Friday, November 25, 2011

LANDLORD CONNECTION & RST INVESTMENT GROUP v. OFUME - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT



LANDLORD CONNECTION & RST INVESTMENT GROUP  v. OFUME - BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT  -  MARKETPLACE TO DIG GOLD

November 24, 2011

These landlords are crook and manipulated by the political opponents of the CounterClaim Defendant, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume. 

Secretly under business with the Court, they selected the name of one child from a family of seven children and two parents and filed summary proceedings (eviction notice) and the family viewed the process  as clerical error and attended court on November 23, 2011.

Swiftly the case below without docket number was advanced and placed  for hearing on November 23, 2011 at 8.30 a.m. The Defendant came to court at 8.00 a.m. and finished all entries and the process is that all parties will stay outside under the instruction of one of the assistant court clerks. 

Name call starts and continues and through all names without calling Defendant but these landlord brought several tenants to court and one by one they entered secret rooms and come out, several were crying. The clerks dd not call the defendant but he knows that the clerk, landlords and attorney were doing his case in a secret room. After all the parties that filled the court lobby have left the landlord and the clerk came to Defendant to say that his child did not come and so default order has been issued against his child who is not party to the lease and other negotiation stated below. 


 The analysis and question defendant asked them is that the court received his notice of appearance and seven-page defence and this morning he was registered by the clerk as one of the defendants and representative for his family, why is that the court proceeded in secret room without inviting him? 


Defendant found that other tenants were going into the secret room to see the landlord  and housing clerk/housing officers. Tenants called them "housing specialist" and they adjudicate upon case as a judge similar to the primitive colonial district court. Victims are harshly interrogated and asked "when are you going to leave landlord's apartment?" Victims may try to show them their defense and they will reply, "we are not interested...We want to know when you will leave the apartment and whereby a traumatized tenant is unable to say something, he/she will say, ...ok I want you to leave three days time or sheriff will move you out.."  Thereafter, they will request the landlord or his attorney to say something. District by district they follow almost the same crude or primitive style of interrogatory people to get additional money from poor tenants. 

On November 23, 2011 some of the tenants said that they told them to pay $200 or $170.00 to their lawyers excluding other charges and the rent and vacate the premise. Thereafter, they will compel them to sign agreement with the landlord. The agreement will be written and the tenants will sign.  Some of the tenants including the defendant in the case below are not owing these landlords.  

Defendant want to meet the Judge because the case can not be mediated but the clerks have placed the judge inside and continue to act as the judge. They hide documents and other defence submissions and go to distort information before presiding judge. Same thing is going on in Brockton Superior Court, Lawrence Superior, etc.




+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                        COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 
                               BROCKTON DISTRICT TRIAL COURT
       HOUSING DEPARTMENT                     SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

Plymouth/Bristol, ss.                                            Docket No.____________________
___________________________________________________________________________________

                                            RST Investment Group & Landlord Connection
                                                                                  Plaintiffs
                                                       v.
                                  
                                            Phillip Ofume, Keynes Ofume et al
                                                                      CounterClaim Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________________________

COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO  THE PLAINTIFFS’ RETALIATORY EVICTION NOTICE OF A COURT CASE TO EVICT OFUME FAMILY, TENANTS AT 506 WARREN AVENUE APARTMENT 2 BROCKTON, MA 02301 FOR  CLAIM OF “RENT IS IN ARREARS” WITHOUT RECOGNIZING TENANT’S RIGHTS AND ABUSE OF TENANT’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO .G.L. CHAPTER 23B, SECTION 30; M.G.L. CHAPTER 186 SEC. 18; M.G.L. CHAPTER 111; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SANITARY, CODE CHAPTER 11; MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION; 105 CMR 410.000; M.G.L. CHAPTER 239, SEC. 8A;  5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and also vested in Bill of Rights; Tenancy with a Lease;
_____________________________________________________________________________________
 
Lead CounterClaim Defendant,  Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume on  behalf his family moves this Honourable Court for Order dismissing Plaintiff’s retaliatory Eviction Notice (EXHIBIT A)   and falsified claim with costs more than the sum of the yearly lease ($16,200.00) added to special and general damages ($25,000.00)  be paid in full to the Defendants because of  the following reason:


                                     QUESTION IN ISSUE/HISTORY & ANALYSIS

Whether  “RENT IS IN ARREARS” as claimed by landlords who love money and big life and reject tenants’ rights or Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights..


