OFUME V. GEORGE W. BUSH ET AL - THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES - NO. 08-8873
Published and 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
TAB ITEMS
PAGE
FOUR GRAND QUESTIONS PRESENTE......................i-ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING………………………………...........................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................iii
OPINION BELOW………………………………....................................... I
JURISDICTION..................................¬.................2 -3
STATUTES INVOLVED………………………………....................................3- 4
FACTUAL STANDPOINT................................................4-8
QUALIFIED AND UNQUALIFIED IMMUNITIES AND MAGNACARTA 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 ofThe 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 personaldocumentations 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)………………..242 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 SanitaryCode..............17
Chapter 11: Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation,
105 CMR 410.000; MGL 111 s. 127.................................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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)