SOME OF THE REASONS
WHY GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA MUST OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SHUTDOWN YEARS AGO
Waste! waste!! waste
!!! of money and time to punish others that have contra or different point of
view, color, ethnic/religion/racial background different from America and Americans.
Government of America refused to grant work permit to a
family (Ofume) of 8 people and majority
is employable and also bidding for the President of Nigeria past and 2015. This
family is also Permanent Resident of Canada and inside and outside US, the
government of America have spent over $5billion since 1989 to force the head of
this family, Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume to abandon his bid for the President of
Nigeria with money and life endangerment but Dr. Ofume and the people of
Nigeria and his national and international NGOs oppose.
To leave US to other countries, government of America has
been wasting money to buy ambassadors and consuls. For example, on August 28,
2013 the Ofumes applied for travel documents under emergency application which
takes about 7 days to issue but the government of america continues to waste
money to lobby the embassies and consulates because the oil/gas companies think
that Dr. Ofume President of Nigeria will make them loss about $80million/day
which they are getting in Dr. Ofume's impoverished native region of the NIGER
DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA. Major part of this money is from the oil/gas
theft inside and outside Nigeria and
this wasteful use of money will stop soon as they start to spend from their
official profits or income.
Major money is wasted because of politics here and there,
inside and outside the judicial and senate systems; race and color; etc. Race
and color is a good role players because Obamacare has future of income or
profit and should not be overruled.
The present government has done everything to pay part of
the $17trillion foreign and domestic debts and propels hope on to grantors or
lenders that there is hope in the future to clear the debts but money goes from
hand and to mouth without investment or focus. Whites are in control of the
majority of the money of America and unable to use the commonwealth to make
America the richest country in the world. Waste, waste, waste OR war/conflict war/conflict, war/conflict here and there no mercy for money, birth to
present time.
Waste!!! the lawsuits posted below entered the two highest
courts (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Court of Appeals and Supreme Judicial
Court)in Mass under Emergency and to save no fault disputed property and the
unpreferred presidential candidate of Nigeria, Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume and
family who have suffered 12 non fault evictions since 2009 because of this bid,
filed over 5 motions within 24 hours to stay the proceedings but for no reason,
denied simultaneously to meet purpose of
which money was issued to these courts which is to achieve the purpose of the
12th homelessness.
But the question is what brought these appeals to the highest court in Mass? In issue what
brought these appeals to this level is whether a family of 8 people with
$580.00 cash benefit and $650.00 food stamp under federal and state poverty
level. No normal judge and court would deny the appeal. Under the high speed to
complete the rounds to render the Ofumes 12th homelessness, Judges of boston
housing court, court of appeals and supreme judicial court dismissed the 5
motions without reading the motions.
_____________________________________________________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION SJC. NO. SJC 2013-0393
APPEALS COURT: CIVIL NO. 2013-J-0367
HOUSIJNG COURT : CIVIL ACTION DOCKET
NOS. 13H84SP002057; 13H84CV000400; 13H84CV000264;
_____________________________________________
PHILLIP OFUME
Petitioner/Defendant (Pro se )
v.
THE CLERK/MAGISTRATE OF THE HOUSING & MASS APPEAL COURTS
and
CYNTHIA HECTOR , ALAN
HECTOR, ET ALS
Respondents
____________________________________________________
APPELLANT, PHILLIP OFUME’S
AMENDED VERIFIED EMERGENCY
MOTION (EX-PARTE – ACTION) FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE SINGLE JUDGE TO
JURY OF JUDGES - STAY OF EVICTION OR POSSESSION OF THE
PREMISES, 41 GALLIVAN BOULEVARD 1ST FLOOR DORCHESTER, MA O2124 PURSUANT
TO M.R.A.P. 6, 5TH
& 14TH Amendments to the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States (Due
Process Rights and Procedural Due Process);
Magna Charta( 1215 - provided that no freeman should be imprisoned,
disseised, outlawed, exiled, or destroyed, unless by the "law of the
land),
_________________________________________________
Here comes Appellant/Defendant, Dr. Phillip Ofume moves this
Court to enter emergency Order purpose of staying the intended action of the
Sheriff (Mass Constable Service) today to seize and take possession of the
disputed premises with rent amortization
in June 2014 and also the Hon Single
Judge did not consider that the landlord will not suffer any irreparable
harm and loss and that Appellant and his six children and wife will suffer
irreparable harms, loss and damages which no law can secure or restate because
the harms include but unlimited to homelessness because the housing agencies
are influenced by the rich landlords and appellant’s political opponents and
eventual loss of children to the DCF;
loss of education because this new school year, suffer psychological torture in
the 12th political and unjust or no fault eviction and homelessness, etc.
