Monday, November 14, 2011

BROCKTON, MA SUPERIOR COURT : OFUME V. DHCD

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 Brockton, ss. 

                              SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
                                OF THE TRIAL COURT 
_________________________________________________________                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          


Phillip Ofume (self and on behalf  his family)                                                                                                          Plaintiff (Pro se & Forma Pauperis)       

                           v.                                                                       CIVIL ACTION NO.________________
                                                                                                                                                          Massachusetts Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) - Division of
Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency (DHS)
                      Defendant
 _________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF                                            FOR TRANSFER OF SHELTER BENEFITS FROM HOLYOKE TO                                            BROCKTON, MA TO AVERT POLITICALLY INDUCED  FURTHER                                  HOMELESSNESS VIA SWIFT EVICTION UNDER ON-GOING SUMMARY                             PROCESS/ PROCEEDINGS BEFORE BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT.                                        RELIEF SOUGHT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. c. 23B, section 30;106 CMR. s.                                          309.010 309.020 309.021 309.030 309.039 309.040 309.047 309.050; Section 8                                               U.S. Housing Voucher Reform Act.
_____________________________________________________________

 A.                                 COMPLAINT AND RELIEF PROFILE

Here comes, Phillip Ofume, Plaintiff, and moves this Honourable Court for Emergency Temporary Injunctive Relief, nature of Transfer of Shelter Benefits from Holyoke, MA  to Brockton, MA and seeks further temporary  injunctive relief under humanitarian and compassionate ground aimed at stopping endless  politically imposed homelessness and horrifying economic persecution directed against the Plaintiff and his family because of his bid for the President of Nigeria 2007, 2011 and 2015 and further urgent consideration of stopping the on-going trump up and moneyed Summary Eviction Proceedings filed by the Landlord (506 Warren Avenue Apartment #2 Brockton, MA 02301)  pending and returnable for November 23, 2011 before Brockton District Court (EXHIBIT A)  pursuant to M.G.L. c. 23B, section


                                                             1

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD


30;106 CMR. s. 309.010 309.020 309.021 309.030 309.039 309.040 309.047 309.050; Section 8 U.S. Housing Voucher Reform Act . Defendant is aware that the eviction  action of its Vendors (New England Farm Workers Council et al)  on January 31, 2011was illegal, extra/pre-judicial, administratively incorrect and unconstitutional but Defendant allowed Plaintiff and his family to be punitively drifting from homeless to homeless. The eviction of the Plaintiff on January 31, 2011 by the vendors of the Defendant is politically manifested  and Counsel (Mr. Michael E. Malamut) for the  Defendant tasked its Vendor, that its action is , “based on lack of  subject matter jurisdiction, lack  of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”(January 28, 2011)  EXHIBIT B:

A.                                          PARTIES

1.   Plaintiff and his family are family of nine (9) people (hereinafter, “two parents and seven children”) and resident of Brockton, Massachusetts within the jurisdiction of this honourable Court. Plaintiff is a potential presidential candidate campaigned and campaigning for the President of Nigeria 2007, 2011 and 2015. Opponents have several billions of dollars to fight him and they have adapted homelessness and cruel economic sanction and persecution as tools to disrupt his campaign.

2.     Defendant, Department of Housing and Community Development("DHCD"), Division of Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency ("DHS") is agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

B.               MATERIAL FACTS AND JURISDICTION

3.     Apartment (basement)  located  at 177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040 was granted Plaintiff and his family by the Defendant (Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development - DHCD) on September 03, 2010 under Family Shelter Program hosted by the Division of Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency Program pursuant to   M.G.L. Part I Title II Chapter 23B Sect. 30; 106 CMR 309.040(C); and  M.G.L. c. 18 section 2 and the amortization period was September 3, 2010 through September 3, 2011 and maybe renewed if the housing stabilization and self-sufficiency programs for the client, family have not been completed within the initial period.  EXHIBIT C.

4.  On September 3, 2010 when the shelter was issued to the Plaintiff and his family, the Vendor made them to sign some documents which the vendor uses to get district, state, and federal monies and other

                                                            2

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD

services for families and  homeless people. Vendor said that there were no other documents to sign and caseworker advised Plaintiff and his family to work hard to find job and permanent housing by themselves.

