AMERICA: POLICE USED AS TOOL TO DISRUPT THE CAMPAIGN OF NIGERIAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA 2011

AMERICA: POLICE USED AS TOOL TO DISRUPT THE CAMPAIGN OF NIGERIAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA 2011


AMERICA: U.S. POLICE USED AS TOOL TO DISRUPT THE BID OF NIGERIAN CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA 2011

Police Action on January 31. 2011 is paid by nigerian foreign and domestic oil/gas companies, nigerian government and politicians and their allies to disrupt lead Plaintiff's (Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume's) campaign for the President of Nigeria April 2011. In this case, defendants' strategy to elude payment of damages to the plaintiffs, is to use corrupt court system; change judges; use judges that may heed extra-judicial activities to subvert course of justice; assassinate the plaintiffs; censorship via assistance given by the clerks of the court; etc. No Judge has been assigned to this case and no case number issued at this point. Prior to 2011 his stake is either he wins or his allies win under campaign collaboration and coalition initiative. Please follow this case step by step.

_____________________________________________________________________________



                  COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

 Brockton, ss.

                                                    SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT                                                                                                                    
                                                           OF THE TRIAL COURT                                                                 CIVIL ACTION NO.
________________________________________________________________________

Phillip Ofume and five minor Children (names reserved under                                                                             the civil and other rights of the child)                                                                                                          Plaintiffs (Pro se & Forma Pauperis)

                       v.

Holyoke Police Department (HPD) and New England                                                                                     Farm Workers Council, Inc. (NEFWC)                                                                                                           and Department of Children and Families (DCF)  and                                                                                  Karen Giard and Anne Morales and                                                                                                              Chief Sheriff of Hampden County
                  Defendants

 _______________________________________________________________________

                                               COMPLAINT

A.                                              PARTIES

1.   Plaintiff, Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume  and his five children (names reserved sake of child rights protection) were residents of the Family Shelter granted to them by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development(DHCD) on September 3, 2010 and located at 177 Sargeant Street Basement, Holyoke, MA 01040 and residents of the City of Brockton, MA of the United States of America.

2. Karen Giard is the director of New England Farm Workers Council, Family Shelter at 177 Sargeant Street Basement, Holyoke, MA 01040. Department of Housing and Community Development("DHCD"), Division of Housing Stabilization ("DHS") is agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the United States of America and employer of the Karen Giard and party mentioned in paragraph 7 or NEFWC below. This defendant was the Pointer-in-Chief of the unlawful eviction action on January 31, 2011 after they (defendants) have been served Motion for Reconsideration of the moneyed Decision dated January 24, 2011, double Motion for Stay of Execution et al,  Notice of Aetc ppeal, on before Janauary 31, 2011


1

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

3. Anna Moroles is staff of the Department of Children and Families (DCF)  Holyoke Division of the Commonwealth of  Massachusetts.

4. Defendant, Department of Children and Families (DCF) is an agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its office located in Holyoke, MA. This defendant and other defendants removed lead Plaintiff's five children on January 31, 2011.

5.   Holyoke Police Department (HPD) is the Police in charge of the City of Holyoke and one of  the commanders-in-chief of the unlawful eviction action on January 31, 2011 after they (defendants) have been served Motion for Reconsideration of the moneyed Decision dated January 24, 2011, double Motion for Stay of Execution et al,  Notice of Aetc ppeal, on before Janauary 31, 2011
.

7.     Defendant, New England Farm Workers Council, Division of Family Shelter Place is a  corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and operates several divisions in the  Commonwealth of Massachusetts including Family Shelter Place located  in the City of Holyoke of Massachusetts. Defendants are informed by soft Civil Demand Notice regarding the action of Ms. Karen Giard and Family Shelter Place and other defendants.

