Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION NOTICE TO IRAN, RUSSIA AND VENEZUELA: OFUME FAMILY (Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume, Mrs. Maureen Ngozi Ofume and seven children) (PART I)

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Dr. Phillip Ofume

unread,

Nov 11, 2008, 3:43:06 AM11/11/08

REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EVACUATION NOTICE TO IRAN, RUSSIA AND VENEZUELA:
OFUME FAMILY (Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume, Mrs. Maureen Ngozi Ofume and
seven children) (PART I)

Geneva/Brussels, November 11, 2008

1. Short Message to Messrs. Presidents of Iran, Russia and Venezuela:

Please within any minutes to one hour upon receipt of this message,
use your diplomatic power in office to evacuate the Ofume family under
the zero-income prison/detention program of President George W. Bush
to the limited extent that only one US born child of the seven
children is paid minimum child benefit of about $240.00/month and the
under 14-children are given food ration (stamps) with maximum sanction
on the family’s right to job authorization and other services
including donation and gift. On November 7, 2008 the food ration was
cancelled and today is the 5th day the children and their parents
have lived without food. Please call them at 339-440-5148. According
to the government attorney/lawyer (name reserved) this plan is put in
place in collaboration with Canadian/Nigerian governments to “move you
(Dr. & Mrs. Ofume & family) to Canada” which is transit point to
Nigeria where Dr. Ofume is charged with treason offence and Dr. & Mrs.
Ofume charged together for different political offences. All
correspondences (registered letters, e-mails, etc) to you and
President-elect, Barack Obama are impounded and seized. The
allegations that the Publishers and the Ofume family in part caused
the failure of McCain and Clinton are minor part of this Plot. The
apartment (33 Arlington Street, Apt #1 Lynn, MA 01902 or called
“PETIT GUANTANAMO BAY” ) has not heat. The family provide minimum heat
by gas operated cooking stove.

2. In US, Canada, Togo and Nigeria several victims that have
suffered
what this family suffered may have crossed this world. The position
of
the leaders, lawmakers, politicians and governments in these
countries
is the same thus, scared for NOTHING, other than to see the head of
this family, Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume emerge as the president of
Nigeria, FIRST TIME 1914-present candidate hail from the NIGER DELTA
REGION where over 95% of the wealth of Nigeria is sourced; permanent
sanction to looting/repatriation of Nigeria's wealth; member of the
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-SAINTS; Multi-Religion Right; and
hard-line civil liberties activist.

2. Request for donation to pay the family’s relocation costs to
designated
countries, Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Reason for this relocation is
stated per this note and above/below.

Further Readings:

http://groups.google.bs/group/google.public.support.general/browse_th...

http://groups.google.com.tr/group/google.public.support.general/brows...

http://groups.google.co.vi/group/google.public.support.general/browse...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=MASS.+SUPERIOR+COURT+DEPARTMENT%...

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.org.nonprofit/browse_thread/thread...

___________________________________________________________________________
____

Ofume family v. BHA P. 1 of 15

Please acknowledgment receipt in writing

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________________________________________________

Civil Appeal No.
______________________________________________________

OFUME FAMILY (PHILLIP OFUME, et
al)

Appellant -
Plaintiff

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY (BHA)

Appellee - Defendant

___________________________________________________________________________
____

Appeal from the United States District
Court

for the District of
Massachusetts

C. A. No. 08 - 10950 -
GAO

___________________________________________________________________________
_____

Before George A. O’Toole, Jr., United States District Judge.

Ofume family v. BHA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NO.

PAGE

1. JURISDICTIONAL & GOOD CAUSE BACKGROUND………………..1 - 3

2. QUESTION RAISED BY THE US DISTRICT COURT DISPUTED…….3 - 7

3. REVIEW OF RULES OF PLEADING AND PREMATURE

DISMISSAL OF CASE BEFORE TRIAL………………………………...7 - 11

4. CONCLUSION
………………………………...........................................11-12

5. ORDER/MEMORANDUM APPEALED………………………………...... 15

6.
APPENDIX………………………………....................................................
13-15

6. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE……………………………….......................15

APPENDIX

Notice of Appeal:

US District Court’s Memorandum/Order without hearing. 12 page Notice
of Appeal is attached.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES:

CASES

Ofume family v. Nancy & Salvatore Vigorito et al 07-CV-00178
Northeast Housing Court, Lawrence, MA. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Mass. R. Civ. Proc., Rules 9 and 12) pursuant to M.G.L.c. 258,
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10(c). Decision : Defendants’ ……………2

Motion to Dismiss Denied.

