CITY OF BROCKTON: RST INVESTMENT GROUP AND LANDLORD CONNECTION AND OTHER LANDLORDS MADE BROCKTON ONE OF WORST CITIES TO LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES

CITY OF BROCKTON: RST INVESTMENT GROUP AND LANDLORD CONNECTION AND OTHER LANDLORDS MADE BROCKTON ONE OF WORST CITIES TO LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES

Tenants cry without savior and their landlords and  attorneys have the edge over them. Eviction Notices are filed and the process is SUMMARY and swift. Why is that landlords expand their power during bitter cold season? Landlords and their attorneys gain the cruelties and tenants are  pushed into the street. Tenants are deceived by their own attorney because several properties are unattended and their (tenants') attorneys have the power to contest most of the cases if the attorneys  are not serving the interest of the landlords who are enemies of their clients. The contested case posted below is adjourned for next wednesday.

_________________________________________________________________________________


                              RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

                       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

                                                               Defendants (Pro se)

________________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL  ANSWER,  COUNTERCLAIM AND OPPOSITION TO  PLAINTIFFS’ RETALIATORY COURT EVICTION NOTICE TO EVICT DEFENDANTS', MAUREEN/PHILLIP OFUME, TENANTS AT 506 WARREN AVENUE APARTMENT 2 BROCKTON, MA 02301 FOR  CLAIM OF “RENT IS IN ARREARS” WITHOUT RENT IN ARREAR AND 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  Defendant,  Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume on  behalf his family moves this Honourable Court seeking leave to file opposition against Plaintiffs' trump re-emerging QUIT NOTICE without NOTICE TO QUIT and with repeated allegation against Defendants thus, politically organized  to deceive this Honourable Court that defendants are owing them whereas Plaintiffs or landlords are owing Defendants/Tenants and that defendants/tenants are not owing under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts rules and regulations and computation of liability and infraction for the following reason:

A.                     SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT

 1.     Present NOTICE TO QUIT (EXHIBIT A) is copied verbatim from the first NOTICE TO QUIT (EXHIBIT B) of the Plaintiffs  dated October 27, 2011 with multiple forgeries under oath and it was dismissed because the Notice was fraudulent to the extent that the Claim for Relief claimed to get what does not exist and defendant filed Motion to

                                                            1

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

ban Plaintiffs from appearing in this Honourable Court for six months as punitive because this Court is a place where honourable and transparent people to seek justice and justice can not accommodate injustice and fallacies. The intended deterrence would have make good lesson to other landlords because the action of the landlords/Plaintiffs have caused this Court time/money and publicly put this Court in shame. 

2.      The unenforced perjury and related criminal conducts of the Plaintiff carried out under oaths brought the Plaintiffs back to Court to spread greater lies and waste public fund for court to hear lies and misrepresentation and proof of repeated perjury is as follows:

 Defendants (EXHIBIT C) paid   Plaintiffs the months of Augusts through November 2011 excluding  $1,350.00  last month rent and statement of payment :

2.a.1.     PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734521   $2,600.00  (08/13/2011) EXHIBIT C.1

2.b. 2.   PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No.  734520  $40.00 (08/13/2011)  EXHBIT C.2

2.c.3.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734743 4  $675.00 (9/16/2011)  EXHIBIT C.3     

2.d.4.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428788   $1,180.00 (11/1/2011) EXIBIT C.4

2.e.5.      PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No.  428794    $170.00 (11/03/2011) EXHIBIT C.5

On December 28, 2011 the sitting Honourable Justice in this Court advised that these receipts are not good and defendants are unsure whether this Court made this suspected duping known to the mass public of America.

3.     On before January 4, 2011 there was measurement of the rooms, re-inspection of the entire apartment and Fitness Inspectors also came to the apartment. The two reports and two Certificate of fitness  (EXHIBITS D,  E, F & G   ) were horrible and the apartment  was declared unfit for Defendant's family. A family of 8 persons is forced to reside in an  apartment  measured below in breach of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation, 105 CMR 410.400  (A) and/or  in addition to several inhabitable citations of clusters of defects issued by the BOARD OF HEALTH  to the severe fitness deficiency that the apartment (506 Warren Avenue Apt. #2 Brockton, MA) lacks of CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS and  has been found to be unfit  because mold and grossly under size rooms

                                                2

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

for a large family 8 (Eight) and of six children and two parents with adult and minor children.  This fitness discovery was brought to the attention of the landlord and before these liars (HOUSING SPECIALISTS ) came the Plaintiffs and their  Attorney had agreed to relocate Defendants to better, sizeable and habitable apartment. Due to mistreatment of tenants several tenants are not ready to consult the plaintiffs for rental and mortgage housing including rent and owe program. The courage given to the Plaintiffs/Landlords by the Court’s HOUSING SPECIALISTS made the landlords/Plaintiff to continue to ride higher and higher above the law including refusing to relocate Defendants/Tenants to livable apartment.

