You are on page 1of 26

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps


multiple parties informed, including the EOP.

Lowell, MA, July 12, 2014 On Friday, foreclosed homeowner - Mohan A. Harihar, filed an Appellate
Reply Brief with the Massachusetts Appeals Court, calling for a validation of information on file, as
decisions by the Appellee HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate
Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with Appellee(s)
Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA.

In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has granted the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar,
leave to file for new trial, as new evidence and information continues to come forth in support of Mr.
Harihars consistent claims, warranting validation. Both Wells Fargo and US Bank have filed a motion
in attempt to reconsider and overturn the Courts decision for new trial.

As the impact of the US Foreclosure Crisis continues to be Headline News, this growing storyline is
becoming more complex, with concerns related to due process, infringement of intellectual property,
and the resulting impact to Court decisions when information is not validated, not supported, or not
even produced.

Due to this growing complexity, multiple parties are copied on communications including: The
Executive Offices of the President (EOP), the US Attorneys Office, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US
Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), and
Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA).

The filed Opposition and Appellant Reply Brief are also attached and can be viewed in their entirety
(Scroll down to view).

Prior Media Alerts are also available for viewing by clicking on the following links:

MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT ALLOWS FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO FILE FOR NEW TRIAL, BASED ON NEW
EVIDENCE http://www.scribd.com/doc/232686869

FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER FILES FOR NEW TRIAL & TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT W/ NEW INFO
http://scribd.com/doc/231548551

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION TRANSFER TO
FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527

For Further Media Information Contact :

Mohan A. Harihar
Email: mo.harihar@gmail.com
Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar
2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX APPEALS COURT OF
THE COMMONWEALTH
DOCKET NO: 2013P1829

MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Appellant

vs.

US BANK NA,
WELLS FARGO NA,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.

Appellees


OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING NEW TRIAL

Opposition to Appellees Motion for Reconsideration is hereby respectfully
submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The Court is additionally
asked to review the Appellant Reply Brief associated with this Docket,
filed in conjunction with this Opposition.

After a review of the Appellees (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) motion,
this Court should allow the filing for new trial to stand, and deny
Appellees motion based on the following:

1. Appellee, Harmon Law Offices PC As the third Appellee in this
matter, and as the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank in
this matter, Harmon has full knowledge of the intricate details
involved, and has chosen to file No Opposition or Motion of
Reconsideration in response to this Courts decision to grant the
Appellant new trial.

Similarly, Harmon has also chosen not to file an opposing Appellee
Brief with this associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. As the initially
retained counsel to Appellee US Bank NA, initiated in Lowell
District Court
1
, these decisions not to file ANY Opposition or
Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both
consistency and alignment, with the current counsel for the
Appellee(s) Nelson Mullins LLP. In fact, Court transcripts from the
Lowell District Court will support Harmon as stating that Mr.
Harihars complaints/concerns are VALID.

This Court is well aware that Harmon Law Offices PC has been under
investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General for the past
three (3) years, for wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.
2


1
Lowell District Court, US Bank NA vs. Mohan A. Harihar, Docket No: 201111SU001495
2
See - Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General, filed with this Appeals
Court. A recent unanimous ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior Court
decision allowing the MA Attorney Generals office to continue examining Harmon Law Offices
for alleged unfair and deceptive acts related to the firms foreclosure and eviction work.
3
In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a
Foreclosure Mill, having been associated with approximately 50,000
foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to WITHDRAW as
counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the Attorney Generals
Office was beginning their investigation.

Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently disbarred
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.

2. 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 Appellants 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:
a. 14
th
Amendment infractions
b. Relationship to US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis
c. Impact to Appellants Intellectual Property
d. Whether the involvement of the MA/US Inspectors General is
necessary.

The Court is asked to reference the Appellants 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 afforded to
4
Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA (see original motion). That
offer is now considered VOID.

Therefore, based on the collective reasons stated within, and also within
the original motion, the Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to:

1. Deny Appellees Motion for reconsideration.

2. Transfer of this matter, including all related Dockets to Federal
Court: 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671, and 2013-P-1829. Transfer will
also address the 4
th
Notice of Appeal, never received by this
Court, which irrefutably involves 14
th
Amendment infractions
previously stated (Docket N/A).

