IN THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR
THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________________________________________________
Civil
Appeal Docket No._____________________
Civil Docket No. of Court below: 12-11325-FDS
______________________________________________________
PHILLIP
OFUME
APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
v.
AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION
FOR
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION (AAAA)
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
____________________________________________________________________
Petition
for Review from the Decision of The US
District
Court of the District of Massachusetts Civil Appeal
No. 12-11325-FDS
__________________________________________________________
Before The Honourable Justice F. Dennis Saylor IV United
States District Judge claimed the following that Appellant’s “Action is
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted” and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) is
cited verbatim below.
A. MAJOR
REASON REVIEW IS INEVITABLE
1. Strongly Appellant oppose the decision of
the Judge to far extent that allowing only 72 rich and wealthy members of AAAA
to vote during national election to elect their President and disfranchised or
sanction 928 members of AAAA who are poor and indigent are fundamental human
rights and constitutional rights issues ( in the United States and world in
general) extremely sufficient to exert a “claim upon which relief can be
granted” including in the
most corrupt judicial system of the civilized and uncivilized democratic worlds.
B. OTHER REASONS REVIEW MUST BE
TAKEN
2.
Pursuant to the electoral democracy of the United States of America, wealth,
payment of due and tax can not disfranchised the citizens of this land from
casting their vote during any election. On December 16, 2011 the
rights of the Presidential candidate and electorates were sanctioned by the
Respondent because they are poor people and this action is barred under the
1
constitution of the
United States and United Nations International laws. Therefore based on this
unwarranted action the Decision appealed should be reversed in its entirety and
with prejudice which will extend to annulment of December 16, 2011 Presidential
Election, appointment management committee or the elected First Deputy President to run the
affairs of the presidency of the AAAA and process to re-run December 16, 2011
presidential election between the incumbent and Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume.
Americans or extreme majority (over 95%) of the members of AAAA found that only
the Appellant, Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume of the two nominees for President of
AAAA is capable to reform AAAA which has remain ineffective since 1974 without
progress in the intended target communities and the strands of the mandate of
the organization.
C. PRELIMINARY
ARGUMENT ON CAUSE OF ACTION
3. The Honourable Justice F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge believes that AAAA must continue to be pleaded on
behalf target communities and by themselves for equity or right equality and be
given peanut under race, ethnicity and related path and that in the
United States right to vote during democratic election must be based on wealth,
riches and payment of taxes and dues and poor people have no right to vote.
American election laws stated below disagree that these decorations are
not pre-requisites to qualify to vote during democratic election in the United
States. In perusing the reason given by Judge Saylor, Appellant found
that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) is contrary to the subject
matter of the Complaint of the Appellant and should not be used to
obstruct this Complaint from proceeding to trial. This type of sanction created
pitfall for Governor Mitt Romney in the states where there are Voters ID law.
The content of 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1915(e)(2) is as weak as following:
(e) (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any
portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that—
As Plaintiff/Appellant has correctly argued in
paragraphs 29 through 31 below, under the directions of the Courts and
several Judges of the United States, The Honourable Justice F. Dennis Saylor IV
has only one option which is order for Amendment if necessary.
4.
And/or if this beautiful and merit Complaint failed to satisfy this
Judge’s personal interest, two options are opened to the Judge, thus
order the Appellant to Amend his Complaint on the first part and order for
service under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1915(e)(1) which any Judge in US
Courts has right to do for unrepresented litigants or Pro se on second part but
this Judge did not use these remedies to save human rights or fundamental
rights of the electorates and aggrieved candidate for President of
2
OFUME V. AAAA
the AAAA, rule of law,
democratic process in America, etc.
“28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e) (1) The court may request an attorney to represent any person
unable to afford counsel.”
5. But
according to the voting rights legislation and the Constitution of
the United States 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1915(e)(2) are not sufficient to dismiss Appellant’s Complaint which
is severe forms of obstruction to implement democratic process to get a
leader elected by the people in the United States and world in general.
6.
