Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

RE: Case No. 1981CV00050, HARIHAR v. US BANK, et al, Rule 9A

Motions
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 3:50 PM
To: "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov,
andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov,
lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov,
CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov, ma-igo-
general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, "Murphy, Matthew T."
<mmurphy@casneredwards.com>, kmchugh@harmonlaw.com, Arthur T Deguglielmo
<arthur.deguglielmo@jud.state.ma.us>

Delivered VIA EMAIL and US MAIL

Attorneys Loeb & Fialkow,

Enclosed, please find the Plaintiff’s following documents for filing in accordance with Superior Court
Rule 9A in the above referenced docket:

1. Plaintiff Motion to Clarify Defendants’ Intentions to Enter into a Mutual Agreement

Discussion;

2. Plaintiff Motion for Hearing to Acknowledge and Address Related Criminal Complaints
of Record;

3. Plaintiff Motion to Clarify Jurisdiction and Improper Transfer from MA Land Court;

4. Plaintiff Motion for Injunction and to Address the Imbalance of Hardships;

5. Plaintiff DEMAND to Enforce Evidenced Claims of Judicial Treason under ARTICLE

III, Section 3;
 6. Plaintiff Motion to Address Incremental, Unresolved Issues;

7. Plaintiff Motion to Identify Additional Parties as Defendants;

8. Plaintiff Motion to Acknowledge New Evidence, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)

and (3);

9. Plaintiff Motion for Clarification to Assess Professional Penalties;

Please serve your opposition, if any, within the time provided by the Rules – beginning with the
Defendant’s intentions to enter into a mutual agreement discussion.

Please be advised, you are both aware that as a matter of record, the severity evidenced claims against
Defendants as well as judicial officers are perceived to impact matters of National/Homeland
Security. Therefore, it becomes necessary to forward copies of these documents to: (1) the United
States Secret Service; (2) POTUS; (3) Congress; (4) the DOJ; (5) Governor Charlie Baker (R-
MA) and a list of additional government offices/agencies/committees listed within the attached.
Copies will also be made available to the Public and to media sources nationwide out of continued
concerns for my personal safety and security. Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO CLARIFY DEFENDANTS' INTENTIONS TO ENTER

INTO A MUTUAL AGREEMENT DISCUSSION

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant with no legal experience, respectfully

files this Motion pursuant to MA Superior Court Rule 9A to clarify for the record the

Defendants’ intentions to enter into a mutual agreement discussion as it pertains to the civil

portions (only) of his evidenced claims.1 The Plaintiff, while under no obligation to do so,

extends this mutual agreement opportunity as a sign of his continued GOOD FAITH and in the

interest of judicial economy moving forward. The Plaintiff requests that Defendants provide a

timely response as required under Rule 9A. If any one (1) or ALL Defendants choose NOT to

enter into a mutual agreement discussion, it should be clearly stated as part of the record and it

1
The Plaintiff makes clear that - should any potential agreement be reached between parties, it will pertain to civil
portions of this (and all related) Massachusetts State litigation only. The ongoing, related Federal litigation will be
addressed separately.
becomes necessary to address multiple judicial (and Defendant) issues – beginning with: (1)

clarifying the jurisdiction of this Court; (2) the VOID Dismissal Order issued by inferior Land

Court Judge Michael Vhay; and (3) the improper transfer of this docket from the MA Land

Court.

Please be advised, this case is related to referenced Federal litigation now before The

United States Supreme Court and includes matters perceived to impact National Security.

Therefore, the following government offices/agencies/committees will necessarily receive copies

of this filing (via email, US Mail and/or social media):

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov);

2. US Secret Service;

3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

4. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;

5. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;

6. FBI;

7. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;

8. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

9. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

10. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);

11. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);

12. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA); and

13. The MA Board of BAR Overseers

Copies of this email will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide for

documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for my personal safety and security.

If your Honor has ANY questions regarding ANY portion of this Motion, or requires additional

information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for this

Court’s consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
June 4, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR HEARING TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND ADDRESS

RELATED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS OF RECORD

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

Accordance to MA Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to schedule a hearing to

address, clarify and acknowledge the evidenced State and Federal CRIMINAL complaints

of record related to this litigation. As a matter of record, this Court has long been aware of

evidenced criminal complaints filed with the MA AGO and DOJ against - not only named

Defendants here, but also against judicial officers who stand accused of judicial misconduct

including (but not limited to) evidenced TREASON claims under ARTICLE III for ruling

without jurisdiction. In addition, this Court is respectfully reminded of the following:

1. The Plaintiff’s Property was identified as an ILLEGAL FORELCOSURE by: (1)

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ); (2) The Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General (MA AGO); (3) and Federal Bank Regulators. Therefore, the
 Plaintiff calls for a separate order issuing a subpoena to compel sworn testimony from

these offices/agencies so that this Court will have a better understanding of: (a) both

the civil and criminal infractions that labeled the Plaintiff’s foreclosure – ILLEGAL;

and (b) a detailed explanation from State/Federal Prosecutors as to WHY criminal

indictments have yet to be brought against Defendants here and in the related Federal

litigation ;

2. This Court long been aware that the MA AGO, US Attorney’s Office (MA) and the

Boston BAR Association stand accused of COLLUDING with attorneys for the

Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US BANK, referencing the West

