On Friday, February 19, 2010 at 5:46:46 PM UTC-4, searchgroup wrote:
> Ofume v. George W. Bush et al - The Supreme Court of the United States
> - No. 08-8873 located at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ofume+v.+george+w.+bush+et
> +al&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&oq>
> but censored to avoid curious searchers
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS
>
> PAGE
> FOUR GRAND QUESTIONS PRESENTED………………………………i-ii
>
> PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING……………………………….................ii
>
> TABLE OF
> AUTHORITIES……………………………….....................................................¬.iii
> OPINION BELOW………………………………..........................................
> 1
> JURISDICTION
> ………………......................................................................¬.....................
> 2 -3
> STATUTES
> INVOLVED………………………………........................................................¬....
> 3- 4
> FACTUAL
> STANDPOINT…………………...................................................4
> -
> 8
> QUALIFIED AND UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITIES AND MAGNA
> CARTA ARGUED VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY………………………………..6 - 10
> POWER OF COURTS BELOW UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)] ………………………..12 -
> 13
> REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE PETITION………………………………........13-15
> A. UNEVEN PRECEDENT TO ALTER POSITION
> OF US COURTS AND DOWNSIDE EFFECT TO COMPARE
> US PRESIDENT WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS…………………………15 - 16
> B. THE DECISION BELOW CREATES A DIRECT AND VISIBLE
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHICH MAY UNDER-CLAIM
> MAGNA CARTA IN THE UNITED STATES………………………………....16 - 17
> CONCLUSION………………………………......................................................¬......
> 18
> APPENDIX
> A
> Judgment (numbered 1), Circuit Judges, Boudin Lipez and Howard of
> The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (October 30,
> 2008)….......1
> Memoranda/Orders (numbered 2), United States District Judge,
> George A. O’Toole, Jr. of The United States District Court for the
> Phillip Ofume iv.
> District of Massachusetts (April 24, 2007 and July 9, 2007.....
> ………………….......1
> B.
> It is very important to read to pages 1 to 30 of the Petitioner/
> Plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Complaint (05/15/2007) on FIRST
> PART;
> pages 1 - 16 of the Petitioner/Appellant’s Notice of Appeal
> (07/18/2007) on SECOND PART; pages 1 - 13 of the Petitioner’s Brief
> and pages i - ix of the Petitioner’s Appendix in support of the
> family’s Appeal on THIRD PART; and documents listed on pages 15 - 16
> of the Petitioner Notice of Appeal (07/18/2007) on FOURTH PART. All
> the private and part of state appellees did not enter appearance and
> file Brief and Appendix and show any independent opposition to
> Petitioner’s submissions listed in parts 1, 2, 3 and 4
> above………………………………...........................................................¬...................
> 4
> Careful review of the conditions at 1st SECRET TORTURE DETENTION/
> PRISON (Boston Logan Hilton Hotel), 2nd SECRET TORTURE DETENTION/
> PRISON (8 Hall Avenue, 2nd Floor Braintree, Massachusetts 02184),
> and 3rd SECRET TORTURE DETENTION/PRISON (33 Arlington Street
> Apartment
> #1, Lynn MA 01902). To keep these SECRET TORTURE DETENTIONS/PRISONS
> with limited covert and other guards, severe acute forms of sanction/
> embargo were imposed because if all immigration and personal
> documentations and properties were impounded and seized with maximum
> sanctions on right to job authorization, health insurance, social
> security cards, state and federal identification cards, etc.
> LIST OF AUTHORITIES:
> US CASES
> Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968).
> ……………………………….......................................5
> The Massachusetts Superior Court, Lawrence, MA - Ofumes v. DTA
> Civil Docket No. ESCV2006-00381 CONSOLIDATED with DTA’s
> Appeal No. 315921.
> ……………………………............................................................
> 6
> Clinton v. Jones, 520 US.681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997)
> ……………10
> Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982)
> ……………………………........................10
> Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)……………………………..........
> 10
> Ofume v. Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA),
> SUPERIOR COURT, LAWRENCE, MASSACHUSETTS -
> Civil Docket No. ESCV2006-00381.
> …………………………….........................................11
> Phillip Ofume v
> Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. v.
> Hernadez…………….
> 12
> Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, [under § 1915(d)] id., at 325.
> …………
> 12
> Coppedge v. United States, 369 U. S. 438, 447 (1962)……………………..12
> Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan,
> & W. Pratt eds. 1977)
> …………………………….............................................12
> District Court ignored Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)
> …………..