December 16, 2011 Election to elect (Dr. Phillip C. Ofume or AAAA
incumbent President, Mr. Gregory T. Chambers). The election was rigged by
obstruction, sanction and censorship and the entire process and procedure of
democratic election were breached and Election and Voting Rights Acts and
constitutional Amendments on right to vote of the United States listed
above/below were flagrantly abused. Extreme majority of the Voters were
sanctioned to the limited extent that only 72 rich and wealthy members of over
1000 members were allowed to vote and all the poor people were not allowed to
vote. Below Appellant/Complainant seeks permanent and temporary injunctive
relief to annul the December 16, 2011 election and re-re-run this election to
enable over 1000 members to elect candidate of their choice. Additionally,
Appellant sought a declaratory order that democratic election in the United States cannot
be governed by riches and wealth and poor people cannot be deprived because of
the inability to pay membership dues and taxes.
D. PRACTICAL
QUESTION FOR REVIEW
7.
Whether action of the Defendant, AAAA did not violate U.S. Voting
Rights Acts 1957, 1965 and 1982; United States Code TITLE 2. THE CONGRESS
Subchapter 1 Sec. 434 (f) (Disclosure of Electioneering Communications); 5th,
14th, 15th, 24th, etc Amendments of the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the
United States of America;
8.
Whether the presiding Judge erred under Pro se condition of the
Appellant in the court below and other courts across the United State when the
Judge failed to allow Appellant to amend his Complaint if necessary.
9.
Whether failure to pay tax and dues, (24th Amendment of the Constitution of the
U.S,), poverty and lack of money and other wealth could create
disenfranchisement on right to vote in the election to elect President and
other elective offices in the United States.
3
OFUME V. AAAA
E. STATEMENT
OF FACT
10.
On before June there was strong outcry that since 1974 the AAAA has made no
progress based on its intended mandate in the United States of America. Over
1000 members desire change to response to failure of equity or equal rights in
education, healthcare, employment, and majority of the services across the
United States. In the U.S. only the
Appellant was selected to realize this great change.
11. In
Nigeria same call is mark up and the citizens there want the Appellant to be
the President of Nigeria 2015. His campaign for the President of Nigeria 2015
is located at: ofume-woman.tumblr.com
12. In
the United States on the bid for the National President of AAAA, Complainant
researched and investigated the snail progress of the AAAA, 1974 - present and
found that there is no progress measurable with the long period and resources
pumped into the Association particularly that the past and present work of the
association is fruitless and a strong delay to the development of the target communities
because equity in education, employment, housing, healthcare, etc are pleaded
under race, ethnicity, color, etc which are contradictory (see campaign for
President of AAAA manifesto of the Complainant below). The manifesto drew wide
array of support within and outside the membership of AAAA and Complainant was
regarded as “Messiah” for the focus communities which AAAA services are
directed.
13.
Complainant designed and developed a mechanism of
change reliant on fact and evidence that Affirmative Action in 20th, 21st, etc
centuries can not continue to be pleaded under race, color, ethnicity and
related decoration without competitiveness pursuant to standard of education or
access and realization of quality and standard education pre-k-12 et als in the
predominantly non-white schools or Urban and Mixed Urban schools which will
create a physical human turnout with A/A+/B+ to join other candidates that
compete for best pre-k - tertiary institutions across the United States which
are pathway to earn the requisites to further join the grand competition for
jobs to break the longstanding color and race vested national oligarchies in
education and employment.
14. Letter of Nomination
for National Office of the President was written, issued and sent by Attorney
Shirley Wilcher (Executive Director of AAAA) dated October 25, 2011.
Complainant, Dr. Ofume was nominated to contest for the President of the AAAA.
Dr. Ofume accepted the nomination and presented the credentials located at:
4
OFUME V. AAAA
14.a.
14.b.
14.c.
14.d.
14.f.
14.g.
14.h.
14.i.
14.j.
15. Completed
prerequisite questionnaire and other submissions and submitted within allowed
time frame on November 7, 2011 and Complainants’ name and other particulars
were submitted
5
OFUME V. AAAA
on November 6, 2011 and
placed on the ballot and ready for voting immediately. http://phillyimc.org/en/event/vote-dr-phillip-chukwuma-ofume-president-a... EXHIBIT
D
16. Between October 2011
and date of this Complaint, Complainant has written and telephoned the
corporate headquarters of the Respondent to request for the demographic
statistical data to enable him know the total physical population of the
members of the Respondent and after several months, Respondent summarily wrote,
"members of AAAA is about 1000". Thereafter, second round of
communications remain stocked without further communication to disclosure
complete membership population figure of Respondent's organization.
17. Respondent refused
to disclose complete region by region membership statistics or demographic data
of the population of the members of AAAA to enable candidates campaigning for
different offices including President know the number of voters and majority of
the members of AAAA was deprived of the right to vote to elect candidates of
their choice.
18. Several months after
the national election December 16, 2011 members were told that AAAA members are
about 1000 and shocking, only 72 rich and wealthy members were allowed to vote
on December 16, 2011 and over 928 member were deprived the right to vote for
the candidates of their choice.
F. ARGUMENT
19. Respondent's
national election which was conducted on December 16, 2011 is one of the most
fraudulent and voters sanctioned elections in the United States of America on
before and after 1789 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/
georgewashington)
and permanent injunction must be granted to annul the election conducted on
December 16, 2011and thereafter upon granting the Order sought, Complainant
request this Court to re-run this election to use proper electoral remedy under
the Right to Vote Act and the Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States to include over 928 voters unlawfully sanctioned on before December 16,
2011.
20. Restating that ONLY 72 rich and wealthy
voters were allowed to vote. The Complainant, Dr. Phillip Ofume and the
incumbent national President, Mr. Gregory T. Chambers and other aggrieved
candidates will be presented to re-run the contest and must be observed by the
domestic and international observers because there is doubt that this election
is similar to the
6
OFUME V. AAAA
election conducted
before 1957.
21. Under this
dictatorial and anti-democracy election which was conducted on December 16,
2011, only 72 rich and wealthy members were allowed to vote out of over 1000
members disclosed so far by the Respondent. Over 928 potential members were
sanctioned and deprived right to vote to elect their candidates. 72 rich and
wealthy members were allowed to vote and incumbent President will be imposed on
them as their leader or president without their votes. Onlookers asked whether
America is still below the base line as an under-developed democracy.
22. The result was
delayed as if 72 voters are difficult to count and winner (incumbent president)
was declared winner after several days sequel final voting by 72 rich, wealthy
and high class members on December 16, 2011. In a transparent election in which
only 72 Voters voted would not take more than 1hour to declare winner but they
wasted several days to declare and release the result.
23. The interest to
impose incumbent on voters continues to ensue and fortified under delay tactics
created to delay disclosure of the major electioneering communications which include
but unlimited to full data of the head count of the members of the AAAA. This
delay jumped the time to file this Complaint. The full membership population
data of the members of the AAAA has not been disclosed and Complainant seeks
Order of this Commission on Respondent to disclose the full number of the
members of the AAAA. The Court below
wasted several months to send the decision appealed.
24. Adequately
constructed that the action of the Respondent violates the U.S. Voting Rights
Act 1957; Voting Rights Act 1982; United States Code TITLE 2. THE CONGRESS
Subchapter 1 Sec. 434 (f) (Disclosure of Electioneering Communications); Voting
Rights Acts 1965 - June 1982 efforts made by the lawmakers of the United States
to right that wrong of straining right to vote or when millions of Americans
(including AAAA members) were prevented in the 21st century from voting same
way their parents and others were sanctioned before 1957. With great shock that
they continue to be prevented and denied the right to vote because they are
under district, regional, county, state and federal poverty level and they are
outside the rich, wealthy and upper classes; "The right is one which no
American, true to our principles, can deny" (President Lyndon B. Johnson -
08/06/2965); 14th, 15th, and 24th Amendments of the Constitution of the United
States, and see the case,Mobile v. Bolden (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals).
25. Further argued that
action of the Respondent ignores the determination in Bolden v. Mobile, 571
F.2d 238, 243 (5th Cir. 1978), Complainant based his disenfranchisement claim
on the
7
OFUME V. AAAA
constitutional risk that
electoral procedures, such as at-large systems in which one candidate is
elected by a majority of those voting, may be used to "dilute," or to
break down the voting power of an election where rich and poor are struggling
to out-fight themselves (Id. at 243 n. 3) but the decision makers of AAAA or
respondent ignored all the Voting Right Acts, 1957, 1965 and 1982 and
sanctioned members with lay excuse reliant on poor and rich sub-division as if
these Acts and amendments of the constitution of the United States were
worthless or not made at all.