Because of this harm Appellant requests
Jury of Judges of this Court to Reconsider his Motion because of the following
further new reasons:
1. Below the only
part to enable this case move to court appeals is consideration of Appellant’s
AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY or Bond.
2. The Hon. Single
Judge granted Appellant’s AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY which is the only the issue in
this case pending below to enable Appellant’s appeal proceed to review or trial
before the Court of Appeals.
3. The action of The Hon. Single Judge for granting
Appellant’s AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY automatically grants Appellant’s
pending Motion for Partial
Appellate Review because the only issue
or case is AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY.
4. The Hon. Single Judge did not consider that the landlord
will not suffer any irreparable harm and loss and that Appellant and his six
children and wife will suffer irreparable harms, loss and damages which no law
came secure or restate because the harms include but unlimited to homelessness
because the housing agencies are influenced by the rich landlords and loss of
children to the DCF; loss of education because this new school, suffer
psychological torture , etc
5. The Hon. Single
Judge did not consider that there are
score of CMR sanitation violations which have arisen out from several CMR
Violations reports.
6. The Hon. Single Judge
did not consider that bond or rent is not necessary because the advanced
rents and payment enlarge to June 2014 and appellant and his family and church
have paid the utility bills in advance.
7. The Hon. Single Judge did not consider that irrespective
of the advanced rent and utility paid to the landlords and utility companies
they disconnected appellant’s hot water, heat , and failed to fix several
defects in the apartment for over one year. Appellant and his family have
suffered greatly there is no court in the US to question them because of the
unconstitutional power of the nigeria’s foreign and domestic oil/gas companies.
OTHER IEGAL ISSUE
RAISED HERE AND BELOW AND UNCONSIDERED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE
8. Appeal Bond
Hearing was scheduled for September 13, 2013 and on this date early as
Appellant was walking his kid to the school several vehicles containing
Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested Appellant and
members of his family and detained them. Appellant and his wife was released
late in the evening and their elder child was not released. Information
revealed that the Respondents called these operatives to block Appellant from
attending his Appeal Bond Review hearing.
9. Because of
paragraph 1 above, filed the following,
“A PPELLANT/DEFENDANT’S
VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION
FOR PARTIAL FURTHER APPELLATE
REVIEW AND STAY OF ISSUE OF EXECUTION AND/OR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT (09/19/2013 OF THE PRESIDING HONOURABLE JUSTICE VUONO – EXHIBIT
A) FROM THE ABSENTIA APPEAL BOND HEARING (09/13/2013) PURSUANT TO M.S.C.R. 9D; M.G. L. Chapter 261, Sec, 27A ; 5th and 14th Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and Procedural Due Process); Magna Charta( 1215 - provided that no
freeman should be imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or destroyed, unless
by the "law of the land); M.R.A.P. 27.1; M.R.A.P. 23; etc to The Presiding
Honourable Justice Vuono”
and restated request for stay.
10. Appellant has
served the Motion stated in paragraph 2 on all parties and no opposition has
been filed by all the parties in this case and the “back house” the landlords
gave the Sheriff money to issue execution without respect for
the appeal bond hearing before this Court. The same thing they in the
Suffolk County Superior Court when the Appellees deceived the Court clerks that
no services were made on therm and without informing The Honourable Justice
Elizabeth Fahey the clerks dismissed Appellant’s Complaint and
and Judge Fahey had already mark up Motion in the Complaint for hearing
and before the hearing date the appellees have received an illegal dismissal
letter from the influenced clerks. On the Judge Fahey hearing date only
Appellant was present. Judge Fahey that Appellant file Appellant’s and
sheriff’s proof of services and upon receiving these proof of service Judge
Fahey vacated the dismissal of the Clerks.