> 13
> FEDERAL STATUTES
> 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)
> ……………………………..................................................1
> United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II 42 U.S.C. sec.
> 2000a
> (a)………………..2
> 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000a(b)(1)
> ……………………………........................................................2
> Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare Chapter 21 - Civil Rights
> Section 1981 (Equal Rights under the Law)
> ……………………………..............................2
> U.S.C, Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process………………………………..........3-4
> Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (fair housing and housing
> Discrimination………………………………..................................................¬...........
> 3-4
> Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution;…………………………….....17
> United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of refugees
> (“CRSR” )
> and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
> Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) - re. respective implementing
> statutes…………17
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Chapter 111,
> of the General Laws, State Sanitary
> Code……………………………….....................17
> Chapter 11: Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation,
> 105 CMR 410.000; MGL 111 s. 127 - 0.
> ……………………………...........................17
> Phillip Ofume vi
> 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 or Bivens action;
> ………………………………........................2
> STATE STATUTES
> Mass. G.L.c. 258, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4
> ………………………………...........................11
> FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
> Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
> ………………………………..................
> 12
> Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)(2)(3)……………………………....
> 14
> STATE RULES/REGULATIONS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
> Judicial Guidelines for Civil Hearing Involving Pro se (April 28,
> 2006)
> …………..13
> Mass. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 3 to 16.
> …………………………….............
> 12
> MISCELLANEOUS
> (1)
> Apart from perusing the Order/Memoranda and Judgment of the Circuit
> Judges, Boudin Lipez and Howard of The United States Court of Appeals
> for the First Circuit (October 30, 2008) and memoranda/orders
> (numbered 2), of the United States District Judge, George A. O’Toole,
> Jr. of The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts (April 24, 2007 and July 9, 2007) it is very important
> to read state and federal parties’ motions/memoranda for Summary
> Disposition [Local Rule 27 (c ) to know whether the purported motions
> have anything capable of dismissing Petitioner‘s Complaint, Brief,
> Appendix, etc.
> (2)
> Prior to different landings in the United States of America 1989 -
> present the lead petitioner (Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume) maintained
> deep interest for the United States and worked hard to advance US
> into chain of gainful international development and cooperation.
>
> Phillip Ofume vii
>
>
> In Canada (April 20, 1998 - September 29, 2005) more in-depth
> interaction was explored when President George W. Bush told the lead
> petitioner and his NGOs that he was interested in campaign for
> democracy, justice, rule of law, human rights and freedoms.
> In Canada, there were several hundreds of electronic mails between
> several international /domestic NGOs led by the lead petitioner and
> President Bush and other US lawmakers and politicians. Reference to
> this political storm, petitioner and his NGOs issued lengthy NOTICE
> AND PURPOSE OF LANDING on President Bush and several other appellees.
> The notice of departure and arrival from Halifax International
> Airport to Washington DC was accompanied with itinerary and sent to
> lead appellees. Surprise that they failed to stop the forcible
> landing
> at Boston Logan Airport. More surprise is that September 29, 2005 -
> present, President Bush wrote only one letter to the Petitioner
> without solving any life threatening and other problems.
> (3)
> The interests of the domestic and international communities show that
> there are scores of lesson to learn from this case particularly the
> power of the executives in America, campaign for democracy, justice,
> rule of law, type of immunity which American president and other
> executives claim right similar to the activities existing in other
> countries listed in this petition.
> Google et als - http://groups.google.bs/group/google.public.support.
> general/ browse_thread/thread/102328ad55372ae0;http://
> groups.google.com/group/google.public.support.general/browse_thread/
> thread/102328ad55372ae0)
> ___________________________________________________________________________¬_
>
> No. 08-8873
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> IN THE
> SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
>
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
> OFUME FAMILY (PHILLIP OFUME, et al)
> Petitioner (pro se & forma
> pauperis )
> v.
> 1. US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
> SECURITY;
>
> 2. MITT ROMNEY, GOVERNOR OF
> MASSACHUSETTS;
>
> 3. KERRY HEALEY, LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF THE
> STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS;
>
> 4. OKWUKWE IBIAM, LANDLORD OF 8 HALL AVENUE,
> 2ND FLOOR BRAINTREE, MA 02184 ;
> 5. LAW OFFICES OF SAM OSAGIEDE & ASSOCIATES, MA;
>
> 6. GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES;
>
>
> 7. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES;
>
> 8. THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS;
>
> 9. BRAINTREE FIRE DEPARTMENT, MASSACHUSETTS ;
>
> 10. ALBERTO R. GONZALES US SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY
> GENERAL.