26. From all
indications, voters want change under the power of their votes because
Complainant will make the milestone which is unmade since 1974. The changes,
innovation and development fortitude stated in paragraphs 14 have energized
over 928 voters to persuade the Complainant to proceed to file this appeal.
Several voters pleaded to the Complainant not to send them e-mail and other
messages including the social media because their employers will fire them if
they uncover the relationship between Complainant and them (intended voters).
Majority of these intimidated voters are adopted in several tertiary institutions
with the rank of director of the embedded “AAAA” which is an institutionalized
AAAA . They are very scared because they are under the service and answerability
of white masters and bosses.
27. Over 98% of the AAAA
membership voters was urban and mixed urban colonies. The concentration of the
voters interested in Dr. Phillip C. Ofume's magnetic program of change and
progress won the heart of over 97.9% of the AAAA members' Votes on December 16,
2011 but right to vote was sanctioned under the auspice of wealth and the
moneyed swag of big or multi-billion dollars members. They (anti-change
members) feared change because the rich, wealth and upper class think that the
urban and mixed urban communities will emerge to take theeir job, congress of
the United States, Presidency, good life services, etc because of his
(complainant's) powerful AAAA International New Era Movement for Change (NEMC)
effective 2012 and in part located at:
28.a.
28.b.
28. c.
8
OFUME V. AAAA
28. d.
28.e.
28.f.
28.g.
28.h.
28.i.
28.j.
28.k.
28.l.
Dr. Ofume 's waterproof
mandate 2011 AND 2015:
28.m.
foreign opposition
because of this, http://universal-fashion-art-music.blogspot.com/2011/07/america-uk-and-s...
28.n.
9
OFUME V. AAAA
28.0.
29. In certain
cases (pro se and related others), correctly argued that it’s sufficient for a
Complaint to prevail or advance to trial:
In this type of Complaint several
judgments and courts including The Supreme Court of the United States ordered
that if court or Judge can reasonably read the submissions, it should do so
despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories,
poor syntax and sentence construction, or litigant's unfamiliarity with rule
requirements. Now here comes, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 102 S.Ct. 700,
70 L.Ed.2d 551 (1982); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50
L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2
L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972); McDowell v. Delaware State
Police, 88 F.3d 188, 189 (3rd Cir. 1996); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 42
(3rd Cir. 1992); Then v. I.N.S., 58 F.Supp.2d 422, 429 (D.N.J. 1999). But this Plaintiff,
Dr. Phillip C. Ofume has worked through
several courts in Canada and US and after the highest courts in these countries
Plaintiff made mark at the United Nations by winning Government of Canada. Dr.
Ofume has interest in U.S., Canadian, UK, French, Russian and Nigerian laws and
particularly Dr. Ofume started reading, researching, investigating, learning,
writing and practicing U.S. law since August 1989 and right now he has visited
over 45 U.S. states and also mastering their laws.
30. Under Rule
12(b)(6), the "complaint should not be dismissed merely because in part
defendants are crown of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the defendants assume that the allegations do
not support the particular legal theory they personally imagine. The court is as usual under oath
of duty to examine the complaint to
determine if the allegations contain claim which contain substance which they
miscontructed in their mind by assumption. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S.
186, 201 (1986) (emphasis supplied). Consideration added in Pro se case is
different but Plaintiff's complaints
match formal complaints filed by attorney of record.
31. The cases
re-cited below maybe able to solve the concerns of the defendants:
31.a. Further
question in issue is whether is even necessary that a " plaintiff or
defendant request appropriate relief, properly setout caselaws and formulate
legal theories, categorically organize point by point to create legal theory
as lawmaker ought to do. Toll v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129,
1134 (7th Cir., 1992). In accordance with the Mass. Superior Court Rules 8 and
7 clearly state initial complaint
10
OFUME V. AAAA
does not require to
point to appropriate status or law to raise a claim for relief; complaint
sufficiently states a claim even if it points to no legal theory or even if it
points to wrong legal theory, as long as "relief is possible under any set
of facts that could be established consistent with the allegations")
(emphasis supplied).