11. In the Court of
Appeals the Presiding Hon. Justice
thinks that granting double stay with
another Appellant’s Affidavit of Indigency
to file the Motion on October 2, 2013 will impede the awaiting hearing and
determination of Appellant’s MOTION
FOR PARTIAL FURTHER APPELLATE
REVIEW which is about Appellant’s AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY and because of this
conflict Judge Grasso denied Appellant’s Motion for further Stay (EXHIBIT D).
ACTION OF
MASSACHUSETTS CONSTABLE SERVICE IS ILLEGAL AND MUST BE STAYED
12. In addition to
the stay granted by Judge Muirhead in
her judgement date August 6, 2013
(EXHIBIT C) and other motions such as Motion for Partial Further Appellante
Review now properly pending in Court of Appeals and notice of
appeal filed and also pending in Court of Appeal stay of possession and
execution are active and inforce and the action of MASSACHUSETTS CONSTABLE
SERVICE is illegal and unconstitutional and must be stayed.
13. On October 1,
2013 at about 1.45 pm a Deputy Sheriff who refused to disclose his name served on Appellant EXHIBITS A & B which execution/eviction documents
containing intention to evict Appellant and his family on October 4, 2013 at
11. a.m.
14. The
Appellees, Landlords have Appellant’s advanced rents upto June 2014 and they
have refused to issue refund of these
rents.
15. Judge Muirhead allowed the ONLY Lease between the
landlord and Dr. Ofume but Judge Muirhead did not do simple arithmetic to find out the number of
$400.00 per month that will be on the following payment in total amount of $10,698.09 /$400.00 :
RELIEF SOUGHT
For the good reason stated above, Appellant request this
Count to allow his Motion and issue a written Order to be served on the Sheriff to avoid
confrontation on October 3, 2o13 at 11.00 am.
VERIFICATION
I, Dr. Phillip Ofume,
respectfully verified, signed and submitted the foregoing documents under the
pains and penalties of perjury this
3RD day of October 2013,
__________________
Phillip C. Ofume,
Ph.D.
41 Gallivan Boulevard
1st Floor
Dorchester, MA 02124
P. O. Box 2416
Lynn, MA 01903
Tel. 617-606-1753
& 857-258-3987
limptintinc@gmail.com,ofume.phillip@gmail.com,
globalaids_hivcureinteracion@yahoo.co.uk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dr. Phillip Ofume
certify that a true copy of the document (Notice of Appeal) was served up on
all parties by U.S. PVI Postal Service
first class mail or hand delivery on October 3, 2013 at:
Rev. & Mrs. Cynthia & Allan Hector c/o Attorney
O’Toole
41/43 Gallivan Boulevard #2 (2nd floor)
Dorchester, MA 02124
Executive Director
National Grid (Legal Dept.)
220 Victory Road
Dorchester, MA 02122
(617) 822-5400
Acting Executive Director – Mr. Henry F. Vitale
Boston Water Commission-BWSC (Legal Dept.)