>
> Appellees/Respondents
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to THE
> UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
> FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
> NO. 08 - 1450
> ___________________________________________________________________________¬__
> PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Dr. Phillip C. Ofume
> 33 Arlington Street, Apt. #1
> Lynn, Massachusetts 01902
> Mobile: (617) 888 – 4205 (No Voice Message)
> Tel. (339) 440-5148
> Fax: (339) 440-5148
> Websites: “Dr. Phillip Ofume”;
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Dr.+Phillip+Ofume+Political+Mani....
> etc. E-mail: globalaids_hivcureinteract...@yahoo.co.uk,
> confid1...@hotmail.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
> December 26, 2008
> Phillip Ofume i
> FOUR GRAND QUESTIONS PRESENTED [Rule 14.1(a)]
> Whether The United States Court of Appeals for the First
> Circuit and The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts erred in holding that the power of president, governor,
> secretaries and their agencies all of which are of the United States
> of America extend to enjoyment of an unqualified immunity from civil
> lawsuit for conduct unrelated to their official acts - see qualified
> and unqualified immunities and Magna Carta stretching as far back as
> in the thirteenth century (in a democratic nation no person,
> including
> the president, is above the law) below.
>
> Whether The United States Court of Appeals for the
> First Circuit and The United States District Court for the District
> of Massachusetts erred in holding that the power of president,
> governor, secretaries and their agencies all of which are of the
> United States of America are immune from their personal and official
> responsibilities to the extent of allowing innocent Petitioner (Ofume
> family - six children and their two parent) or citizens of New
> Orleans
> suffer and drifting towards death under uneven conditions (see
> paragraph 34 of the Appellant’s Amended Statement of Complaint and
> Hurricane Katrina, New-Orleans, LA USA).
>
> Whether The United States Court of Appeals for the First
> Circuit and The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts erred in holding that the civic responsibility, duty
> and
> obligation of the citizens of America (hereinafter, “Appellees/
> Respondents”) are immune to the extent of watching innocent
> Petitioner
> (Ofume family - six children and their two parent) or citizens of New
> Orleans suffer and drifting step by step towards death under uneven
> conditions (see paragraph 34 of the Appellant’s Amended Statement of
> Complaint and Hurricane Katrina, New-Orleans, LA USA).
>
> Whether The United States Court of Appeals for the First
> Circuit and The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts erred in jointly affirming or holding that
> Petitioner’s Complaint with scores of arguable issues, special
> circumstances,
> Phillip Ofume ii
>
> high powered public interest and anger, disputed issues of fact or
> law, irreparable harms and damages could be swept under the rug [28
> U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)] because the originating face of the Complaint
> failed to state or cure 100% of the intended claim [see Federal Rules
> of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)(2)(3)].
>
>
> PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
> Pursuant to Rule 14.1 (b), the following list identifies
> all of the parties appearing here and before The United States Court
> of Appeals for the First Circuit and The United States District
> Court
> for the District of Massachusetts.
>
> The Petitioner here and Applicant below are OFUME FAMILY,
> Phillip Ofume, Maureen Ofume, Kleber Ofume, Keynes Ofume, Isabelle
> Ofume, Lynda Ofume, Barnett Ofume, Christian Ofume and Gloria Ofume.
>
> The Respondents below and appellees here are as listed above
> and numbered, 1 to 10. To close official and personal relationships
> between Petitioner’s family and new administration at state and
> federal levels, the federal and state counsels unofficially or
> without
> motion adopted their own designation and automatically reversed the
> designation ordered by The Honourable Justice George A. O’Toole, Jr.
> (page 9 of the Memorandum/Order dated April 24, 2007). The Petitioner
> sued the federal and state government in office, September 29, 2005
> through January 4, 2007. Mr. George W. Bush, Dr. Condeleezzeez Rice,
> etc were sued in person and their official capacity because of the
> correspondences afloat 2000 - to the commencement of this action
> between Petitioner and these federal actors. State parties and
> private parties conscientiously allowed their sovereign geo-political
> space and apartment to carry out the mistreatment against the
>
>
> Phillip Ofume 1
>
> OPINIONS BELOW
>
> The opinions below (attached) of The Circuit Judges,
> Boudin Lipez and Howard of The United States Court of Appeals for the
> First Circuit (October 30, 2008) and United States District Judge,
> George A. O’Toole, Jr. of The United States District Court for the
> District of Massachusetts (April 24, 2007 and July 9, 2007 - attached
> and also see appendix) on Petitioner’s Complaint are unreported and
> in part limited to memorandum/order and judgment based on summary
> affirmation by The United States Court of Appeals for the First
> Circuit on FIRST PART and fact-barren or infertile general judgment
> of The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts
> without raising the major dust which is qualified and unqualified
> immunities and reason 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2) is able to undermine or
> dismiss Petitioner’s Complaint on SECOND PART.
