You are on page 1of 21

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

Mohan Harihar v. Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins, et al.: Land Court C.A. No.
18 MISC 000144 MDV
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:39 PM
To: Jennifer Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>,
david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>
Cc: chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov,
CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
mary.murrane@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, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, Alexa
Vercollone <avercollone@richmaylaw.com>

Ms. Masello and Counsel,

Before this Court transferred the referenced Docket to the Middlesex Superior Court, Judge Vhay
issued a VOID dismissal order on December 7, 2018 - WITHOUT jurisdiction, as it pertains to the
Plaintiff's claim of Legal Standing. The attached RESPONSE was timely submitted and this Court
refused to record the filing. Ms. Masello - you are now respectfully asked to provide for the record, a
detailed explanation as to WHY the Plaintiff is prohibited from filing a response to a VOID order
issued by this Court PRIOR to the transfer of the REMAINING issues.

Please be advised, as Clerk of the Court and as the Defendant's Counsel, you have collectively
witnessed the evidenced claims of record brought against the accused judicial officer, MA Land Court
Judge - Michael Vhay. You are also aware of the gravity of RELATED/IDENTICAL judicial
misconduct issues evidenced in the Federal Court - now TWICE acknowledged by SCOTUS. Any
continued failure by this Court to initiate corrective action shows cause to amend existing (and/or file
NEW) civil and criminal complaints. Also, please note - If it is your individual/collective decision to
continue ignoring these evidenced claims, you do so in the presence of the following parties, who are
necessarily copied on this (and future) email(s):

1. The DOJ;
2. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission);
3. The US Attorney's Office;
4. The US Inspector General's Office (OIG);
5. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
6. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
7. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
8. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
9. The MA Attorney General's Office; and
10. The MA Inspector General's Office

The Public and Media sources Nationwide will also receive a copy of this email and attached
documents out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff's safety and security. The Middlesex Superior
Court will also be updated in a separate filing. Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

1
Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

[Quoted text hidden]

Plaintiff Response to 12-7-18 Land Court Order.pdf


336K

(Scroll Down to View Attached PDF)

2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
LAND COURT DIVISION

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO 12/8/18 ORDER ISSUED WITHOUT JURISDICTION,

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND CAUSE FOR REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

On December 12, 2018, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant, received

by US Mail an order that had been issued on December 7, 2018 by an INFERIOR judicial

officer – Judge Michael Vhay. Respectfully, as a matter of record this Court has previously

been made aware of the judicial failures within this docket that ultimately impact jurisdiction.

Judge Vhay has not only refused to recuse, but has provided NO VALID argument that

would allow him to maintain jurisdiction here. Instead, Judge Vhay has consciously chosen to

continue ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION – exemplifying a pattern of corrupt conduct

IDENTICAL to that evidenced in the related Federal (and State) litigation.1 This latest action

raises a number of NEW issues and certainly impacts ALL related litigation:

1
Referenced Federal Litigation includes: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court
Docket No. 15-cv-11880); (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket
No. 17-cv-11109); and (3) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134).

3
I. The Order Issued 12/7/18 is Considered VOID – As previously articulated in the record,

MA Land Court Judge Vhay is considered to have lost jurisdiction and therefore, cannot

issue a ruling here, or in any related litigation. At minimum, the record reveals multiple

judicial failures including (but not limited to):

A. Failure/Refusal to Uphold Mass. R. Civ. P. 65;

B. Failure/Refusal to Uphold Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(g);

C. Failure/Refusal to Uphold Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

D. Failure/Refusal to Uphold Chapter 93A, section 2;

E. Refusal to Recuse; and

F. Failure/Refusal to Allow a Trial by Jury

Respectfully, these evidenced judicial failures are irrefutable, and Judge Vhay has provided

NO VALID argument that would suggest otherwise. Therefore, the referenced order (and

those issued prior) MUST be considered VOID.

