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 )
)
)

EMERGENCY NOTICE OF VOID LAND COURT ORDER, IMPROPER

TRANSFER AND CAUSE FOR REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT,

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S. CODE § 1441(f)

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files this Emergency Notice to

inform the Court of the following:

I. Transfer Order of MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144 is Considered VOID

A thorough review of MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144 (including recorded

transcripts) improperly transferred to this Court, will reveal that the presiding Judge –

Michael Vhay lost jurisdiction after failing to uphold numerous State (and Federal) laws

including (but not limited to):

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

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

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

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

5. Refusal to Recuse; and

6. Failure/Refusal to Allow a Trial by Jury

In fact, upon issuing the Dismissal and Transfer Order December 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a

RESPONSE – informing the Court that the presiding Judge had once again issued an order

WITHOUT JURISDICTION. A copy of the referenced Response is attached for the record,1

since the Land Court Clerk, Jennifer Masello – REFUSED to docket the Plaintiff’s filing.

Prefacing the attached Plaintiff Response is an email communication delivered to Clerk Masello

requesting a detailed explanation for the record – as to WHY Mr. Harihar was prohibited from

filing a response to a VOID order. The Clerk has refused to provide an explanation, showing

cause to file a (incremental) criminal complaint with the MA AGO and FBI. Due to the severity

of issues, including NEW Evidence (involving the SEC) and relation to ongoing Federal

litigation2, the following parties were copied on the email:

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);

1
See Exhibit 1
2
Ongoing Federal Litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381; (2) HARIHAR v
THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (3) HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
 8. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);

9. The Office of the MA Attorney General; and

10. The Office of the MA Inspector General

Upon review, it should be clear that the presiding judge had multiple opportunities to initiate

corrective action and elected not to do so. Therefore, since Judge Michael Vhay lacked

jurisdiction, this Court must conclude that the Dismissal, Transfer and all related orders

issued by MA Land Court Judge Michael Vhay are considered VOID.

II. Evidenced Failures by MA State Courts

This Court is respectfully reminded that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is an

Appellee in the referenced Federal litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No.

17-1381, IN PART for the PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT evidenced within this

State’s Judiciary – IDENTICAL to that evidenced in the related Federal litigation and an

UNPRECEDENTED EIGHT (8) RECUSALS. Collectively – over nearly EIGHT (8)

years, the Plaintiff has PUBLICLY evidenced as a matter of record, judicial misconduct

(including Color of Law, Due Process, RICO and other violations) at EVERY level of the

Massachusetts State judiciary:

1. The MA Land Court;

2. The Lowell District Court;

3. The Northeast Housing Court;

4. The Middlesex Superior Court;

5. The MA Appeals Court; and

6. The MA Supreme Court

 Clearly - ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER who has followed and thoroughly researched the

history of this litigation will conclude that the INTEGRITY of the Massachusetts State

Judiciary has been COMPROMISED. In fact, it is the Plaintiff’s understanding that a

whistleblower has recently reported MA Land Court Judge Michael Vhay to both the

SEC and the United States Secret Service, for an alleged improper relationship with the

Defendant – MERS corp.

III. Discovery of 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 four (4)

parties including Appellee – US BANK. The APPROVED TA-2 Form was submitted for

reporting activities of Transfer Agents pursuant to Section 17A of the Securities and

Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC criminal complaint addresses INTENTIONAL

MISSTATEMENTS OR OMMISSIONS OF FACT THAT CONSTITUTE FEDERAL

CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1001 and (2) 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a).3 At

minimum, the Plaintiff shows cause to amend his original complaint(s) under Mass. R. Civ.

