MASS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEV: DISCRIMINATE AGAINST EDUCATED NON-WHITES TO CAUSE FAMILY AND PROFESSIONAL INSTABILITIES
______________________________________________________________________
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Suffolk, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
OF THE TRIAL COURT
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.
_________________________________________________________________________
Phillip Ofume (on behalf Ofume family),
Petitioner (Pro se and Forma Pauperis)
v.
Mass Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) and Troy Lewis and RST Investment Group, Inc.
Respondents
_________________________________________________________________________________
Petition for Judicial Review from the Decision of the Agency Administrative
Hearing Officer, Ms. Barbara Boe Morgan dated on June 18, 2012,
Censored and Mailed on 11/15/2012 after Petitioner Protested and Petitioned the Agency (Exhibit A) Adm. Agency Case No. 12-0633
_________________________________________________________________________
A. RECORD AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant: Dr. Phillip C. Ofume
Respondent: DHCD
Place of Hearing: Brockton Office of the DHCD
Hearing Officer: Ms. Barbara Boe Morgan
Hearing Date: 06/18/2012
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
2
Type of Application Denied: Family with Children Emergency Assistance (EA)
Decision issued on 8/10/2012 and censored but Appellant’s petition compelled the respondent to release the decision on November 15, 2012. See EXHIBITS A & B (Decision & Mailing Envelope and date mailed)
Reason for Appeal: Denied Appellant’s Application for Emergency Assistance of Family with family with American, Canadian and Nigerian Citizenships.
Present at the Hearing:
Phillip Ofume – Appellant
Paulette Sylvia – DHCD South Shore Regional Supervisor/Dept. Rep.
Paul Bowman: Department Representative
Troy Lewis – Landlord – Rep. of RST Investment Group
Filing Date: 6/13/2012
Hearing Date: 6/18/2012
Decision Date: 8/10/2012
______________________________________________________________________________
Before, Hearing Officer, Ms. Barbara Boe Morgan of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development(DHCD) .
This Complaint is hereby given that the Petitioner, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume on behalf his Family (hereinafter, “Ofume family") in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals in nature seeking judicial review pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws CHAPTER 30(A), to this Court from the denial decision (attached – EXHIBIT A) of the Hearing Officer, Ms. Barbara Boe Morgan of the DHCD on the following grounds:
A. FACT IN SUPPORT OF REVIEW OF THE ONLY REASON WHICH GENERATED DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE (EA) : REOCCURRING PATH TO RENDER PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY 11TH HOMELESS SINCE AUGUST 2009 TO IMPEDE CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA AND CAMPAIGN FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE NIGER DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA
3
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
A.1. The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and related operatives are aware that Petitioner and his family bid for the President of Nigeria (ofume-woman.tumblr.com)
past and 2015 and that 2005 –present, the Government of the United States and Nigerian foreign and domestic oil/gas companies have adopted zero income or deadly sanction on the entire means of livelihood including homelessness as tool to impede their campaign for the President of Nigeria and civil liberties inside and outside the oil/gas rich and impoverished NIGER DELTA REGION OF NIGERIA. From Massachusetts to Virginia and back to Massachusetts, Petitioner has alerted these operatives when these oil/gas companies organized giving of bribe to the staff of the DHCD, DTA, JUDGES, LANDLORDS, CLERK/MAGISTRATE, ETC. October 20 & 21, 2005 to present time, Petitioner and his family have attended over 15 agency administrative hearings in the offices of the DHCD, DTA, etc and all the 15 hearings were politically and fraudulently denied and when brought to Courts through the Supreme Judicial Court and The Supreme Court of the United States for review, oil/gas monies take center stage either frustrated, landlords are bribed to render Petitioner and his family homeless to force them to leave the state in order to abandon the case. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/soc.org. nonprofit/HezWrBSYW14; http://universal-fashion-art-music.blogspot.com/search?q=DTA and the present landlord is also implicated and as usual the landlord is refusing to accept his rental money. To enable Petitioner and his family member have roof over their head, they encourage the landlord to accept about three months advance payment and when the advance payment expired on November 1, 2012, Petitioner persuaded him/her to take another three months, he/she disappeared as a tactic to avoid receipt of the money and the check remain uncashed for over one month and as usual Petitioner suspect that the landlord will re-surface maybe months latter to file notice to quit for non-payment of rent and other falsified allegations to render Petitioner and his family 11th no fault homelessness. EXHBITS M & N.