3. Issue a Court order for the production and validation of Discovery
evidence the 22-months of recorded conversations between the
Mortgage Servicer, Wells Fargo NA and the Appellee Mohan A.
Harihar, which is believed to support Deceptive Practices of the
Appellee(s). The purpose of the Order is to additionally validate
if these recordings still exist or if they have been tampered
with, destroyed, lost, etc

4. Due to the potential complexity of validation, the Appellant
additionally calls for assistance from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), particularly with validation concerns surrounding
the associated Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.

5. Order subpoenaed testimony from MA Attorney General Martha Coakley
regarding the relationship of this matter to the 3+ year ongoing
investigation of APPELLEE - Harmon Law Offices PC.

6. Address State and Federal Criminal Charges against referenced
parties, regarding criminal complaints already filed with the MA
Office of the Attorney General and Fraud Investigations Unit of
the FBI.

7. Follow-up by the Court regarding Counsel accountability and
complaints already filed with the MA Board of Bar Overseers
against the following parties: Attorney David E. Fialkow (Partner,
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), Peter Haley (Managing
partner, Boston Office Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP),
Nelson Mullins LLP in its entirety, and Harmon Law offices PC.

8. Appellant additionally seeks to introduce a special prosecutor to
address the number of concerns (on multiple levels), involving the
infringement of intellectual property of the Appellant, and
increased risk to a project designed to assist the US and overall
global economic recovery, as detailed in the filed Appellant Brief
to Docket 2013-P-1829.

9. Allow the Appellant to rightfully return to his home, while this
legal matter proceeds, and for Appellees to incur all costs
associated with the Wrongful Displacement of the Appellant.


Please advise whether motions are required to be filed separately for all
impacted Dockets Nos: 2012-P1515, 2013-P-0671, 2013-P-1829.
5

Thank you for your attention to this matter.



Respectfully Submitted,


Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852














































6






Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Appeals Court




Docket No. 2013-P-1829

_________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant

vs.

US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A.,
Harmon Law Offices PC et al
Appellees
__________________________________________

On Appeal From A Judgment Of The
Middlesex Superior Court

__________________________________________

Reply Brief For The Appellant

____________________________________________



Mohan A. Harihar
Pro Se
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Phone)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com









7



Table of Contents


Table of Authorities............................3

A. Cases

B. Other Authorities

Issues Presented................................4

Summary of the Argument.........................5

Argument........................................6
Conclusion......................................15
Judgment Order on Appeal........................21
Certificate of Compliance.......................22
Addendum........................................23
Record Appendix (Refer to filed Appellant Brief Appendix)















8


Table of Authorities

Cases:

US Bank NA vs. Mohan A. Harihar.....................6
Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General.............7
United States District Court, Northern District of
California..........................................9




Statutes and Rules:
Massachusetts General Laws
G.L. c. 93A, 2............................9, 13
G.L. c. 223A, 3...........................9, 13
SJC Court Rule 3:13.........................19








9
Issues Presented

Upon receipt and review of one (1) out of two (2) Appellee Briefs
associated with Docket No. 2013-P-1829, the Appellant presents the
following issues:
1. No Appellate Brief filed by the Appellee HARMON LAW OFFICES PC.
2. Whether Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, have historically
provided the Court(s) with validated and supported information?
3. Impact of non-validated, unsupported, and information not provided to
this, and all related decisions warrants protection from this Court.
4. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to
this matter.
5. Decisions to ignore critical facts.









10
Summary of the Argument
I. The decision not to file an Appellate Brief by Appellee Harmon Law
offices PC warrants a motion for summary disposition/reversal of the
decision and request the Court set this case for submission (and rule
in Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a
response brief.
II. Continued refusal by Appellees to provide requested Discovery or
to validate information must be addressed and enforced.
III. Impact of non-validated, unsupported, and information not provided
to this, and all related decisions warrants protection from this
Court.
IV. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to
this matter.
V. Facts surrounding the relationship of this matter to the Nations
Foreclosure Crisis and Appellees Intellectual property have been
consistently ignored.