4.    Because  some other inspectors of the Board are also corrupt because several defects were swept under the rug , Defendants  petitioned federal and state agencies and defendants suspect that federal and states queries were issued and  health and fitness inspections were carried out with several omissions unreported. The reports were not respected because all the major and minor defects cited have not been fixed.  Based on this lawful inspections, Plaintiffs were overwhelmed with anger and  retaliatorily, on January 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs proceeded to this Court to file similar NOTICE OF EVICTION and claim rents already paid by the defendants without issuing formal NOTICE TO QUIT on the Tenants/Defendants in respect to the term lease. 

5.    SIZE AND OUTCOME  OF THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ENTIRE APARTMENT : FAILING STATUTORY REGULATORY FITNESS (105 CMR 410.400) IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Plaintiff and his family are large family of eight (8) people (now four adults and four children) and 506 Warren Avenue, Apartment #2 Brockton, MA 02301 is under size two bedroom for "each additional occupants" purusant to 105 CMR 410.400. In accordance with Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation, 105 CMR 410.400  (A) the entire  rooms failed the fitness test because the Minimum Square Footage  for large occupants is 150 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant, and at least 100 Square Feet for each additional occupant, the Floor Space to be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area."

 Measurement of Rooms (506 Warren Avenue Apt. #2 Brockton, Massachusetts 02301)

1st Room:     First Occupant or Master Bedroom: 12ft 10Inches x 9ft.11Inches  = 117ft . 9Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage  for large occupants is 150 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom

2nd Room:  Additional Occupant : 12ft 8Inches x 9ft  = 108ft . 8Inches passed test because Minimum Square Footage  for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of

                                                3

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom

3rd Room:  Additional Occupant : 9ft.7 Inches x 7ft 8Inches = 64ft . 3Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage  for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom

4th Room: Additional Occupant : 12ft.2 Inches x 7ft 8Inches = 84ft . 10Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage  for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom

6.      Only one room passed the statutory fitness and another one room could be used by one child and the other two rooms can not contain bed and other bedroom furniture. The apartment is one bedroom for 17-year child and one bedroom for one 8-year child. Two Parents and two adult children and two children have no bedroom to sleep and live. What the Plaintiff rented out for large sum amount of money ($1350.00) is one bedroom and small bedroom for 8-year child.  This Court empowered the landlords/plaintiffs to mistreat the Defendants because when the so called housing specialist came to tell lies that major part of the defects have been fixed whereas majority of the major defects has not been fixed, then the landlord decided to disobey the reports of the BOARD OF HEALTH. interview to interview in the City of Brockton, LIMPT, INC. (Education and Workforce Project) and others said that the housing specialists in this court are very corrupt and Defendants experiences in and out of mediation show that they are more corrupt than the Northeast Housing Court, Lawrence, MA (Lynn Session) which Defendant and association had articled for four straight years.

7.    Because of paragraph 1 to 6 above, Plaintiff January 2012 and February 2012  rents were in part withheld and part was paid by check but the landlord as usual refused check payment. They (Plaintiffs/landlords) want cash and illegal payment receipts to elude rapt of taxmasters. 

B.         PRESENT CONDITIONS IN THE APARTMENT:     PROOF OF ILLEGIBILITY TO RECEIPT OF RENT AND REASON THE TENANTS  OR COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS REFUSED TO PAY FURTHER RENT PENDING THE DETERMINATION OF THIS ACTION.

                  Horrifying Conditions in the Apartment

8.   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. The Plaintiffs agreed to relocate defendants to better and seizeable apartment made for  a large family of 8 persons but when the Court sent corrupt housing specialist, the ball game revised and the landlords became resistant to the reports of the BOARD OF HEALTH and others. Housing Specialist is not health inspectors and can not overrule

                                                4

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

order of court.  

9.    All the defects stated below and few that were fixed 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: 

9.1.  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.

9.2.  Complainant or Ofume family is unable to bring in  furniture, rugs and other goods and  properties because of water drilling, failed statutory regulatory fitness and something that looks like slime mold or fungus are in some part of the apartment and because the other parts were not treated as mold the molds are resurfacing in parts where non-mold treatment paint was used. The painter  said that the landlords did not inform him that there was mold in the apartment.

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

9.4.  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.  In part fixed on December 19, 2011 and partial heat was brought but the landlords refused to pay bills and there are notices of DISCONNECTION and Plaintiff continues to pay for heat.          

                                           

9.5. .  Some doors have cracks and unserviceable including the front entrance door which requires new keys.

9.6.   Majority of the fire alarms and carbon dioxide detector are not working;

9.7.  There are several bugs, cockroaches, rats, mice, and other animals. The conditions to enable the terminators do their work have not been implemented; 

9.8.  Some of the transformers are unserviceable to the extent that they produce electrocution if touched.

9.9.    Refrigerator is leaking and produces water which the family must clean from time to time.

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

9.11.  Because of the horrible moldy conditions of the  majority of the rooms  of the

                                                5

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

apartment  including the living room, the family abandoned major part of the apartment.  

9.12.    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.

C.                        QUESTION IN ISSUE

5.   Consideration of the Reports  of the BOARD OF HEALTH and EXHIBIT C. above, forced to occupy unhabitable apartment for children and parents (506 Warren Avenue #2 Brockton, MA) different from the habitable apartment negotiated ( 96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA), etc, whether  “RENT IS IN ARREARS” as claimed by heartless landlords who love money and big life and reject tenants’ rights or Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights..