>
> The infertility or barrenness of these memoranda/orders
> and judgments (attached) is that they are limited to 28 U.S.C. §1915
> (e)(2) which this Court (above) has severally advised is short of the
> legislative impetus and authority to dismiss this type of Complaint
> especially at beginner‘s or case administration level. Only state
> (part) and federal actors submitted motions (styled summary
> disposition) which are copycat of the position of the Court below or
> re-echoing 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2) without stating claim and reason
> why
> this arm of US Constitution has the power to dismiss Petitioner‘s
> Complaint.
>
> Part of State actors and all private actors did not
> enter
> appearance because no summons were issued to keep these actors
> underground and the cruelties unleashed on the Petitioner were
> conducted by the state under civil conscription or mobilization to
> the
> extent of mobilizing certain national and specific extended ethnic
> relations of the Petitioner to act as the landlord, attorney/lawyer,
> etc.
> Phillip Ofume 2
> JURISDICTION
> The United States Court of Appeals for the First
> Circuit and The United States District Court for the District of
> Massachusetts entered their two judgments/orders aforementioned on
> April 24, 2007/July 9, 2007 and October 30, 2008. Conditions which
> the
> Petitioner was forced to live are weighed under the United States
> Constitution, Bill of Rights and Human Rights Act and United Nations
> Convention jointly relating to the Status of refugees (“CRSR” ) and
> Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
> Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”); The Constitution of the United
> States
> of America - 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 or Bivens action; Eight Amendment to
> the United States Constitution; obligation of the President/Governor
> of America and their agencies/officials to the citizens and non-
> citizens in the United States; President/Governor of America and
> their
> agencies/officials to the citizens/non-citizens that fear or expose
> to
> death; United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II 42 U.S.C.
> sec. 2000a(a) and 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000a(b)(1); Title 42 - The Public
> Health and Welfare Chapter 21 - Civil Rights Section 1981 (Equal
> Rights under the Law); etc.
> Petitioner exhausted all state and federal
> administrative and other mechanisms. On September 29, 2005 the
> petitioner booked and paid costs for non-stop flight from Halifax
> International Airport to Washington, DC but the aircraft was forced
> to
> land at Boston Logan Airport and petitioner was forcibly removed from
> the aircraft and detained and their documents and other materials
> were
> impounded and seized by the 1st appellee to prevent the petitioner
> from proceeding to Washington, DC. State administrators (Department
> of Transitional Assistance et als); State Judges (Diane M. Kottmyer
> et als of The Massachusetts Superior Court Department, Lawrence and
> Salem ); federal administrators (USCIS and Refugees and Asylees
> Settlement Agencies in Atlanta, Boston, Washington, DC., etc) and
> federal Judges (Matthew D’Angelo et als of the Immigration Court,
> Boston, MA). All these state and federal administrators and judges
> denied applications and advised Petitioner to file Complaint with The
> United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. From
> court to court, jurisdiction was unclaimed and advice remains the
> same
> (file Complaint with the US District Court, Boston MA).
> Jurisdictionally, petitioner requests this Court to
> carefully examine the real fact relating
> Phillip Ofume 3
> to absolute immunity under America’s and the United Nations’ position
> on qualified and unqualified immunities and how to protect America’s
> global campaign for good government, democracy, justice, human
> rights,
> freedoms, physical and psychological torture and related inhumane
> cruel treatment, rule of law, exemplary constitutional judiciary,
> etc.
> The position of the courts below on effort to block the Complaint
> from
> reaching trial is usual to all dictatorial government in both modern
> and ancient worlds.
> One of the most important parts of this petition is that
> without trial all these facts/evidences including letters of
> President
> George W. Bush, forcible landing at Boston Logan Airport, Governor
> Mitt Romney and others to the Petitioner will not be known or
> produced
> by petitioner and examined by the Judges and parties.