A.2. Under the on-going energized political persecution, on before August 2011 Petitioner and his family negotiated and agreed on conditions imposed by the Respondents or Landlords to enable Petitioner and his family rent their family apartment located at 96 Walnut Street, Brockton, MA and the Petitioners liked the apartment even if the price was high and they paid the landlords in full and also paid all charges imposed on them and move agreed for August 16, 2011 (EXHIBITS B & C). On August 16, 2011 the landlords politically forced petitioner and his family take highly vandalized apartment (Warren Avenue, #2 Brockton, MA 02301), with broken doors, windows, blocked toilet and bath, mold, multiple mice, cockroaches, without heat and unserviceable heating transformers, failed CMR Fitness, because of the safety of child declared inhabitable by the BOARD OF HEALTH and U.S. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FEPA), etc. (EXHIBITS D, E, F, G, H). August 2011 through June 2012 on the disputed apartment (506 Warren Avenue, #2 Brockton, MA 02301), Petitioner and his family inherited all the defects cited and not cited by the BOARD OF HEALTH and also paid 100% of the rents due to the Respondents or landlords (EXHIBITS I, J, K, L, M, N, O). Because of the impartial position of the Agency Hearing Officer, Petitioner request this court to reverse the decision appealed or petitioned.
Frivolously, Respondents lied when they said,
A.2.a. Frivolous Allegation #1 “On 6/12/12 the Department issued a Notice of Denial of Emergency Assistance (EA ) denying the Appellant’s request for EA shelter benefits because he
3
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
was evicted from private, public or subsidized housing for destruction of property.”
EXHIBITS I, J, K, L, M, N, O are detailed disclosure of the facts to show that Petitioner and his family were not owing rent when the Respondents proceeded to Court to file Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint on November 7, 2011 (EXHIBIT B) to retaliate against Petitioner’s and his family’s Complaints to the BOARD OF HEALTH and U.S. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FEPA) to report the inhabitable conditions in the disputed apartment (EXHIBITS P & Q). Starting from August 17, 2011 to September 2011 Petitioners wrote several letters to and telephoned the landlords several times to fix the multiple defects in the apartment and in retaliation the landlords filed Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint, and suspiciously the Respondents or Landlords sued Mr. Keynes Ofume who is one of the seven children of the Petitioner, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume and Keynes is not one of the negotiators and signatories to the yearly lease signed by the landlords and Dr. Phillip C. Ofume and Mrs. Maureen N. Ofume. Under these deceptions, lies and frivolousness thus, after The Presiding Honourable Justice Edwards reviewed Petitioner’s and his family rent payment receipts and the Judge found that no rent is unpaid, thereafter, the Judge dismissed Respondents’ Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint dated November 7, 2011 but horribly the Presiding Judge dismissed the landlords’ Complaint without Prejudice instead of with prejudice. Under transparent and civilized judicial system where race, color, ethnicity etc lack chance, Judge cannot dismiss the Complaint without prejudice because the Judge found fraudulent, deceptive, and bad faith practices such as committing crime with boldness under oath when the landlords on their sworn Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint dated November 7, 2011 claimed that Petitioner and his family have paid SEPTEMBER 2011, OCTOBER 2011 AND NOVEMBER 2011 rents whereas they have paid these rents in full and over paid the landlords as follows:
A.2.a. i. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734521 $2,600.00 (08/13/2011) EXHIBIT F
A.2.a. ii. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734520 $40.00 (08/13/2011) EXHBIT G
A.2.a. iii. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734743 4 $675.00 (9/16/2011) EXHIBIT H
A.2.a. iii. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428788 $1,180.00 (11/1/2011) EXIBIT I
A.2.a. iv. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428794 $170.00 (11/03/2011) EXHIBIT J
A.2.a. iv. Landlords’ Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint was dismissed with costs payable to the Ofume family and the soft punishment or reprimand the landlords got from the Judgment of The Honourable Presiding Justice Edwards was $8,200.00 (EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS) and rent reduction from $1,350.00 to $600.00 and the Judge Edwards granted Petitioner and his family’s protest to relocate out of this danger of
4
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
lack of space for a family of 8 people, mold, lead, fungal, etc and according to the warning issued by the FEPA and BOARD OF HEALTH and Petitioner requested for time to relocate out to another apartment in June 2012 and Judge Edwards also granted Petitioner’s request.