P. 60(b)(2), expanding upon his existing claims against Appellee – US BANK.

IV. Evidenced Failures by the MA AGO

The Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that: (1) the Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General (MA-AGO); and (2) the Department of Justice (DOJ) were the FIRST to

publicly identify Plaintiff’s Property as an ILLEGAL Foreclosure. Evidenced criminal

complaints have long been filed by the Plaintiff against listed Defendants, however, State

Prosecutors have refused to bring criminal indictments for these evidenced crimes. These

3
A copy of the referenced SEC Criminal complaint against Defendant – US BANK is included in Exhibit 1.
 failures – under the leadership of both Attorney General Maura Healey and previously

under former Attorney General Martha Coakley, additionally contribute (at minimum) to

the existing Color of Law and Due Process claims against the Commonwealth in the

referenced Federal litigation.4

Please be advised – the Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that he has evidenced for

the record (and in FULL PUBLIC VIEW) an IMPROPER RELATIONSHIP between: (1)

the MA Attorney General’s Office; (2) the US Attorney’s Office (MA); (3) The Boston

BAR Association and (4) Attorneys/Law Firms representing the Bank Defendants –

WELLS FARGO and US BANK. The Plaintiff references the WestLegalEd Center

continuing education course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts.”5 This course taught

attorneys who represent lending institutions how to defend against mortgage fraud. THE

GUEST SPEAKERS brought in to assist with TEACHING the course included: (1)

THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE; (2) THE US

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; and (3) THE BOSTON BAR ASSOCIATION. This Court is

already aware that Nelson Mullins, LLP – the creator of the course, is the former employer

of attorney David E. Fialkow – representing counsel for the Bank Defendants here.

Attorney Fialkow’s former co-counsel to this litigation – Jeffrey S. Patterson was also a

guest speaker for the course. The Court is reminded that Nelson Mullins LLP was the

SECOND law firm to WITHDRAW from this litigation.6 Both attorneys – Fialkow and

4
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and former AG Martha Coakley are Appellees in the related Federal
litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
5
See Exhibit 2 (p. 33)
6
This initial Law Firm representing Bank Defendant US Bank was HARMON LAW OFFICES, PC. Harmon is
also an Appellee in the referenced federal Appeal, HARIHAR v US BANK et al.
 Patterson, as well as Nelson Mullins LLP are Defendants/Appellees in the referenced

Federal Appeal.

Respectfully, if this Court continues to ignore these evidenced Collusion/RICO claims

(Civil and Criminal) under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations, the Plaintiff will show cause to further expand upon existing (or

file NEW) claims against the Commonwealth in the referenced Federal litigation.

V. Existing Jurisdiction Issues w/ the Middlesex Superior Court

The Plaintiff has evidenced a PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT in BOTH the

Federal and State Judiciary – now TWICE acknowledged by The United States Supreme

Court (SCOTUS). The most recent example in this Superior Court references the July 11,

2018 decision on Docket No. 1181CV04499 Harihar, Mohan A. vs. US Bank, N.A. et al –

where the Court refused to re-open the case; providing a false, deceptive and inaccurate

narrative consistent with the evidenced judicial misconduct identified in the Federal Court.

To be clear, this Court blatantly disregarded an EVIDENCED (and UNOPPOSED)

Fraud on the Court claim under Mass. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3). At minimum, the judge’s

failure/refusal to uphold Rule 60 renders his order VOID. This alone impacts this Court’s

jurisdiction and shows cause to: (1) Demand the recusal of Judge Joshua Wall; (2) Remove

this complaint to the Federal Court; and (3) Expand upon Color of Law and Due Process

claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Court is also reminded that a historical review of Docket No. 1181CV04499 will show

that THE COMPLETE FILE had previously gone “missing” for nearly a month. When it

was finally located, the Plaintiff found that it had been TAMPERED with. Aside from the
Clerk’s office, Plaintiff was informed that the ONLY other party believed to have handled

the case file was the Bank Defendant’s attorney – David E. Fialkow. The record shows

that the Court IGNORED Plaintiff’s repeated efforts to have these tampering allegations

investigated.