11
Argument
I. The decision not to file an Appellate Brief by Appellee Harmon Law
offices PC warrants a motion for summary disposition/reversal of the
decision and request the Court set this case for submission (and rule
in Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a
response brief.
As the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank NA,
initiated in Lowell District Court
3
, the decision not to file ANY
Opposition or Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect,
lacking both consistency and alignment, with the current counsel
for the Appellee(s) Nelson Mullins LLP. In fact, Court
transcripts from the Lowell District Court will support Harmon as
stating that Mr. Harihars complaints/concerns are VALID.
This Court is well aware that Harmon Law Offices PC has been under
investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General for the
past three (3) years, for wrongful foreclosure and eviction
practices.
4

In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a
Foreclosure Mill, having been associated with approximately
50,000 foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to
WITHDRAW as counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the
Attorney Generals Office was beginning their investigation.

3
Lowell District Court, Docket No: 201111SU001495
4
See - Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General, filed with this Appeals
Court. A recent unanimous ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior Court
decision allowing the MA Attorney Generals office to continue examining Harmon Law Offices
for alleged unfair and deceptive acts related to the firms foreclosure and eviction work.
12
Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently disbarred
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.
Validation of information in itself will support the Appellants
initial request for the Courts protection.
Since the Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA continue to
claim ZERO misconduct of any sort, there should be no pushback
with regard to any validation of information, nor ANY reason to
withhold requested Discovery evidence.
II. Continued refusal by Appellees to provide requested Discovery or
to validate information must be addressed and enforced.
Despite numerous (and ongoing) efforts by the Appellant requesting
validation of information, the Appellees have refused to do so,
which is exemplified by (but not limited to) the following:
a. The recorded conversations which took place during the 22-month
loan modification process, between the Appellant Mohan A.
Harihar and the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo NA. These
recorded conversations will irrefutably support the consistent
claims of the Appellant, which include (but are not limited to)
deceptive practices by the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo NA.
5

The consistent refusal FOR THREE (3) YEARS, to provide the

5
G.L. c. 93A, 2, G.L. c. 223A, 3
13
recorded conversations suggest that these Appellees have not
been truthful with the Court(s), and question whether this
evidence still exists, or has been destroyed, lost, tampered
with, etc...
b. Refusal to validate signatures on file, where the Court is now
aware of the $67M settlement by the Appellees very own
Shareholders regarding forged documents on a mass scale.
6

c. Refusal to validate Chain of Title.
d. Refusal to provide supporting testimony of any kind regarding
Statements made on behalf of Attorney General Martha Coakley,
other government officials, the media, the public, or even
senior management of retained counsel Nelson Mullins LLP,
referencing harassment, disinterested parties, etc...
In fact, to assist with ease of validation, the Appellees were
provided with a validation questionnaire, which they refused to answer
and complete.
7

These collective facts clearly suggest that these Appellees have not
been truthful with the Court(s), that the facts pertaining to this
matter have not been accurately presented, thus warranting further
validation prior to rendering a decision. Validation will
additionally reveal the necessity to restrain the speech of these
Appellees and their retained counsel, as originally requested by the
Appellants original Motion.