LegalEdcenter continuing education course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts”. The

offices referenced above were brought in as guest speakers to assist with teaching

attorneys with Lender Defendants HOW TO DEFEND AGAINST MORTGAGE

FRAUD.2 Despite bringing this clear and irrefutable RICO claim to the attention of

EVERY court related to this litigation, it has been blatantly ignored. This (in part) is

the reason for including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and separately, The

United States) as a Defendant(s) in the related federal litigation. This evidenced,

improper relationship supports the Plaintiff’s argument (at least in part) as to WHY

State/Federal Prosecutors have thus far failed/refused to bring criminal indictments

here and in the related federal litigation. Respectfully, if this (or any) Court continues

to blatantly ignore these evidenced criminal claims, the Plaintiff will (at minimum)

show cause to expand upon existing: (1) RICO claims; (2) Due Process Violations;

(3) Conspiracy claims and others against the Commonwealth and The United States;

2
See Exhibit 1.
3. As a matter of record, this Court is aware (through the NOTICE delivered on

05/06/19), of communications delivered to the US Attorney’s Office (specifically to

US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA)) and the MA AGO (specifically to MA

Attorney General Maura Healey) - and the request for their attendance to appear

before this Court to clarify for the record their intentions to bring criminal

indictments against named Defendants (and parties still to be named) here and in the

related federal litigation;

4. To be clear, if it is revealed that the MA AGO does not intend to bring criminal

indictments against all named Defendants, the Plaintiff will (at minimum) show cause

to expand upon (or file NEW) Due Process/Color of Law violations against the

Commonwealth;

5. Similarly, if the US Attorney’s Office (MA) reveals that it does not intend to bring

criminal indictments against all named Defendants, the Plaintiff will (at minimum)

show cause to expand upon (or file NEW) Due Process/Color of Law violations

against The United States;

6. In addition to the plethora of evidenced civil/criminal claims brought by this Plaintiff,

the Court is reminded that – IF it becomes necessary to move forward with this

litigation, DISCOVERY will AT MINIMUM evidence the recorded conversations

between the Plaintiff and the Defendant – WELLS FARGO (as the mortgage servicer

to his referenced illegally foreclosed Property), that support criminal claims of Fraud

(at minimum) under Rule 93A. In these evidenced recordings, the Defendant can be

heard instructing the Plaintiff to STOP making his scheduled mortgage payments
 for a period of NO LESS THAN 90 DAYS in order to QUALIFY for a loan

modification program;

7. Separately, this Discovery will also reveal the SAME “COMPUTER GLITCH”

that denied the Plaintiff’s two-year efforts to receive a loan modification to save his

home. The Plaintiff identified this “glitch” nearly TEN (10) years ago and has

brought it to the attention of EVERY Court, only to be ignored. The Court is aware

that as a matter of record and in headline news, the Defendant – WELLS FARGO

has publicly admitted to this error/glitch. This includes the sworn testimony of the

Defendant’s former CEO – Tim Sloan before the House Financial Services

Committee on March 12, 2019.

Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to issue subpoenas to: (1) The US

Attorney’s Office (MA); (2) The MA Office of the Attorney General; and (3) The Office

of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to appear before this Court and provide sworn

testimony that (at minimum):

1. Informs this court of all infractions associated with the Plaintiff’s illegal

foreclosure; and

2. Provides clarification with regard to criminal indictments intended to be brought

against these Defendants and their counsel of record.

The Plaintiff additionally calls for the Court to issue an order compelling the Defendants

– Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins to appear in person for the requested hearing. Similarly,

there is an expectation for the remaining Defendants – US BANK, WELLS FARGO

and MERS (also additional parties still to be named) to also be in attendance, once it is
determined which corporate officers/employees bear civil/criminal accountability. If the

Defendants wish to enter into a mutual agreement discussion, it MAY not become

necessary to move forward with scheduling a hearing at this time.

Please be advised, if this Court fails to acknowledge ANY ONE (or more) of the

Plaintiff’s evidenced criminal complaints of record, it will become necessary to call for

immediate recusal. The Plaintiff will (at minimum) also show cause to amend his original

complaint in the related federal litigation, HARIHAR v US BANK, et al, pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3). If your Honor has ANY questions regarding the Plaintiff’s

evidenced arguments of record, a separate hearing will be requested to review ALL

supporting evidenced arguments, collectively submitted over eight (8) years of this

State/Federal litigation.

Please be advised – collectively, this State litigation is related to referenced Federal

litigation and includes matters perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, the

following government offices/agencies/committees will necessarily receive copies of this

filing (via email, US Mail and/or social media):

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov);

2. US Secret Service;
3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
4. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
5. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;
6. FBI;
7. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;
8. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;
9. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
10. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
11. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
12. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA); and
 13. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)

Copies of this email will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets

nationwide for documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for my personal

safety and security. If your Honor has ANY questions regarding ANY portion of

this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide

upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for this Court’s consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
June 4, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO CLARIFY JURISDICTION AND IMPROPER

TRANSFER FROM MA LAND COURT

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant with no legal experience, respectfully

files this Motion to address JURISDICTION issues and the IMPROPER TRANSFER of this

docket from the MA Land Court. While this motion is being filed in accordance of Superior