8.   Chief Sheriff is the Sheriff of the County of Hampden of Massachusetts and one of  the commanders-in-chief of the unlawful eviction action on January 31, 2011 after they (defendants) have been served Motion for Reconsideration of the moneyed Decision dated January 24, 2011, double Motion for Stay of Execution et al,  Notice of Aetc ppeal, on before Janauary 31, 2011

            THE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE AND AFFIRM THE FOLLOWING:


B.                                   CAUSE OF ACTION

                                          COUNT #1


9.    That the Holyoke Police Officers and Holyoke Police Department unlawfully, maliciously, cruelly  and  falsely arrested, handcuffed (harshly twisted and dislocated his hand without resisting arrest and talking to the police officers) detained, paraded lead Plaintiff (Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume) before the public on handcuff, charged and prosecuted him of CRIME OF TRESPASS into apartment and premises which lie situate at  177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040 thus CRIME which Plaintiff did not commit  and the action of the Defendants caused parents and children pains, stereotype, loss of self-esteem, physical and psychological tortures, devastating shame and embarrassment and as result five children were removed by defendants (HPD, Sheriff of Hampden County, DCF, Karen Giard amd  Ann Morales) and given to cruel strangers who mistreated them, starved them, forced them to do indentured hard labour, etc. (January 31, 2011 through February 9, 2011).  Action of the Defendants is sponsored and paid by Nigerian Anglo-Dutch Oil/Gas Company and others to use homelessness to strain or disrupt Plaintiff presidential campaign for the President of Nigeria April 2011 now re-mastered for federal election 2015.On January 31, 2011 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7, and 8th defendants banged Plaintiffs' door and 8th defendant said to lead Plaintiff, "we are here to evict you and your family" and the police officers said leave now and other police officers and 8th defendant said "but the court told you to leave because you can not appeal this type of case" and swiftly the police handcuffed Plaintiff in presence of some people Plaintiff know. These people told the police officers, "allow pal to go with his child." Shamefully, disgracefully defendants further paraded other Plaintiffs (children) before teachers, students, classmates, public and school administration thereby straining their self-esteem, scholarly energy and pride, human-self and integrity, student to student and classmate to classmate relationships, etc. These children are

2

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al


talented/smart/gifted/A+ students.

10.     Plaintiff (Parent/Father) did not trespass the   apartment located  at 177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040, which was the scene of the HPD's and other defendants’ action on January 31, 2011. The apartment was granted Plaintiffs and their family by the 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 pursuant to ,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. Horribly restated that HPD handcuffed and dislocated lead Plaintiff’s hand when Plaintiff was not resisting arrest and other order issued by politically energized angry and irate  police officers. After couple of hearing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed NO CONTEST and Plaintiff was discharged and acquitted.

11.    Per Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) in entering  appearance opposed the action of the defendants, and Commonwealth said, action "...constitutes an appeal of an administrative determination pursuant to G.L. c. 30A and a  response to the complaint will be filled pursuant to the timing requirements of the Superior Court Standing Order No. 1-96." (see DHCD's NOTICE OF APPEARANCE dated and issued on January 28, 2011). Defendants ignored this Motion and advice and used HPD to render Plaintiffs and their family homeless. Each steps in this case were served on HPD and the Sheriff and further copies were sent to the Chiefs of the HPD and Sheriff because under this political manhunt directed against Plaintiffs and their family, fiscal year 2010/2011 they have suffered over seven homelessness and each incident police and sheriff were  paid to carry out all these extra-judicial action.

12.         Plaintiff  and his family filed several administrative appeals appealing defendants (NEFWC and Karen Giard) sudden termination of their shelter program because on September 6, 2010 two members (Mother and son) of Plaintiff's family left the shelter for good cause and found jobs in Lynn, MA. All these appeals were pending administratively and undecided when the vendors or defendants (NEFWC and Karen Giard) seeking personal interest jumped several chain of command (administrative appeals) into court which lacks jurisdiction to take the case at that material time (see para 11 above).  Sheriff of the County of Hampden of Massachusetts is a major commanders-in-chief of the unlawful eviction action on January 31, 2011 after they (defendants) have been served Motion for Reconsideration of the moneyed Decision dated January 24, 2011, double Motion for Stay of Execution et al,  Notice of Aetc ppeal, on before Janauary 31, 2011 and the case is fully pending before several courts and administrative agency (Springfield Superior Court, DHCD and Massachusetts Court of Appeals) and undecided.



13.      On January 31, 2011 minutes after Plaintiff served defendants copies of further Notice of Appeal and Motion for Stay appealing Order of the Superior Court, Springfield, MA dated January 27, 2011 which was not received by the Plaintiff and his family thus, heavily armed HPD police officers and some other defendants entered Plaintiff's apartment (177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040) without legal reason other than moneyed political reason, seized Plaintiff 4-year female child and arrested, handcuffed, removed, detained and charged  Plaintiff (parent).

14.      HPD, NEFWC, and Karen Giard gave the 4-year child to DCF and Anne Morales. The defendants rushed to the schools of the other four children, forcibly removed from the classes under panic and harassment and parading them (children) before students, teachers and school administrators as if they (children) were criminal.

3

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

15.     HPD, NEFWC, Karen Giard, DCF and Anne Morales have the telephone and other contact information of Mrs. Maureen Ofume (parent or mother) who lives with one child in Lynn, MA then where they were  able to get job. They did not contact this parent to come to Holyoke to take the 4-year old child and other children but swiftly and punitively they shared the children and took them to distance places where the people taking care of them mistreated them including lobbying the teachers to under score them (see below - mistreatment, school work, life in the custody, etc).

16.     HPD, NEFWC, Karen Giard,   DCF and Anne Morales did not request the 17-year old child (Grade 11) and 13-year child who are smart/gifted/taiented/A+ students and have been volunteering in providing care for  children to stay in their offices pending when Parent (mother) will arrive from Lynn, MA. Then Mother has money to pay for hotel reservation to keep her family pending renting 66 Harwood Street # 3 Lynn, MA 01902 on February 9, 2011. Restating that second parent, Mrs. Maureen Ofume has telephone and other contact information but the DCF and other defendants did not contact her to take custody of the children when HPD officers arrested Plaintiff, lead parent on January 31, 2011.

17.   Because all Plaintiff's children are extremely  smart/gifted/taiented/A+ students to destroy this educational height,  HPD, NEFWC, Karen Giard,   DCF and Anne Morales placed these children in the custody of people who will destroy their scholarly focus and impetus to look up to better educational career and life as follows:

18. a. Two children, 8-year and 10-year old were placed in the custody of man with almost complete disabilities and permanently on wheel chair and female or wife who lives home early morning and comes back home late. They force them to eat cold junk food from the refrigerator. Soon as these children sleep the couple drives out to eat and buy food in the restaurants. Soon as they come back from the school, the disabled man force them to be providing the care which adult would have provided for adult disabled person. These children are very scared of dogs and cat but defendants placed them in this custody where there are cat and dog taller than the 10-year old child. In the morning and other times when these children are sleeping the female or wife trained these large and heavy dog  to wake them by scratching and inflicting wound on them with his/her claws. Because of the scare the children try to close and lock their door but this female comes to open the door to enable the dog do his/her  daily assignments.  Defendants and the custodian influenced the school bus drivers to be late for about two hours to enable this children do or provide some of  the early morning care for the disabled man. When the bully female or wife returns late she bulled  the children forcing them to abandon their homework and in the weekend and after school days they force them to dig snow and do several adult works.

14.b.   Two children, 4-year (home schooled) and 12-year old  (grade 7 -  extremely  smart/gifted /talented A+ student ) were placed in the custody of  non-English speaking and gold digging and cruel pastor and operating non-English speaking Christian church. 4-year child is not fed throughout time when the 12-year old child  was  in school and she stays alone in a confined room and her home school program was stopped. All days Monday - Sunday, 12-year and 4-year old children were forced to  go to the church and seat down without understanding the language spoken and they remain there up to about 9 - 10.00 pm and when they come back into the custody and the 12-year start to do her school assignment,  they will forcibly drill them to bed to sleep. In the morning the school bus drivers who are following some extra legal instructions continue to come about 1-2 hours late to make sure she missed one or two lectures.
4

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

14.c.   17-year old is in 11 grade and she’s  extremely  smart/gifted/talented/A+ student and her academic excellence Canada through USA is matchless. Defendants and custodians lobby the teachers to underscore her to make her simple bull for domestic work and eventually drop out from school or become pregnant to increase their child benefits empire under the time line of the adoption or foster care.

19.         February 1, 2011 through February 8, 2011 there was Custody proceedings before Holyoke Juvenile Court which was presided over by The Honourable A. Justice Charles S. Belsky.

20.          Under Summary Proceedings, on February 8, 2011 Hon. Justice Belsky granted Plaintiff custody of all their five children targeted and unlawfully seized by the DSS or DCF on January 31, 2011

21.           Restating that Defendants damaged the reputation of the lead Plaintiff and his children and wife and they continued to move place to place trailing the path of the Plaintiffs and their family and within the fiscal year 2010/2011 Plaintiffs and their family have been rendered homeless over seven (7) times and without pity children have changed schools, over six times.

                                    COUNT # 2

C.                                 JURISDICTION

22.     On September 3, 2010 Plaintiffs and their family were granted the family shelter located at 177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040 and they were required to leave there up to September 2011. During this program, under M.G.L. c. 18 section 2,  Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency plan, Plaintiffs and their family will engage themselves in employment and permanent housing searches. Swiftly upon sheltered, few days latter under this plan, two members of the family (mother and one minor son) got job in Lynn, MA.

23.      Plaintiffs' efforts to freedom or rehousing, employment and self-sufficiency  mentioned in para 22 above angered NEFWC and Karen Giard because of several secret monies and other services they enjoy from governmental and non-governmental agencies. Swiftly, they terminated Plaintiffs' shelter.  Plaintiffs appealed the termination which were punitively duplicated in several actionable parts. Defendants ignored DHCD and pending administrative appeals and  proceeded to court and able to influence the superior  court in Springfield contrary to  G.L. c. 30A and the Superior Court Standing Order No. 1-96.

 24.    The relationships between the defendants or Karen Giard and NEFWC and its employer, or  Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) are governed by and perfected under
5

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

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 Applicants/Defendants and finally focused on EA families' best interest ( 106 CMR 309.070 (A),106 CMR 309.040(C), M.G.L. c. 18 section 2,  Housing Stabilization and Self-sufficiency plan.

25.   In addition to the political clout stated below which become permanent embargo or economic sanction , action of the Defendants have impeded efforts of the Plaintiffs and their family to get temporary and permanent housing and other service because they did not properly inform other landlords that they terminated Plaintiffs' shelter program because the respected the shelter mandate para 24 above. Based on the opposition stated in paragraph 11 above and legislative basis in paragraphs 23 and 24 above, the action of the defendants destroyed Plaintiffs and their family’s family shelter credit and transfer of  the unused shelter assistance to the present address remains difficult.

26.            Reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs further allege  that action of the Defendants violates, Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via the Bill of  Rights specifically in-Malcom Affair (Writ of Assistance); Third  Amendment to the United States Constitution via the Bill of Rights  specifically reliant on Right to Privacy (see Grisworld v. Connecticut  381 U.S. 479 (1965); First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and via Protection Against Libel, Defamatory Statement, BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

27.   Shortlist of  related caselaws of the violations directed against innocent people by the law enforcement officers are,  Warney v. State of New York, #35, 2011 N.Y. Lexis 502 (NY); Manzanares v. City of Albuquerque, #10-2011, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25621 (10th Cir.); Dunn v. City of Chicago, #04-CV-6804, U.S. Dist. Ct. (N.D. Ill. May, 2010); Hopkins v. Vaughn, #08-2727, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2121 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.); Klaucke v. Daly, #09-1222, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2633 (1st Cir.); Gonzales v. Duran, #08-2184 590 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2009);  Golla v. City of Bossier City, #06-2298, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116863 (W.D. La.); Swanigan v. Trotter, #07-C-4749, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68395 (N.D. Ill.); Saenz v. Lucas, 07 Civ. 10534, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69571 (S.D.N.Y.);Kar v. Donald Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 07-0984, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73974 (D.D.C.); Odd v. Malone, No. 06-4287, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16466 (3rd Cir.); Dorsey v. Barber, No. 05-4235, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3650 (6th Cir.); Holloway v. Vargas, No. 06-4138, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9672 (D. Kan.); Bell-Hayes v. Dewitt, No. 06-1683, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3125 (4th Cir.); Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, No. 06-2158, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4561 (4th Cir.); Simon v. Cook, No. 06-6514, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2381 (6th Cir.); Williams v. Leatherwood, No. 06-6322, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 30056 (6th Cir.); Gilles v. Repicky, No. 06-1272, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29520 (2nd Cir.); Flores v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. 06-55570, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28039 (9th Cir.); Russo v. City of Bridgeport, No. 05-4302, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4428 (2nd Cir.).[N/R];  Alphabet v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:05 CV 1792, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83489 (N.D. Ohio). [N/R]; Lopez v. City of Chicago, No. 05-1877, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R; Kendricks v. Rehfield, No. 256693, 716 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. App. 2006). [N/R]; Smith v. Eggbrecht, No. 04-5302, 414 F. Supp. 2d 882 (W.D. Ark. 2005). [N/R];  Stepnes v. Hennepin County, No. 05-2059, 153 Fed. Appx. 410 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R] ; Paulemond v. City of New York, 812 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. App. Term 2006). [N/R]; Thurman v. Village of Homewood, No. 05-2940, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10881 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]; Mitchell v. Boelcke, No. 04-2219, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5120 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]; Cortez v. McCauley, No. 04-2062 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3270 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr];Dunn v. City of Chicago, No. 04-C-6804, 231 F.R.D. 367 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]; etc.


6

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

                                   COUNT # 3

C.                     REASON FOR MANHUNT VIA IMPOSED HOMELESSNESS ET AL

28.      Lead Plaintiff, Dr. Phillip Ofume is expert in Ethics, Anthropological/Ethnological Research and Investigation,  Unification Politics and Politics of Unification and with two doctorate degrees and  special training in law (Jurisdiction); Mediation;  Conflict  Management and Resolution; and advanced mediation.  Plaintiff is a Researcher,  Lecturer, Writer,   Publisher and controls a large audience between 25 - 27 billion hits globally  in and out with trust hitting and reading  his academic and professional works;  policy and practice researcher; leader of several national and international non-governmental organizations; etc.

29.            Lead Plaintiff is a potential Nigeria Presidential candidate 2007, 2011 and 2015; etc. Because of this bid, Plaintiff’s opponents including Defendants have door to door mobilized the community or neighborhood  including service providers to mischaracterize Plaintiff as an indecent person as track to misinform his supporters and others to disdain him and his family to the extent that the cruel action of the Defendants is dragging to point of eliminating the entire family with the worst persecution and dictatorship which is hunger or starvation and  at present the income of the entire family is $0.00 (10/29/2011) under terrible condition of sanction on their right to  Employment Authorization Document (EAD) and  also see Hampden Superior Court, Springfield, Phillip Ofume v. Karen Giard et al Docket No. 10-1060).

30.          January 31, 2011 the defendants accused , libelled and branded Plaintiff  as trespasser into  177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040 a family shelter which the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Services granted Plaintiff and his family on September 03, 2010 under Family Shelter Program hosted by the Division of Housing Stabilization pursuant to ,106 CMR 309.040(C), and  M.G.L. c. 18 section 2..

31.          On January 31, 2011  other defendants  influenced the Chief of Police to mobilize several police officers and drafted several police patrol vehicles who raided  177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040 and arrested, detained, and charged Plaintiff for Trespass and forcibly occupied and with the approval of the owner (NEFWC) took possession of the apartment located at 177 Sargeant Street (B) Holyoke, MA 01040.

32.         The raid was made less than one hour when the Chiefs of HPD received the appeal documents and motion for stay on Order issued on January 27, 2011 and mailed to the Plaintiffs and their family by the court clerk on January 28, 2011 which Plaintiffs have not yet  received but Plaintiffs and their family proceeded to file and serve the appeal and motion for stay based on phone calls to the clerk's office (Hampden Superior Court Department, Springfield, MA.).