> STATUTES INVOLVED
> This case involves, qualified and unqualified
> immunities; conducts inside and outside official and unofficial
> workplaces; the United States Constitution and International
> Convention/ Covenant on the Rights of the Child, women, parents, and
> human safety; devastating impact of Life Expectancy versus zero-
> income
> under family of nine people; Inhumane or Uninhabitable Shelter below
> US and International cutting earmark; Physical and Psychological
> Torture under bitter icy conditions which is worst than water-boding
> torture because water-boding torture is temporary maybe for few
> minutes or hours whereas the worst and major apartment (8 Hall
> Avenue,
> 2nd Floor Braintree, MA ) which is icy or bitter cold torture which
> the Petitioner suffered lasted, October 12, 2005 - January 27, 2006;
> legislation on physical and psychology tortures mostly where children
> and parents are exposed to scare and disgrace in nature of multiple
> bugs, reptiles, rodents and several child scare creatures which were
> domesticated for this purpose; Judgment/Order which disregards
> U.S.C,
> Fourteenth Amendment - Due Process; Title VIII of the Civil Rights
> Act
> of 1968 (fair housing and housing
> Phillip Ofume 4
> discrimination); etc.
> FACTUAL STANDPOINT
> Petitioner, requests this Court to leave no stone unturned
> to peruse pages 1 to 30 of the Petitioner/Plaintiff’s Amended
> Statement of Complaint (05/15/2007) on FIRST PART; pages 1 - 16 of
> the
> Petitioner/Appellant’s Notice of Appeal (07/18/2007) on SECOND PART;
> pages 1 - 13 of the Petitioner’s Brief and pages i - ix of the
> Petitioner’s Appendix in support of the family’s Appeal on THIRD
> PART;
> and documents listed on pages 15 - 16 of the Petitioner Notice of
> Appeal (07/18/2007) on FOURTH PART. All the private and part of state
> appellees did not enter appearance and file Brief and Appendix and
> show any independent opposition to Petitioner’s submissions listed in
> parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
> The Petitioner/Appellant, Ofume family (Dr. Phillip
> Ofume
> and his seven children and wife) hail from THE NIGER DELTA REGION OF
> NIGERIA and is Refugee/ Stateless person, new immigrant about one
> year
> old in US when the Complaint was filed. The lead Plaintiff (Dr.
> Phillip Ofume) is Presidential Candidate of Nigeria In-Exile (2007
> and
> 2011) and treasonably charged for participating in the declaration
> that the fighting or civil war in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria
> is
> constitutional and lawful.
> Under extensive cooperation to mistreat petitioner, the
> Courts below stated 28 U.S.C. s. 1915(e)(2) as the only power they
> have to prematurely stop Petitioner’s case from advancing to trial
> and
> in part state and federal actors copied 28 U.S.C. s. 1915(e)(2) also
> as the only opposition to petitioner‘s Complaint. Because of the
> longstanding poverty conditions of the Petitioner (Canada to US) and
> Paper Reduction Act of the United States, in part the Petitioner
> cites
> pages 2 to 9 of the Petitioner/ Appellant’s Notice of Appeal
> (07/18/2007)
> Phillip Ofume 5
> Reason that the Courts below have claimed unlimited and
> absolute immunity for The President and Governor of America and their
> agencies and in opposition if so claimed there and allow the case to
> go above, the domestic and international communities will claim that
> America has no rights to campaign for good government, democracy,
> human rights, freedoms, justice and rule of law; etc. To avoid this
> bad incident, Petitioner will request this Court to see paragraphs 34
> to 78 and the official and independent reports on New Orleans
> (Hurricane Katrina) to know the type of unlimited and absolute
> immunity for The President and Governor of America and their agencies
> and further referencing particular case law and legislation, Title
> VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (fair housing and housing
> discrimination) and Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968). This Court correctly
> held in this case that federal law bars all racial discrimination
> (private or public), in sales or rental properties.