Cecil Brown, Appellant, v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., and
Division of Employment Security,
Respondents………………………………......................................2

US District Court case file C. A. No. 08 - 10950 - GAO and US Court
of
Appeal,

First Circuit Docket No. 08-1450
………………………………................................................4

CANADIAN CASES:

“Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia Nos. C.A.
No.
178078;

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia S.H. No. 194319;

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia S.H. No.
165814;

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Canada SCC File: 29476;

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Canada SCC No. 30054;

Important Note: Disadvantages of shopping for better laws, rules and
regulations oversea

to administer and guide provision of services in the United States.
These are part of the

cases disclosing the hate, racism, persecution, torture, and related
cruelties which

Appellant, Ofume family suffered in Canada and reason why government
(Canadian)

that unleashed these gruesome cruelties on the Appellant can not give
good and transparent recommendations/references to facilitate
provision of housing and other services to the Appellant inside and
outside the United States………………………4 - 5

Fancy (B.F.) Construction Ltd. v. Alta. Surety Co.
……………………………...........................11

UNITED NATIONS CASES:

The Reports of the UN are located at: Ref. E/CN.4/2001/21
http://www.unhchr.ch/->documents->charter-based bodies->commission on
human rights-> UNITED NATIONS Economic and Social Council Fifty-
seventh session Item 6 of the provisional agenda and UNCERD
(Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Canada 23/08/2002 CERD/
C/
61/CO/3. (Concluding Observations/ Comments)…………………………….........5

Zakibe v. Ahrens and McCarron, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 373, 388 (Mo. App.
2000)
………….8

Martin v. Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, 580 S.W.2d 307, 308
(Mo. App. 1978) (citation omitted)
…………………………….....................................................................
8

Denton, Director of Corrections of California, et al. v. Hernadez,
…………………9-10

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319.
……………………………...................................10

US CONGRESS

Fair Housing (Congress enactment 1968) ……………………………….................7

FEDERAL STATUTES

Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 37 (e), the Defendant (BHA)……………………………
5

Rule 84.04(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure……………………………….7

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)(2)(3)
…………………………….......
9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
…………………………….........................11

STATE RULES/REGULATIONS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 9 and 12.
……………………………......8.

MISCELLANEOUS

On before and during the process of the applications for
administrative appeals and hearings, Appellee denied over 95% of the
documentary and other evidences submitted by the Appellant in support
of its case.

Ofume family v. BHA P. 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

_________________________________________________________________

Civil Appeal No.
______________________________________________________

OFUME FAMILY (PHILLIP OFUME, et
al)

Appellant -
Plaintiff

BOSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY (BHA)

Appellee - Defendant

___________________________________________________________________________
____

Appeal from the United States District
Court

for the District of
Massachusetts

C. A. No. 08 - 10950 -
GAO

___________________________________________________________________________
_____

Before George A. O’Toole, Jr., United States District Judge.

1. JURISDICTIONAL & GOOD CAUSE BACKGROUND

a. This appeal is from the US District Court’s Order/
Memorandum (hereto attached) dated 9/24/2008 held and served on the
Appellant by unsealed or opened envelope prepaid regular mail on
Tuesday, October 7, 2008. This Order/Memorandum of The US District
Court, Boston, MA is entered against Appellant’s Notice of Appeal
and
Amended Notice of Appeal with unwarranted claim of lack of “subject
matter Jurisdiction” and “determination of good cause.”

b. Appellant requests this Court to rely on the
submissions in paragraphs 1 to 34 including relief of Appellant‘s
Amended Notice of Appeal and request reference to several other
submissions to the US District Court and Boston Housing Authority.

c. Contrary to the assertion of the US District Court
relating to lack of “good

Ofume family v. BHA

cause and subject matter jurisdiction” thus, prior to proceeding to
US District Court, Appellant exhausted Appellee/Defendant’s three
grand administrative mechanisms to relief Appellee any forms of
administrative immunities under M.G.L.c. 258, sections 1, 2, 3, 4,
and
10(c). See Ofume family v. Nancy & Salvatore Vigorito et al 07-
CV-00178 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to M.G.L.c. 258,
sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10(c) - Decision : Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss Denied

d. Appellant is not pleading sympathy judgment because of
the conditions of other pro se or lack of the ability to respect the
operating rules of procedure as pleaded in Cecil Brown, Appellant,
v.
Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., and Division of Employment
Security, Respondents. Cecil Brown appears and proceeded pro se.
Appellant is pro se that believes that pro se must comply with the
operating rules and that pro se must not be granted unnecessary
preferential treatment through out particular proceeding.

e. US District Court’s unfocused “subject matter and
cognizable Jurisdiction” which is limited to only two questions but
in
place of reviewing these fact, law and jurisdiction, the Court
launched unconditional and irrelevant preemptive reviews leading to
NOWHERE. The questions raised is simply located in paragraphs 28 to
34
of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal. The US District Court
failed to do simple computation on different cognizable jurisdictions
available pursuant to M.G.L.c. 258, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10(c) on
first part and Cause of Action on second part.

f. In relieving the Defendant all administrative
immunities, Appellant completed all the three (3) administrative
appeals and appearing BEFORE the hearing officers constituted by the
office of the Appellee and also hearing on notice based on
submissions
of parties without physical presence of parties as follows:

i. BHA Occupancy Department - decision appealed to #ii;

ii. BHA Hearing Officer - decision appealed to #iii; AND

iii. BHA Reconsideration Officer - decision appealed to US
District Court.

Ofume family v. BHA

Nos. i, ii, and iii are full jurisdictions available under M.G.L.c.
258, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and

10(c) and the issue of Subject Matter Jurisdiction was sufficiently
raised.

g. During the above mentions administrative appeals and
hearings,
Appellee denied over 95% of the documentary and other evidences
submitted by the Appellant in support of its case.

2. QUESTION RAISED BY THE US DISTRICT COURT DISPUTED

Demonstration of Good Cause” in both federal and local
pleadings, preference is made for factual statement more than mere
legal preposition or argumentative and repetitive statement of
allegation that defendant or plaintiff, “failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted” or averring in opposition to continually
and endlessly restating, “subjective characterizations or conclusory
descriptions of a general scenario which could be dominated by
unpleaded facts.”

Appellant appeals US District Court’s failure to see
scores of arguable issues; special circumstances; disputed issues of
fact or law; irreparable harms and damages relating to
“demonstration
of good cause which triggered question as to whether the Appellee has
locus standi to travel oversea in search of references/
recommendations
on applicant (Appellant) for fair housing application in country
where
US government has found that Appellant suffered persecution or
torture
on first part and subject matter jurisdiction,” US District Court
did
not take notice that the Appellant is Refugee and Stateless person
and
thst Appellant’s case falls within federal jurisdiction and that
Appellant has exhausted all administrative mechanism under M.G.L.c.
258, sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10(c) and further appeal must go to
federal court which is The US District Court.

The questions raised by the US District Court on
demonstration of good

Ofume family v. BHA

cause and subject matter jurisdiction are further opposed by the
Appellant as follows:

a. Demonstration of good cause

i. Demonstration of good cause domestically (United States of
America) - Application for Fair Housing requires ONLY filling out and
filing federal housing application forms and get recommendations/
references from applicant’s landlords and neighborhood. Appellant got
and met 100% of these prerequisites and requirements but the Appellee
ignored United Nations Reports and US laws and traveled oversea in
search of housing recommendations/references against the Appellant in
the country (Canada) where the Appellant suffered persecution or
torture. See US District Court case file C. A. No. 08 - 10950 - GAO
and US Court of Appeal, First Circuit Docket No. 08-1450 containing
the Decisions of the Government of the United States of America
dated
September 29, 2005 and October 7, 2005 including 1-94 dated October
12, 2005; excellent recommendations/references issued on the
Appellant by US base landlords and neighbors; the Reports of the
United Nations; etc (see #ii below).