31.b. The Defendants or other moving parties for dismissal must show
"beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim [that] would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S.
41, 45-46. (emphasis supplied).
31.c. Moreover,
the likelihood that a plaintiff will ultimately prevail on his claims has no
place in determining whether or not to grant a motion to dismiss. Scheuer v.
Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) (issue is not whether plaintiff will prevail
but whether claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support claims)
31.d. Additionally,
when making a determination as to the sufficiency of a complaint, initial
pleadings must be construed liberally. United States v. Uvalde Consol. Indep.
Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1890). This is especially true for a
pro se Complaint under Haines v. Kerner et al., 404 U.S. 519
G. CONCLUSION/RELIEF
32. The Decision appealed should be reversed in
its entirety and with prejudice to stay the performance of the incumbent. Other Order which should extend to annulment
of December 16, 2011 Presidential Election, appointment of interim management committee or the elected First Deputy President to run the
affairs of the presidency of the organization pending the determination of this
Court. Urgent process be commenced to
re-run December 16, 2011 presidential election between the incumbent and Dr.
Phillip Chukwuma Ofume.
33. Therefore, from all angles the findings
of the Probable Cause Presiding Judge were clearly erroneous and should be
reversed because they (findings) have damaged the placidity of U.S. democracy
and its global influence and also the findings are good for making dangerous
laws for America/Americans.
Respectfully submitted,
11
OFUME V. AAAA
_________________________
PhillipC.Ofume, Ph.D., Plaintiff
41 Gallivan Boulevard,
Dorchester, MA 02124
Tel. (781) 479-9027
E-mail: ofume.phillip@gmail.com,limptintinc@gmail.com
Mailing Address:
P. O. Box 2416
Lynn, MA 01903
SUPPORTED
BY:
LIMPT, INC.
& IMUN, INC. PROJECT (EDU., HUMAN RIGHTS, INSURANCE CORP., LAW REFORM &
LITIGATION PROJECT - INTL. CHAPTER); INTL. COALITION FOR PRO SE/UNSIGNED LAWYERS & GLOBAL CLASS ACTION PROJECT; DR.
PHILLIP C. OFUME & ASSOCIATES; INTL. ENDOWMENT
FOR DEMOCRACY; FOSTER/ADOPTIVE/ ORPHANAGE & CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE NUCLEAR
AND EXTENDED FAMILIES
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D.
International
Coordinator (Strategic
Policy/Practice
of Politics of Unification and Unification Politics), U.S. Coordinator
( LIMPT,
INC. (HUMAN RIGHTS, LAW REFORM & LITIGATION
PROJECT - INTL. CHAPTER), Nominee for President of American
Association of Affirmation Action
(AAAA – 2012)
Godson Etiebet, Ph.D.
Researcher on Policy/Practice of Good Government
Cynthia H. Taylor, Ph.D.
International Collaboration Developer
Alh. (Dr.) Farruk Mohammad -
Strategic Policy Researcher
Tan Ochollu, D.Lit. -
Expansion Project Developer
Reid MacDonald, Ph.D. -
Strategic Program Developer
Jerome Tesfai, D. Min/Div - Domestic Intervention Strategist
Francois Bourgeois & Pierre
Bushel - International Human Rights
Watch and Democracy
AFRICAN CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS
ASSOCIATION (ACHRA);
NETLINK INTERNATIONAL
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM (NLICS);
INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR
NIGERIAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION AND DEMOCRACY(ICN-PLD);
12
OIL AND CHEMICAL WATCH
INTERNATIONAL (OCWI);
AFRICAN CANADIAN IMMIGRANT
SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION (ACISA);
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR PEACE
AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRIK (NIPAD).
LIMPT, INC. (EDUCATION AND
WORKFORCE PROJECT ET ALS)
MOVEMENT FOR EMANCIPATION OF THE
NIGER DELTA (MEND)
INTERNATIONAL
MOVEMENT FOR NEW FEDERAL UNION OF NIGERIA (IMUN, INC.
13
No comments:
Post a Comment