EVEN IF jurisdiction was not an issue, Judge Vhay’s explanation of the order inaccurately

summarizes the issues, appearing to brush aside ALL of the Plaintiff’s supported arguments

in order to reach a CORRUPT AND PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME. This deceptive,

judicial tactic is one that is all-to-familiar to the Plaintiff - who has evidenced identical

patterns throughout the eight (8) year history of this litigation. Evidenced examples include

(but are not limited to):

A. Failure to Acknowledge Plaintiff’s Statute of Limitations Supported Argument –

referencing the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment, filed 9/28/18, which

4
states that the Plaintiff has been in active/ongoing litigation involving his

IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE since it originated in the Lowell

District Court on May 30, 2011. There had been little-to-no time gap during the 4-

year history of referenced State litigation prior to filing the Plaintiff’s initial Federal

complaint.2 EVEN when it became necessary to file his civil complaint in Federal

Court and for nearly FOUR (4) additional years thru PRESENT DAY, there has been

virtually NO GAP in time that even approaches a VALID statute of limitations

argument.

A. Notice to the North Middlesex County Registry of Deeds – in nearly eight (8)

years, the Plaintiff has NEVER been made aware by ANY court – OR IN THE

MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS - that he was

responsible for recording with the Registry of Deeds, “proof of the filing of the

pleading that presents the challenge” (Referencing M.G.L. c. 244, § 15(d)). The

Plaintiff will now officially file this required proof with the North Middlesex County

Registry of Deeds – since this litigation has been ONGOING for nearly eight (8)

years, with virtually NO GAP in time. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not even remotely

close to a 3-year “deadline” for filing such notice with the Registry of Deeds. Judge

Vhay’s assessment is both grossly inaccurate and invalid.

B. Failing to Acknowledge the Admission of Guilt by Defendant – WELLS FARGO

- In a regulatory filing (and National headline), Wells Fargo recently revealed that a

“technical error” kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan

modification. On August 3, 2018 a routine regulatory report submitted by Wells

2
References HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880.

5
Fargo contained a startling admission: A review of the bank's internal systems had

revealed a calculation error affecting hundreds of struggling homeowners who had

applied for mortgage modifications between April 2010 and October 2015. The

Plaintiff has evidenced for the record that he has been subject to the same

“ERROR/GLITCH” - However, despite this admission no corrective action has

ever been initiated by the Defendant, WELLS FARGO;

C. Failing to Accurately Address the Supported (and UNOPPOSED) FRAUD ON

THE COURT Argument - under Mass. Civ. R. Proc. 60(b)(3), that conclusively

shows that the RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006 AR-1, and ultimately the Plaintiff’s

Foreclosure is VOID;

D. Failing to Acknowledge Documents of record - indicating that the DOJ, MA AGO

and Federal Bank Regulators have ALL recognized the foreclosure associated with

the Plaintiff’s Property as ILLEGAL/VOID;

E. Failing to Acknowledge the 22-months of RECORDED Conversations - between

the Plaintiff and the mortgage servicer, Defendant – WELLS FARGO that (at

minimum) reveal deceptive practices under chapter 93A;

F. Failing to Acknowledge the $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses –

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018, the Department of Justice reached a $2.1B

settlement agreement with the Defendant – WELLS FARGO over evidenced

allegations of mortgage abuses;

G. Failing to Acknowledge the Evidenced Letter (AND CHECK) he received from a

Vice President for Wells Fargo - The check (issued to Mr. Harihar) was a

reimbursement (with interest) for his “Good Faith” payment that he was

6
INSTRUCTED to make in order to qualify for the loan modification – which he

never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years

AFTER the ILLEGAL Foreclosure, issued an apology for THEIR FAILURE(S)

to modify Mr. Harihar’s mortgage;

H. Failing to Acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in

TWO (2) separate lawsuits - The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AGs’

against Defendants that included – WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement,

the Plaintiff received approximately $1200. The second lawsuit was brought by

Federal Bank Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification

reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B

settlement, the Plaintiff received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the

Plaintiff reserved the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell short

of the damages incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved the right

to pursue criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil litigation is to

recover the substantial remaining balance of damages rightfully due to the Plaintiff –

and to RIGHTFULLY RETURN TO HIS HOME.

In fairness to Judge Vhay, it does appear that the Plaintiff’s supported arguments against Res

Judicata and Collateral Estoppel defenses have been acknowledged, as there is no mention

of either in his (VOID) opinion.