6
United States District Court, Northern District of California, Docket No. 3:11-cv-02369-SI, a
Shareholder Derivative Action addressing Robo-signing activities at Wells Fargo, and
subsequent breach of their Fiduciary duty and loyalty.
7
See Appellant Brief Appendix, pages 52-61
14
III. Resulting Impact of non-validated, un-supported, and information
not provided, to this decision, and all related decisions warrants
protection from this Court.
Clearly, the resulting impact to the Appellant has been severe.
The collective and accruing damages incurred as a result of non-
validated, un-supported, and information not provided by these
Appellees have impacted ALL related Court decisions from the
Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, this MA Appeals
Court, and the MA Supreme Judicial Court. These actions and
accompanying statements by Appellees are also viewed (at minimum)
as slanderous and defamatory against Mr. Harihar, thus warranting
the initial request that protection be provided by the Court.
Harm and accruing damages to Mr. Harihar extend far beyond slander
and defamation. These contributing factors have negatively
impacted Mr. Harihars: Marriage, family, career, credit, future
retirement, and everyday living. These actions by the Appellees
have now led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of the Appellant, who is
HOMELESS and still UNEMPLOYED as a result.
As stated in the Appellant Brief, impact is additionally assessed
to the Appellants Intellectual Property, and a project designed
to assist this Nations and Overall Global Economy.
The logical course of corrective action must include validating
information prior to making ANY decision. Should validation and
ordered production of Discovery evidence continue to provide
support to this Appellants consistent claims, protection by the
Court from further damages is clearly justified.
15
Decisions which have been made, when so much critical information
has not been validated, properly supported or even produced,
clearly shows a legal error which has prejudiced this, and all
related cases, and so justifies a motion for summary reversal(s).
IV. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to
this matter.
The information and evidence already available and in possession
is entirely FACT-BASED, well-documented with the Court(s),
irrefutably shows definitive civil and criminal misconduct, and
reveals that the referenced lender US Bank NA, mortgage servicer
Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel have purposefully
misled the Court(s) for over three (3) years. Documented
misconduct includes (but is not limited to):
1. Fraudulent Concealment
2. Negligent Misrepresentation
3. Fraud
4. Deceptive Practices
5. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
6. Perjury
The Appellant respectfully brings to this Courts attention, that
upon review of the supporting cases submitted over three (3) years
by the Appellee(s), there does not appear to be one (1) case
example provided, which reflects circumstances equivalent to this
16
matter. Specifically, no case example has been provided to the
Court(s) which includes the magnitude of documented civil and
criminal misconduct as does this matter. In fact, the Appellant
does not believe there to be a case decision, in this
Commonwealth, or any state in the Nation, which articulates and
provides justification in lieu of documented civil and criminal
misconduct provided. Therefore, all such related arguments by
Appellees, and their impact to ALL related decisions,
respectfully, must be considered VOID. Any continued argument by
opposing parties based on the same premise, further justifies
necessity for new trial.
V. Facts surrounding the relationship of this matter to the Nations
Foreclosure Crisis and Appellees Intellectual property have been
consistently ignored.
The Appellant brings to the attention of this Court, the continued
decision by Appellees to completely ignore and avoid any
discussion involving this matters IRREFUTABLE relationship to the
US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. Similarly, Appellees have avoided
any discussion regarding the resulting impact to this Appellants
Intellectual property, which includes a project designed to assist
this Nations and overall Global economy.
8





8
Additional information regarding the Appellants Intellectual property is included in the
Appellant Brief associated with this Docket.
17
Conclusion
Based on the decision not to file any Opposition or Appellate Brief by
Appellee Harmon Law offices PC exemplifies a clear disconnect with the
other two (2) Appellees Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, and in itself
warrants a motion for summary disposition/ reversal of the decision and
request for the Court to set this case for submission (and rule in
Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a response
brief.
Second, for Court decisions to have been made, when so much critical
information has not been validated, properly supported or even produced,
clearly shows a legal error which has prejudiced this, and all related
cases, and so justifies a motion for summary reversal(s).
These arguments alone are irrefutable, and must invalidate any and all laws
used against this Appellant.
Adding the failure to provide equivalent case examples, Appellee refusal to
abide by Cease and Desist Notices, and the collective concerns articulated
in the Appellant Brief, there are a number of serious actions which are
deemed necessary. In an effort for this matter to begin a corrective path
within this Commonwealth, the Appellant respectfully moves for this Court
to issue the following order(s):
1. Summary reversal in favor of the Appellant, followed by a protective
order restraining speech of the Appellees and their retained counsel,
as a validation process is initiated.
2. Initiate a validation process to review all supporting documentation
historically provided (or not provided) by Appellees. Validation to
also include Chain of Title and ALL signatures on file.
18
3. A Court order for the production and validation of consistently
requested Discovery evidence the 22-months of recorded
conversations between the Mortgage Servicer, Wells Fargo NA and the
Appellee Mohan A. Harihar, which is believed to support Deceptive
Practices of the Appellee(s). The purpose of the Order is to
additionally validate if these recordings still exist or if they have
been tampered with, destroyed, lost, etc....
4. Subpoenaed testimony from MA Attorney General Martha Coakley
regarding the relationship of this matter to the 3+ year ongoing
investigation of APPELLEE - Harmon Law Offices PC.
5. Due to the potential complexity of validation, the Appellant
additionally calls for assistance from the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), particularly with validation concerns surrounding the
associated Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.
6. Pending a recap of the validation process, a follow-up by the Court
regarding Counsel accountability and complaints already filed with
the MA Board of Bar Overseers against the following parties: Attorney
David E. Fialkow (Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP),
Peter Haley (Managing partner, Boston Office Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP), Nelson Mullins LLP in its entirety, and Harmon Law
offices PC.
7. Address State and Federal Criminal Charges against referenced
parties, regarding criminal complaints already filed with the MA
Office of the Attorney General and Fraud Investigations Unit of the
FBI.
8. Appellant additionally seeks to introduce a special prosecutor to
address the number of concerns (on multiple levels), involving the
infringement of intellectual property of the Appellant, and increased
risk to a project designed to assist the US and overall Global
19
economic recovery, as detailed in the filed Appellant Brief to Docket
2013-P-1829.
9. Summary reversal of the associated eviction order, where infringement
to Due Process under 14
th
Amendment is also irrefutable (SJC Court
Rule 3:13)
9
, and to allow the Appellant to rightfully return to his
home, while this legal matter proceeds, and for Appellees to incur
all costs associated with the Wrongful Displacement of the Appellant
(Motion filed separately).