Court Rule 9A, it is unclear as to WHY Rule 9A is a requirement for a Court to clarify its

jurisdiction. Since January 8, 2018, this Court has had the complete Land Court Docket in its

possession including ALL evidenced claims against the presiding Land Court Judge – the

Hon. Michael Vhay that impacted: (1) his jurisdiction PRIOR to issuing the Dismissal Order;

(2) the related dismissal order itself; and (3) the transfer to this Court. The Plaintiff has attempted
to bring these issues to this Court’s attention since then – on 01/22/193, 02/08/194, 02/21/195,

03/04/196, 03/18/197, 04/02/198, and 04/19/19.9 Despite these efforts including multiple

communications with the Court’s Deputy Clerk – Arthur Deguglielmo, there was no mention

of non-compliance with Superior Court Rules. It therefore remains unclear as to WHY this Court

has waited nearly five (5) months to address these issues. Therefore - UNLESS it is determined

that the Defendants wish to reach a mutual agreement, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that

your Honor provide the requested clarification for the record. If Defendants are in fact interested

in reaching a mutual agreement, the requested clarification will likely be considered moot.

Please be advised - from the recently held Rule 16 Conference, this Court has respectfully been

made aware of systemic judicial abuses of power evidenced within every level of this State’s

judiciary, including: (1) evidenced judicial misconduct claims against EIGHT (8) judges in this

Middlesex Superior Court alone; and (2) the recent recusal of the Hon. Judge Kenneth J.

Fishman from this docket. If after a thorough review of the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments your

honor disagrees these jurisdiction and transfer claims – and fails to recognize ANY judicial

error, please articulate for the record exactly how your Honor arrived at a conclusion(s),

including which specific documents were reviewed to support your decision. Based on the

3
Reference the Plaintiff Mohan Harihar's EMERGENCY Notice of void Land Court order, improper transfer and
cause for removal to Federal Court, pursuant to 28 U.S. code s 144(f).
4
Reference the Plaintiff Mohan Harihar's Reply to defendants' opposition re: void Land Court order and additional
documents filed 01/31/2019.
5
Reference the Self-Represented Plaintiff Mohan Harihar's Reply to Bank defendants' opposition re: void Land
Court order and additional documents filed 02/13/2019.
6
Reference the Self-Represented Plaintiff Mohan Harihar's Response to documents filed 02/22/2019 by defendants,
Isabelle Perkins, Jeffrey Perkins and MERS, Inc.
7
Reference the Opposition to to defendants' request for Rule 16 conference and discovery of new evidence under
MRCP 60(b)(2) filed by Mohan Harihar.
8
Reference the Plaintiff Mohan Harihar's Response to void order: (1) Demand for recusal; (2) Discovery of new
evidence; and (3) Cause for removal to Federal Court.
9
Reference the Opposition to continue Rule 16 conference filed by Mohan Harihar.
Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law and Rules of this Court - if similar patterns of corrupt conduct

are identified, the Plaintiff will (at minimum) show cause for recusal and will be compelled to

bring incremental Due Process/Color of Law claims against the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts in the related Federal litigation.

Please be advised – aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal

claims against named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State

Courts and in the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple

government offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1)

Civil/Criminal RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants

still to be named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3)

Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5)

Conspiracy to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and

matters perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these

proceedings, the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact

to the related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
 15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. The Clerk of the Court is

expected to record this document as part of the record. If this Court has questions regarding any

portion of this Notice, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon

request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO GRANT INJUNCTION AND TO RE-ESTABLISH

THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to finally recognize the severe

imbalance of hardships that has tipped heavily in favor of the Plaintiff for over eight (8) years.

As grounds therefore, the Plaintiff calls for a separate hearing to review ALL historical evidence

of record supporting his claims, including new evidence brought to the attention of the Court

(separate Motion) under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3). A review of the historical record will

also irrefutably show the Plaintiff has long satisfied compliance associated with the “Four Factor

Test” including Success on the Merits.

Respectfully, this Court is well aware of the EVIDENCED, SYSTEMIC Judicial Abuses of

Power that have historically plagued this litigation. These judicial abuses include (but are not
limited to) the repeated failure(s) to maintain a balance of hardships between parties and failing

to grant injunctive relief when warranted. Before moving forward with these proceedings, the

Plaintiff respectfully seeks the Court’s assistance to re-establish the balance of hardships

between litigants as it existed PRIOR to the identified ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE of the

Plaintiff’s Property. At minimum, the Plaintiff states that re-establishing a balance of hardships

must include the following:

1. Housing – The Court has already recognized the Plaintiff’s indigency – a direct result

from the identified illegal foreclosure, that has caused the Plaintiff to be homeless for

more than two (2) years, and in a 40(b) affordable housing rental for nearly four (4) years

now. The Plaintiff requests the Court’s assistance to re-establish balance as it pertains to

housing prior to the identified illegal foreclosure – in a manner that complies with rules

pertaining to an injunction without the misinterpretation of receiving damages. The

Plaintiff is certainly open to having a discussion on how to mutually reach agreement

here in order to re-establish balance;