Analysis:

In October 2011 under Tenancy with a Lease,  thus  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to file

                                                                     1
OFUME V. RST ET AL


EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE there was no rents in arrears as bogusly claimed under political animosity,  consideration of the sum of  $2025.00 (TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE US DOLLARS) on after October 27, 2011.  Plaintiffs rejected payment by check, bank draft and credit card and demanded for only cash.

Because of Plaintiffs’ mistreatment of the Defendants including blatant  refusal to fix any of the several severe and minor defects (EXHIBITS B & C) across disputed apartment,  Defendants decided to withhold November 2011 and  further rents pending determination of this Court and BOARD OF HEALTH,  


a.  Landlord:


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that when a landlord fails to maintain a dwelling in habitable condition, a tenant may properly withhold a portion of the rent from the date the landlord has notice of this breach of warrant of habit-ability.

b.  Tenant
“As a tenant, you have a legal responsibility to pay your landlord for the use of a place that is in decent condition. Massachusetts law also provides you with rights that protect the payments you make to the landlord (M.G.L. c. 186, § 15B)

Plaintiffs are corporate body and incorporated in the Commonwealth State of Massachusetts but they don’t receive money with their own name and OFFICIAL RECEIPTS, BANK CHECK, BANK DRAFT,  CREDIT CARD and related government approved legal mechanism. Without legal reason, Plaintiffs allow only PAYMENT BY CASH and receipt issued is ANONYMOUS RECEIPT (EXHIBIT E).  CounterClaim Defendants relocated to the City of Brockton from Lynn and their bank accounts are in Lynn and their banks allow external cash withdrawal of small amount.
Payment history summarized:  August 13, 2011 through October 2011

     
a.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734521   $2,600.00  (08/13/2011) EXHIBIT F
b.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No.  734520  $40.00 (08/13/2011)  EXHBIT G
c.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734743 4  $675.00 (9/16/2011)  EXHIBIT H     
d.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428788   $1,180.00 (11/1/2011) EXIBIT I

e.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No.  428794    $170.00 (11/03/2011) EXHIBIT J

 Plaintiffs rejected check issued by a popular US base  Italian Restaurant (Carrabbas, Peabody, MA) and

                                                                                2
OFUME V. RST ET AL
Defendants have to travel to deposit the check into their own bank account off  jurisdiction.  History of Defendants’ payment shows that the Plaintiffs jumped into Court Eviction without reason and forged amount owing to steer sympathy before this honourable Court.

Whether there is sufficient Notice in accordance with 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and  Bill of Rights and Tenancy with a Lease. The type of tenancy entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendants  is “A Tenant with a Lease.” This Lease has its own rule.

A.                                                    JURISDICTION


1.    Action of the Landlord/Plaintiffs is retaliation against  the lawful prior action of the CounterClaim Defendants when they lawfully proceeded to write to the landlords several letters (shortlisted and incorporated as EXHIBITS K, L,  requesting them to put the apartment to habitable standard and when they refused to fix the multiple defects, Defendants proceeded to file Complaints with the BOARD OF HEALTH (EXHIBITS B & C) and that the action of the Defendants is in normal  tune in good faith respecting the rights of the landlord and tenant in accordance with M.G.L. CHAPTER 23B, SECTION 30; M.G.L. CHAPTER 186 SEC. 18; M.G.L. CHAPTER 111; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SANITARY, CODE CHAPTER 11; MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION; 105 CMR 410; 105 CMR 410.000; M.G.L. CHAPTER 239, SEC. 8A; 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and also vested in Bill of Rights; Tenancy with a Lease (EXHIBIT D).

                                                                                                                                    
2.     The action of the defendants complies with the operating laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cited in para 1 above and related legislation cited below including 105 CMR 410.