ii. In Canada, Appellant (Ofume family) was home owner the major
part of over six (6) years of the family’s temporary residency and
on
December 17, 2003 to forcibly move the family to one of the Canadian
government’s poisonous gas chambers, the Canadian government seized
and impounded the family’s private home (8 Edwin Ford Court Bedford
Nova Scotia Canada B4A 4B6), properties, goods and cash valued over
$11 million. See the following cases:

CANADIAN CASES

“Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia Nos. C.A.
No.
178078;…20

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia S.H. No. 194319;
…………20

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia S.H. No.
165814;
…………20

Ofume family v. BHA

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Canada SCC File: 29476;
……………..20

Ofume v. CIBC, Inc. The Supreme Court of Canada SCC No. 30054;
……………….
20”

UNITED NATIONS REPORTS

The unconscionable and unreasonable conducts of the Appellee are
unlimited because rationally onlookers know that in country where
this
gruesome persecution or torture has occurred, Appellee will not get
good recommendations/references on the Appellant and that the journey
to Canada is malicious waste of tax money. Appellee rejected all the
excellent references and recommendation issued by US base landlord
and
neighbors and relied on these foreign reference and recommendation
to
deny Appellant’s fair housing applications.

iii. Paragraphs 28 - 34 of Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal, In
breach of Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 37 (e), the Defendant (BHA)
…”
disrespected and ignored the decision of the United States of America
dated September 29, 2005 and October 7, 2005 and 1-94 dated October
12, 2005 granting Appellant Asylum including CREDIBLE FEAR OF TORTURE
OR PERSECUTION which Appellant suffered in Nigeria, Togo and Canada;
“…
and recommendations and references of the US base landlords or
property owners and neighbors. Shocking that Appellee spent tax money
to travel faraway oversea in country (Canada) where the Appellant/
Plaintiff fear and suffered torture, death threat and persecution to
get property owner’s recommendations and references before public
housing could granted the Appellant in US.”

iv. In page 2 of the decision appealed to US District Court, the
BHA
confirmed that “all

Ofume family v. BHA

the landlords and property managers in US issued impressive
recommendations and

references on the Appellant.”

iv. Subparagraph 2 (a) (i)(ii) (iii) above is important failure of
patriotism and lesser or loss of trust in the American government,
law, landlords and neighbors and neighborhood.

b. Subject matter jurisdiction - Two Questions Raised

i. Whether case relating to Refugee and stateless person are not
federal cases and which court is legal court of record to take cases
of refugee and stateless person. To enable the US District Court
claim full jurisdiction of the appeal from the decision of the
Appellee’s last or final administrative mechanism or resort which is
the RECONSIDERATION OFFICER was attached but the US District Court
failed to peruse and review this important evidence.

ii. After Appellant had exhausted all administrative mechanisms and
the next Court of record is US District Court. Appellant has reviewed
the jurisdictions of the Immigration Court, Massachusetts Superior
Court, Northeast Housing Court and Supreme Court of the United States
(with the exception of that The Supreme Court of the United States
has
acknowledged receipt of the Appellant’s case and under going other
process) and found no convenient and legal jurisdiction. Other courts
listed in this appeal have denied jurisdiction.

iii. The Appellant/Plaintiff, Ofume family is resident of Lynn of
Massachusetts of the United States, Refugee, Stateless person, fire
incident homeless person, Zero-income persons, New Immigrant and Fire
incident persons that lost several properties, documents and goods.
See paragraphs 1 - 34 of the Appellant’s Amended Notice of Appeal.

iv. In paragraph 1 of the Order appealed, without reference to a
“recognizable subject itself” how is possible to talk about
“recognizable jurisdiction.” Question of “subject

Ofume family v. BHA

matter Jurisdiction” under Fair Housing is straight issue and must be
raised as to, whether the Appellee/Defendant is not one of the
agencies which receives federal funding under the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). The answer is “Yes.” Appellee/
Defendant is one of the agencies which receives federal funding under
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). Likely
victims are homeless, elderly, people with disabilities and the
working poor. Appellant /Plaintiff falls within these victim
categories. The Northeast Housing Court, Lawrence, MA rejected the
appeal by Plaintiff’s telephone call and reason of want of “subject
matter Jurisdiction.”