In October 2011 under Tenancy with a Lease,  thus  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE and in January 2012  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to re-file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE and again and again in February 2012  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to re-file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE there were no rents in arrears as bogusly claimed under retaliation because of the action of the BOARD OF HEALTH, and paid political animosity.  When the poor conditions in the apartment remain unfixed, Defendants withheld part of January and February 2012 rents and  Plaintiffs continue to rejected payment by check, bank draft and credit card and demanded for only cash suspected as intention to invade payment of taxes to IRS.

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 the part rents mentioned above and  further rents payment will be based on the  determination of this Court and reports of the  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)”

                                                            6

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

6.     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  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.

7.   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.

D.                                ARGUMENT

Actions of the Plaintiffs such as anger because Defendants followed the right channel to redress the violation of the Plaintiffs by writing letters to the Landlords or Plaintiffs to relocate Defendants and their family to livable apartment particularly for family of 8 persons, fix multiple defects in the apartment, and when they defaulted Defendants contacted the BOARD OF HEALTH and thereafter the Plaintiffs retaliated by filing EVICTION NOTICE with this Court, failed to pay heat, hot/cold water bills, buy oil for heating , ignored the reports of the BOARD OF HEALTH, etc that these actions of the Plaintiff/landlord are in breach of the G.L. CHAPTER 23B, SECTION 30; M.G.L. CHAPTER 186 SEC. 18; M.G.L. CHAPTER 111; COMMONWEALTH OF

                                                7

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

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; etc.

In October 2011 under Tenancy with a Lease,  thus  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE and in January 2012  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to re-file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE and again and again in February 2012  when Plaintiffs (landlords) proceeded to Court to re-file EVICTION NOTICE without preliminary QUIT NOTICE there were no rents in arrears as bogusly claimed under retaliation because of the action of the BOARD OF HEALTH, and paid political animosity and that the retaliatory NOTICE TO QUIT with prejudice must be dismissed in full with prejudice and costs.  

When the poor conditions in the apartment remain unfixed, Defendants withheld part of January and February 2012 rents and  Plaintiffs continue to reject payment by check, bank draft and credit card and demanded for only cash suspected as intention to invade payment of taxes to IRS.

Because of Plaintiffs’ mistreatment of the Defendants including blatant  refusal to fix several major defects (EXHIBITS B & C) across disputed apartment,  Defendants decided to withhold part of the  rents mentioned above and  further rents payment will be based on the  determination of this Court and reports of the  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

                                                8

RST V.OFUME ET AL – SUP. ANSWER

Lynn and their banks allow external cash withdrawal of small amount.

In this Court on before December 28, 2011 The Presiding Honourable Justice said, "this not a good payment receipt...do you have another receipt to show me....?".  Defendants have written to this Court and appeared in person to request for this and other order all of which are appealable but the Clerk/Magistrates neglected, refused, and failed to issue and deliver these Orders to enable Defendants file appeal.

E.                    CONCLUSION/RELIEF

RELIANT ON THE FOREGOING, Plaintiffs’ Retaliatory Multiple Eviction Notices and falsified monetized claim against  Defendants and their  family, eviction notice without prior notice to quit, etc action must be dismissed with prejudice and  costs  limited to refund of all the rents which CounterClaim Defendants paid to Plaintiffs, August 13, 2011 through present and relocation of the family to 96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA or six months apartment search without rent payment to Plaintiffs to enable Defendants and his family find alternative apartment and vacate the disputed apartment and other damages within the jurisdiction of this Court including the amount stated in para A of the Lease to the defendants  and their family because by proceeding to the first, second and third times without cause, as to breach of lease, the lease must be enforced in full against the Plaintiffs/Tenants.

_______________________

Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Co.

 P.O. Box 2416                                                                                                                                          Lynn, MA 01903

Tel. (781) 479-9027,                                                                                                                                                         E-mail: limptintinc@gamail.com

cc.   Service on Mr. Troy Lewis for RST Investment Group and Landlord Connection 561 Main Street, Brockton 02301

                                                     

            