3.  Reliant  the horrible conditions  inside and outside the  apartment, the landlords do not merit any rent in accordance with M.G.L. CHAPTER 239, SEC. 8A and they acted contrary to M.G.L. c. 186, § 18 because as no rent was outstanding and  overdue, to the extent that the landlords received full and in possession of Defendants’ $1,350.00 and defects remain unfixed and the landlords are  in-charge of any utilities in the apartment, therefore the Land

4.     Under this arm-twisting  and imbalance tenancy, no recognition of Tenancy  with a Lease particularly lack of sufficient notice and eviction without with civil demand notice and intent to proceed to court and mandatory and other forms of notice to quit.

                                     COUNT # 1
                                                            3

OFUME V. RST ET AL

A.         PROOF OF ILLEGIBILITY TO RECEIPT OF RENT AND REASON THE TENANTS  OR COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS REFUSED TO PAY NOVEMBER 20, 2011 ET AL RENT PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THIS ACTION.

                  Horrifying Conditions in the Apartment
5.   The Ofume family moved in  August 17, 2011 about 11.00 p.m.. Letters and personal meetings were made to request landlords to fix defect but plea remain unheeded.  

6.    All the defects stated below were inherited under rushed  and nowhere to live occupancy. Oral and written Complaints put to the landlords but they refused to fix the following major defects:

6.A.1.  Ofume family lives in apartment #2 and each time tenants in apartment #3 are bathing or using water there is pool of water coming down from the roof and flooding the Ofume family’s apartment particularly washroom and other spots of the apartment.

6.A.2.  Complainant or Ofume family is unable to bring in  furniture, rugs and other goods and  properties because of water drilling and something that looks like slime mold or fungus across the apartment which the family clean every 48 hours. The walls are easily blacken and with watery substances flowing out from the walls.

6.A.3     Some windows are unserviceable and prone to fall and one went down two day when the family moved into the apartment.

6.A. 4.  The family is in-charge of all utilities but there is no heat in apartment because 100% of the ancient transformers powered by gas are unserviceable and not working. Gas has been paid in full from month to month.          
                                          
7.A.5. .  Some doors have cracks and unserviceable including the front entrance door which requires new keys.
                                                            4

OFUME V. RST ET AL

8.A.6.   Majority of the fire alarms and carbon dioxide detector are not working;

9.A.7.  there are several bugs, cockroaches, rats, mice, and other animals;

10.A. 8.    Some of the transformers  inside and outside  living room are unserviceable to breakup and fall and one of thee Transformers can kill an adult .

11.A.  9.  Some of the transformers are unserviceable to the extent that they produce electrocution if touched.

12.A.10.    Refrigerator is leaking and produces water which the family must clean from time to time.

13.A.11.    Majority of the electric  bulbs high and low are uncovered and the light shines into the children and adult eyes.

14.A.12.  Several electric sockets are unserviceable and damaged for several years and with open current which could harm children and adult.

15. A.13.  Because of the horrible moldy conditions of the  majority of the rooms  of the apartment  including the living room, the family abandoned major part of the apartment. 

16.A.14.  Several occasion, the Ofume family has pleaded orally and in writing that the landlord find livable apartment for them but its plea remain unheeded by the landlord. 
etc.
                                        COUNT # 2
                                                                        5

OFUME V. RST ET AL

B.                   Statement of  Fact/Analysis of Mistreatment

17.B.1.    Complainant, Ofume family is a large family with seven children and two parents and 8 members reside at the apartment afore-underlined.

18.B.2.    Reason surrounding lead parent’s  Dr. Phillip C. Ofume’s bid for the President of Nigeria, 2007, 2011 and 2015 when no rent is owing  punitively his political opponents (sponsored by Anglo-Dutch Oil/Gas Companies and allies) have adopted  paid incessant poor housing, homelessness and harsh economic persecution as tools to disrupt his campaign.  These political opponents influenced the landlords, courts. utilities, district, county, state and federal governments’ agencies and private sectors service providers.  See Ofume v. George W. Bush et al – The Supreme Court of United States Docket No  08-8873  http://groups.google.com/group/soc.org.nonprofit/browse_thread/thread/cf9abb1 be2edefa7?pli=1

B.3.     From long exhaustive and high costs stay  hotel to hotel, apartment located at 96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA was negotiated for over two weeks and the landlord having been told the desperate conditions of the Ofume family to get apartment immediately, the landlord refused to bear burden  of any part of the utilities. 100% of the utilities were pushed to the Ofume family. 