> The Courts below claimed and awarded unconditional absolute
> amnesty similar to the amnesty which no person could enjoy and/or
> that
> innocent and armless children, men and women in America must be
> subjected to multiple torture, persecution and related cruelty which
> include but are not limited to vicious and heartless exposure to
> bitter icy cold weather; starvation; dehydration; harmful secret
> prison/detention conditions with snakes, mice, cockroaches,
> uncountable bugs and other dangerous creatures without Medicare;
> several harassment tugs; forced house to house begging for toilet
> rolls and other produces, baby diapers, female and male sanctuary
> products, payment of school supplies and transportation, food (in
> part
> begging reduced effective April 2006), money, etc.; zero-income;
> sanction/embargo on over 98% of means of livelihood including job
> authorization and right to self-employment; tactical and harsh
> confinement and ex-communication and related cruel mistreatment,
> which they suffered in 1st (Boston Logan Hilton Hotel), 2nd (8 Hall
> Avenue, 2nd Floor Braintree, Massachusetts 02184), and 3rd (33
> Arlington Street Apartment #1, Lynn MA 01902) SECRET TORTURE
> DETENTIONS/PRISONS. On June 13, 2007 they hatched further secret
> plot to move the petitioner to 4th SECRET TORTURE DETENTION/PRISON
> ( without clear and specific address), which was deceitfully and
> covertly presented as 837 River
> Phillip Ofume 6
> St. Mattapan without the names of the State and Country and Zip Code
> and forcible movement scheduled less than 24 hours from the time of
> service of the notice and notice which was served without name and
> signature of the author. See The Massachusetts Superior Court,
> Lawrence, MA - Ofumes v. DTA Civil Docket No. ESCV2006-00381
> CONSOLIDATED with DTA’s Appeal No. 315921;
> This one of the cases in this Court within the
> determination at issue whether President and Governor of America and
> their agencies are capable of doing what Presidents Pinochet, Abacha,
> Mobutu, Idi Amin, etc and their agencies did to innocent and armless
> children, men and women because failure by the appellees to apologize
> and the desire of the Courts below to hear the Complaint and secure
> justice is a compromise to any judicial system because the appellees
> did not file their brief to oppose the cruelties claimed. Indirectly,
> the courts below have used this censorship or judicial power to enter
> outright admittance to guilt of the action of the appellees. Directly
> the courts below have added or aligned America’s President and
> Governor and their agencies with Presidents Pinochet, Abacha,
> Mobutu,
> Idi Amin, etc to the edge that America’s President and Governor of
> America and their agencies have unleashed more cruelties by slamming
> hyper-sanction/embargo (including job authorization on the
> petitioner).
> To understand the fact that the gruesome physical and
> psychological torture and other cruelties unleashed on the
> Petitioner/
> Appellant are politically motivated and about oil/gas in the
> petitioner’s native place of birth (NIGER DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA)
> and
> Petitioner’s bid for the President of Nigeria, on October 12, 2005
> 4th and 5th Appellees (also native of the NIGER DELTA REGION OF
> NIGERIA) of the below and here was strategically and tactically
> selected by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th and 10th Appellees to lure
> out
> from the first secret torture prison/detention (Boston Logan Hilton
> Hotel), to second secret torture prison/detention (8 Hall Avenue,
> 2nd
> Floor Braintree, Massachusetts 02184).
> On October 12, 2005 after 5th appellee has successfully
> deceived petitioner into the second secret torture prison/detention,
> 5th appellee told the petitioner to see them on October 13,
> Phillip Ofume 7
> 2005 in their office (Dorchester, MA). On October 13, 2005 under
> zero-
> income and without caseworker, petitioner that was less than 24
> hours
> old in the open society of America (Massachusetts), petitioner raised
> bush money in the street and traveled to Dorchester to see 5th
> appellee. Upon entering the law office of the 5th appellee,
> petitioner
> was shocked to see large political campaign photographs of the
> former army general and president of Nigeria (Ibrahim Babaginda)
> and
> other army generals who in part caused the flee of the petitioner
> from
> Nigeria. This general has repatriated from Nigeria to US, UK,
> Germany, Switzerland, etc over $54billion (see summarized loots
> below)
> and this one of the sources of income to fight and kill political
> rivals.
> In the office of the 5th appellee, the petitioner
> feared abduction or disappearance but 5th appellee shocked petitioner
> (zero-income and without job authorization) more and more by
> informing
> the family to make instant 50% down payment of the huge legal fees
> imposed whereas 1st appellee told petitioner the attorney was pro
> bono. When petitioner failed to pay because of its zero-income
> condition, instantly 5th appellee resigned and warned petitioner to
> stop contacting their law office.