NIGERIA: BIAFRA AND OTHER GENOCIDES

NIGERIA:  BIAFRA AND OTHER GENOCIDES

STAND OF BIAFRAN AND OTHER GENOCIDES, THERE ARE MULTIPLE  ENTANGLED STRANDS THUS, ONGOING AND AFTER THE CIVIL WAR NATURE  OF GENOCIDES DIRECTED AGAINST BIAFRANS OR EASTERN REGION ARE ORGANIZED AND DELIBERATELY CARRIED OUT ON NATIONAL  ETHNIC AND POLITICAL PATTERNS AND THEMATICALLY STRUCTURED. THEMES SHAPED UNDER SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL ARE USED BY OUR ORGANIZATIONS  (IHRRC/IHRRG/LIMPT,INC/ ASSOCIATES ) TO ACCURATELY DEFINE AND DISCLOSE CONTENTS OF THE OPERATING GENOCIDES BY PREMISE TO ENABLE US MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.   BROAD AND SQUEEZED  FACES OF THESE  GENOCIDES HAVE PUNISHING PUNCH AND UNDER-DEVELOPING THE PEOPLE AND LAND OF BIAFRA. MAJORITY OF THE  PEOPLE IN THIS REGION ARE SELF-MADE UNDER THE WEALTH OF NIGERIA. THIS GRANDIOSE INCORRECTNESS AND ABUSE OF INNOCENT CITIZENS. BIAFRANS ARE ABLE TO ACHIEVE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SUCCESS BECAUSE OF EDUCATION AND TRADITIONAL/CULTURAL BELIEF AND WISHFUL EGO. EDUCATION WHETHER IN HAUSA, YORUBA, IGBO, ARABIC, ETC MUST BE FREE PRE-K - SECONDARY SCHOOL AND TERTIARY LEVELS MUST BE ADEQUATELY SUBSIDIZED BASED ON INCOME AND NEW LGA, STATE AND FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL. DURING DR. PHILLIP CHUKWUMA OFUME'S GOVERNMENT POVERTY WILL NOT STOP ALL NIGERIANS' ACCESS TO RIGHT TO EDUCATION BECAUSE EDUCATION IS PREMIER GATEWAY TO EVERYTHING. 

WE HAVE ALSO DETECTED SOME OF THESE GENOCIDES IN THE NORTHERN REGION, NIGER DELTA AND OTHER SOUTHERN REGION, MIDDLE BELT, WESTERN REGION, ETC.  REASON  WHY THE CASES  OF THE EAST, NORTH AND NIGER DELTA REGION ARE  EQUALLY MURDEROUS AND UNLIMITED MAYBE DIRECTLY REFERENCED ON CIVIL RIOTS AND POST-CIVIL RIOTS OR RELIGION RIOT WITHOUT REHABILITATION AND OTHER TRANSITIONAL ECONOMIC INTERVENTIONS OR POST-WAR/CONFLICT/CIVIL RIOTS LADDER. THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ABANDONED UNDER FOREIGN ADVICE AND TO PRESENT TIME NOTHING IS DONE TO PAY SPECIAL AND GENERAL DAMAGES TO VICTIMS TO  REDUCE ANGER AND HATE. 

SOON AS DR. PHILLIP C. OFUME IS ELECTED PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA 2015 THESE TASKS WILL BE SOME OF WHAT HE GRADED AS OPTION #1 OR TAKEOFF TASK AND MUST BE RESOLVED AND INFORCE WITHIN LESS THAN SIX MONTHS. ALL FORMER BIAFRA SOLDIERS WILL BE RECALLED AND EXAMINED FOR RESTATEMENT, RETIREMENT AND PENSION ASSISTANCE AND FORMER ENTREPRENEURS OR TRADER OF THE WAR/CONFLICT/ CIVIL RIOTS AND POST WAR/CONFLICT/CIVIL RIOTS  MUST BE PAID ONE TIME LOSTS AND RECOVERY BENEFITS. CHILDREN OF  THE BIAFRA SOLDIERS LIVING AND DEAD MUST BE ASSISTTED AND THE SAME ASSISTANCE WILL BE EXTENDED TO CHILDREN OF THE  CIVIL/RELIGION  RIOTS  TO ENABLE CHILDREN GROW AND FORGET WHAT THEY AND PARENTS SUFFERED DURING THE PASSAGE. IN THE OIL/GAS REGIONS AFFECTED BY THESE EXPLORATION/EXPLOITATION, THE DERIVATION AND OTHER FORMS OF RESTITUTIONS WILL NOT ISSUED AND BE RAN AND IMPLEMENTED  BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE ON BASIS OF PER TETE. NO CONTRACTORS AND NO CONTRACTS. DEPARTMENT OF WORKS BASED ON DEPARTMENT AND GIVEN PROJECTS WILL BE DONE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND MONITORED/INSPECTED BY THE ENTIRE PEOPLE.  ALL DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN OIL/GAS COMPANIES MUST BE READY TO WAIVE  SENSE OF NONCHALANCE AND BE READY TO FACE THE CONSEQUENCE.


Phillip Ofume's Mandate:

 http://www.phillyimc.org/en/event/dr-phillip-chukwuma-ofume-president-nigeria-2011-complete-political-manifesto.


Phillip Ofume's foreign or non-nigeria  opposition  at:

http://universal-fashion-art-music.blogspot.com/2011/07/america-uk-and-some-western-nations.html.


POSTED BY:

IHRRC/IHRRG/LIMPT,INC/ ASSOCIATES

MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURTS: SHERIFF COULD BE SUED ON PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURTS: SHERIFF COULD BE SUED ON PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES

Law Offices of Egan, Flanagan, Cohen, P.C. misfired legal argument on immunity that the sitting court should dismiss Complaint because Sheriff was sued on his official capacity or as Sheriff of Hampden County. With or without the clause of Pro se or Attorney of Record, no could will dismiss such Complaint on the argument which the law office put forward to the Presiding Judge.  


___________________________________________________________________________

                    Commonwealth of Massachusetts                                                                                       Plymouth, ss.                                              Superior Court Department                              

                                           CIVIL ACTION NO.  PLCV2011-01260

Phillip Ofume (Pro se and Forma pauperis)                                                                                                    Plaintiff

               v.

