In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a
having been associated with approximately 50,000 foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to
as counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the Attorney General
Office was beginning their investigation. Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently
Florida foreclosure kingpin
David Stern. This combination of historical facts, ongoing investigation, and disconnect with current counsel,
at MINIMUM shows cause to question ALL information submitted by these Appellees, warranting validation, as consistently requested by this Appellant.
Claims by Appellees (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) that there is ZERO misconduct associated with this matter
conflicts with the overwhelming amount of documented evidence, which has steadily come forth, supporting both civil and criminal misconduct against Appellees and their retained counsel. 3.
Appellees consistent refusal to validate information and requested discovery
must be addressed along with its historical impact to related court decisions, and to determine if Appellees have been truthful with the Court(s). 4.
New Evidence continues to come forth
Since the Appellant’s filing
for new trial, new evidence has again come forth, involving Appellee -
US Bank vs. Mary McCulley, Docket No. DV 09-562C,
the Honorable John C. Brown presiding. The jury rendered its verdict and found that Defendant: US Bank committed fraud and constructive fraud against Plaintiff Mary McCulley and that the fraud and constructive fraud injured and caused damage to Ms. McCulley. The jury also rendered its verdict that found US Bank liable for punitive damages. 5.
This matter now extends considerably beyond a singular foreclosure
as articulated in the Appellant Brief, Reply Brief, etc...additional factors which must be considered involve:
Relationship to US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis
Impact to Appellant’s Intellectual Property
Whether the involvement of the MA/US
Inspectors’ General is
The Court is asked to reference the Appellant’s associated Brief and Reply
Brief for added explanation fully supporting this position. Since the initial decisions rendered in the Lower Courts, and with the overwhelming amount of information which has come forth since, it has become clear that one side has been truthful with the Court(s), and one side has not. Validation now is necessary to make clear that determination. Finally, and as follow-up to the originally filed motion for new trial, the Appellant informs the Court of the following: 1.
As of July 9, 2014 at 5pm EST, no reply was received pertaining to the
final opportunity to voluntarily seek agreement