Respectfully, this Court has had multiple opportunities through the years to correct its erred

judgments and has refused to do so. At minimum, these evidenced judicial failures impact

not only jurisdiction, but also the integrity of this Superior Court and the

APPEARANCE OF JUSTICE. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER WOULD

CERTAINLY AGREE. Based on the evidenced record and the Plaintiff’s interpretation of

the law, judicial officers who have historically presided over this litigation in this Superior

Court are considered to have LOST JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule

further in this, or any related litigation. These judicial officers include (but are not limited

to):

1. Hon. Joshua Wall;

2. Hon. Christine M. McEvoy;

3. Hon. Jane Haggerty;

4. Hon. Maynard M. Kirpalani;

5. Hon. Edward P. Leibensperger;

6. Hon. Daniel M. Wrenn; and

7. Hon. William Sullivan

 It is the Plaintiff’s understanding that any judicial officer who attempts to issue an order

without jurisdiction is considered to be “warring against the Constitution” and will have

committed an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3.

VI. Motion to Strike Defendant’s Filing(s)

On Friday, January 11, 2019, counsel for Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US BANK

filed a Notice of intent to file a motion for summary judgment. Attorney Fialkow is fully

aware of the evidenced claims brought against MA Land Court Judge – Michael Vhay that

have impacted his jurisdiction. The Defendants have brought NO VALID argument to

suggest otherwise and are in fact – WITNESSES to these evidenced judicial misconduct

claims. Clearly, as evidenced by the record (and articulated in this filing) the transfer order to

this Court issued by Judge Vhay is considered VOID. Therefore, until ALL prior issues

have been resolved – beginning with JURISDICTION, ALL Defendants should be

prohibited from filing a summary judgment (or any other) motion with this Court. The

Plaintiff calls for the Court to strike the 1/11/19 Notice of intent from the record and to

prohibit ANY OTHER filings by Defendants until jurisdiction (and all other) issues have

been resolved. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court confirm for the record that

the tolling of time for any Defendant 9A (or any other) motion will only begin AFTER

jurisdiction has been re-established (if it even becomes necessary).

VII. Cause for Amendment to Federal Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v US BANK et al

Please be advised: (1) the recent actions from the MA Land Court; along with (2) this Court’s

ruling on July 11, 2018 – indicates a continued pattern of corrupt conduct in the MA State

Judiciary. The Plaintiff therefore shows cause to expand upon existing claims against the
 Commonwealth and will seek to amend the related Federal Appeal No. 17-1381. SHOULD

this Court finally initiate CORRECTIVE action and take the appropriate steps to

overturn its erred judgments, the Plaintiff will similarly show cause to amend his

Federal Appeal and claims against the Commonwealth.

VIII. Cause for Removal to Federal Court

The Plaintiff has exposed what is now being considered the largest case of judicial fraud in

the history of this Commonwealth; and collectively along with the related Federal litigation –

in the history of The United States. At minimum, it can be argued that the INTENT of these

(State and Federal) judicial officers is a scheme designed (at least in part) to unlawfully

impact/damage: (1) the setting of Legal Precedent; and (2) the Plaintiff’s Intellectual

Property/Trade Secret, created to assist The United States with Economic growth/repair.7

EVEN IF a VALID transfer to this Court were to eventually take place, the Plaintiff has

EVIEDENCED IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW that the INTEGRITY of this Court has been

COMPROMISED. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to remove this civil action to the

Federal Court, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1441(f).8 A motion for removal will next be filed

with the US District Court, should the Commonwealth fail to timely overturn and correct the

erred judgments described within. Moving forward, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that

this Court first provide: (1) detailed clarification that validates the recent failures of the MA

Land Court; followed by (2) the Court’s intentions to correct/overturn ALL related erred

7
The Plaintiff references his Intellectual Property (IP), known as the HARIHAR FCS Model. As a matter of
record, the IP/Trade Secret was successfully presented to multiple government offices/committees including (but not
limited to): (1) Members of Congress; (2) The House Financial Services Committee (Former Deputy Chief
Counsel); and (3) The Executive Office of the President (EOP), under the previous Obama administration and per
the specific request of former VP Joe Biden.
8
28 U.S. Code § 1441(f) Derivative Removal Jurisdiction - The court to which a civil action is removed under
this section is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in such civil action because the State court
from which such civil action is removed did not have jurisdiction over that claim.
 judgments issued by MA State Courts. Any corrective action initiated by this Court will be

taken into consideration in the related Federal litigation against the Commonwealth.