2. Transportation – Similarly, the referenced illegal foreclosure has not only caused severe

financial hardship, but has also destroyed the Plaintiff’s credit. This resulting

combination has impacted the Plaintiff’s ability to secure transportation on his own –

having to burden family members for everyday transportation needs. The Plaintiff

requests the Court’s assistance to re-establishes balance as it pertains to transportation

prior to the identified illegal foreclosure - that complies with rules pertaining to an

injunction without the misinterpretation of receiving damages. The Plaintiff is certainly

open to having a discussion on how to mutually reach agreement here in order to re-

establish balance;
 3. Debt Collections – Since the illegal foreclosure of the Plaintiff’s Property, the Plaintiff

has been subject to debt collections from multiple creditors including the MA Department

of Revenue (MA DOR) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Plaintiff has also

been in ongoing litigation in the Lowell District Court with creditor – Jeanne D’Arc

Credit Union. The Plaintiff respectfully calls for an injunction that immediately STAYS

all collection activity against the Plaintiff while litigation involving the referenced illegal

foreclosure is ongoing;

Please be advised, if after a thorough review of the historical record, this Court comes to the

conclusion that there is NO imbalance of hardships and fails to grant the requested injunction,

the Plaintiff will respectfully call for your Honor to document specifically which historical

documents were reviewed in order to support your conclusion. Based on the evidenced judicial

abuses of record, the failure to re-establish a balance of hardships here will indicate a continued

pattern of corrupt conduct; (at minimum) showing cause for recusal and cause to amend the

related federal complaint – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, pursuant (at

minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3).

Please be advised – aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal

claims against named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State

Courts and in the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple

government offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1)

Civil/Criminal RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants

still to be named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3)
Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5)

Conspiracy to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and

matters perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these

proceedings, the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact

to the related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. If this Court has questions

regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF DEMAND TO ENFORCE EVIDENCED CLAIMS OF JUDICIAL

TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this DEMAND

under Rule 9A, calling for this Court to uphold the Constitution of The United States and the

laws of this Commonwealth – specifically, evidenced claims of judicial TREASON brought

against members of this State’s Judiciary for continuing to rule after JURISDICTION was

LOST. From the recent Rule 16 conference on May 14, 2019 (and as a matter of record), this

Court is now aware of egregious and systemic abuses of judicial power evidenced at EVERY

LEVEL of the MA State and Federal Judiciary, including ALL NINE (9) Justices of the United

States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). While claims against federal judicial officers are being

addressed separately, evidenced claims against state judicial officers are expected to be

addressed here and there certainly is an expectation for there to be accountability for ALL
evidenced judicial misconduct claims, including (but not limited to) criminal TREASON.10 At

minimum, any continued failure by this Commonwealth to do so, shows cause to expand upon

existing Conspiracy, Due Process, Color of Law and other claims in the related federal litigation.

As a matter of record, this Court is aware that formal Treason claims have been brought

against MA Land Court Judge – the Hon. Michael Vhay and MA Superior Court Judge –

the Hon. Kenneth J. Fishman for continuing to rule after jurisdiction had been LOST. As a

matter of record, the Plaintiff has clearly articulated exactly how he has arrived at these

conclusions. It is important to note that NEITHER Judge Vhay nor Judge Fishman have

argued or denied these serious claims. Judge Fishman’s recusal following the Treason

claim only adds to the Plaintiff’s evidenced argument(s). Serving as witnesses to these two

(2) separate acts of Treason, aside from the Plaintiff, are ALL named Defendants, their retained

counsel of record and the Clerks of both Courts. Please be advised, should ANY of these parties

fail to acknowledge that they have witnessed these EVIDENCED acts of Treason, the Plaintiff

will show cause to bring incremental MISPRISION of TREASON claims pursuant to 18 U.S.

Code § 2382. The Plaintiff will also show cause to again amend his related Federal complaint –

HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, pursuant (at minimum) to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b)(2) and (3).

As required by Federal/State Law, the Plaintiff has reported these evidenced acts of Judicial

Treason to: (1) This Middlesex Superior Court; (2) The MA Land Court; (3) Governor Charlie

10
This Court is aware that aside from the above referenced Treason claims, the Plaintiff has evidenced judicial
misconduct against a total of eight (8) judicial officers in this Middlesex Superior Court alone. Evidenced
misconduct claims also include judicial officers in the Lowell District Court, the Northeast Housing Court, the MA
Appeals Court and the MA Supreme Court.
Baker (R-MA); and (4) President Donald J. Trump (POTUS). Formal criminal complaints have

also been filed with the FBI against the accused judicial officers. However, there has been NO

CORRECTIVE ACTION to date, indicating that these systemic abuses run deep within both

State and Federal government.

From the very beginning of this litigation, the Plaintiff has made abundantly clear that it is

his intention to ultimately come to a mutual agreement with ALL parties here in this State

litigation; also, in the related federal litigation which includes the Defendants - Commonwealth

of Massachusetts11 and separately, Defendant - The United States.12 However:

1. IF ANY (or ALL) of the Defendants are unwilling to reach a mutual agreement;

2. IF Judicial Officers blatantly refuse to uphold the Constitution, Federal/State Laws

and their Judicial Oath;

3. IF the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (and similarly, Federal

Prosecutors) refuses to bring criminal indictments for the Plaintiff’s evidenced

criminal complaints of record;

4. IF Legislative leaders in this Commonwealth continue to exemplify nonfeasance; and

5. IF there is an expectation that collectively, these evidenced failures should simply be

accepted by this Plaintiff, an American-born Citizen - that will NEVER happen; and

it compels this Plaintiff to continue the pursuit of justice - regardless of timeline, until

there is legal accountability and corrective action is initiated.