 Holyoke Police Department (HPD), Sheriff of Hampden County, Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA), Karen Giard, New England Farm Worker Council (NEFWC), Anna Morales, and Department of Children and Families (DCF),                                                              

 ________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF, PHILLIP OFUME'S VERIFIED MOTION/MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SHERIFF OF HAMPDEN COUNTY  MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND OPPOSITION MADE PURSUANT  TO  MASS CIV. PROCEDURE RULES 12(a)(b)(d), 10, 9, 8, 5 & 4,  AND SUP. COURT  RULE 9A & 9E

________________________________________________________________________

A.                              STATEMENT OF MOTION/ANALYSIS

         Here comes Plaintiff, Phillip Ofume's Motion in support of his Memorandum of Opposition to Defendant's (Sheriff of Hampden County) Motion seeking relief of this Honourable Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint against the Sheriff, HPD and others and the motion must be dismissed because the Mass General Law, Mass Rules of Civil Procedure, Mass Superior Court Rules and other law body  require that the Hampden County Sheriff maybe sued and  process served  personally or  officially pursuant to M.C.P.R. 4 (a)(b)(c)(4); that Plaintiff's Complaint pleaded the extra-judicial action of the Hampden Sheriff on/in several pages and paragraphs; that the Sheriff in charge of  process and service altered Plaintiff's Complaint as other sheriffs have done to his cases as path to implement political sanction/eviction/homeless against Plaintiff and his family which started in the United States since January 27 2006 (EXHIBIT A); Motion to Dismiss is falsified under Mass. Sup. Rules 8 and 9E; Motion to dismiss filed after the expiration of the statutory timeframe, M.C.P.R. 12a; sheriff union and other law enforcement outfits are protecting their own people by blocking process service on Sheriff of Hampden County and service was made after petition and motion to fire Sheriff to this Court; etc. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss appears to have been commmenced and concluded without reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint and contesting it per fact and same which comes with multiple abuses of the rights of the Plaintiff and his children and family including abuse of the Mass and federal constitution and other human rights laws such as branding Plaintiff and his family  trespassers in family shelter provided to them by the agency (DHCD) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and enjoyed this unlawful leverage to arrest, detain, handcuff, charge,  prosecute (and)  Plaintiff without investigation and extended these abuses to seize and parade innocent children and ex-communicated them and market them to strangers and made them suffer physical and psychological tortures; because of the  foregoing Defendant's Motion must be dismissed with prejudice. In support of this Motion , Plaintiffs submit hisVerified Memorandum of Law, argument, exhibits and other material references/evidences on behalf his family and children which is hereto adequately incorporated and submitted and served upon all parties in this case.

B.                                     MEMORANDUM

                                 BACKGROUND FACT

2.    Strongly, Plaintiff oppose Defendant, Sheriff of Hampden County and this Memorandum will draw up a wide array of classification as to reason Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is manufactured as justice obstructive tools to hide the extra-judicial action of the Defendant on January 31, 2011 in which the Defendant, Sheriff of Hampden County was a major commander-in-chief of this ugly action which brought shame to the judicial system, law and constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States of America. 

3.  The Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff in Massachusetts and their Union were conservative and protective of their own colleagues and severally refused to serve process without advancing any rason and each time Plaintiff send complete package of Summons, Complaints and other documents, they will censor or hide the documents and claim that they did not receive the documents. After several subnissions, Plaintiff moved protests to the Superior Court and before Clerks (Clerk and Assistant Clerks of the Courts). Plaintiff suggested before the clerks that they will be witnesses in this incident.  They prepared another package of Summons and all  other documents. Each time the package was prepared and stamped and all signatures entered as they did in all other summons and supporting documents and the complete packages  were mailed by Plaintiff to Suffolk, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties. All the costs were paid by the Plaintiff and punitive under on-going sanction against Plaintiff and his family.

4.     When  Suffolk, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties denied receipt of this clear evidence, the Superior Court Clerks were alarmed and the clerks prepared another package and Plaintiff prepared petition against the Sheriff, lawmakers, politicians, governor, bar association, etc to request them to stop sheriff from serving process across Massachusetts because Sheriff is corrupt and discriminatory and would cause irresparable harm to innocent people including Plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff intends to prepare a bill to state lawmaking assembly and Plaintif also filed Motion addressed to The Hon. Justice Charles J. Hely (EXHIBIT  A). This Motion or EXHIBIT A was shared by an unknow person and immediately two sheriffs of counties (ID reserved) telephoned Plaintiff to condemn their staff and that theey have found the summons and  promised that the services will be done immediately and PROOF OF SERVICE will be sent to Plaintiff and the sitting Court or Plymouth Superior Court, Brockton, MA. See EXHIBITS B and C.

5.   The  Sheriff of Plymouth County or Clerk of Southeast Housing Court did the worst because Summons were prepared by the Clerk/Magistrate of the Southeast Housing Court, Brockton, MA and Dr. Ofume's Supplemental Statement of Complaint attached was seven (7) pages but the Sheriff served only one (1) page of the seven (7) pages. The major evidence of Plaintiff is contained in the censored six(6) pages to obstruct justice in the political 9th Eviction/Homeless case brought against Plaintiff because Plaintiff has launched his Presidential Campaign 2015 earlier than all known and unknown candidates for the President of Nigeria 2015. Each time he launches his campaign and when election is close, eviction and  homelessness are carried out and harsh sanction is imposed against Plaintiff and his family.