v. Additionally, HUD enforces Fair Housing (Congress enactment
1968) on racial discrimination and also HUD enforces many programs
directed towards vulnerable people including Appellant (homeless and
poor people) and people with disabilities, the elderly, family
status,
religion, etc.

vi. The Congress warned all providers not to take several harmful
actions against all applicants which include but not limited to
providing different terms to different people; setting different
conditions or privileges for sales or rentals of a property;
discriminating in appraising property; making housing unavailable;
etc. Reviewing the positions of the Appellant’s political rivals,
this subparagraph is the core reason why the US District Court stop
Appellant’s appeal from moving forward because Appellant intends to
launch a massive interrogatories, answers, special discovery and
production on the Appellee up to over 10 years housing applications
(denied and granted) in cases affecting Asians, Arabs, Blacks,
Filipinos, Indians (indigenous and recent), Whites, etc.

3. REVIEW OF RULES OF PLEADING AND PREMATURE

DISMISSAL OF CASE BEFORE TRIAL

a. Appellant adequately respected Rule 84.04(d) of the
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an appellant's brief must
contain points relied on that contain "(1)

Ofume family v. BHA

a concise statement of the challenged ruling of the trial court, (2)
the rule of law which the trial court should have applied, and (3)
the
evidentiary basis upon which the asserted rule is applicable." Zakibe
v. Ahrens and McCarron, Inc., 28 S.W.3d 373, 388 (Mo. App. 2000).
"The
requirements of Rule 84.04(d) are mandatory and must be strictly
applied." Martin v. Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, 580 S.W.
2d
307, 308 (Mo. App. 1978) (citation omitted).

b. Appellant has also respected local rules, such as
Massachusetts
Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 9 and 12. These rules have warned
Plaintiff and Defendant that any “short, succinct and plainly stated
answer and affirmative defenses” must make effort to advance a clear
path to open sentence in such manner as to open mind notice or to
give
recipients (plaintiff, defendant and onlookers) activity notice upon
which they may act to confront the emerging issue for or against.
Particularly, under Mass. R. Civ. Proc., Rules 9 and 12 there are
some
exceptional cases. Mass. R. Civ. Proc. 9: Averments of fraud,
mistake, durees or undue influence, the circumstance s constituting
fraud, mistakes, undue influence and coercing or duress must be
pleaded with particularity and notice on the opposing parties.
Rectitude, intent, malice, and other condition of mind may be pleaded
generally with understandable statement at law. Appellant/
Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal is not general mindset.

c. Under federal and local rules of civil procedures, no Rule
waives the responsibility of parties to clarify issue of law and fact
but they are laws that sanction phrase, encrypt and meaningless sign
statement and language such as the US District Court has pronounced
demonstration of good cause and subject matter jurisdiction without
explaining issues of fact and law in paragraphs 1 and 2 above and
paragraphs 1 to 34 of the Appellant Amended Notice of Appeal which is
deficit of clarity as to reason Appellant ‘s appeal must fail in both
good cause and subject matter jurisdiction.

Ofume family v. BHA

d. Position of the Court is in breach of Federal Rules of
Civil
Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)(2)(3). Order appealed (attached) shows that
the United States District Court or Judge did not review paragraphs 1
to 34 including relief of Appellant‘s Amended Statement of Appeal
which contains several arguable issues; special circumstances;
disputed issues of fact or law; irreparable harms and damages with
excellent match on demonstration of good cause and subject matter
jurisdiction.

e. The decision appealed failed the test of transparent review
on good cause and subject matter jurisdiction and shamed any
constitutional judiciary when the Court show no good cause for
dismissing the Appellant’s appeal to allow the Appellee to swing on
top of nothing to make illegal law by holding that housing
authority
in the United States has the power to reject US base law guiding
housing application and eligibility and travel faraway to borrow
foreign law where the applicant suffered persecution, torture,
racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia, poisonous gas, etc to process
application for fair housing in the United State. This enormous
insult
and bad slap on the face of US exemplary judicial system.