11
References HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880.
12
References HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109.
Therefore, unless the Defendants (and parties still to be named) are willing to reach a mutual

agreement in this State litigation and/or this Commonwealth CORRECTS its past erred

judgements, the Plaintiff respectfully DEMANDS that this Court address these formal Treason

claims evidenced against judicial officers. Any failure to acknowledged these evidenced crimes

by judicial officers will: (1) show cause for recusal; and (2) show cause to expand upon existing

(or to file new) claims against the Commonwealth in the related Federal complaint – HARIHAR

v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, pursuant (at minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2)

and (3).

Please be advised – aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal

claims against named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State

Courts and in the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple

government offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1)

Civil/Criminal RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants

still to be named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3)

Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5)

Conspiracy to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and

matters perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these

proceedings, the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact

to the related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
 7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. If this Court has questions

regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ADD INCREMENTAL CIVIL/CRIMINAL CLAIMS

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to schedule a hearing to address

incremental, unresolved claims first raised in the MA Land Court. In the initial Land Court

hearing, Judge Michael Vhay (before losing jurisdiction himself) determined that the MA Land

Court lacked jurisdiction over a majority of the claims listed, stating that these claims would

need to be raised in the Middlesex Superior Court. A list of these unresolved claims includes the

following:

1. LACK OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE;

2. FRAUD ON THE COURT;

3. FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT;

4. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT;

5. FIRST CIVIL RICO CLAIM;

 6. SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM;

7. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES;

8. FDCPA AND MCDCA VIOLATIONS;

9. CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND ABUSE OF PROCESS;

10. HAMP AND FALSE CLAIMS VIOLATIONS;

11. TAMPERING VIOLATIONS;

12. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF’S HOMESTEAD;

13. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

14. QUIET TITLE;

15. SLANDER OF TITLE;

16. DECLARATORY RELIEF;

17. VIOLATIONS OF TILA;

18. VIOLATIONS OF RESPA; and

19. RECISSION

Since this Court received the complete docket delivered from the Land Court (albeit via

improper transfer), it has already in its possession a copy of the Plaintiff’s original complaint

which articulates the cause for now addressing in this Court - each of the evidenced claims listed

above. Claims that were allowed to initially be raised in the Land Court were clearly impacted by

the presiding judge’s misconduct and ultimate loss of jurisdiction. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows

cause to include them here before this Court.13

13
The Plaintiff references four (4) claims initially raised in the MA Land Court: (1) Lack of Standing; (2) Quiet
Title; (3) Declaratory Relief; and (4) Rescission.
Please be advised, the Plaintiff has clearly evidenced as a matter of record that Land Court

Judge Michael Vhay had previously lost jurisdiction to rule further in this matter well

before a decision was issued. Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully restates that the referenced

Land Court decision is considered VOID. This void order cannot be considered appealable

when it was never valid to begin with.14 As a matter of record – clearly articulated by the

Plaintiff at the recent Rule 16 Conference, Judge Vhay was well informed of multiple judicial

errors and was respectfully given ample opportunity to address and correct these errors. Judge

Vhay ignored these opportunities, consciously choosing not to initiate corrective action; also

choosing not to recuse himself despite his evidenced judicial failures. Judge Michael Vhay now

stands formally accused of Judicial Treason under ARTICLE III for continuing to rule after

jurisdiction was lost.

If the Defendants (named and parties still to be named) are not willing to enter into a mutual

agreement, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to allow amendment to this complaint,

adding the referenced claims listed above. Since these evidenced claims are both civil and

criminal in nature, the Plaintiff restates the call for subpoenaed testimony from the MA AGO:

(1) to help clarify ALL variables that ultimately labeled the Plaintiff’s foreclosure as ILLEGAL;

and (2) to formally state their intentions to bring criminal indictments against ALL Defendants,

including their retained counsel. Additionally, if after a thorough review of the historical record,

the Plaintiff is not allowed to add these evidenced claims, the Plaintiff will respectfully call for

14
EVEN IF the decision was appealable (which it is not), the Plaintiff has evidenced as a matter of record –
systemic, judicial abuses of power at EVERY LEVEL of the Massachusetts State (and Federal) Judiciary, including
the MA Appeals Court and the MA Supreme Court. This failed judicial branch of state government is in part the
reason for including the Commonwealth as a Defendant in the related Federal litigation, HARIHAR v US BANK et
al.
your Honor to clarify for the record specifically which historical documents were reviewed in

order to support your conclusion.15 Based on the evidenced, historical judicial abuses of record,

the failure to rightfully acknowledge the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims (including any refusal to

formally validate the intentions of the MA AGO) will indicate: (1) a continued pattern of

corrupt conduct; and (2) the intention to arrive at a corrupt and pre-determined outcome -

(at minimum) showing cause for recusal and cause to amend the related federal complaint –

HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, pursuant (at minimum) to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b)(2) and (3).