6.     Pursuant to M.S.C.R. 8(a), Plaintiff seriously objects the sworn affidavit evidence of Kathryn Fitzgerald mentioned in his EXHIBIT A because it was sworn to obstruct justice in this case. The Hampshire County Deputy Sheriff appears to exhonerate himself from the moneyed action of staffs in the sheriffs' office in Suffolk, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties. Kathryn Fitzgerald lied when he/she claimed that no SUMMONS were NOT included whereas summons, complaints, etc were attached and fully incorporated. The proof of these smart lies under oath is the PROOF OF SERVICES with summons and other documents which the Deputy Sheriff of the Hampshire County endorsed and mailed to Plaintiff. EXHIBITS B and C and C maybe numbered serially as C.1., C.2., etc because there are several other documents. Plaintiif is, Pro se and Forma pauperis and will be filing his opposition in accordance with Document Reduction Act.                                                              

Massachusetts Superior Court Rule 8: Objections to Evidence

"In civil actions, pursuant to the provisions of Mass.R.Civ.P. 46, and in criminal actions, pursuant to Mass.R.Crim.P. 22, if a party objects to the admission or exclusion of evidence, he may, if he so desires, state the precise grounds of his objection; but he shall not argue or further discuss such grounds unless the court then calls upon him for such argument or discussion. (As amended June 26, 1980, effective September 1, 1980)"

7.      The responding Counsels viewed Plaintiff's Complaint form personality standpoint and did not read the infractions which originated the Complaint. In Canada, Nigeria and USA Plaintiff has been graded high from court to court and through the United Nations. Plaintiff's Complaint is plain, simplified, short, and substantive relief and alternative relief were clearly stated pursuant to Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 8 ( General Rules of Pleading).

. Plaintiff has been rated by the United Nations and Canadian/US Judges as one of the most eloquant speaker, advocate and writer. See Ofume v. Government of Canada at the United Nations, US and Canadian courts, lower courts to the Supreme Courts of Canada and United States. Plaintiff's Complaint is written and presented in accordance with the

Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 8: General Rules of Pleading,

"(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded."

8.     Notwithstanding that Defendant's allegation in his/her Statement of Motion and same repeated found in overburdening rate  in several parts of his/her memorandum is Rule barred. Because of the fact that the allegation surfaced and re-surfaced paragraph to paragraph, Plaintiff decided to openly oppose the slipplery allegation that Plaintiff sued the Hampden County Sheriff in his/her personal capacity. Plaintiff sued SHERIFF OF HAMPDEN COUNTY on his/her official capacity because several pages and paragraphs of Plaintiff mentioned Sheriff of Hampden County. Plaintiff did not sue Michael J. Ashe, Jr and mentioned these names in his ComPlaint. One of the "suit papers" mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Affidavits sworn by Kathryn Fitzgerald is not Plaintiff Complaint. Same vein, the Clerk of Court removed this Complaint from the case file and the former Judge did not question them. During case file reviews Plaintiff did not see his Complaint (EXHIBIT D)  in his case file. Sheriff of Hampden County on his own power cut/removed and censored several parts of Plaintiff's Complaint. Also online, several parts were deleted to hide the truth and fact in this case. Posted on the facebook of the Trial Court Library and swiftly removed immediately within minutes of posting and publication.  Exhibit A of the Affidavit of Kathryn Fitzgerald which maybe referred as altered Complaint of the Plaintiff was recreated by the Defendant. The Court's Clerk/Magistrate also removed the Compliant from the case file. Plaintiff went to the court several times and few times he was allowed to review his case files. When he (Plaintiff) was allowed to review his case files. The Complaint opposed and others were not on file.

Whether or not the Sheriff of Hampden County was sued on personal and official capacities drop no ice on the infraction or breaches to reduce the harm carried out against Plaintiff and it's not requisite to foster condition to dismiss this type of Complaint. Former Judge and Clerk, harmed Plaintiff's Complaints by consolidating several different cases or complaints as if they were same or similar cases or complaints.

 See  Massachusetts Civil Procedure Rule 21: Misjoinder and Non-Joinder of Parties:

"Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative, after hearing, at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately."

https://www.google.com/#hl=enHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"sclient=psy-abHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"q=fashion+art+music+companyHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"pbx=1HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"oq=fashion-art-music.comHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"aq=1vCHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"aqi=p-p1g-vC2HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"aql=HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"gs_sm=1HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osbHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"biw=1366HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"&HYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=fashion+art+music+company&pbx=1&oq=fashion-art-music.com&aq=1vC&aqi=p-p1g-vC2&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=144l705l5l5465l3l3l0l0l0l0l98l276l3l3l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=82fc1a7cbf0487f4&biw=1366&bih=643"bih=643    

http://universal-fashion-art-music.blogspot.com/2011/11/massachusetts-complaint-against.html

http://universal-fashion-art-music.blogspot.com/2011/11/massachusetts-commission-on-judicial.html