> In part, on before after 1989 - present, exile travail
> of
> the Petitioner, Nigeria, Togo, Canada to US, presidents, politicians,
> lawmakers and foreign/ domestic oil/gas companies in Nigeria have
> used
> summarized loots below to influence several foreign governments,
> presidents, politicians, lawmakers and their judicial systems to
> disrupt petitioner’s campaign for good government, civil liberties
> and
> bid for the president of Nigeria:
> NAMES OFNNLOOTERELOOTERS/DEPOSITS LONDONN
> SWISS($) USA($) GERMANY
> (D)
> GEN. IBRAHIM BABANGIDA 6.25bn 7.41bn 2.00bn 9.00bn
> GEN ABUBAKAR 1.31bn 2.33bn 800m
> REAR ADMIRAL MIKE AKHIGBE 1.24bn 2.42bn 671m 1bn
> GEN JERRY USENI 3.04bn 2.01bn 1.01bn 900m
> ALHAJI ISMAILA GWARZO 1.03bn 2.00bn 1.3bn 700m
> ALHAJI UMARU DIKKO 4.5bn 1.4bn 700m 345m
> PAUL OGWUMA 300m 1.42bn 200m 500m
> GEN SANI ABACHA 9.01bn 4.09bn 800m 3.01m
> MOHAMMED ABACHA 300m 1.2bn 150m 535m
> ABDULKADIR ABACHA 700m 1.21bn 900m 471m
> ALHAJI WADA NAS 600m 1.32bn 300m
> TOM IKIMI 400m 1.39bn 152m 371m
> DAN ETETE 1.12bn 1.03bn 400m 1.72bn
> DON ETIBET 2.5bn 1.06bn 700m 361m
> MAJ AL MUSTAPHA 600m 1.001bn 210m
> ANTHONY ANI 2.9bn 1.09bn 360m 1.66bn
> BASHIR DALHATU 2.3bn 1.001bn 161m 1.43bn
> GEN WUSHISHI 700m 1.301bn
> ALH HASSAN ADAMU 300m 200m 700m
> T Y DANJUMA 300m 200m 700m
> GEN ISHAYA BAMAYI 120m 800m
> SOURCE: WORLD BANK TO THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA
> QUALIFIED AND UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITIES AND MAGNA
> CARTA ARGUED VERTICALLY AND HORIZONTALLY
> This argument is strictly designed to intercede on fact
> relating to “qualified and unqualified immunities and magna carta”
> within civilized domestic and international constitutional judicial
> systems and on course would waive cluster or interactive argument
> such
> as “Suggestion of Immunity” by the United States and other sovereign
> nations purpose of carrying on international cooperation and
> diplomacy.
> Petitioner and several Non-governmental Civil Rights
> Organizations (NGOs) have researched and investigated civil liberties
> and power of mainstream leader or president, governor and other
> executives or their agencies and private actors within major domestic
> Phillip Ofume 9
> and international laws per entries of nations and other custodians.
> The end of this work, they (Petitioner and NGOs) found that
> president,
> governor and other executives or their agencies and private actors
> does not enjoy unqualified immunity from a civil lawsuit for conduct
> not related to their judicious official and private duties. Now comes
> negligence in line of duty because the president, governor and other
> executives or their agencies and private actors saw in person or
> received communicable messages but failed to take action to save life
> and the victims died or suffered.
> The significance of unqualified or qualified immunity is
> taken from duty-immunity contest and extends to state that president,
> governor and other executives does not enjoy immunity when they are
> on
> private and official activities and saw in person or informed by any
> communications that one person or several people were knocked down by
> train or automobile and they need to be saved and in the other hand
> that several people (children, men and women) are found dying under
> the bridge (Hurricane Katrina, People of New Orleans, LA USA) or
> several people (children, men and women) found dying in fridge and
> dirty apartment building (Ofume family, 8 Hall Avenue, Braintree,
> MA).
> Under simplified unqualified immunity, the biggest confusion
> which earned presidents and other executives embarrassment and loss
> of
> conscience of duties and leadership is the vague and failed claim by
> certain courts (see court below in this petitioner) that the
> president and other executives may not be sued for acts relating to
> their official duties. It is harmful to the rule of law to further
> claim that they are not subject to the same legislation regulating
> their private conduct to which earmark and benchmark are drawn to
> protect the citizens. US District Court, US Court of Appeals and The
> Supreme Court of the United States agreed that president and other
> officials does not have immunity (including temporary immunity during
> sitting or after sitting in office) from suit over conduct unrelated
> to their official duties.
> Phillip Ofume 10
> Now comes correct reasoning in 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,
> that it had never suggested that the president or any other sitting
> official has an immunity that “extends beyond the scope of any action
> taken in an official capacity.” Under performance edge the Court
> based
> its immunity doctrine on a particular “functional base”, captioning
> particular functions of the president’s office.
> Petitioner requests this Court and domestic/
> international communities to pierce the veil in such a visible manner
> to understand the line of his argument because Petitioner’s case
> occurred under tri-fold of absolute immunity and above the law and
> suit doctrines - qualified absolute immunity, unqualified absolute
> immunity and magna carta. Clinton rushed into Nixon v. Fitzgerald,
> 457
> U.S. 731 (1982) because the submission ran short of the breathe of
> this tri-fold doctrine particularly, qualified absolute immunity and
> unqualified absolute immunity and also crossed into another uneven or
> unrelated jurisdiction which is claim of separation or partition of
> power which federal and state parties restated in their approach to
> argue under 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2). The direct cut to this tense
> legal and illegal arguments is that president, governor and other
> officials will enjoy immunity only where fit or where the actions
> relate to their official duties.