Therefore, for the reasons stated above (and only after jurisdiction has been re-established), if the

Defendants do not wish to reach a mutual agreement, the Plaintiff calls for this Court to:

1. Schedule a separate hearing to address the claims described within;

2. Acknowledge ALL referenced claims as part of the Plaintiff’s complaint; and

3. Issue a subpoena to MA Attorney General – Maura Healey, calling for sworn testimony

that helps to inform this court of all historical legal issues related to the Plaintiff’s

foreclosure; and which clarifies the MA AGO’s intentions for bringing criminal

indictments against named Defendants, including their retained counsel. Please be

advised, any failure/refusal by the State Prosecutors to bring criminal indictments against

referenced parties will show cause to expand upon existing (or to file new) claims

against the Commonwealth in the related federal litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et

al.

15
Please be advised, HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS reference ALL filed documents related to this state and
federal litigation over the past eight (8) years - including ALL evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.
HARIHAR
Aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity of evidenced legal claims against

named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State Courts and in

the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple government

offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1) Civil/Criminal

RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants still to be

named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3) Economic

Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5) Conspiracy

to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and matters

perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these proceedings,

the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact to the

related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. If this Court has questions

regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO AMEND ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND

IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to schedule a hearing to identify

Defendants (other than those already named) who stand accused of evidenced claims referenced

here and in the related motions before the Court. For reasons previously articulated in the

original Land Court complaint, the Plaintiff shows cause to include the following parties as

Defendants:

1. Defendant – CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP is believed to be

the parent company to CMLTI 2006 AR-1, a Residential Mortgage Backed Security

(RMBS) Trust, CMLTI Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-AR1.

2. Defendant - LEADER BANK NA is a National Banking Association, doing business in

the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts. Plaintiff is further informed and

 believes, and thereon alleges, that Leader Bank is the Originator of the loan. Plaintiff is

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant Leader Bank NA, is a

corporation, doing business in the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts, and is

the purported Sponsor for the Securitized Trust and/or a purported participant in the

imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the Trust as more particularly

described in this complaint;

3. Defendant – MARTHA COAKLEY, ESQ. is a former Partner at Foley Hoag, LLP – a

Boston Law Firm. Ms. Coakley is also the former Attorney General for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In April 2018, Coakley joined the electronic

cigarette company Juul, which is actively under investigation for unlawfully

marketing e-cigarettes to underage youth.;

4. Defendant – NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP is a law firm

with multiple locations primarily along the east coast of the United States, including a

Boston Office located at One Post Office Square, 30th floor, Boston, MA 02109. Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP served as prior counsel to both Defendants - Wells

Fargo and US Bank (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP). Following their

withdrawal, Nelson Mullins LLP was replaced by K&L Gates, LLP. Nelson Mullins is

also the author of in the referenced West LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the

Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.

The Court is aware that from this course, the Plaintiff has evidenced one of two formal

RICO claims involving: (1) the MA AGO; (2) US Attorney’s Office (MA); and (3)

attorneys for Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US BANK16;

16
See Exhibit 1
5. Defendant – HARMON LAW OFFICES PC is a law firm with a principal office in

Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel by US Bank in this matter, who

withdrew from this case shortly after the MA Attorney General’s Office began its

investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful foreclosures. Harmon has been

labeled the “Foreclosure Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 identified illegal

foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly linked to

disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin – David Stern;

6. Defendant – DAVID E. FIALKOW, ESQ., is an attorney employed by K & L Gates,

LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, located

in Boston). Following the withdrawal of Hamon Law Offices, Mr. Fialkow first became

the representing attorney for Bank Defendants while employed by Nelson Mullins. Mr.

Fialkow is currently the retained counsel for Bank Defendants here and in the related

Federal litigation;

7. Defendant – JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, ESQ., is an attorney employed by K & L

Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP,

located in Boston). Mr. Patterson has served as co-counsel with Attorney Fialkow in the

related litigation, and has also appeared as a Guest Speaker in the referenced West

LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and

Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation;

8. Defendant – PETER HALEY, ESQ., is the Managing Partner for Nelson Mullins Riley

and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston, MA;

9. Defendant – KURT R. MCHUGH, ESQ., is an attorney employed by Harmon Law

Offices PC, and was the original representing attorney who initiated the referenced illegal
 foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Property;

10. Defendant - KEN and MARY DAHER are Real Estate Brokers associated with

Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies located in Methuen, MA. Mr. and Mrs. Daher

were the representing Real Estate Brokers associated with the referenced illegal

foreclosure sale of the Plaintiff’s Property;

11. Defendant Jeffrey Loeb, Esq., is an attorney employed by Rich May PC, located in

Boston, MA. Mr. Loeb is currently the retained counsel for Defendants – Jeffrey and

Isabelle Perkins here and in the related Federal litigation;

The Plaintiff reserves the right to further expand upon this list of Defendants to include the

following attorneys and Law Firms if ultimately, any (or ALL) of the Defendants consciously

choose not to enter into a mutual agreement with the Plaintiff:

1. Rich May PC;

2. K&L Gates, LLP;

3. Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq.;

4. Matthew Murphy, Esq.; and

5. Casner & Edwards, LLP.

The Court is respectfully reminded that litigation privilege is considered waived (as is

Sovereign/judicial immunity) when there is evidenced claims that include of Fraud upon the

Court, Economic Espionage and Conspiracy to Defraud The United States. Therefore, the

Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to allow an amendment that will include referenced
parties as additional Defendants. The Plaintiff also requests that your Honor issue subpoenas to

be served upon these parties to appear before the Court.