9.     Paragraph 7 of Defendant memorandum opposed  is a big misinformation to obstruct course of justice in this case and must not be allowed. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 there are unnecesary debates concerning the questionable affidavit of kathryn Fitzgerald which wasted several paragraphs on personal and offiocial services. Time and energy must not be wasted on simple matter which the operating rules have resolved. It is clear that because the Sheriff of Hampden County was sued on his/her official capacity that's why he/she was served on his official capacity. The Summons, Complaint and other documents relating to Plaintiff's Complaint respected  MCPR 5(a)(b)(c) and  MCPR 4(a)(b)(c)(d)

C.      PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT: UNLAWFUL ACTION OF THE SHERIFF OF HAMPDEN COUNTY ON BEFORE JANUARY 31, 2011

10.   Even little child maybe aware and knows that defendant and its assigns and servants received money from the oil/gas companies to ignore court process and proceedings. The extra-judicial process speed applied to render Plaintiff homeless and seize his children show that The presiding Hon. Justice and Clerk/Magistrate of the Courts are suspects because decision denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider swift Order dated January 24, 2011,  Motion for Stay of Execution, Notices of Appeal, etc were firmly pending in Courts (Mass Court of Appeals and Springfied Superior Court) and service made on all parties including Sheriff of Hampden Court, Holyoke Police Department, courts below and above, property vendors and employers, etc. before  January 31, 2011.

11.     Swiftly absentia and without hearing, Decision on Motion to Reconsider was made on January 27, 2011 and mailed to Plaintiff on January 28, 2011. Because Plaintiff was telephoning the Court almost every two or less hours, on Janauary 27-28, 2011 by rumor, Plaintiff was told that the decision was rendered  and mailed out to him on January 28, 2011. Between January 28, 2011 and morning of January 31, 2011 Plaintiff has filed and served all defendants (by hand, e-mail and regular mail) Plaintiffs/Respondents NOTICE OF APPEAL, refiled MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION and letter requesting for record of proceedings to Mass Court of Appeals were filed and served on all parties, including Sheriff of Hampden Court. Without allowing the Defendant/Plaintiff receive the decision mailed to him on January 28, 2011 and appeal and without allowing the Appeals to proceed and when Motion for Stay was pending in the court, also they (defendants) ignored opposition of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dated January 28, 2011; ignored pending Appeal, ignored Motion for Stay of Execution, etc and in paid rush on January 31, 2011 morning the HPD, Hampden County Sheriff and others raided disputed apartment and evicted Plaintiff and his family and Plaintiff was arrested, detained and charged without investigation, children (five) arrested and seized and moved to distance place into the hands of strangers or child marketers when second parent is available to take care and custody of the children.

D.     QUESTION IN ISSUE CONTRARY TO STATING CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

12.   Whether Court will dismiss a Complaint outside statement of factual claims against the Complaint under contest  because  Plaintiff sued Sheriff of Hampden County and he did not sue a person called Michael J. Ashe, Jr.

D.                             ARGUMENT

For the reason foregoing, Plaintiff request leave of this Court to assign numbers to his argument.

13.   Whether Sheriff of Hampden County was sued on his/her official or personal capacity is not a big deal of claim for relief. That service on him/her or his staff, agents, privies and servants is done according to operating court and other rules and in good faith is the big deal which must be celebrated to waive severe forms of breaches upon the rights of the plaintiff and his family.                    

14.      Counsel for the Defendant emerged with the same defects as other defendants because of consolidation of unrelated complaints to  the extent that Defendants Motion and Memorandum page to page failed to raise any issue to dismiss Plaintiff's complaints of serious breach of the human rights and other statutes and regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and particularly first,fourth and several Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and also founded on Tort cases of 1983 or 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which failed to waive unimmuned action of the defendants against the Plaintiff and his family.

15.      Process service on Defendant respected the rules of civil procedure. Agencies and their staff are liable personally, officially and jointly. The most important cases which explicitly defined personal and official immunities within and outside  workforce/place are the case of Ofume v. George W. Bush et al (The Supreme Court of the United States Docket No.   No. 08-8873) with firm argument that President Bush can not enjoy  unqualified absolute immunity. Below the  same court ruled that president in office does not have presidential immunity from suit over conduct unrelated to his official duties.

16.     Also in the case of "Clinton v. Jones, 520 US.681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (

1997), in part this Court or The Supreme Court ruled that President Bill Clinton may enjoy qualified absolute immunity from civil lawsuits seeking damages from presidential actions but on the unqualified absolute immunity the same court ruled that president in office does not have presidential immunity from suit over conduct unrelated to his official duties. The Court is  firm to its ruling because the Court entered outright self-defense with closure against the governors and other public  officials" In other cases, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and enlongated pursuant to  First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, the First Circuit has denied qualified immunity to several police officers who arrested a bystander for recording their arrest of a third person in its opinion in Glik v. Cunniffe.

17.     Entire Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,  did not oppose specific Complaint of the Plaintiff against the Defendants and as such Plaintiff's must proceed through course in search for justice via just rule. "Dismiss and Dismissed" surfaced page to page without opposing the actions which Plaintiff claimed against Defendants.