980 Harrison Ave.
Boston, MA 02119
Executive Director
NSTAR (Legal Dept)
One NSTAR Way
Westwood, MA 020
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Civil Process Division
132 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 704-6999
Fax: (617) 704-6998
__________________
Dr. Phillip Ofume
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS
COURT
_____________________________________________________________________
CONSOLIDATED
AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
CIVIL
APPEAL NO.2013-J-0367
LOWER COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NOS. 13H84SP002057; 13H84CV000400;
13H84CV000264;
_____________________________________________________________________________
Phillip
Ofume v. Cynthia Hector and Allan Hector
et als
_______________________________________________________________________________
APPELLANT/DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR
PARTIAL FURTHER APPELLATE REVIEW AND STAY OF ISSUE OF EXECUTION AND/OR
PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT (09/19/2013 OF THE PRESIDING
HONOURABLE JUSTICE VUONO – EXHIBIT A) FROM THE ABSENTIA APPEAL BOND HEARING
(09/13/2013) PURSUANT TO M.S.C.R. 9D;
M.G. L. Chapter 261, Sec, 27A ; 5th and
14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and Procedural Due
Process); Magna Charta( 1215 - provided
that no freeman should be imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or
destroyed, unless by the "law of the land); M.R.A.P. 27.1; M.R.A.P. 23;
etc to The Presiding Honourable Justice Vuono
_______________________________________________________________________________
HERE COMES, Appellant, Dr. Phillip Ofume pro se, indigent or Forma Pauperis, hereby moves respectfully request this Honourable
Court FOR PARTIAL FURTHER APPELLATE
REVIEW AND/OR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT (09/19/2013) FROM
THE ABSENTIA APPEAL BOND HEARING (09/13/2013)
particularly in the manner of further Appellate Review pursuant to M.R.A.P. 27.1 to enable Appellant to establish his and
family’s indigent statuses pursuant to
M.S.C.R. 9D; M.G. L. Chapter 261, Sec,
27A ; 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and
Procedural Due Process); Magna Charta(
1215 - provided that no freeman should be imprisoned, disseised, outlawed,
exiled, or destroyed, unless by the "law of the land); M.R.A.P. 27.1;
M.R.A.P. 23; etc because of the
following further reasons:
PART
A. ISSUE &
ANALYSIS
1. Whether indigency status review in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and United States in general is not taken under
federal and state poverty levels
ANALYSIS :
Starting from June 29, 2013 following the Intervention by
different governments inside and outside the system of the United Nations, two
members of Appellant’s family were granted food stamps and cash benefits by the
Mass Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) all of which falls below
federal and state poverty levels but it
helped to properly define the Indigent Status of the Appellant and his family
which states clearly that “Indigent”,
(a) a person who receives public assistance under aid to families with
dependent children. Food Stamp: $625.00
and Cash Benefit $580.00 (EXHIBITS B & C ) and the M.G. L. Chapter
261, Sec, 27A clarifies determination of
indigency as follows:
Section 27A. As used in sections twenty-seven A to
twenty-seven G, inclusive, the following words shall have the following
meanings:
“Indigent”, (a) a person who receives public assistance
under aid to families with dependent children,
Appellant and his
family “receive public assistance under aid to families” and they are “with dependent children,” and the present
size of their household is six children and two biological parents and married
since June 1, 1986 under the native law and custom of Agbor, Delta State of
Nigeria. Even if nothing is further written and submitted to this Court this
paragraph of Part A is enable to grant Appellant and his family the status of
“Indigent”.
At this point the Courts and Judges below have no iota of
justification to deny Appellant’s Affidavit of Indigency and the CURRENT
Appellant’s Affidavit of Indigency is herewith incorporated with this Motion
and marked EXHIBIT G
2. Whether under
5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and
Procedural Due Process) absence of the Appellant in Court on September 13, 2013
did not impede proof of his indigency because this affidavit of indigency has
been granted by all the courts in the United States where Appellant has filed
lawsuits and severally granted by Judge Marylou Muirhead when Appellant filed
the Original Complaint with the Court below or Boston Housing Court in the
Matter Ofume v. Hectors et als Docket No. 13H84CV000264 dated on April 4, 2013
and several other Petitioner/Motion including Ofume v. Hectors et als
ANALYSIS:
In addition to several telephone calls to the
Clerk/Magistrate of this Honourable Court to inform them about his absence
during the hearing on September 13, 2013, also below is detail proof as to
reason Appellant did not attend the hearing on September 13, 2013. Appellant
and his family suspect that the Appellees/Plaintiffs are the author of the anonymous telephone call to
the FBI, ICE and other operatives which drafted several SUV vehicles containing
several security operatives to raid Appellant’s and family’s apartment on
September 13, 2013 and arrest him and some members of his family to prevent
Appellant from attending the hearing.