Please be advised – aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal

claims against named Defendants (including the additional parties referenced in this Motion)

both here in Massachusetts State Courts and in the related federal litigation call for regular

updates delivered to multiple government offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced

civil/criminal claims include: (1) Civil/Criminal RICO violations against the Commonwealth,

named Defendants (and Defendants still to be named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the

Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision

of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5) Conspiracy to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. §

371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and matters perceived to impact National Security.

Therefore, as we move forward with these proceedings, the following offices/agencies/courts

will receive regular updates, as it bears impact to the related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey
Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. If this Court has questions

regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE NEW EVIDENCE INVOLVING BANK

DEFENDANTS, PURSUANT TO MASS. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2) AND (3)

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to schedule a hearing to address

and acknowledge for the record NEW EVIDENCE involving Bank Defendants - WELLS

FARGO and US BANK, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). This new evidence shows

cause to re-open related cases and correct erred judgements in: (1) this Superior Court; (2) the

Land Court; and (3) the Northeast Housing Court – as there are now substantial contradictions to

the Bank Defendants statements of record. As grounds therefore, the Plaintiff states the

following:
I. SWORN TESTIMONY of WELLS FARGO CEO BEFORE HOUSE FINANCIAL

SERVICES COMMITTEE

New evidence is brought to the attention of this Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(2) – involving the sworn testimony of the Defendant - Wells Fargo, specifically,

(now former) CEO – Tim Sloan, before the House Financial Services Committee on

March 12, 2019. In his testimony – which included an admission to mortgage-related

abuses, Mr. Sloan states that his company has reached out to every customer in an effort

to resolve these issues. This testimony clearly contradicts what has been evidenced in this

(and all related State/Federal) litigation over the past eight (8) years. As evidenced by the

record, Wells Fargo has never once “reached out” to Mr. Harihar in effort to resolve a

single issue related to these admitted mortgage abuses associated with his Property. In

fact, it is Mr. Harihar who has in Good Faith – repeatedly extended opportunities to

Wells Fargo (and to all Defendants) to seek a mutual agreement for these evidenced

mortgage abuses, only to be ignored. In a statement released Thursday, March 14,

2019 by the House Financial Services Committee, Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-

CA) stated the following:

“It was very clear from Mr. Sloan’s testimony that Wells Fargo has failed to clean up

its act.” Remarkably, following his testimony, the OCC publicly rebuked Wells Fargo,

citing the bank’s ‘inability to execute effective corporate governance.’

This Court is respectfully reminded that as a matter of record: (1) the Department of

Justice (DOJ); (2) Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (MA AGO); and (3)
Federal Bank Regulators, specifically, the OCC have all identified these mortgage

abuses, recognizing Mr. Harihar’s Property as an illegal foreclosure. While

jurisdiction remains an issue here, this new evidenced testimony shows cause to again

amend all related State/Federal complaints and justifies initiating corrective action in

favor of the Plaintiff – IF DEFENDANTS CHOOSE NOT TO REACH A MUTUAL

AGREEMENT.

On March 20, 2019, the Respondent - Wells Fargo reached an agreement to pay more

than $13 million to settle a pending class-action lawsuit (originating in North Carolina)

that accused the bank of “improperly” modifying the mortgages of borrowers who had

declared bankruptcy. The settlement comes on the heels of Wells Fargo CEO Tim

Sloan’s referenced testimony over the bank’s run of scandals that include egregious

mortgage abuses. Last year, the bank revealed that an error in its mortgage underwriting

software led to hundreds of improperly denied mortgage modifications for borrowers

facing foreclosure over a five-year period. This court is respectfully reminded that as a

matter of record, the Plaintiff has for eight (8) years brought this Wells Fargo

“ERROR” or “GLITCH” to the attention of every State and Federal docket related

to this litigation – only to be ignored.

On Thursday, March 28, 2019, National headlines announced - Wells Fargo CEO Tim

Sloan steps down as bank struggles to get past scandals:

 “We have more work to do and that is an ongoing commitment by all of Wells Fargo’s

260,000 team members — starting with me — to put our customers’ needs first, to act

with honesty, integrity and accountability; and to strive to be the best bank in

America,” Sloan told the House committee.

The Plaintiff is certain that collectively, this eight (8) year litigation has (at least in part)

contributed to the Mr. Sloan’s decision to resign. To be clear – since the Defendants have

thus far refused to even discuss opportunities to reach a mutual agreement, these latest

developments involving Wells Fargo, combined with the plethora of evidence that

already supports ALL of the Plaintiff’s consistent claims of record - show cause for

this Court to: (1) finally recognize past erred judgements by Massachusetts State (and

Federal) courts; and (2) initiate corrective action. Furthermore, based on the sworn

testimony of Mr. Sloan, the Plaintiff shows cause to expand upon (or to file a new) claims

of Fraud on the Court (at minimum) against the Bank Defendant – Wells Fargo and

representing counsel of record – David E. Fialkow, Esq., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P.

60(b)(3). Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law, litigation privilege is

considered waived (as is Sovereign/Judicial immunity) when Fraud on the Court has been

evidenced.