A.2.a. v. After subtracting the award of $8,200.00 (EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS), Petitioner and his family paid all rents in full through May 2012 or relocation to 41 Gallivan Boulevard, Dorchester, MA 02124. The signed and sealed releases of the PLYMOUTH DEPUTY SHERIFF and the Clerk of the South East Housing Court , Brockton, MA 02301 shows that the Petitioner and his family are not owing any rents and that they did not destroy or vandalize Respondents’ or landlords’ properties. (EXHIBIT C, D & E).
A.2.b. Respondent’s Decision page 2 line 7 further raised another form of lies as follows:
Frivolous Allegation #2 “You were evicted from 506 Warren Avenue Apartment# 2 Brockton, MA 02301 for Non-Payment of Rent and Destruction of Property.”
A.2.c. In opposition, Petitioner states and affirm that he over paid rents at 506 Warren Avenue Apartment# 2 Brockton, MA 02301 and other bills, August 2011 through June 12, 2012 and the unserviceable thermostat claimed by the landlords were inherited by the Petitioner and his family from the broken, failed CMR fitness, with over 75 citations variously issued by the BOARD OF HEALTH and charges filed against the landlords.
A.3. OTHER FACTS IN SUPPORT OF REVIEW
A.3. a. Over thirty six days (36) DHCD requested for different unnecessary documents based on highly politicized verification activities to the extent that Petitioner submitted over eighty one (81) exhibits and on June 8, 2012 the final document was received by the Respondent or DHCD and on June 11, 2012 Respondent told Petitioner that his application has been approved and that on June 12, 2012 he should move his and family's luggage to the DHCD office in Brockton, MA at 8.00 a.m. for placement in shelter.
A.3. b . Early as 8.00 a.m. Appellant and his family were moved by members of their church (CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS) moved them to the DHCD office at 75 Commercial Street, Brockton, MA 02301.
A.3. c. . Between 8.00 - 3.00 pm Petitioner and his family waited to be placed in apartment but DHCD or Respondent abandoned Respondent and his family and at about 3.00pm Mr. Paul told Respondent that his application for EA is denied. He failed to announce this denial early. Respondent failed to give reason why they waited the last day and less than one hour to closing its office for the day and after the Petitioner and his family have vacated their apartment and moved into the premises of the DHCD to announce denial and after all the documents have been submitted and received by the Respondent and .
5
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
4. The reason which Mr. Paul gave for denial was that the landlord told them that Appellant damage his heating thermostat cover whereas the maintenance person of the landlords removed the cover of the thermostat and when the Respondent and his family asked him why he removed it, he said that he was going to service it to make it work but he did not come back with the cover. When Appellant and his family were forced to occupy the apartment the cover of the thermostat and several other things in the apartment were some of the defects in the apartment which were cited by the BOARD OF HEALTH.
5. There were no prior move in inspections in the apartment and the Respondent did not request for discovery when they called the landlord on June 11 2012 and Appellant was in the office of the Respondent. After telephoning the landlord instantly Mr. Paul told Appellant that the Landlord told him that the eviction was because of non-payment of rent and not as result of property damage as claim to by Mr. Paul in contradiction. The landlord lied because the Appellant over paid the landlord and in the Judgment the Appellant and his family were awarded the sum of $8200.00. See EXHIBITS A, B, C, & D.
6. Appellant restates that the Heat Thermostat Covert was damaged prior to Appellant and his family occupation of the defective and broken apartment which failed fitness test of the BOARD OF HEALTH. See EXHIBIT G.
See EXHIBITS A, B, C, & D.
7. The Summary Judgment Agreement and Plymouth Sheriff papers did not mention property damage or amount against Appellant or judgment debtor and this moneyed action of the Respondent accepted the claim which was not entered in the final judgment. SEE EXHIBITS E & F.
8. That apartment which the Respondent paid for was not rented to the Respondent. On
August 16, 2011 at about 10.00 pm which was the day of move in the landlords forcibly placed Appellant and his family at 506 Warren Avenue, Apartment #2 Brockton, MA 02301.
9. On August 16, 2011 which is the day of move in, Appellant have exhausted the money they had during long stay in the hotel and large down payment for these apartment located at 96 Walnut Street Brockton, MA 02301.
10. At 506 Warren Avenue, Apartment #2 Brockton, MA 02301 there were several damages and few days of this forced occupation because the landlords refused to fix several defects in the apartment, Appellant filed Complaint with the BOARD OF HEALTH and two major inspections were conducted by the BOARD OF HEALTH on December 5, 2011 and January 4, 2012 and several follow up inspections on fitness. The reports of the BOARD OF HEALTH are hereto marked EXHIBITS A, B, C,& D.
6
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
11. As the politicized Respondents were looking for something to use to deny Appellant's application for EA they telephoned several people none of them said anything against the Appellant and his family. Since 2006 when Appellant started using EA Benefit they have not violated any CMR.
B. ALLEGATIONS NOS. 1 & 2 ABOVE ARGUED PER EXAMINATION OF FACTS - DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AND NON-PAYMENT OF RENTS
Respondent and its hearing officer and representatives relied on two uninvestigated allegations (Non-Payment of Rent and Destruction of Property) to dismiss and deny Appellant’s and his family application for EA. Below are factual disclosures of the lies told by the Respondent and its witness (Mr. Troy Lewis):
B.2.a. Frivolous and Misleading Allegation #1 “On 6/12/12 the Department issued a Notice of Denial of Emergency Assistance (EA ) denying the Appellant’s request for EA shelter benefits because he was evicted from private, public or subsidized housing for Destruction of Property.”
B. 2.a. INHERITED MASSIVE VANDALIZED PROPERTY AND OPPOSITION TO THE ALLEGATION OF DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY
B.2.a.i. 100% of the vandalized and unserviceable property at 506 Warren Avenue Apartment #2 Brockton, MA were inherited by the Appellant because the apartment was vandalized, badly used by smokers, alcohol users. Appellant’s and his family’s forced Move-in (8/17/2011) and Summary Agreement Move-out (06/12/2012 because of mold and other dangerous elements to the health his children and entire family ) at 506 Warren Avenue Apt. #2 Brockton, MA 02301 were extra-judicially conducted by the respondents. Day and after move-in and move-out Respondents and Appellant did not conduct inspection on the disputed apartment and take inventory on the real and other properties and conditions in the apartment. Less than 72 hours of the time when Appellant and his family moved into the disputed apartment, Appellant contacted and invited the Respondent to the disputed apartment to view, list and sign the defects in the apartment and/or conduct formal inspection of the apartment under CMR and also take inventory of the apartment but the Respondents or landlords ignored the calls.
B.2.a.ii. Mr. Lewis received large amount of rental down payment money from the Plaintiff and his family pretending to be willing to rent out to them a decent apartment located at 96 Walnut Street, Brockton, MA but on the date (08/16/2012) of move in (night) when Plaintiff and his family checkout from the long self-paid hotel accommodation. Appellant and his family paid Mr. Lewis all the accommodation money they have, Mr. Lewis forced the Plaintiff and his family to take apartment located at 506 Warren Avenue, Brockton, MA which was invaded by mold, fungal, cockroaches, dirt, mice and other rodents; without heat and heating system, without serviceable doors, windows, keys, etc; apartment circled by indecent cartel where several people
7
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
were shot and sealed; etc
B.2.a.iii. Other horrible and inhabitable conditions in the apartment (506 Warren Avenue, Apt. #2 Brockton, MA) are as follows:
B.2.a.iv. Restating that the Ofume family moved in August 17, 2011 about 11.00 p.m. without inventory taken and inspection conducted. Letters and personal meetings were made to request landlords to fix defect but plea remain unheeded.
B.2.a.v. All the defects stated above and below were inherited under rushed and nowhere to live occupancy. Oral and written Complaints put to the landlords to fix the multiple defects, they refused to fix the following major emergency defects:
B.2.a.vi. Ofume family lives in apartment #2 and each time tenants in apartment #3 are bathing or using water there is pool of spelling and other forms of water coming down from the roof and flooding the Ofume family’s apartment particularly washroom and other spots of the apartment.
B.2.a.vii. Complainant or Ofume family is unable to bring in furniture, rugs and other goods and properties because of water drilling and something that looks like slime mold or fungus across the apartment which the family clean every 48 hours. The walls are easily blacken and with watery substances flowing out from the walls.
B.2.a.viii. Some windows are unserviceable and prone to fall and one went down two day when the family moved into the apartment.
B.2.a. ix. The family is in-charge of all utilities but there is no heat in apartment because 100% of the ancient transformers powered by gas are unserviceable and not working. Gas has been paid in full from month to month.
B.2.a.x. Some doors have cracks and unserviceable including the front entrance door which requires new keys.
B.2.a.xi. Majority of the fire alarms and carbon dioxide detector are not working;
B.2.a.xii. there are several bugs, cockroaches, rats, mice, and other animals;
B.2.a.xiii. Some of the transformers inside and outside living room are unserviceable to breakup and fall and one of thee Transformers can kill an adult .
B.2.a.xiv. Some of the transformers are unserviceable to the extent that they produce electrocution if touched.
8
B.2.a.xv. Refrigerator is leaking and produces water which the family must clean from time to
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
time.
B.2.a.xvi. Majority of the electric bulbs high and low are uncovered and the light shines into the children and adult eyes.
B.2.a.xvii. Several electric sockets are unserviceable and damaged for several years and with open current which could harm children and adult.
B.2.a.xviii. Because of the horrible moldy conditions of the majority of the rooms of the apartment including the living room, the family abandoned major part of the apartment.
B.2.a. ixx. Several occasion, the Ofume family has pleaded orally and in writing that the landlord find livable apartment for them but its plea remain unheeded by the landlord.
B.2.a. xx. Mr. Lewis refused to fix the multiple defects and also refused to refund the large rental money and deposit which Plaintiff and his family paid to him and Mr. Lewis requested them to sue him to recover their money.
etc.
B.2.a. ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY AFTER WRITING AND MEETING WITH THE RESPONDENTS AND MR. TROY LEWIS
B.2.a. xxi. After writing several letters to Mr. Lewis and his principals without fixing the defects and refunding the money Plaintiff and his family paid to Mr. Lewis, Plaintiff filed Complaint with the BOARD OF HEALTH /
B.2.a. xxii. Initially, the BOARD OF HEALTH was influenced by highly wealthy white landlords and late September 2011 when the BOARD OF HEALTH failed to conduct inspection after over one month following Plaintiff’s Complaint to the Board, late September 2011 Plaintiff petitioned the Mayor of the City of Brockton and the United States Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) . BOARD OF HEALTH in defending the white landlords shared the information on Plaintiff Complaint and the landlords became more and more infuriated and they lobbied Brockton Police Department and other tenants and some members of the neighborhood against Plaintiff.
B.2.a. xxiii. Mr. Lewis was angry because Appellant complained to the Board and FEPA and swiftly he retaliated and brought some people that claimed that they were police officers and they requested Plaintiff and his family to vacate the apartment and when Plaintiff threaten to call 911 they swiftly left.
B.2.a. xxiv. Angrily, early November 2011 the landlords or respondents further engaged filed
9
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint dated November 7, 2011 suspiciously and deceptively suing one child of the eight children of the Plaintiff who is not one of the two heads (Father and Mother) of the family of the Plaintiff and not party to the signature and negotiation of the Tenancy Lease signed between the landlords and Appellants or tenants.
B.2.a. xxv. Above mentioned action taken by the Plaintiff/defendants complies with the operating laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts also cited above and related legislation cited below including 105 CMR 410.
B.2.a. xxvi. Reliant on the horrible conditions inside and outside the apartment, violations cited on housing fitness are several, the landlords do not merit any rent in accordance with M.G.L. CHAPTER 239, SEC. 8A and they acted contrary to M.G.L. c. 186, § 18 because as no rent was outstanding and overdue, to the extent that the landlords received full and in possession of Defendants’ $1,350.00 and defects remain unfixed and the landlords are in-charge of some and major utilities (heat, hot water, etc) in the apartment, therefore the Landlords failed to pay utilities and Plaintiff/defendants took responsibility of payment of some utilities apportioned to the Landlords, therefore withholding of rent pending resolution of this complaint is appropriate and within the regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but the landlords continued to enjoy unmerited rents.