Conversely, any refusal to do so will re-affirm the Plaintiff’s consistent claims and the

systemic failure(s) of this State’s judiciary.

IX. Parties to Receive Copies of this Legal Notice

Please be advised, based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of State (and Federal) Law, and

considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving

judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage; (3) Criminal SEC violations; and (4) matters

believed to impact National/Homeland Security, copies of this Notice are necessarily

delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media) to:

a. POTUS9;

b. US Secret Service - Director Randolph D. Alles10;

c. SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) - Chairman Jay Clayton;

d. The Honorable Chief Justice John Roberts (SCOTUS);

e. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;

f. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;

g. Acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker;

h. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);

i. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

j. Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) House Judiciary Committee;

k. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Senate Judiciary Committee;

9
See Exhibit 3
10
Recognized for its central role in the protection of the nation’s leaders and the financial and critical
infrastructure of the United States, the Secret Service contributes to the Department of Homeland Security’s
common mission of protecting the American people from harm.
 l. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);

m. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and

n. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)

A copy will also 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 Notice, or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy

to provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 16th Day of January, 2019

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
[email protected]
Exhibit 1
 Mohan Harihar <[email protected]>

Mohan Harihar v. Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins, et al.: Land Court C.A. No.
18 MISC 000144 MDV
Mohan Harihar <[email protected]> Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:39 PM
To: Jennifer Masello <[email protected]>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <[email protected]>,
david fialkow <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], sydney_levin-
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Alexa
Vercollone <[email protected]>

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.
Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
[email protected]

[Quoted text hidden]

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

336K
 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.11 This latest

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

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

11
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).
 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

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.12 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.

12
References HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880.
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

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

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.

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

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,13 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.14 This newly discovered evidence impacts arguments

13
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.
14
See Exhibit 1
 related to this (and all related State/Federal) litigation showing cause to amend the original

complaint(s) and update the SEC.

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
[email protected]
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
 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)
[email protected]
Exhibit 2
 My CLE Knowledge
Welcome Search Catalog State Requirements Content Partners
CenterSM

RSS Feeds | Test Your Computer | Help | Shopping Cart | Contact Us | Sign In

Program Details
OnePass Sign-in

After the Bubble-Bursts:

Mortgage and Foreclosure
SIGN IN Issues in Criminal and Civil
Litigation Price: $140.00*
New User Registration Member Price: $115.00
Forgot Username/Password
This program is no
Video Help
longer available.
Content
Partner: Boston
Bar Association

Browse Programs
* Applicable Membership or Subscription discounts E-mail a
will be added in your shopping cart colleague about
CLE this program.
Description:
Accredited For Accreditation:
Specialty Credits
Criminal and civil litigation in mortgage and foreclosure
State-Specific Law
cases is an area in which legal issues are rapidly
Practice Areas
evolving, stakes are high and uncertainty is rampant. AK, AR, AZ, CA,
Content Partners
As a result, a variety of different areas of practice CO, CPE-NASBA,
overlap for many clients and practitioners. FL, ME, MO, MT,
ND, NJ, NY-
Core Business and
This program will focus on criminal and regulatory EXPER, OK, PA,
Professional Skills
issues emerging from the collapse of the national real RI, VI, VT, WV
Paralegal Studies estate and secondary mortgage markets. Among the
topics to be explored are: the uncovering of widespread Alaska
Subscriptions fraud in the origination of mortgages prior to the
collapse, and the priorities of state and federal Total Credits: 2.5
authorities in prosecuting such cases; civil and criminal Specialty Credits:
Thomson Reuters Product
authorities’ priorities in confronting fraud in connection Status: Reciprocal
Trainings
with post-collapse “foreclosure rescue” transactions; Credit Available
and criminal and regulatory issues relating to banking Expiration: N/A
RSS Feeds Training
and foreclosure practices in connection with mortgages
held in “pooled” investment vehicles. Type: Online