II. SEC CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS INVOLVING DEFENDANT – US BANK

The Plaintiff has recently been made aware of an approved Criminal Complaint filed with

the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), involving four (4) parties including the

Defendant – US BANK.17 The approved TA-2 Form was submitted for reporting

17
See Exhibit 1
 activities of Transfer Agents pursuant to Section 17A of the Securities and Exchange

Act of 1934. The SEC criminal complaint addresses Intentional Misstatements or

Omissions of Fact that constitute Federal Criminal violations under (1) 18 U.S.C. 1001

and (2) 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a). If the Defendants (all of whom have knowledge of these

evidenced facts) do not wish to enter into a mutual agreement, the Plaintiff will show

cause to amend his original complaint(s) under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), expanding

upon his existing claims (at minimum) against the Defendant – US BANK. This new

evidence additionally shows cause to expand upon existing Fraud on the Court claims,

pursuant to Mass R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).

If after a thorough review of the historical record, the Plaintiff is not allowed to amend his

original complaint – based on this new evidence, the Plaintiff will respectfully call for your

Honor to clarify for the record specifically which historical documents were reviewed in order to

support your conclusion.18 Based on the evidenced, historical judicial abuses of record, the

failure to rightfully acknowledge any one (1) of the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims (including any

refusal to formally validate the intentions of the MA AGO) will be perceived as: (1) a

continued pattern of corrupt conduct; and (2) the intention to arrive at a corrupt and pre-

determined outcome - (at minimum) showing cause for recusal and cause to amend the related

federal complaint – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, pursuant (at

minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3).

18
Please be advised, HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS reference ALL filed documents related to this state and
federal litigation over the past eight (8) years - including ALL evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.
HARIHAR
Therefore, for the reasons stated above (and only after jurisdiction has been re-established), if the

Defendants do not wish to reach a mutual agreement, the Plaintiff calls for this Court to:

4. Schedule a separate hearing to address the referenced new evidenced described within;

5. Acknowledge for the record ALL referenced claims as part of the Plaintiff’s complaint;

and

6. Issue a subpoena to MA Attorney General – Maura Healey, calling for sworn testimony

that helps to inform this court of all historical legal issues related to the Plaintiff’s

foreclosure; and which calls for the MA AGO’s to clarify its intentions for bringing

criminal indictments against named Defendants, including their retained counsel. Please

be advised, any failure/refusal by the State Prosecutors to bring criminal indictments

against referenced parties will show cause to expand upon existing (or to file new)

claims against the Commonwealth in the related federal litigation – HARIHAR v US

BANK et al.

Aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal claims against

named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State Courts and in

the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple government

offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1) Civil/Criminal

RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants still to be

named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3) Economic

Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5) Conspiracy

to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and matters

perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these proceedings,
the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact to the

related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. If this Court has questions

regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1981-CV-00050

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
Defendants )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION RE: CALL FOR PROFESSIONAL PENALTIES

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, respectfully files this Motion in

accordance with Superior Court Rule 9A, calling for this Court to recognize that the severity of

evidenced claims brought against these Defendants – as well as their retained counsel of record,

shows cause to assess penalties beyond civil/criminal accountability. Professional licensure

penalties including disbarment should be assessed against licensed: (1) Attorneys; (2) Real

Estate Brokers; and (3) Real Estate Instructors, when the severity of evidenced claims

includes (but are not limited to):

1. Fraud on the Court, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

2. RICO claims;

3. Conspiracy to Defraud The United States;

4. Economic Espionage;

5. Fraud claims, pursuant to Mass. G.L.c. 93A;

 6. Deceptive Trade Practices;

7. Tampering Violations, and others.

If after a thorough review of the historical record, this Court fails to recognize ANY Defendant

or attorney misconduct that warrants the assessment of professional penalties, the Plaintiff will

respectfully call for your Honor to clarify for the record specifically which historical documents

were reviewed in order to support your conclusion.19 Based on the evidenced, historical judicial

abuses of record, the continued failure to rightfully acknowledge the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims

will indicate: (1) a continued pattern of corrupt conduct; and (2) the intention to arrive at a

corrupt and pre-determined outcome - (at minimum) showing cause for recusal and cause to

amend the related federal complaint – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880,

pursuant (at minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3).

Please be advised – aside from evidenced judicial failures of record, the severity evidenced legal

claims against named Defendants (and Parties still to be named) both here in Massachusetts State

Courts and in the related federal litigation call for regular updates delivered to multiple

government offices/agencies. Just a few of these evidenced civil/criminal claims include: (1)

Civil/Criminal RICO violations against the Commonwealth, named Defendants (and Defendants

still to be named) - 18 U.S. Code § 1964; (2) Fraud on the Court - Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (3)

Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831 ; (4) Misprision of Treason -18 U.S. Code § 2382 ; (5)

Conspiracy to Defraud The United States - 18 U.S.C. § 371; (6) Criminal SEC violations, and

19
Please be advised, HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS reference ALL filed documents related to this state and
federal litigation over the past eight (8) years - including ALL evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.
HARIHAR
matters perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, as we move forward with these

proceedings, the following offices/agencies/courts will receive regular updates, as it bears impact

to the related federal litigation:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director James M. Murray;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA); and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Regular updates will continue to be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s safety and security. The Clerk of the Court is

expected to record this document as part of the record. If this Court has questions regarding any

portion of this Notice, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon

request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com