Ofume v. George W. Bush et al - The Supreme Court of the United States - No. 08-8873
searchgroup
- 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; special circumstances; disputed issues of fact or law;
irreparable harms and damages. Under case search, Petitioner re-
cite, District Court ignored Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) and The Supreme Judicial Court’s Judicial Guidelines for Civil
Hearing Involving Pro se (April 28, 2006). Other case laws and
regulations expanded this sanction with more impetus and gravity. See
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and The Supreme Judicial
Court’s Judicial Guidelines for Civil Hearing Involving Pro se (April
28, 2006).
REASONS FOR ALLOWING THE PETITION
In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner states the following:
The Petitioner has already presented the question that the
action of the Court below is aimed at unmaking law and at the same
time inside of court of record reversing several case laws of this
Court and other US District Court and US Court of Appeals on
immunities, as such the action of the courts below must be dismissed
by granting this Petition.
This an exceptionally question of federal and
state
laws that in part has not been heard in this Court but should be
resolved by this Court, and on which the courts below are in strong
dispute as follows:
a. ONLY 28 U.S.C. s. 1915(e)(2) was 100% power
shield to dismiss Appellant’s Statement of Complaint and/or all the
Defendants were granted “amnesty” erroneously pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
s.
1915(e)(2). The positions of the respondents which are limited to 28
U.S.C. s. 1915(e)(2) are unfocused to the fact of the Complaint
because
Phillip Ofume 14
these positions are general imagination that the state and federal
parties are immune to the extent of using power in office to
dehumanize, freeze and starve innocent children and their parents to
death.
b. Specifically, in paragraph 2 of the Order (July
9,
2007) appealed, US District Court charged Petitioner for failing to
state 100% of all the claim sought without considering the lengthy
apportionment of the misconduct of each of the named Defendants
(numbered 1 to 10). The position of the Court below is in breach of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)(2)(3). Now comes the
full position of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8(a) (1)
(2)
(3) - General Rules of Pleading states following:
(a) CLAIMS FOR RELIEF. A pleading which sets forth a claim for
relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or
third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of
the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless
the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new
grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain
statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,
and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.
Relief
in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.
c. Contrary to this Rule, United States District Judge, George A.
O’Toole, Jr. said,
“On April 29, 2007, Ofume filed an amended complaint in response to
the Court’s show cause order. Although the amended complaint is not
entirely comprehensive, it is evident that Ofume attempted to clarify
his narrative of the alleged events in question and to identify the
misconduct of each of the named defendants. Nonetheless, the amended
complaint does not cure all of the deficiencies that the Court
identified in the April 24, 2007 Memorandum and Order.”
d. Also the requirement under the local rule, Massachusetts
Rules of Civil Procedure,
Phillip Ofume 15
Rules 9 and 12, states that pleading must be “short, succinct and
plainly stated… ” See 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 appellees did
not file Brief and Appendix and show any independent opposition to
Petitioner’s submissions listed in parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 above.
A. UNEVEN PRECEDENT TO ALTER POSITION OF US COURTS AND DOWNSIDE
EFFECT TO COMPARE US PRESIDENT WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS
a. There is express need for this Honourable Court to
intervene immediately and
clarify judicial boundaries and immunities which maybe enjoyed by
the
president and other executives and common person. But this Court and
US Courts have ruled on several cases which the petitioner cited in
this petition. Below US Court which is the highest US Court in
Massachusetts wants this bad faith to go round the state’s judicial
system and further setting pace to allow the corrosiveness
contaminate
other judicial system and case laws across America.
b. Under international relation, diplomacy and
cooperation,
the position of the courts below is openly set to enter declaration
that the president, governor of America and other executives 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. The decisions of this
Court and other US District Court and US Court of Appeals are not
lesson to courts below.
Phillip Ofume 16
c. Ancient and modern times, usual CONDUCT of dictators,
cruel leaders and regimes: adoption of 4th and 5th Respondents as
stated above under divide and rule and fragmentation of people and
ethnic/racial nationalities are the worst theory of dictators and
cruel leaders to steer up conflict, war and in-fighting among
brothers, sisters, neighbors, ethnic/racial groups, community and
nation in general. ONLY this case will change the mind of peoples in
Africa, Asia, Middle East, South/Central and other Americas, etc.
that
the action of the respondents is foreign to America’s constitutional
judiciary and can not be added to the standard of her judicial system
or be allowed to be consumed by unqualified immunity. This case has
unearthed reason why these peoples in America are not united; use of
natural disaster and condition to reduce and torture mark population
and political bloc; duties of president et als to save life;
mistreated; divided and ruled or polarized them; frustrated; and
crave to return to countries of origin. The daily hit (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)
is huge and it shows that the world is
interested in this case and the outcome of this case will reverse
these mindsets or that America has judicial institutions and system
to
check this dictatorship and cruelties against OTHERS. Further impact
in Nigeria of the action of the lead respondents (President George W.