Former tenants of the Plaintiff’s apartment where Appellant and his
family reside have confessed that Plaintiffs have used voodoo on them and
called police and other operatives on them to generate criminal allegations
against them and Plaintiffs have personal keys to their apartment (41 Gallivan
Boulevard 1st Floor Dorchester, MA 02124 ) and have opened their apartment absentia to do harm them. In
addition to the September 13, 2013 incident that Appellant suspect was created
by the Plaintiffs who called themselves Reverend father/mother and member of
FOUNTAIN OF GRACE CHURCH, CANTON MASS or ordained man/woman of God, again and
again Plaintiffs have filed secret criminal petitions and affidavits inside and
outside courts, police, etc against Appellant and his family and in support see
EXHIBITS D, E & F. all of which
Plaintiffs have forged or falsified to remove Appellant and his family from the
disputed apartment without refunding the advance rents and utilities bills
which they paid up to June 2014 to Plaintiffs. Because they have wasted over
$10,800.00 which Appellant, his family and Church paid to Plaintiffs in oversea
long vacations without investing the money into profit making ventures, they
are in a haste to evict Appellant and his family to rent out the apartment to
another tenants to continue the same scam or rental fee fraud. Former tenants who are in part members of the
FOUNTAIN OF GRACE CHURCH, CANTON MASS further confessed that Plaintiffs would
not allow them and their visitors to park their vehicles even less than 5 minutes before they call towing people to
tow away their vehicles. Majority of the visitors that visited Appellant and
his family suffered the same ordeals. For example, since September 13, 2013 the
ICE and ISAP operatives who have been visiting Appellant and his family have
suffered the harassment and bullying of the Plaintiff and they maybe contacted at
781-272-4601.
B. GOOD CAUAE
REASON APPELLANT DID NOT ATTEND BOND APPEAL HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2013
3. Appellant by
himself and on behalf his family said,
“On Sept. 13, 2013 our father, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume was
walking our little brother to school
when several vehicles containing plain clothe and uniform
operatives crossed their pathway and told our father "you are under
arrest" and suddenly they placed handcuff on him and went to take our
mother and our elder brother Keynes Ofume and drove them to their deportation
facility after he informed them that we
are permanent residents in Canada and
that we are leaving the United States soon and
our dad and mom were released
after several hours late in the evening and Keynes was detained at Suffolk County Correction Center and they
said he maybe deported to Nigeria
according to Judge Matthew D’Angelo’s scattered deportation Order.
Swiftly and heartlessly deportation notices were issued to
each member of our family and ordered our departure immediately because some
one in our community telephoned to say that we have no immigration papers and
we have arms and we support dangerous cartels. The head of this operation ask
Dr. Ofume “how many guns and tones of drugs do you have in your apartment?”Dr.
Ofume answered none and told them that we are very poor people and our church
and other good Samaritans pay our rents because we have no work permit and we
have refused to abandon our bid for the President of Nigeria to enable the
government of America remove these sanctions and embargos on us. Also that we
are members of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRISTOF LATTER-DAY SAINTS and we do not
drink, smoke, fight, drink coffee, use dangerous drugs and other hard
substances. SEE EXHIBITS H, J, K,
4. On September 13,
2013 later evening Dr. & Mrs. Ofume were released by ICE and Appellant
telephone this Court and he followed some phone directory and recorded
message. On September 16, 2013 he called
the Clerk of this Court and indicated the interest to file this Motion.
Appellant and his family received this decision on September 24, 2013 by mail.
C.
STATEMENT OF FACT
5. Appellant and
his family arrived in the United States on September 29, 2005 following
Appellant’s and his family’s consent of
landing issued on President George W. Bush and his Hon. Secretary of States Dr.
Condoleezza Rice.
