d).

2) Plaintiff has suffered great injury to her business and property “by
reason of” the aforementioned activity.  Furthermore this activity is
also being directed at large numbers of claimants constituting a public
policy issue.

3) Plaintiff alleges that the following Predicate acts, inclusive but
not exclusive of others, were part of the schemes:

   (A) Mail and Wire Fraud
   (B) Extortion/Violation of Hobbs Act
   (C) Attempted Murder and Murder
   (D) Obstruction of Justice
   (E) Practicing Medicine without a license
   (F) Violations of Federal Credit Reporting Act

4) Plaintiff alleges that an association in fact existed as a RICO
enterprise amongst defendants for purposes of engaging in Racketeering
Acts, each ratifying and approving the behavior of the rest or failing
to act within their occupational capacities to remedy the situation.

5) Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of the disability
benefits wrongly denied her, pre and post judgement interest, return of
premiums paid after disability and interest, triple damages for RICO
violations, and costs and expenses of this litigation.

6) Plaintiff furthermore alleges State Causes of Action due to the fact
that plaintiff has been grievously injured in both her person, property
and reputation as a result of defendants actions:
   (A) Breach of Contract MGL 24
   (B) Violation of MGL 93 A, Regulation of Practices for Consumers
   (C) Violation of MGL 175 – Duties of the Insurance Commissioner
   (D) Deceit
   (E) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
   (F) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7) Plaintiff begs leave of the court to add further causes of action for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing,
and Discrimination in the future.

8) Plaintiff alleges that the complex nature of this litigation and the
requirements of Fed. Rule 9 demanding pleading of fraud with
particularity necessitated a lengthy compliant to avoid the necessity of
a Rule 12 (e) motion for a more definitive statement.

9) Plaintiff begs the courts indulgence in that her Pro Se status, lack
of legal experience and the conflicting rules of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for both a brief and concise statement as well as
pleading with particularity left her with a conflict which she chose to
resolve by being as complete as possible in her initial complaint.

10)  Plaintiff alleges that Special damages are due, to be specifically
stated at a future date although stated generally in her complaint, due
to the special circumstances of this case and the public policy issues
involved. These damages can be pleaded with more particularity after the
discovery process is completed due to the possibility of excessive
delays and expenses associated with this.

11) Plaintiff alleges that all defendants are jointly and severally
liable for all damages to plaintiff, proportions to be determined at the
time of trial.

12) This is a brief summary to comply with Fed. Rul. Civ. P, Rule 8 but
does not supercede, diminish, change or amend in any way the
stipulations and pleadings in the original complaint
Case No. 98-30204-FHF, Morris v. UNUM, et. al.
Signed under the penalties of perjury this ___ day of December, 1998.
       Judy E. Morris, MD
       PRO SE

    I hereby certify that a true copy of the above document was served
by United States Postal Mail, postage prepaid upon the US District Court
of the District of Massachusetts and upon all  defendants in Morris v.
UNUM, et al.

       Judy Morris, MD
       PRO SE

Top of Page

Judydoc's Diary Page

Judydoc's Home Page

Insurance Page

Uncivilization and its Discontents

Home Page

Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net

Email me, Bill Hammel
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us

The URL for this document is:
Created: December 17, 1998
Last Updated: May 28, 2000