Bush, DHS, Governor Mitt Romney et al) was received about four months
ago when 4th respondent vowed never to travel to Nigeria because
brothers, sisters and local communities have indirectly ex-
communicated 4th respondent for accepting the dirty and secret
businesses to be used by the lead respondents to punish fellow
innocent Nigerians (seven/six children and two parents).
B. THE DECISION BELOW CREATES A DIRECT AND VISIBLE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER WHICH MAY UNDER-CLAIM MAGNA
CARTA IN THE UNITED STATES
Reliant on this, if the Judgment and Order
petitioned are not dismissed, the action of the below Courts will
impair the past Order/Judgment/Decision of this Court, other US
District Court and US Court of Appeals on qualified immunity,
unqualified immunity and magna carta.
Phillip Ofume 17
The action of the Appellees/Respondents
violates, United States Housing Act of 1937 (Housing Act) per
enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities within the meaning of
42
U.S.C. § 1983; United States Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II 42
U.S.C. sec. 2000a(a); The Constitution of the United States of
America
- 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 or Bivens action; Eight Amendment to the United
States Constitution; 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; Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution; Chapter 111, of the General Laws, State Sanitary
Code; Chapter 11: Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation,
105 CMR 410.000; MGL 111 s. 127 - 0; etc.
It is wrong to claim that exposing children, men and
women to bitter cold and
the deadly conditions which the Petitioner’s are forced to leave
October 12, 2005 - present are not PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE
is not claim for magna carta. The decision of this Court (Supreme
Court of the United States) reminds president, governor and other
executives and their agencies of the principle leading to the
adoption
of Magna Carta in the thirteenth century with high note that in a
democratic nation no person , including president, governor and other
executives and their agencies are above the law.
On Magna Carta, this Court’s advice is simple and in
plain English Language, that a sitting president may not avoid a
civil
lawsuit merely because he/she is president. In place of this type of
unchecked immunity, president, governor and other executives and
their
agencies will enjoy immunity only where the action relates to the
official duties of the president and his/her presidency.
Phillip Ofume 18
CONCLUSION
Compelling Reason of the foregoing especially use of this Court’s
supervisory and review power and other authorities to stop damage of
good law and case law which have put close check and balance on
qualified immunity, unqualified immunity and magna carta.
, the Petition for a Writ of certiorari be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Signed hereunder: Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume
For the Petitioner or Ofume family
______________________
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative/Advocate for the
Petitioner, Ofume family
Ofu & Associates
1. I am apologizing to people that have no access to our work to get the independence of New Biafra (SS & SE) on July 3, 2017. This the day your pains and sufferings will end and you will have joy forever.
2. Click here and start reading: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/soc.org.nonprofit If you can not read call your children, relations and friends to help to open your eyes on what we are doing to get our independence since, before, during and after 1450.
3. We decided to leave Nigeria during the regime of Abacha and the UN gave us a place to stay before qwe were moved to Canada and the USA. If we were in Nigeria we would have been killed by our enemies ( Edwin Clark, Goodluck Jonathan, Orji Kalu, Obama, Cameron, Theresa May, Tony Blair, Nigeria & Foreign oil/gas companies, Olusegun Obasanjo, Francois Hollande, EU Parliament, Sergio Mattarellat, Muhd Buhari, etc.)
4. We pray to God to keep you and us alive and we will meet on July 4, 2017.
Supported, Approved, Signed (below) and Posted by:
The Endowed Prof. (Dr.) Phillip Chukwuma Ofume & Associates; AVENGERS,OJUKWU BIAFRA AVENGERS (OBA) AND OTHER CIVIL LIBERTY FIGHTERS, MOSSAB, IPOB, OHANEZE NDI IGBO, WOMEN (SS & SE), International Human Rights, International Civil Liberty Fighters, International Endowment for Democracy, & Edu/Work Force Projects & Programs (International Litigation/Advocacy /Rep./Intervenor Chapter); The First President of New Biafra (SE & SS), Hon. Nnamdi Kanu, The First Vice-President of New Biafra (SE & SS), The Endowed Prof. (Dr.) Phillip Chukwuma Ofume; etc.