In line with the filed Appellant Brief, these crucial next steps will
determine whether or not a successful corrective path regarding this entire
matter is attainable within this Commonwealth, or if the outcome
necessitates transfers to Federal Court, and the involvement of the MA/US
Inspectors General.
Upon the filing of this Appellant Reply Brief, and because of the growing
complexity of this matter and heightened concerns stated within,
communication including a copy of this Appellant Brief has additionally
been sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Deputy Assistant
Director Tim Sheehan (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), The American
Civil Liberties Union, US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed
Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley
(MA), US Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen Donoghue
(MA), Christina Sterling (US Attorneys Office), and the managing partners
of Nelson Mullins LLP.
Thank you for your consideration.

9
See Appellant Brief Appendix, pages 42 - 45
20

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Pro Se
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com










21



22
23















ADDENDUM
























24


Addendum Table of Contents


G.L. c. 93A, 2....................................35

G.L. c. 223A, 3...................................35

MA SJC Rule 3:13....................................36





































25


G.L. c. 93A, 2

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or
commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

G.L. c. 223A, 3


Section 3. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a
person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of
action in law or equity arising from the persons
(a) transacting any business in this commonwealth;
(b) contracting to supply services or things in this
commonwealth;
(c) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this
commonwealth;
(d) causing tortious injury in this commonwealth by an act or
omission outside this commonwealth if he regularly does or
solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of
conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or
consumed or services rendered, in this commonwealth;
(e) having an interest in, using or possessing real property in
this commonwealth;
(f) contracting to insure any person, property or risk located
within this commonwealth at the time of contracting;
(g) maintaining a domicile in this commonwealth while a party
to a personal or marital relationship out of which arises a
claim for divorce, alimony, property settlement, parentage of a
child, child support or child custody; or the commission of any
act giving rise to such a claim; or
(h) having been subject to the exercise of personal
jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth which has resulted
in an order of alimony, custody, child support or property
settlement, notwithstanding the subsequent departure of one of
the original parties from the commonwealth, if the action
involves modification of such order or orders and the moving
party resides in the commonwealth, or if the action involves
enforcement of such order notwithstanding the domicile of the
moving party.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:13: Committee on
Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts

[Disclaimer]

26
The Supreme Judicial Court may establish a committee on
professional responsibility to investigate any action of a
Clerk Magistrate, as defined in Rule 3:12, including (a)
conviction of a crime, (b) wilful misconduct in office, (c)
wilful misconduct which, although not related to duties as a
Clerk Magistrate, brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into
disrepute, (d) conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice or conduct unbecoming a Clerk Magistrate, whether
conduct in office or outside of duties as a Clerk Magistrate,
that brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into disrepute, or
(e) any conduct that constitutes a violation of Rule 3:12. The
committee may receive information, investigate, and make
recommendations relative to any mental or physical disability,
including habitual intemperance, of a Clerk Magistrate. The
committee shall consist of at least five persons, none of whom
shall be a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, at least one
of whom shall be a currently elected Clerk Magistrate and at
least one of whom shall be an appointed Clerk Magistrate. The
composition and rules of the committee shall be as established
by the Supreme Judicial Court. This rule shall not be
interpreted to abrogate the authority of the Supreme Judicial
Court, the Appeals Court, the Chief Administrative Justice, or
an Administrative Justice of a Department of the Trial Court in
any of these areas.