Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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>
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
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 )
)
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
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
Respectfully, these evidenced judicial failures are irrefutable, and Judge Vhay has provided
NO VALID argument that would suggest otherwise. Therefore, the referenced order (and
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
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
4
states that the Plaintiff has been in active/ongoing litigation involving his
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
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
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
- In a regulatory filing (and National headline), Wells Fargo recently revealed that a
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
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
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;
and Federal Bank Regulators have ALL recognized the foreclosure associated with
the Plaintiff and the mortgage servicer, Defendant – WELLS FARGO that (at
F. Failing to Acknowledge the $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses –
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
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
reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B
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 –
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
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
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
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
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
A. Expand Upon Existing Due Process, Color of Law (and other) Claims against
8
B. Add MA Land Court Judge Michael Vhay as a Defendant – Referencing the
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
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
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
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
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,
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
The Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar is grateful for the Court’s consideration in this very serious
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:
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
21