> In the Matter, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1
> Cranch)
> 137 (1803), Petitioner saw the power of judicial review in The
> Supreme
> Court of an Act of Congress and power to differ from the dream of the
> President (ex. Jefferson) and maintained immunity question and
> strongly affirmed that the Executive Branch was not immune from
> action
> Phillip Ofume 11
> by the Judicial Branch in enforcing mandates of the Constitution.
> In
> Marbury’s case, The Chief Justice Marshall said, “The very essence of
> civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to
> claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.”
> Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 163 (1803)
> Below after exhausting this terrain [(28 U.S.C.
> §1915 (e)(2)] and failed to make legal point, state parties jumped
> into full presentment under Mass. G.L.c. 258, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4 and
> failed to research and investigate the status of the Petitioner as to
> whether the petitioner is “state or federal property“. State parties
> and federal parties decline references relating the positions of
> state
> and federal Judges mentioned here above. The Immigration Judge,
> Matthew D’Angelo (Boston, MA) and majority of the state Judges
> maintain the secret position of DO NOT WRITE policy but America is
> what she is in respecting first amendment or freedom of expression
> and
> opposition. Under this position, two Immigration Judges (Judge
> Thomas
> M. Ragno and Lady Judge - name reserved) resigned but before they
> resigned, they advised petitioner to file Complaint with the US
> District Court (Boston, MA) because the petitioner is Refugee and
> Stateless person officially adopted by the United Nations High
> Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). Under this status the petitioner
> must
> originate action in US District Court after exhausting certain
> federal
> administrative remedies. See the lengthy contact with transition
> agencies - Catholic Charities, US Refugees/Asylees Settlement
> agencies
> (Boston, MA, Atlanta -Georgia, and Washington, DC), Massachusetts
> Department of Transitional Assistance, Boston/Lynn Housing
> Authorities, USCIS (St. Albans, Vermont ), Pro bono attorneys, etc.
> 100% denial.
> In the matter, Ofume v. Massachusetts Department
> of Transitional Assistance (DTA), SUPERIOR COURT, LAWRENCE,
> MASSACHUSETTS - Civil Docket No. ESCV2006-00381, in oral discussion
> The Presiding Honourable Justice Diane M. Kottmyer advised petitioner
> to file Complaint with US District Court (Boston, MA). In a
> summarized
> written order/decision, Judge Kottmyer said, “Because immigration
> status determines the Plaintiff’s right to benefits, the matter is
> remanded to the
> Phillip Ofume 12
> Department for a hearing as soon as possible to determine
> immigration
> status and right to benefits. In further oral discussion, Judge
> Kottmyer said, “District Court is your best place…”
> POWER OF COURTS BELOW UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1915 (e)(2)]
> In reversing a similar rush decision to dismiss
> purported frivolous and erroneously claimed bad faith case, in
> Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. v. Hernadez,
> the
> Court of Appeals on remand for consideration, the Court's intervening
> decision in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, held that a complaint
> "is frivolous [under § 1915(d)] where it lacks an arguable basis
> either in law or in fact," id., at 325. Also see Coppedge v. United
> States, 369 U. S. 438, 447 (1962). Held that it is more horrible
> that,
> the § 1915(d) frivolousness determination, frequently made sua sponte
> before the defendant has even been asked to file an answer, cannot
> serve as a fact finding process for the resolution of disputed facts
> or issue of law.
> Unlike the Petitioner’s case with score of arguable
> issues in law or in fact, it is held that, “An in forma pauperis
> complaint may not be dismissed, however, simply because the court
> finds the plaintiff's allegations unlikely. Some improbable
> allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to
> dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to
> disregard the age-old insight that many allegations might be
> "strange,
> but true; for truth is always strange, Stranger than fiction." Lord
> Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan, & W.
> Pratt eds. 1977).
> MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for what they
> called
> a unanimous
> Court. The question at issue presented is whether a complaint filed
> in
> forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under Mass. Rules of
> Civil
> Procedure, Rules 3 to 16 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
> is automatically frivolous within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1915(d).
> Justice Marshall, “ The answer, we hold, is no. ”
> Phillip Ofume 13
> Petitioner’s Statement of Complaint respected all
> rules,
> regulations and state/federal laws and also contain score of
> arguable
> issues; spe...