33.         In computation of the operating statutory timeline on passage of postal regular mail from
                                                                        7

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

Springfield, MA to Holyoke, MA time frame is between 2 to 3 days excluding statutory public holidays. Then add  2 or 3 days to the deadline for appeal under summary proceedings or interlocutory motion under the Superior Court Department Rules of Civil Procedure 9A, shows that Plaintiffs have over 13 days to file their appeal after January 27, 2011. Before this Order (01/27/2011) Plaintiffs have filed with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Court of Appeals and the Hampden Superior Court, Springfield, MA and Plaintiffs requested the Clerk of the Springfield Superior Court to send record of proceedings to Massachusetts Court of Appeals. Order of the Superior Court  dated  January 27, 2011 is Order on Motion to Reconsider Order dated January 24, 2011.  In overall computation of appeal deadline even if the Court and its associates compute from the initial Order (January 24, 2011)  Plaintiffs have over 8 days to appeal but Plaintiffs appealed and filed Motion for Stay all of which were served and filed on before January 31, 2011. Action of the Defendants on January 31, 2011 is unlawful and unconstitutional and violates 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (Due Process Rights and Procedural Due Process).


D.                                         CONCLUSION/RELIEF


WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs request that this Honourable Court:

(a) enter judgment for the Plaintiff against defendants, Holyoke Police Department (HPD) and New England  Farm Workers Council, Inc. (NEFWC) and Department of Children and Families (DCF)  and Karen Giard and Anne Morales and  Chief Sheriff of Hampden County for unlawfully, maliciously, cruelly, and falsely  arrested, detained, handcuffed , charged and prosecuted Plaintiff and also  paraded Plaintiff s (parent and children) before the public and that these actions violate  Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via the Bill of Rights specifically in-Malcom Affair (Writ of Assistance); Third Amendment to the United States Constitution via the Bill of Rights specifically reliant on Right to Privacy (see Grisworld v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965); First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution via Protection Against Libel, Defamatory Statement, BIVENS v. SIX UNKNOWN FED. NARCOTICS AGENTS, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), etc

(b)   grant a preliminary injunction and end time permanent injunction pursuant to M.G.L. c. 231 et al ordering defendants to remove or expunge records (district, state, federal and international administrative system) of their action including charge of trespass by the HPD, DCF's records of its forcible removal and purported child care and protection  .

(c) award damages of $500million (FIVE HUNDRED MILLION U.S. DOLLARS) to Plaintiffs

(d) award other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

8

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

_________________________
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D.
Plaintiff, pro se & forma pauperis
P. O. Box 2416, Lynn, MA 01903

Contact information and other particulars of the Defendants:

1.    New England Farm
Workers Council
       1628 Main St # 2,
       Springfield, MA 01103-1224
       Dir.: Between Lyman Street and Taylor Street
       Tel.: (413) 272-2207

2.     Ms. Karen Giard
        A Family Place
        280 -290 Oak Street
        Holyoke, MA 01040
        Tel.: (413) 536-2787
        Fax: (413) 534-4533




3.   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


4.   DCF/Ms. Anna Morales/  Office*                                                                                                             261 High St.                                                                                                                                      Holyoke, MA 01040
 Fax (413) 533-9355


5.  Ms. Karen Giard (Director)
/Staff  & NEW ENGLAND FARM WORKERS COUNCIL,
A FAMILY PLACE SHELTER'
 280 - 290 Oak Street
Holyoke, MA 01040

                                                                   9

Ofume et al v. Holyoke Police Department et al

Chief - Hampden County Sheriff's Department
627 Randall Road
Ludlow, MA  01056
(413) 547-8000

cc. DHCD (Boston & Holyoke), Mr. Richard Warner, President/Vice-President of the United States of America, Hon. Secretary of Justice and Attorney-General of the United States, Eric H. Holder,  Hon. Mayor of the City of Holyoke,  Chief Financial Officer/Inspector-General of the Recovery Program (Whitehouse), Hon. & Under Secretaries of the DHED/DHCD, Governor Deval Patrick, Holyoke Police Department, FBI, CIA, UNHCR & UNHCHR (Geneva, Switzerland), UNHCR (Lome, Togo), etc.


                                                                10