5.    On September 6, 2010 two members of Plaintiff’s family (hereinafter, “Mother and son”) traveled to Lynn, Peabody, Boston, Worcester and Salem to attend job interviews and thereafter, they were hired and this effort angered Defendant’s vendor because families and homeless people are multi-million dollars bounty  for the vendors. The tag placed on Plaintiff and his family is classified as licensee  but with rights under the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States. Internally and secretly, they (vendors) don’t want families and homeless people to meet housing stabilization and self-sufficiency target which will make them (clients or licensees)  leave the shelter.

6.    On September 9, 2011, surprisingly, vendor emerged with several documents and issued force-to-sign threat with eviction notice should Plaintiff fails to sign several in-house rules which the vendors created  and because of the threat of  homelessness and movement of his children to another school district within six days of registration,  Plaintiff signed the ones he could sign immediately and abide by the rules but  anger of the vendor persisted because Plaintiff and his family are en route to housing stabilization and employment self-sufficiency and independence. EXHIBIT D

7.     Swiftly and cruelly, Vendor terminated Plaintiff’s shelter  (177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040)  by forging and duplicating violation in several fictitious parts and administratively,  Plaintiff appealed the termination notices served on him but under political alliance with Plaintiff’s political opponents,  Vendor without the consent of its employer (hereinafter, Defendant) ignored all the administrative processes and proceedings and duplicated the proceedings and commenced new Complaint at the Springfield Superior Court Department.

8.     Plaintiff filed Motions in opposition for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter  and when the Superior Court department in Springfield exhibited multiple signs of failure of justice and corruption Plaintiff filed Motion for Change of Venue but the presiding Judge forced and forced  the summary process and proceedings to evict Plaintiff and his  family on January 31, 2011. The same horrible, rushed,  terrorizing  and moneyed court summary process and proceedings to evict Plaintiff and his family were commenced and achieved in the Massachusetts Northeast Housing Court (Lynn Session) on August 3, 2011and immediately Plaintiff and his family relocated to Brockton, MA Plaintiff’s political opponents led by the Anglo-Dutch Oil/Gas Company (hereafter, “Shell Company”) moved to Brockton with millions of dollars and captured the District Court, Sheriff, etc  and signed eviction summary process and

                                                            3

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD

proceedings to evict Plaintiff and his family without probable cause advisement, swiftly to be returned for
eviction on November 23, 2011.

9.    In Springfield Superior Court,  majority of the documents filed by the Plaintiff  was  censored and failed  to reach the desk of the Judge where action will be taken. Everything happened within a period less than one month eviction was carried out when appeals and stay of execution were pending and active within the statutory appeal period. 

10.   The first decision/order was made on January 24, 2011 and within 48 hours Plaintiff filed Motion for Reconsideration, and also filed NOTICE OF APPEAL AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION (to both courts below and above) and  requested  the Clerk to forward records of proceedings to Massachusetts Court of Appeals, Boston, MA. Copies of these documents were forwarded to the Mass Court of Appeals as an ID pending transmission of these records by the Clerk below. The Chief Justice of the  Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Court (Administration) was severally petitioned.  2006 – 2008, below several cases filed by Plaintiff  and his NGOs were mismanaged by agencies and trials courts and “mandamus” petitions and proceedings remain stocked and unattended before the Commonwealth of  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the Supreme Court of the United States. This severe form of corruption led to case article and publication.    

11.   While the Clerk continued to censor records of proceedings, information revealed that on January 27, 2011 in a rush the Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.  Further information stated  that the appealable decision/order was mailed from Springfield, MA by regular mail on January 28, 2011 and the mail will spend about two to three days to arrive in Holyoke, MA where Plaintiff  lived.     Before January 31, 2011  NOTICE OF APPEAL AND EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION  to Massachusetts Court of Appeals  and services made below and above and parties but under this politically maneuvered  moneyed action,  on January 31, 2011 the vendor paid Holyoke Police and Sheriff to evict Plaintiff in disrespect of the power and relevance of the operating judicial system.