6. On September
29, 2005 Appellant and his family left Canada
by booking direct or non-stop flight, Halifax International Airport to
Washington, DC but at Boston Logan Airport, Appellee/Plaintiff forced the
Aircraft to land and US Immigration
Officials impounded and seized
Appellant’s and his family’s unexpired
UN Refugees Travel Documents and Passports, Academic and Professional
Qualifications and Awards, Flight Tickets, Birth Certificates, Torture Medical
Report, Torture Photographs, Newspapers, torture photographs, Court documents
and submissions, etc. The reason for this seizure is to block the family’s
further journey to Washington, D.C. where
the persecution and torture stated in this motion wouldn’t have been
possible because of the presence of several diplomatic missions and media
presence..
7. This seizure is
designed to frame-up charge [212(a)(7)
(A)(i)(I)] against Dr. Ofume and his family who arrived in the US with
unexpired documents and pursuant to the UN Convention of July 28, 1951 and US
Immigration (Asylum) Law. The reason for
these seizures and ex-communications are to impose sanction and embargo on the
Appellant and his family to impede their access to rights to services including
work permit to disrupt their campaign for the President of Nigeria and freedom
of movement and association.
8. Appellant and his family have been denied services and
these denials, persecution and mistreatment created the multiple litigations in
several courts in the United States and Canada. All these cases were taken and
filed with Affidavit of Indigency.
9. Further Appellate
Review is very important in this case to enable The Presiding Hon. Justice view
and review the physical material exhibits on the long history of Appellant’s
approve or granted Affidavit of Indigency and his and family’s new income since June 29, 2013 through September 2013.
D.
ARGUMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW
10. Under the Paper
or Document Reduction Act of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and United
States based on costs, Appellant will make photo copies of few Affidavit of
Indigency granted Appellant within six months in 2013.
11. Applicants have been granted several waivers of bond or cash
in the matter, Ofume family v. George W. Bush, DHS, et als Docket No. 08 - 1450
- US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to The Supreme Court of the United
States Docket No. 08- 8873; Massachusetts Northeast Housing Court, Lawrence (Docket No.
*07-CV-00178); Ofume family v. Boston Housing Authority US Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit Docket No. 08-2475; etc.
12. EXHIBITS B
& C are the only income to the Appellant and his family and the church and
others will start paying the rent and utilities starting from June 2014 if the
government of America refused to grant Appellant and his family work permit and
right to engage in self-employment. Under the income determination of the M.G. L. Chapter 261, Sec, 27A an indigent is person like the Appellant and
his family “who receive public assistance under aid to families with dependent
children” and this the imposed economic status
of the Appellants in the United States since September 29, 2005.
13. This Court will reclaim its honorable status if all who
appears before it is granted the rights to be heard and judged accordingly. The
Judge in this case has genuinely recognized this just status as stated under
5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and
Procedural Due Process) and Magna Charta( 1215 - provided that no freeman
should be imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or destroyed, unless by the
"law of the land and The Presiding Hon. Justice clearly said, “ I discern
no meritorious defenses of which the defendant cant avail himself.” The only
remedy to this deprivation is M.R.A.P. 27.1 further Appellate Review.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
M.G. L. Chapter 261, Sec, 27A
Section 27A. As used in sections twenty-seven A to
twenty-seven G, inclusive, the following words shall have the following
meanings:
“Indigent”, (a) a person who receives public assistance
under aid to families with dependent children, program of emergency aid for
elderly and disabled residents or veterans’ benefits programs or who receives
assistance under Title XVI of the Social Security Act or the medicaid program,
42 U.S.C.A. 1396, et seq.; (b) a person whose income, after taxes, is 125 per
cent or less of the current poverty threshold established annually by the
Community Services Administration pursuant to section 625 of the Economic
Opportunity Act, as amended; or (c) a person who is unable to pay the fees and
costs of the proceeding in which he is involved or is unable to do so without
depriving himself or his dependents of the necessities of life, including food,
shelter and clothing, but an inmate shall not be adjudged indigent pursuant to
section 27C unless the inmate has complied with the procedures set forth in
section 29 and the court finds that the inmate is incapable of making payments
under the plans set forth in said section 29.
“Fees and costs”, fees and costs shall not include
attorneys’ fees.