West
Live Program Calendar Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of leading LegalEdcenter
prosecution officials, including the Attorney General
and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud and
provides
foreclosure cases. Learn about important practical accreditation as
© ‹‹‹ April 2018 ››› described here.
issues and valuable strategies for criminal defense
S M T W TH F S attorneys in this area, including the likely impact of new You may be able
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 regulations at the state and federal level in the area of to self apply for
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 consumer protection in connection with mortgages. credits in states
Two panels of experts will present some of the latest not listed.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 breaking developments in this area, including the
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impact of the SJC’s ground-breaking Ibanez decision. Check your state
29 30 requirements and
All Programs for This Month Panel I: Post-Crash Criminal Prosecutions get contact
information.

• Property Flips
About Us • Foreclosure “Rescue” Schemes Speakers:
• Lender and Borrower Misconduct
• Fraud in the Secondary Market
About Us • Defending Real Estate Professionals • James H.
O'Brien -
Assistant
Panel II: The Regulatory Response
CLE Mobile Attorney General
- Massachusetts
• Consumer Fraud Protections in the Dodd Office of the
Frank Act Attorney General
Content Partners
• Lender Liability • Paul Levenson -
Assistant US
• Post-Ibanez Litigation
Attorney (Panel I
FAQ
Moderator) - US
Program Co-Chairs: Attorney’s Office
• Jeffrey S.
Press Releases
• Juliane Balliro, Esq., Partner, Nelson Mullins Patterson, Esq.
- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP
Riley &
Site Features • Paul G. Levenson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Scarborough
Attorney, The United States Attorney's Office LLP
District of Massachusetts • Juliane Balliro -
Video Help Partner (Panel II
Moderator) -
Nelson Mullins
Riley &
Criminal Law & Procedure, Real Scarborough
Related Programs Practice Areas:
Estate Law LLP
• James Patrick
Online Media Dowden -
Find more programs in same Video
Type: Assistant U.S
practice area(s)
Attorney - US
Production Date: 03/28/2011 4:00 PM EDT Attorney's Office
Find more programs from this
content partner • Thomas P.
Level: Intermediate Quinn, Esq. -
Pierce Atwood,
Category: Standard LLP
Duration: 2 Hours, 30 Minutes

Online Format: Live

Click here for information on subscription discounts and

Group Viewing opportunities.

Purchase of this product provides online access for

180 days. If you are purchasing a live webcast, you will
receive complimentary access to the on demand
version for 180 days once it becomes available. Please
note that the on demand and podcast versions may, or
may not be accredited in your state.

If you intend to take a course for CLE credit, please

make sure your state is listed in the "Accreditation"
section to the upper right of the program description.
Accreditation displayed is unique to the purchased
program format (live conference, live webcast, on
demand, podcast). Credit totals listed for live
conferences are the maximum credits available. Credits
issued will be based upon actual time in
attendance. Credit totals for other formats are for
complete programs. Partial credit is not available for
any online or downloadable format.

West LegalEdcenter will not provide accreditation

for states not listed.

This product is intended for individual use by the

named purchaser. Group viewings for online programs
may be arranged for five or more attorneys within the
same organization prior to viewing by emailing
[email protected].

People who bought this program also

bought:
There are no current recommendations

This product is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter

covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional
person should be sought.

Page Disclaimer

No page disclaimer found.

Home | Search | CLE Requirements | Site Map

Content Partners | Technical Requirements | Help | Contact Us
About Us | Privacy Statement
RSS Feeds
© 2018 Thomson Reuters
(c757qnk.int.thomsonreuters.com)
Exhibit 3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 16, 2019, I filed the foregoing NOTICE with the Clerk of the
Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via US Mail:

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq.

Rich May, PC
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
[email protected]

David E. Fialkow
K&L Gates, LLP
State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
[email protected]

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
[email protected]