 C.                             PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT

                                                   COUNT 1

            EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

12.    Campaign for democracy, civil rights and bid for the President of Nigeria 2007, 2011 and 2015 are cumulative, being the core reason, the persecution in the United  States, Canada, Togo and Nigeria has no

                                               4

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD

lapse but escalates from severe to severe. For example, August 2009 through 2011, Plaintiff and his family  were rendered homeless for over seven  times in Massachusetts and Virginia, children were seized and punished, Employment Authorization  Documents and other services were denied. Now the income of the family (parents and children including child born in the United States) is $0.00. Foreign politicians and their allies opponents of the Plaintiff, Department of Children and Families (DCF) and clandestine  child adopters which the Canadian Government has exposed per massive disclosures dated September 2, 2011 as being thieves who have October 2005 through present, drew and stole over $150,000.00 (ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND CANADIAN DOLLARS) of Plaintiff’s children benefits and at same time fight to influence landlords, courts and service providers to create homelessness as thoroughfare to seize these children as further  alternative route to elude this theft and prosecution have commenced another eviction proceedings in Brockton, MA on October 25, 2011 to re-seize these children. When related case was reported at Brockton Police Department, officers intimidated Complainant and branded her psychiatric and lunatic patient. EXHIBITS A {(Eviction Notion, 10/25/11) & M (Order of the Presiding Justice of The Holyoke Juvenile Court, 02/08/2011)}.

13.   Somehow like chameleon style,  on  January 28, 2011 the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ( Defendant) filed  further CounterClaim  against  the action of its Vendor to exonerate it’s from the administrative procedural disobedience  of its Vendor.  Motion Appearance, 01/28/2011 EXHIBITS  B.

14.  The eviction of the Plaintiff on January 31, 2011 by the vendor of the Defendant is politically manifested  and Counsel (Mr. Michael E. Malamut) for the  Defendant tasked its Vendor, that its action is , “based on lack of  subject matter jurisdiction, lack  of personal jurisdiction, insufficient process, insufficient service of process, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”(January 28, 2011).  EXHIBIT B

15.   The Family Shelter under dispute is active from September 3, 2010 to September 3, 2011 and the Plaintiff and his family used the shelter benefits upto January 31, 2011 at 9.45 a.m. and renewable. Seven (7) months of the initial shelter benefits are unused and must be transferred to 506 Warren Avenue, Apartment 2, Brockton, MA 02301. The particulars of the Landlord is  RST  INVESTMENT GROUP LLC (Landlord Connections) 561 Main Street, Brockton, MA 02301  Tel. (508) 586-7368.  Homeless trips from Lynn to the present homeless are questioned as to whether there is reason Defendant did not transfer the benefit as an abortive velum to stop the homeless and seizure of Plaintiff’s children pursuant to M.G.L. c. 23B sec. 30 et al.

16.   The position of the Defendant in para 14 is subject to exemplification question whether Defendant

                                                            5
PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD


erred for watching Plaintiff and his family pass through hell without transferring the family’s  unused shelter benefits in order to save them from drifting into further homelessness as the present landlord is trying to do under this longstanding “moneyed  political lottery.”  Defendant allowed Plaintiff’s children to be seized by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) without providing Voucher to place them in Hotel pending locating the family into another emergency shelter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 23B sec. 30.

                                                         COUNT II

D.                                                  ARGUMENT        


 REASON M.G.L. c. 23B s. 30 UNDER   EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MUST BE INVOKED TO PREVENT FURTHER HOMELESSNESS, SUFFERING OF CHILDREN AND PARENTS AND SEIZURE OF CHILDREN

17.   Incessant or over seven  evictions in less than two years, frequent change of the schools of Plaintiff’s children fail to meet the standards of  the civilization of America particularly 1st and 4th Amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States. Action of selfish and cruel politicians against Plaintiff and his family has captured a large array of national and international public and distorted the district, state and federal judicial systems of the United States of America. Governments of Canada and America are at fault because they allowed invaders to take center stage to abuse Plaintiff and his family to the ugly extent of allowing children and highly qualified and employable parents to live under $0.00 income as if  America is the poorest country and as result their children were seized. EXHIBIT M.