B.2.a. xxvii. Under this arm-twisting and imbalance tenancy, no recognition of Tenancy with a Lease particularly lack of sufficient notice and eviction without civil demand notice or NOTICE TO QUIT and intent to proceed to court and mandatory and other forms of notice to quit.
FAILING STATUTORY REGULATORY FITNESS (105 CMR 410.400) IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
B.2.a. xxvii. Plaintiff and his family are large family of eight (8) people (now four adults and four children) and 506 Warren Avenue, Apartment #2 Brockton, MA 02301 is under size two bedroom for "each additional occupants" pursuant to 105 CMR 410.400. In accordance with Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulation, 105 CMR 410.400 (A) the entire rooms failed the fitness test because the Minimum Square Footage for large occupants is 150 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant, and at least 100 Square Feet for each additional occupant, the Floor Space to be calculated on the basis of total habitable room area."
Measurements:
1st Room: First Occupant or Master Bedroom: 12ft 10Inches x 9ft.11Inches = 117ft . 9Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage for large occupants is 150 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom
2nd Room: Additional Occupant : 12ft 8Inches x 9ft = 108ft . 8Inches passed test because
10
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
Minimum Square Footage for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom
3rd Room: Additional Occupant : 9ft.7 Inches x 7ft 8Inches = 64ft . 3Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom
4th Room: Additional Occupant : 12ft.2 Inches x 7ft 8Inches = 84ft . 10Inches failed test because Minimum Square Footage for each additional occupants is 100 Square Feet of the Floor Space for its first occupant or master bedroom
B.2.a. xxviii. The Defendants/Landlords deceived the Plaintiff and his family because under Regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts large family like this with 8 members, can not be allowed to live in this type of apartment or two bedrooms apartment. 3rd and 4th rooms are closets for dumping things because bed and other furniture for standard bedroom cannot fit in there. This total cheating and criminal act. Reason of the foregoing the Court must request the landlords to refund all the rents paid and additional punitive damages because of what the Plaintiff suffer in living in squeezed apartment and all the citations issued and delivered by the BOARD OF HEALTH.
B.2.a. xxix. The first (Dec. 1, 2011) and second (Dec. 30, 2011) inspections conducted by the BOARD OF HEALTH show that majority of the defects cited in first and second inspectional reports have remain unfixed and below Plaintiff has shortlisted defects unfixed. It is risky for children and adults to live in a property with mold and several hundreds of mice, rats, cockroaches, bugs, etc. A terminator came to the apartment in late January 2012 and told Plaintiff that the landlords must retain a bricklayer to use cement to block several holes across the apartment which were created by mice and rats before he can set mice/rats traps. Nothing was done by the landlords.
B.2.a. xxx. Plaintiff and his family signed yearly lease with the landlords and without overdue and due rent on October 27, 2011 the landlords/defendants were influenced by the political opponents of the Plaintiff to proceed to the Court to terminate the yearly lease which has liability to defaulting parties the sum amount of $16, 000.00 which must be paid in full to parties violated (EXHIBIT ). Plaintiff requested the Court to review paragraph A of the page 1 to enforce paragraph A against the defendants for breach of this lease and the full amount be paid to the tenant/plaintiff. The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment of the balance amount on the lease.
B.2.a. xxxi. By virtue of the landlords, Defendants flagrant violations of the operating statutory and regulatory framework under the provisions of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and regulations of the Board of Health of the City of Brockton, particularly 105 CMR 410.00 CHAPTER II (Minimum Standards of Fitness for Human Habitation ; G.L. CHAPTER 23B, SECTION 30; M.G.L. CHAPTER 186 SEC. 18; M.G.L. CHAPTER 111;
11
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SANITARY, CODE CHAPTER 11; MINIMUM STANDARDS OF FITNESS FOR HUMAN HABITATION; 105 CMR 410.000; M.G.L. CHAPTER 239, SEC. 8A Landlord/defendants have caused Plaintiff and his deserving family members, irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law.
B. 2.b. OPPOSITION TO THE ALLEGATION OF NON-PAYMENT OF RENT
Frivolous and Misleading Allegation #2 “You were evicted from 506 Warren Avenue Apartment# 2 Brockton, MA 02301 for Non-Payment of Rent...”