 18.    Defendant's  opposition that "Plaintiff or his agent served Sheriff of Hampden County, an employee of the County," and in the other side that the Sheriff of Hampden County is not Mr. Michael J. Ashe as if the Plaintiff knows Mr. Michael J. Ashe whereas on January 31, 2011 the known and unknown men and women on uniform and plain clothes in part merely introduced themselves saying, "we are sheriff of hampden county...we are holyoke police officers..etc" and none of them said, I am Mr. Michael J. Ashe.

19.   I am a person not officer fails to enclose potential to enjoy shield in nature of qualified immunity as if employee under official and unofficial clouts would be above the law and/or can not be liable personally for his/her own action with/without employer pursuant to The Constitution of the United States of America - 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 or Bivens action; 8th  Amendment to the United States Constitution; official and unofficial immunities and responsibility or of employees and employer vis-a-vis these immunities. When bad commission is made, there is no shield for both employee and employer and corporate body and in larger spectrum including President and Congressmen/women of the United States of America and other nations.

20.    In this type of Complaint (pro se and related others), several judgments including the Supreme Court of the United States ordered that if court can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with rule requirements. Now here comes, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700, 70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972);  McDowell v. Delaware State Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42 (3rd Cir. 1992); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999).

21.    Under Rule 12(b)(6), the "complaint should not be dismissed merely because in part defendants   are crown of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the defendants assume that the allegations do not support the particular legal theory they personally  imagine. The court is as usual under oath of  duty to examine the complaint to determine if the allegations contain claim which contain substance which they miscontructed in their mind by assumption. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 201 (1986) (emphasis supplied). Consideration added in Pro se case is different but Plaintiff's  complaints match formal complaints filed by attorney of record.

22.    On February 3, 2012 in all the Plaintiff's Complaints, a, b, c, and d  the Order Regarding Complaint Status of The  Presiding Honourable Justice Charles J. Hely has summarized a stay of the type of Motion which the Defendants are filing with the Court and reason to allow Court determine the faith of these Complaints.

23. The cases cited below maybe able solve the concerns of the defendants:

Further question in issue is whether is even necessary that a " plaintiff or defendant request appropriate relief, properly setout caselaws and formulate legal theories, categorically organize point by point to create   legal theory  as lawmaker ought to do. Toll v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1134 (7th Cir., 1992). In accordance with the Mass. Superior Court Rules 8 and 7 clearly state initial complaint does not require to  point to appropriate status or law to raise a claim for relief;

complaint sufficiently states a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it points to wrong legal theory, as long as "relief is possible under any set of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations") (emphasis supplied)

The Defendants The party moving for dismissal must show "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim [that] would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46. (emphasis supplied)

Moreover, the likelihood that a plaintiff will ultimately prevail on his claims has no place in determining whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (issue is not whether plaintiff will prevail but whether claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support claims)

Additionally, when making a determination as to the sufficiency of a complaint, initial pleadings must be construed liberally. United States v. Uvalde Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1890). This is especially true for a pro se Complaint under Haines v. Kerner et al., 404 U.S. 519."

D.                                         CONCLUSION/RELIEF

Because of the foregoing defendant Motion  must be dismissed because it failed to oppose the subject and other matters which are contain in Plaintiff's Complaint. Official name and person of the Sheriff of Hampden County are not claims that can be blessed with relief of any magnitude to dismiss a Complaint which comes with multiple abuses of official or qualified and personal immunities, child's and parents' rights,  Mass and federal constitution and other human rights laws such as branding Plaintiff and his family  trespassers in family shelter provided to them by the agency (DHCD) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and enjoyed this unlawful leverage when the situation was visibly no fault and they proceeded to evict,  arrest, detain, handcuff, charge, and prosecute  Plaintiff without investigation and extended these abuses to parade innocent children and seized and ex-communicated them and market them to strangers and made them suffer physical and psychological tortures; and because of the  foregoing Defendant's Motion must be dismissed with prejudice.

                                   VERIFICATION

Here comes Plaintiff respectfully verified, signed and submitted foregoing, under Pains and Penalty of Perjury states that the foregoing facts are True and Correct,

_________________________

PhillipC.Ofume, Ph.D.

Plaintiff on behalf Mrs. Maureen N. Ofume

and seven children ,

 506 Warren Av, Apt. 2

Brockton, MA 02301

Tel. (781) 479-9027

ofume.phillip@gmail.com,limptintinc@gmail.com

cc. Messrs. Jennifer Mather, Anna Morales, Deborah Goddard, Tracy A. Niner, Giard Karen, NEFWC, Hampden County Sheriff, HPD and Law Offices of Egan, Flanagan, Cohen, P.C.

   In support of this Motion or Application, Applicants

submits-Verified Memorandum of of Law, argument, exhibits and other

material references/evidences which is hereto adequately incorporated

and submitted and served upon parties.

 Respectfully verified, Signed and submitted under the pains and

penalties of perjury this 22nd  day of February 2011,

2

Law Offices of Egan, Flanagan, Cohen, P.C.

67 Market Street

Post Office Box 9035

Springfield, MA 01102

Telephone: (413) 737-0260

Fax: (413) 737-0121

Email: efc@efclaw.com