18.  .    No answer as to why a hardworking family could be severely published for working hard to leave emergency shelter and  relief the Commonwealth from further costs by finding job. If the mandates of the Defendant are Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency Program it is off-correctness for this family to be punished, rendered homeless and seize its children. On September 3, 2010 Defendant granted Plaintiff and his family a temporary emergency family  shelter located at 177 Sargeant Street Basement, Holyoke, MA 01040  through a Vendor mentioned above. The shelter assistance is one year and renewable.  Under Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency Program,  two members of the Plaintiff  traveled to Lynn, Peabody, Boston, Worcester and Salem to attend job interviews and thereafter, they were hired. Because of this good efforts, Defendant’s Vendor terminated the emergency shelter and ignored the advice of the Defendant and on January 31, 2011 evicted Plaintiff and his family and seized their children. Defendant opposed the action of its vendor but since January 31, 2011 the Defendant has not transferred  the unused shelter benefit to Lynn or Brockton.
                                                            6

                      PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD
       
                  HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE GROUND

 19.    Plaintiffs and other  dependent  family members  and wife are 9 (two parents and seven children) without income to the extent  effective November 7, 2011 only reduced rate on cooking gas was allowed or granted and major services in support of core means of livelihood such as  Employment Authorization Documents (EAD),  food stamp and cash benefit pending  employment, etc. were denied.  EXHIBITS F & G.

20.  Plaintiffs and their family members are Convention Refugees and Prisoners of Conscience adopted oversea by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and Amnesty International (Intl. Secretariat, London, UK) and they have right to work and receive other transitional services pending employment.  EXHIBITS H

21.   Without reason USCIS Nebraska Service Center directed that no Employment Authorization Document (EAD) be granted all members of the family. Punitively, only one year of six years of their residence in US  EAD was granted parents and two children (April 29, 2010 – April 29, 2011). January 1, 2011 renewal application was made and after nine months denied and Motion for Reconsideration filed and  pending before USCIS’s  Commissioner.  EXHIBITS I & J.

22.   Without legal reason. Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA)  commanded stay of grant of other services such as child benefits, food stamps to adult and under 18-year children, cash benefits, etc. suspected to design child removal forum.    November 2011 is the ninth month when application for these services were made in Lynn and Brockton DTA district offices but no hearing has been conducted. Full transfer , Lynn, MA to Brockton, MA has been made  but no assistance has been granted including expedite food stamps assistance to under 18 years children pending appeal, EAD and employment.

23.    On October 29, 2011  one family member ( child) who was working was stopped because of failure of the USCIS Nebraska Service Center to renew his  and others EAD. His Employer is CARRRABBAS ITALIAN GRILL  EXHIBIT K [1 Newbury St # A Peabody Tel. (978) 535-3600].


                                                            7

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD

24.    Now  the income of all the children  is $0.00 because the governments of Canada and  US refused to pay their benefits.  Income of one US born child is $0.00.  No consideration was made  under humanitarian ground. Parents’ income is $0.00.  Is possible in US and Mass  for Children born in US and Canada and other children  who are lawful immigrants in US and under 18 be denied food stamps and other services when parents are not working?  Whether is possible for families small and large to live and survive under $0.00.

25.   Plaintiffs have rents and utility arrears because  Department of Housing  and Community Development (DHCD)  January 31, 2011 – present,  has not responded to Plaintiffs’ request for  Transfer  of Plaintiffs’ shelter benefits from Holyoke to present apartment pending  reconsideration of their application for  EAD and employment.  The statutory time line for agency to respond to this type of application has long past. See on-going case before this Court upon which Motion/relief  for Waiver of all costs are filed/sought,  Docket No, 11-1260 and Motion for Waiver of all costs.  EXHIBIT L. Under Document Reduction Act EXHIBITS  E to M are the same and  hereto incorporated and be referenced and will not be duplicated.
                                                                       