B.4.    From place to place after the Ofume family has negotiated with landlords and other agents and paid advance, few hours time these , political opponents who carry bags of money up and down  will influence them and they will telephone the family to deny the family’s application without reason.

B.5.   Some of the landlords and real estates agents influenced are as follows: 
-    Mayberry Communities Apartment Management (Park Street Lynn, MA): Apt for rent - 10 Lawton Avenue, Apt. # 1 Lynn, MA 01904

-     111 Foster Street  Peabody, MA Tel. 978-771-0373

-       145-135 Ward Street Revere, MA  - returned deposit

-   Claudel Jeannot, 1 White Oak Drive, Nashua, NH 03063  Apt. located at 34 Shermam St. Peabody  Tel/Fax 1-9783302860
                                                            6
OFUME V. RST ET AL

Etc.                             
C.            AGREED  MOVE IN DATE  AUGUST 16, 2011     


  
C.1.       On August  13, 2011 negotiation for  96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA was finalized ($1,300.00 without utilities) and $2,640.00 (TWO THOUSANDS SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY US DOLLARS) was demanded by the landlord and the Ofume family who was drifting towards 7th politicized homelessness did not question the request and the family paid in full and questionable two  payment receipts for $2600.00 and $40.00 without the corporate and other names of the company (now after move in suspect  disclosed and identified as “RST Investment Company and Landlord Connection”. The move in date was August 16, 2011. The family thought that the anonymous receipt thing was DIRECT scam on the family.

C.2.    On August 16, 2011 the family checkout from the hotel and  arrived in the landlord’s  office at about 9.00 p.m.  to move in (96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA)  and the landlord told the family that he is no longer going to take  $1,300.00 without utilities and that the last amount  he will take per month will be $1,350.00 (ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS).

C. 3.  On August 16, 2011 the landlord  has done a good psychotherapy on the family to the extent that the landlord had in mind  via using his staff to question the family’s cash strength after spending so much on hotel bills. The family was forced to add additional $100.00 for first and last month rents.

C. 4.   On August 16, 2011 as the time continued to move towards 10.15 p.m. the landlord and staff broke another terrible news that they will not rent out 96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA to the family and that they have  another apartment and the family should accompany  their staff to the apartment located at 506 Warren Avenue, Apt. #2 Brockton, MA .

C.5.    Upon  entering the apartment and entering the  toilet was blocked with pieces of paper, cigarettes, crumbs of food, etc;  smelling and highly dirty apartment, family’s children started crying because they were several mice/rats, cockroaches and other bugs running up and down across their feet.  

C. 6.   Because the premises is bushy and dirty and inside the apartment was more scaring , the  family was overwhelmed with the fear of snake and other harmful creatures.  The family decided to go back to hotel because the staff of the landlord promised that they will do the cleaning before  7.00 pm on August

                                                            7
OFUME V. RST ET AL

17, 2011.


C. 7.  On  August 17, 2011 the family arrived at about  11.00 p.m. and opened the apartment and no cleaning was done. The family  moved in and they  mobilized  themselves to do several walls, floor, window, toilet, public or all tenants  staircase, bath, etc cleaning s and this routine continues  time to time to make the apartment somehow livable.

C. 8.   After several contacts including  writing  to the landlord and nothing was fixed, the family telephoned the Mayor’s Office (Board of Health)  and requested for inspection. The day one lady called Monica told the family that the Inspector will come earned disappointment. The family waited all day and the inspector did not come.

D.                                               RELIEF
Plaintiffs’ action against the Defendants be dismissed with costs more than the sum of the yearly lease ($16,200.00) added to special and general damages ($25,000.00)  be paid in full to the Defendants.


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

No comments:

Post a Comment