7
II. The Order is Considered an Incremental Act of Treason under Article III

For reasons clearly articulated throughout the record and again here, the conscious decision

by Judge Vhay to AGAIN issue an order on December 7, 2018 without jurisdiction is

perceived as an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The United States

Constitution. Serving as witness to this criminal violation is the Clerk of the Court –

Jennifer Masello, the listed Defendants and their respective counsel. Therefore, with the

filing of this response and as required by Federal Law, the Plaintiff notifies this Court of

this evidenced criminal violation by a judicial officer. Any failure by this Court to

acknowledge this formal claim will be brought to the attention of SCOTUS. Governor

Charlie Baker (R-MA) and The White House/POTUS (See Exhibit 2) will similarly be

notified by email communication and/or social media.

III. Impact to Ongoing Federal Litigation – Please be advised, this Court is already aware that

the referenced litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), includes the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a Defendant; where a pattern of corrupt conduct has

previously been evidenced as a matter of record throughout this State’s judiciary. The

evidenced claims brought against the presiding Judge Michael Vhay, shows cause to now

amend the Plaintiff’s three (3) original Federal complaint(s). At minimum, the judge’s

actions show cause to:

A. Expand Upon Existing Due Process, Color of Law (and other) Claims against

the Commonwealth – Referencing HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-

1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); and

8
B. Add MA Land Court Judge Michael Vhay as a Defendant – Referencing the

Federal litigation, HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R HOWARD et al,

Docket No. 18-cv-11134;

IV. Impact to Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to SCOTUS – On December 4, 2018,

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer acknowledged for a SECOND time,3 the list of

extraordinary, unresolved issues associated with this litigation. Referenced issues include the

egregious pattern of corrupt conduct exemplified by the lower courts. Justice Breyer again

granted an extension of time to 1/28/18 for Mr. Harihar to file his Petition for Writ of

Certiorari. It now becomes necessary to inform SCOTUS of this recent development

involving MA Land Court Judge Michael Vhay.

V. Impact to Filed FBI Criminal Complaints – This Court is already aware that the Plaintiff

has (for reasons stated) necessarily filed a criminal complaint with the FBI against Judge

Michael Vhay. The conscious decision to issue an incremental order without jurisdiction

shows cause to now update the filed criminal complaints.

VI. New Evidence – please be advised, the Plaintiff has recently been made aware of an

approved Criminal Complaint filed with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission),

involving the Defendant – US BANK.4 This newly discovered evidence impacts arguments

related to this (and all related State/Federal) litigation showing cause to amend the original

complaint(s) and update the SEC.

3
Justice Stephen Breyer first acknowledged the referenced list of extraordinary, unresolved issues on June 8, 2018
– thus granting the Petitioner’s request for a timeline extension. Shortly thereafter, the First Circuit Panel
VACATED the Judgment, recalled the issued Mandate and later RECUSED. The REPLACEMENT Appellate
Panel is similarly considered inferior, has refused to recuse and has added to the extraordinary issues warranting a
second timeline extension.
4
See Exhibit 1

9
VII. Notice of Appeal – Please be advised, while the referenced Dismissal order is considered

VOID (for reasons stated within), the Plaintiff files this NOTICE OF APPEAL to the

dismissal (and all related) order(s) issued by Judge Michael Vhay.

VIII. Cause for Removal to Federal Court – If corrective action is not immediately initiated

by this Court, the Plaintiff shows cause for removal of this civil complaint to Federal Court,

pursuant to (at minimum) 28 U.S. Code § 1446.

A copy of this response will be made available to the PUBLIC and distributed to media sources

nationwide, for documentation purposes and out of the Plaintiff’s CONTINUED CONCERNS

FOR HIS PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY.

The Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar is grateful for the Court’s consideration in this very serious

and sensitive matter.

Respectfully submitted this 19th Day of December, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

10
Exhibit 1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Exhibit 2

18
19
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 19, 2018, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication. Hardcopies will also be
delivered via US Mail to:

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq.


David E. Fialkow, Esq.

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

21