26     .   Parents have adequately and satisfactorily met their obligation as parents  by earning score of academic and professional qualifications which include but unlimited to Doctorat du 3e Cycle (DEA, D.E.Phil), Lyon France; Doctorat du 3e Cycle (DEA), Lyon France; Scolarite au Doctorat du 3e Cycle (S.Dr.), Lyon France; M.Sc. (1/2) Lyon France; M.Phil., Lyon France; B.Phil., Lyon France; D.E.F. (Lyon/Geneva); Post-doctoral studies: Ph.D. (Min.) (on-going) NY USA; Juris-doctor, Canada/USA (on-going with over 35 years law study, practice, research, and investigation). NCMP - Mediation Negotiation and Conflict Management ( Dalhousie University ,Law School); NCMP - Negotiation and Conflict Resolution (Dalhousie University, Law School) ; NCMP -Advanced Mediation (inter-governmental and large corporate body mediation and conflict management and resolution, (Dalhousie University, Law School);  Cert. Info Tech. –  Mass and Strategic Communications;  etc  Phillip Ofume speaks English, French and Nigerian languages.

27.    Deeply, at present Plaintiffs and their entire household fall under U.S. state and federal poverty levels, unable to pay rents, court costs, utilities, mailing and transportation, etc. because of the political action sponsored and paid by lead Plaintiff’s political opponents  because of the greed aimed at acquiring oil/gas in Plaintiffs’ native place of origin, THE NIGER DELTA REGION of Nigeria which is direct retaliatory manifestation  as an opposition to lead Plaintiff’s  bid for the President of Nigeria 2007 – 2015 and campaign for civil liberties .  Issue maybe raised as to whether the injury which Plaintiffs and other members of their family suffer exemplifies   part or any of America’s democratic civilization? The answer is No. the world.

                                                            8

PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD

E.                          CONCLUSION/SUMMARIZED RELIEF

Reliant on the foregoing including EXHIBIT B,  consciously reasoned that the Defendant is aware that the eviction  action of its Vendors (New England Farm Workers Council et al)  on January 31, 2011was illegal, extra/pre-judicial, oversight and wild claims, administratively incorrect and unconstitutional but Defendant allowed Plaintiff and his family to be punitively drifting from homeless to homeless, suffer seizure and removal of their children into cruel hands where the children suffered pains and hardship thus in this Complaint, Plaintiff and his family seek no additional costs for what they suffered and Plaintiff strongly request this Honourable Court to issue Order upon Defendant to continue the Shelter benefits at 506 Warren Avenue Apartment #2, Brockton, MA 02301 immediately effective November 1, 2011 pursuant to   M.G.L. Part I Title II Chapter 23B Sect. 30; 106 CMR 309.040(C); and  M.G.L. c. 18 section 2 and renewable pending USCIS’s grant of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and employment and purpose of urgent consideration based on timing of EXHIBIT A to stop Plaintiff’s and family’s further homelessness and seizure/removal of their children.

                                  VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT


I, Dr. Phillip Ofume, Plaintiff, one of the parents and representative of the Ofume family hereby respectfully verify, sign and submit the foregoing  Complaint and/or that the foregoing facts and evidence are true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury.


_______________________

Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Co.
 P.O. Box 2416                                                                                                                                                     Lynn, MA 01903
Tel. (781) 479-9027,
E-mail: limptintinc@gamail.com         

                                                  
To:
Clerk/Magistrate of the Court                                                                                                                                   (Civil Sessions)
                                                                                                9
PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD
Plymouth County Superior Court
72 Belmont St.
Brockton, MA 02301
                                                           
Contact information and other particulars of the Defendant: 

Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development                                                           
c/o The Honourable Secretary of Justice and Attorney-General of
the commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Justice (Litigation)
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108 -1518
Phone: 
(617) 727-2200 


Further copies to:

President Barack H. Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Vice- President Joseph Biden,
Washington Office:
Eisenhower Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20501

Honourable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
US Secretary of Justice and Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Chief of Immigration Judge
The Assistant Chief of Immigration Judge
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF IMMIGRATION JUDGE
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500
FALLS CHURCH,
Virginia, USA 22041

Ms. Mary Patrice Brown, Acting Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 3266
Washington, D.C. 20530
                                                     10
PHILLIP OFUME V. DHCD
His Excellency, High Commissioner
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
Headquarters,
Geneva, Switzerland


His Excellency, High Commissioner
United Nations High Commission for Human Rights (UNHCHR)
Headquarters,
Geneva, Switzerland

                                                                    11





No comments:

Post a Comment