“Normal fees and costs”, the fees and costs a party normally
is required to pay in order to prosecute or defend the particular type of
proceeding in which he is involved shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: in all civil cases, filing or entry fees, including the surcharges
required by section four C of chapter two hundred and sixty-two; fees and
related costs for service of process, including publications of a citation when
publication is ordered; fees and costs for the issuance or service of a
subpoena and witness fees for trial or deposition; jury trial fees; removal fees;
costs assessed in a bill of costs; in equity, fees for the issuance of an
injunction, restraining order, writ or other process; in the probate and family
court department, fees for an amendment of record.
“Extra fees and costs”, the fees and costs, in addition to
those a party is normally required to pay in order to prosecute or defend his
case, which result when a party employs or responds to a procedure not
necessarily required in the particular type of proceeding in which he is
involved. They shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the cost of
transcribing a deposition, expert assistance and appeal bonds and appeal bond
premiums.
“Clerk”, the clerk or an assistant clerk or the register or
an assistant register.
“Inmate”, a person committed to, held by or in the custody
of the department of correction or a state, county or federal correctional
facility or the treatment center under chapter 123A.
Massachusetts Appellate Procedure
Rule 23: Issuance of Rescript: Stay of Rescript
The clerk of the appellate court shall mail to all parties a
copy of the rescript and the opinion, if one was written. The rescript of the
court shall issue to the lower court twenty-eight days after the date of the
rescript unless the time is or enlarged
by order. The timely filing of a petition for rehearing or of an application
for further appellate review will stay the rescript until disposition of the
petition or application unless otherwise ordered by the appellate court. If the
petition or application is denied, the rescript shall issue forthwith unless
the appellate court or a single justice orders otherwise. If an application for
further appellate review is granted the rescript of the Appeals Court shall not
issue to the lower court.
Amended effective February 24, 1975.
M.R.A.P. 27.1
Massachusetts Appellate Procedure
Rule 27.1: Further Appellate Review
[Disclaimer]
(a) Application; When Filed; Grounds. Within twenty days
after the date of the rescript of the Appeals Court any party to the appeal may
file an application for leave to obtain further appellate review of the case by
the full Supreme Judicial Court. Such application shall be founded upon
substantial reasons affecting the public interest or the interests of justice.
Oral argument in support of an application shall not be permitted except by
order of the court.
D. CONCLUSION/RELIEF
Based on the foregoing and particularly 5th and 14th
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights and Procedural Due
Process) and Magna Charta( 1215 - provided that no freeman should be
imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, or destroyed, unless by the "law
of the land) this appeal will be unfair if only the landlords were heard. Appellant request this
Honourable Court and Judge to hear the major prong of his appeal which is
review and determination of his Affidavit of Indigency and grant it because
Appellant and his family are indigents.
E.
VERIFICATION
I, Appellant, Phillip
Ofume, respectfully verified, signed and submitted the foregoing documents
under the pains and penalties of perjury this 25th day of September 2013,
__________________
Phillip C. Ofume,
Ph.D.
41 Gallivan Boulevard
1st Floor
Dorchester, MA 02124
P. O. Box 2416
Lynn, MA 01903
Tel. 617-606-1753
& 857-417-2497
limptintinc@gmail.com,ofume.phillip@gmail.com,
globalaids_hivcureinteracion@yahoo.co.uk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dr. Phillip Ofume
certify that a true copy of the document (opposition) was served up on all
parties by U.S. PVI Postal Service first
class mail or hand delivery on September 25, 2013 at:
Rev. & Mrs. Cynthia & Allan Hector
41/43 Gallivan Boulevard #2 (2nd floor)
Dorchester, MA 02124
Executive Director
National Grid (Legal Dept.)
220 Victory Road
Dorchester, MA 02122
(617) 822-5400
Acting Executive Director – Mr. Henry F. Vitale
Boston Water Commission-BWSC (Legal Dept.)
980 Harrison Ave.
Boston, MA 02119
Executive Director
NSTAR (Legal Dept)
One NSTAR Way
Westwood, MA 020
__________________
Phillip Ofume