f. There is failure of the US District Court to know the federal
collar and decoration of the jurisdiction of Refugee and Stateless
person in the United States or simple question at issue as to whether
states across the United States have the judicial power to entertain
the determination of the rights and status of refugees and stateless
persons officially adopted by the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees (UNHCR) and supported by NGOs including The Amnesty
International (Int. Secretariat, London UK). All these documents
relating to these evidences were submitted to the Appellee and became
part of Appellant‘s brief.

g. The Decision of the US District Court, which dismissed the
entire FORMA PAUPERIS and PRO SE litigations is challenged in
Denton,
Director of Corrections of

Ofume family v. BHA

California, et al. v. Hernadez, maybe referenced to contest the
action
of the present US District Court (2008). The Court of Appeals on
remand from this Court for consideration, the Court's intervening
decision in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U. S. 319, held that an informa
pauperis complaint may lack good cause of action if nothing
evidential directed on the cause of action either brief or presented
otherwise or branded " frivolous [under § 1915(d)] where it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact," id., at 325.

h. But the US District Court has annunciated almost the same
barrage of outright lawlessness to the extent that as domesticated
or
US groomed law remains operative and in-charge of application for
fair
housing in the United States, the present (2008) US District Court
has empowered housing authorities to waste tax money to travel
oversea to import strange law to facilitate approval of the
application for fair housing in the United States. The oversea
subpoena which has not gone down well in US law courts was condemned
in subparagraph 2 (a)(ii) above before the defendant proceeded to
this
foreign country (Canada) where the Appellant suffered torture and
political persecution including seizure of the Appellant’s private
home (8 Edwin Ford Court, Bedford Nova Scotia Canada B4A 4B6),
properties, goods and cash valued over $11 million (12/17/2003).

i. Further question maybe asked as to whether case administrative
or management Court prior to issuing summons and bringing opposition
into the case, has sufficient judicial review power to resolve this
type of Appeal with scores of physical and other evidences /exhibits
including technical and scientific and constitutional issues which
may require expert evidence; eyewitnesses, interrogatories and
production, authorities including children, men and women that have
suffered the paid cruelty of the defendants and as result of
dangerous
shelter and homelessness.

j. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion for what
they called a unanimous

Court. Robert S. Spear argued the cause for petitioners. Linley E.
Pearson, Attorney

Ofume family v. BHA

General of Indiana, and David A. Nowak, Deputy Attorney General were
said to be on the briefs. George A. Rutherglen, by appointment of
the
Court, 488 U.S. 939 , argued the cause and filed a brief for
respondent. The question at issue presented is whether a complaint
filed in forma pauperis which fails to state a claim under 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. ”

k. Related question maybe presented as to whether
administrative screen actions of case management Court is not
sometimes similar to initiation of premature summary judgment by any
plaintiff, defendant, intervenor, law court, etc to terminate case or
action with arguable issues; special circumstances; disputed issues
of fact or law [Justice Tidman in Fancy (B.F.) Construction Ltd. v.
Alta. Surety Co. ]; irreparable harms and damages prematurely prior
to
trial.

4. CONCLUSION

THEREFORE, reason of the foregoing, Appellant
request this Court to dismiss the US District Court’s Order/
Memorandum
(hereto attached) dated 9/24/2008 held and served on the Appellant by
unsealed or opened envelope prepaid regular mail on October 7, 2008.

By claiming that the US District Court or US
federal courts lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Refugee and
stateless person and Congress enactment or HUD’s cases or programs
and
case where direct and indirect or sub federal agencies neglected the
laws of the United States and wasted tax money to travel oversea to
look for what Appellee called better or fairer laws, Judge of the US
District Court or US District Court has the intention to fabricate
abstract or new and incorrect law in the United States and acclaim
Appellee hero of the United States.

Ofume family v. BHA

Finally, reason that the entire Order/
Memorandum appealed failed to proof by proper legislative
circumstances relating to lack of good cause and subject matter
jurisdiction, accordingly Appellant request that judgment be entered
for the Appellant.

Respectfully submitted, this 25th day of October 2008

________________

Phillip Ofume, Ph.D. - Representative/Advocate for the Appellant or
Ofume family

Ofume family v. BHA i