B. 2.b.i. Question in Issue is whether Petitioner and his family were owning the Landlords when they proceeded to file Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaintdated November 7, 2011in retaliation against the just step taken by them to file complaint to the BOARD OF HEALTH and U.S. FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (FEPA) because there are danger on the family’s children and adult lead, mold, rabbis, other fungal, several hundreds of mice, rats, cockroaches, bugs, etc
B. 2.b.ii. Very shocking Mr. Lewis and other Landlords of the disputed apartment fraudulently claimed NON-PAYMENT OF RENT as ground to file Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint whereas the history of the Plaintiff’s payment prior to their Summary Process (Eviction) Summons and Complaint is as follows:
B. 2.b.ii.A. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734521 $2,600.00 (08/13/2011) EXHIBIT F
B. 2.b.ii.B. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734520 $40.00 (08/13/2011) EXHBIT G
B. 2.b.ii. C. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 734743 4 $675.00 (9/16/2011) EXHIBIT H
B. 2.b.ii. D. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428788 $1,180.00 (11/1/2011) EXIBIT I
B. 2.b.ii. E. PLAINTIFFS’ ANONYMOUS RECEIPT No. 428794 $170.00 (11/03/2011) EXHIBIT J
B. 2.b.ii. F. The soft punishment or reprimand the landlords got from the Judgment of The Honourable Presiding Justice Edwards was $8,200.00 (EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS) and rent reduction from $1,350.00 to $600.00 and the Judge Edwards granted Petitioner and his family’s protest to relocate out of this danger of lack of space for a family of 8 people, mold, lead, fungal, etc and according to the warning issued by the FEPA and BOARD
12
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
OF HEALTH and Petitioner requested for time to relocate out to another apartment in June 2012 and Judge Edwards also granted Petitioner’s request.
B. 2.b.ii. G. After subtracting the award of$8,200.00 (EIGHT THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS), Petitioner and his family paid all rents in full through May 2012 or relocation to 41 Gallivan Boulevard, Dorchester, MA 02124. The signed and sealed releases of the PLYMOUTH DEPUTY SHERIFF and the Clerk of the South East Housing Court , Brockton, MA 02301 shows that the Petitioner and his family are not owing any rents and that they did not destroy or vandalize Respondents’ or landlords’ properties. (EXHIBIT C, D & E).
B. 2.b.ii. H. Before this case was settled under Summary Process Agreement, Petitioner and his family proceeded to the Plymouth County Superior Court to file Complaint against the Landlords, due to the limited jurisdiction of the South East Housing Court, in terms of recovery of the General and Special Damages estimated to be over $10million because of what Petitioner and his family suffered between August 17, 2011 and June 12, 2012 in an inhabitable apartment (506 Warren Avenue, Apt. #2, Brockton, MA 02301) which these cruel landlords forced them to take and same badly ruined by mold, lead, fungal and the vast evidence of defects stated in the aforementioned subparagraphsB.2.a.v. through,B.2.a. xxxi.
C. SUMMARY PROCESS AGREEMENT, (EXHIBIT J) DATED MARCH 7, 2012
C.1. Majority of the 15-paragraph Summary Process Agreement was breached with the lies, falsification, deception and racial hate of the landlords including EXHIBIT A which rendered Petitioner and his family 11th homeless, August 2009 – present.
C. 2. Breach of paragraph 11 and other paragraphs of the 15-paragraph Summary Process Agreement sought Mandamus relief before The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and granted and remanded to the Plymouth Superior Court, Brockton, MA.
D. RELIEF
THEREFORE, for the foregoing reason, Petitioner and his family request this Court to reverse the decision of the Agency’s Hearing Officer and other Order Court deems appropriate..
ISSUED at Lynn, Massachusetts, this 1st day of December, 2012
______________________
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative/Advocate for the Plaintiff,
Ofume Family
. 13
OFUME v. DHCD, RST ET ALS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume, Representative/Advocate for the Applicant or co-applicant hereby certify that I have served the foregoing document, upon all parties, by hand delivery and mailing a copy, first class, postage prepaid to:
Ms. Barbara Boe Morgan
Mass Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD)
100 Cambridge Street,
Boston, MA
_____________________
Phillip C. Ofume, Ph.D. – Representative/Advocate for the Ofume Family
DATED: December 01, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment