Gwendolyn
Cranmore V. Ofume et als Docket No. SUCV
13-0651 G
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Suffolk,
ss SUPERIOR
COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION DOCKET Nos. SUCV -
13-0651G
___________________________________________________________________
DR. PHILLIP C. OFUME
& ASSOCIATES
(Corporate Body)
Applicants/Defendants
v.
GWENDOLYN CRANMORE,
Respondent/Plaintiff
___________________________________________________________________________________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF THE DECISION/ORDER OF THIS COURT
DATED MARCH 1, 2013 AND PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL PREMATURE TERMINATION OF THE
AGREEMENT, OR BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION EARNED PURSUANT TO G.L.
c. 186, §14, Mass. Gen. L. c. 12,
§ 11H, Mass. Gen. L. c.
214, § 1. Mass. Gen. L. c. 223, § 5, Mass Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. 93A, Sect. 2, Abuse
of fair process, 5th and 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, Restatement (second) of contract sect.
3749(1), M.G.L. Ch. 106 Sect. 2-718, Mass. R. App. P. 6
___________________________________________________________________________________
Pursuant to above mentioned
rule and amended constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and United
States Appellants, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Associates, moves this
honorable court for relief nature of Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction for temporary stay of the Decision/Order of this Court
dated March 1, 2013 and Protection from Unlawful Premature Termination of the
Agreement, or Breach of Quiet Enjoyment of the Compensation Earned immediately
subject to temporary restrain to enforcement of the Decision/Order of The
Presiding Honourable Associate Justice, a
Justice of the Superior Court of the Suffolk County of Massachusetts
dated March 1, 2013 and Waiver of Bond
or Cash and Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal and follow-up Appeals because of the following reasons:
A. FACT AND PURPOSE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
1. Dr. Phillip C. Ofume &
Associates , on behalf of their national and international organizations, by
and through Dr. Phillip Chukwuma Ofume, and LIMPT, INC. (International
Coalition for Pro se and Unsigned Attorneys/Lawyers and Class Action Project a Corporate
Body incorporated in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bring this civil action for injunctive relief
to require that the Decision/Order issued by the Presiding Honourable Justice
of this Court ON March 1, 2013 in favor of the defendant , Gwendolyn Cranmore in which Plaintiff filed Complaint
which is politically motivated by politicians, court officials, churches and
gold digging attorneys/lawyers came together to remove the Applicants/Defendants,
Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Associates
from the lawsuits, namely Gwendolyn
Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C,
Gwendolyn Cranmore v. MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522, which they (Plaintiff et
als) constructed in their greedy mind as “moneyed milk pot” to get several
million dollars to themselves, in part which they see also as bedrock that
will pump money into Dr. Phillip
Chukwuma Ofume’s Presidential Campaign for the President of Nigeria 2015 ( see http://limptinc.blogspot.com/2013/02/international-movement-for-new-federal.html)
and campaign for the President of American Association for Affirmative Action
(AAAA – see http://limptinc.blogspot.com/2012/11/phillip-c-ofume-v-aaaa-civil-docket-no_22.html)
and Applicants
request temporary stay or renewable temporary
stay pending appeal filed and pending before the Massachusetts Court of
Appeals.
2.
Because the appeal of the
applicants has strong potential to
prevail because plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a Claim which desires relief
and because the Complaint is an arm-twisting adventure, breach of contract or agreement, and lacks
any fact that will thrive during trial before Mass Court of Appeals and because
the applicants/defendants have completed the major work required in Plaintiff’s
cases to withstand trial/appeal review and also it is improper and unwarranted
trespass via lawsuits to arm-twist Applicants/defendants under the fraudulent
support which the Plaintiff has earned from her friends.
3. In
November 2012 in Respondent’s lawsuits, Applicants/defendants worked hard to win heavy award of
about $93,000.00 without compensation and under arm-twisting prowl the
respondent wants applicants to go to court before she can pay compensation to
the applicants because she has extraordinary illegal support from some staff in
this Court.
4. At present over $36million is in dispute before the Mass Court of Appeals and the appellants have appealed the decision
of this Judge because they see the decision as one of the worst injustices in
the world and they request the court of appeals that the decision be reversed in its entirety.
5. The action of
the Plaintiff violates Mass Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. 93A, Sect. 2, abuse
of fair process, 5th and 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, Restatement (second) of contract sect.
3749(1), M.G.L. Ch. 106 Sect. 2-718
6. Between late
2012 and January 2013 because of the award mentioned above, attorneys and other
saw gold in these cases. Thereafter suddenly, Plaintiff told the applicants to leave and she
said that she desires lawyer/attorney
without reason because her cases (Gwendolyn Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C, Gwendolyn Cranmore v. MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522
) are
properly before the Mass Court of Appeals and her Mortgage Foreclosure has been
stopped and continuation of the discussion comes on before March 31, 2013.
7. Defendants
desire to work with the attorney which she or defendant will retain pursuant to
the agreement between Applicants and Plaintiff and the POWER OF ATTORNEY issued
by the Plaintiff to the applicants.
8. The March
1,2013 Decision/Order of the Presiding Judge of this Court has been appealed
and hereto attached and marked EXHIBIT N.
9. The
Plaintiff’s home is not in danger and her two cases (Gwendolyn Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C, Gwendolyn Cranmore v.
MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522 ) are properly before the Mass Court of Appeal and without stay
Defendants will prejudiced.
10. All the work done by the Defendants since May
2012 has not been compensated and future work in these cases which were the
handwork of the defendant will be doomed and the defendants will suffer
irreparable damage which no law will remedy because the unlabored element will
hijack defendants’ efforts.
B.
JURISDICTION
11. Applicants
are authorized to bring this action
pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 12, §11H.
12. This Court has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 214, § 1.
13. Venue is proper pursuant to Mass. Gen.
L. c. 223, § 5.
14. Mass
Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. 93A, Sect. 2,
15. Abuse
of fair process,
16. 5th
and 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
17.
Restatement (second) of contract sect. 3749(1),
18. M.G.L.
Ch. 106 Sect. 2-718
C. ARGUMENT
19.
In further support of this opposition, particularly their academic and
professional qualifications and experiences and taken and concluded related
cases, Defendants incorporate their AMENDED
APPLICANT’S, DR. PHILLIP C. OFUME &
ASSOCIATES (LIMPT, INC. EDUCATION AND WORK FORCE PROJECT) VERIFIED EMERGENCY
MOTION (EX-PARTE) FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED MATTER
PURSUANT TO MASS. CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 24 (a)
AND M.C.P.R. 1 TO SINGLE JUDGE EXHIBIT
“I”
20. There
is no law courts in the United States that will accommodate deceptive, bad
faith, fraudulent, arm-twisting and false business. Because the Plaintiff has
not stated any justifiable claim including convincing this Court that
Defendants have mistreated her when they worked for several months and won a
large amount of money without compensation and that because they have completed
these cases, saved her home from foreclosure and appealed all emerging cases
which would have posed threat to the disputed home, with deceits, the Plaintiff
is trying to hide under the umbrella of the Court to arm-twist Defendants
therefore Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
21.
The foreclosure proceeding has been variously put on hold and cannot
proceed years ahead because the Plaintiff is working and has other sources of
income to maintain payment of her mortgage. These are plans which the
Defendants have forwarded to the SSSB to move the foreclosure forward for
further review in 8-12 months. The SSSB is also owing the Plaintiff and what
the SSSB owe Plaintiff will be sufficient to offset months of mortgage payment.
22.
Defendants are ready at any time to open up to discussion with any
attorney the Plaintiff will retain to work with defendants. Defendants will
allow soft payment plan of the overdue compensation which the Plaintiff has
refused to pay.
23. This type of greedy or deceptive business or principal has appeared before The Presiding Honourable Justices Dreben, Gillerman and Lawrence in the matter, FRANCIS W. GAGNON vs. JOAN G. COOMBS, individually and as trustee, & another 39 Mass. App. Ct. 144. The Defendants respected the POWER OF ATTORNEY which was signed by the Plaintiff and Defendants.
24. Under Common Law Principles termination of Power of Attorney, has rule and if the Court should terminate the power of attorney without the Plaintiff doing so by herself, G. L. c. 201B, Section 5, inserted by St. 1981, c. 276, Section 2 the meaning of the operating law will be also confused and would question the jurisdiction of this Court will be questioned.
25. Off set of the clauses of this Power of Attorney is the meaning of the Plaintiff’s Complaint because the purpose of sworn affidavit is defeated by this Complaint. See comment to Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act Section 5, 8 U.L.A. 327 (1979) (on which G. L. c. 201B, Section 5, was based). See also Uniform Probate Code, prefatory note to part 5 of Art. V, 8 U.L.A. 511 (1975), and comments to Sections 5-502, 5-504, & 5-505, 8 U.L.A. 514, 516, 517 (1975). Plaintiff’s Complaint has down-sided G. L. c. 201B, Section 5, affidavit as a ground for affirmative undertaking.
D.
PRIOR DETERMINATION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
26. The action of
the Plaintiff violates Mass Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. 93A, Sect. 2, abuse
of fair process, 5th and 14th Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, Restatement (second) of contract sect.
3749(1), M.G.L. Ch. 106 Sect. 2-718
27. The Plaintiff
said she desires lawyer/attorney without
reason because her cases (Gwendolyn Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C, Gwendolyn Cranmore v.
MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522 ) are properly before the Mass Court of Appeals
and her Mortgage Foreclosure has been stopped and continuation of the
discussion comes on before March 31, 2013.
28. Defendants
desire to work with the attorney which she or defendant will retain pursuant to
the POWER OF ATTORNEY issued by the Plaintiff.
29. The March
1,2013 Decision/Order of the Presiding Judge of this Court has been appealed
and hereto attached and marked EXHIBIT N.
30. The
Plaintiff’s home is not in danger and her two cases (Gwendolyn Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C, Gwendolyn Cranmore v.
MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522 ) are properly before the Mass Court of Appeal and without stay
Defendants will prejudiced.
31. All the work done by the Defendants since May
2012 has not been compensated and future work in these cases which were the
handwork of the defendant will be doomed and the defendants will suffer
irreparable damage which no law will remedy because the unlabored element will
hijack defendants’ efforts.
E. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
32. The case coverage and heard by this Court over time period and
the position of other courts including the Supreme Court of the United States
show that these Courts have agreed in their majority that Injunction must
not be confused with unnecessary submissions. They agreed that seekers of
preliminary injunction must meet a four-prong test. Thus, seekers must
establish:
.
32.a. Four Tests to Allow Injunction:
32.a (i) seeker of this type of injunction is likely to
succeed on merit of the on-going case. May 2012 to present time defendants have
recovered over $92,000.00 for the plaintiff and defendant will recover over
$36million in these cases.
32.a
(ii) seeker of this type of injunction is likely to suffer irreparable harm in
the absence of preliminary injunction.
Since May 2012 defendants have not been compensated and future work in these
cases which were the handwork of the defendant will be doomed and the
defendants will suffer irreparable damage which no law will remedy because the
unlabored elements will hijack defendants’ efforts.
32.a (iii) that the balance of equities tips in seeker’s favour or the grant of
injunction will substantially injure the
other parties interested in the proceedings. Plaintiff’s home is not in danger
and her two cases (Gwendolyn
Cranmore v. SSSB Docket No. 2012-2006-C,
Gwendolyn Cranmore v. MPIUA Docket No. 2012-00522
) are properly before the
Mass Court of Appeal and without stay Defendants will prejudiced.
32.a (iv) that
granting of this type of injunction is
in public interest. This case if stay is not granted will put the under
privileged people in hardship because those who enjoy contingency agreement and
pro bono attorneys will tighten their rules because of the ungratefulness of
this plaintiff
32. b.
Future Success of the
There is clear possibility that the defendants will prevail because the lowest
decision of court of appeal will be to grant collaboration between the
defendants and the attorney which Plaintiff will retain.
F. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Associates respectfully
request that the Court:
1. Approve,
in accordance with the Court’s general equity power and Mass. R. Civ. P. 65, a
temporary restraining order requiring the Mass Court of Appeals to Review
Applicants' Appeal which has great showing to prevail.
2. If
necessary issue an order of notice scheduling a hearing within ten days, in
accordance with prayer C of this Complaint.
3. Approve,
in accordance with the Court’s general equity power and Mass. R. Civ. P. 65, and
after a notice and a hearing within ten days of the issuance of the temporary
restraining order, a preliminary injunction, requiring the Clerk/Magistrate of
this Court to assemble the Record of the Proceeding in this Court to be
forwarded to the Mass Court of Appeal
4. Approve,
in accordance with the Court’s general equity power and Mass. R. Civ. P. 65,
and after a notice and a hearing, a permanent injunction, requiring the
Applicants to apply for tapes/transcripts in support of their appeal and part
of the record of proceeding heard before this Court
5. Grant the
Applicants, Dr. Phillip C. Ofume & Associates and any other further relief that the Court
deems just and appropriate.
VERIFICATION
16. I, Dr. Phillip Ofume, void of iota of doubts,
hereby respectfully verify, sign and submit this Motion under the pains and
penalties of perjury this 7th day of
March 2013,
__________________
Dr.
Phillip C. Ofume & Associates
Appellants/Defendants
P. O. Box
2416
Lynn, MA
01903
Tel.
781-479-9027
limptintinc@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
I, Dr. Phillip Ofume certify that a true copy of
the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT
AND MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY OF THE DECISION/ORDER OF
THIS COURT DATED MARCH 1, 2013 AND PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL PREMATURE TERMINATION
OF THE AGREEMENT, OR BREACH OF QUIET ENJOYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION EARNED
was served up on all parties by U.S. Postal Office mail on March 7,
2013 at:
Ms.
Gwendolyn Cranmore
2 Kenway Street
Cambridge, MA
02138
_______________
Dr. Phillip Ofume
cc.
President Barack Obama, Vice-President Joseph Biden, H.E. United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Counsels for DCF, Child and Foster Parents,
The Hon. Secretary and Attorney-General of the United States, Eric H. Holder,
Jr., Hon. Secretary of State, Senator Hilary Clinton, H.E. Secretary General of
the United Nations, Bakim Moon, Executive Director, UNICEF, Chair, Amnesty
International (Intl. Secretariat, London, UK), Executive Director, Human Rights
Watch (USA), President, AAAA (Washington, DC, USA), LIMPT, INC. (EDUCATION
& WORKFORCE PROJECT, c/o Dr. Phillip
Chukwuma Ofume – National Coordinator), Senator Elizabeth Warren, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment