Source: https://fr.scribd.com/document/422104582/HARIHAR-S-Email-to-Court-Clerk-and-US-Attorney-s-Office-Calls-for-Acknowledgment-of-Judicial-Treason-Criminal-Indictments-and-Attorney-Sanctions
Timestamp: 2019-09-15 23:12:12
Document Index: 783460017

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u202f2381', '§\u202f2382', '§ 1446', '§\u202f2381', '§ 1446', '§ 2382', '§ 2382', '§\u202f2381', '§ 2382', '§ 1446']

HARIHAR'S Email to Court Clerk and US Attorney's Office Calls for Acknowledgment of Judicial Treason, Criminal Indictments and Attorney Sanctions | Disqualification judiciaire | Procès
It is time for this Massachusetts Superior Court to put an end to this deceptive conduct, beginning with the issuing of sanctions against Attorneys David E. Fialkow (K&L Gates, LLP), Jeffrey B. Loeb (Rich May, PC) and ANY other officer of the Court who continues to abuse their litigation privilege... any judicial officer who would even consider overlooking these evidenced judicial crimes and continues to allow abuses of litigation privilege without penalty – in itself shows cause for recusal.
enregistrerEnregistrer HARIHAR&amp;#39;S Email to Court Clerk and US Attorney&amp;#39;s O... pour plus tard
HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO et al, 1981-CV-00050, Plaintiff 9A Package
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:41 PM
To: Arthur T Deguglielmo <arthur.deguglielmo@jud.state.ma.us>, andrew lelling
<andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov>
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@massmail.state.ma.us>,
governor.schedule@state.ma.us, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
theresa watson3 <theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov>, mary murrane <mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, christina
sterling <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>, elizabeth warren <elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>, Nora
Keefe <Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov>, Nairoby Gabriel <Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov>,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney levin-epstein <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>, lori
trahan <lori.trahan@mail.house.gov>, ayanna pressley <ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov>,
maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, chairmanoffice@sec.gov,
CommissionerStein@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, "Jeffrey
Dear Clerk Deguglielmo and US Attorney Lelling,
Attached, please find the Plaintiff's complete Rule 9A package for filing in the above-referenced
Docket. Hardcopies are being mailed to the Court and to Counsel of record. US Attorney Lelling, you
are also notified directly as the Plaintiff in this case has publicly evidenced a Criminal act of Judicial
Treason under ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381 (Referencing the July 29, 2019 VOID order
issued by RECUSED US District Court Judge - Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs). After reviewing the
content of the Defendants' Opposition, it should appear clear that neither these parties nor their
retained counsel intend to acknowledge that they have personally witnessed an act(s) of Judicial
Treason - a federal crime of MISPRISION of TREASON under 18 U.S. Code § 2382. You are aware
that the President, Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) and members of Congress have already been
informed of this serious crime(s). Therefore, I respectfully call for the Department of Justice move
forward with bringing criminal indictments against the named Defendants and their counsel of record.
I also request that the Justice Department assist with formally bringing the evidenced judicial crimes
of record to the attention of the President and to the House/Senate Judiciary Committees.
Finally, this Court and the DOJ are well-aware of the severity of legal issues involving this
case, the related federal litigation (which includes the Commonwealth and separately - The
United States as Defendants) and its overall perceived impact to National Security. Therefore, it
remains necessary to continue copying multiple government offices/agencies (referenced above) and
the Public - out of continued concerns for my personal safety and security. If the Court or the Justice
Department has any questions or concerns, please advise.
8-16-19 Middlesex Superior Court Correspondance.pdf
Plaintiff Motion for Recusal.pdf
Bank Defendants Opposition.pdf
Perkins and Mers Response to Enjoin Opp.pdf
Plaintiff Response - Court Copy.pdf
PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION FOR RECUSAL,
INCLUDING NOTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS AND CALL FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST ATTORNEYS DAVID E. FIALKOW (K&L GATES, LLP)
AND JEFFREY B. LOEB (RICH MAY, PC)
On Monday, August 12, 2019, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant with no
legal experience, notified the Court Clerk – Arthur Deguglielmo by email communication,
informing the Court of an opposition received from attorney David E. Fialkow (K&L Gates,
LLP), representing counsel for Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US BANK.1 After
reviewing the content of the opposition, it should be clear - to any objective observer who has
reviewed the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments, that the only objective of these Bank Defendants is
to to purposefully deceive this Court. This repetitive pattern of deceptive conduct by the Bank
See Exhibit A, to review the 8/12/19 email communication to Middlesex Superior Court Clerk - Arthur
Deguglielmo.
Defendants and Attorney Fialkow has been evidenced by the record throughout the 8-year
history of this litigation (Federal and State).
On August 14, 2019, the Plaintiff randomly checked the Massachusetts Trial Court Electronic
Case Access Website and noticed the following update:
“Endorsement on Motion for Recusal (#33.0): DENIED
Plaintiff's motion for recusal is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with
Superior Court Rule 9A. Dated: August 9, 2019
Judge: Howe, Hon. Janice W”
The Plaintiff identifies two (2) concerns here. First, it appears that Judge Howe issued this order
on August 9, 2018. However, there is no entry on the docket of an order issued on this date and
the Plaintiff has not received any notification by mail. Based on the history of evidenced
judicial failures associated with this litigation, the concern here is perceived as an act of
deception that ultimately causes the Pro Se Plaintiff to potentially miss a submission deadline.
Clarification is therefore requested to understand WHY the denial of the recusal motion took six
(6) days to post, along with clarification on the “Endorsement”. Second, the Plaintiff seeks
clarification as to WHY – if Rule 9A was applicable to this Motion, the Clerk’s Office did not
hesitate to place the Plaintiff’s Motion on the docket in the first place, rather than returning the
documents for re-submission.
On August 15, 2019, the Plaintiff received by US mail, notification from Defendants – Jeffrey
Perkins, Isabelle Perkins and MERS, Inc., indicating that they were joining in the Opposition
to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal filed by their co-Defendants.2
This latest attempt to deceive this Court appears to be one of desperation as collectively, these
Defendants and their retained counsel appear INTENT on continuing to ignore evidenced
judicial crimes – the most recent of which includes JUDICIAL TREASON and the VOID order
issued by RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs.
It is time for this Massachusetts Superior Court (once jurisdiction has been re-established) to put
an end to this deceptive conduct, beginning with the issuing of sanctions against Attorneys
David E. Fialkow (K&L Gates, LLP), Jeffrey B. Loeb (Rich May, PC) and ANY other
officer of the Court who continues to abuse their litigation privilege. Based on the Plaintiff’s
interpretation of the law including the Judicial Oath, any judicial officer who would even
consider overlooking these evidenced judicial crimes and continues to allow abuses of
litigation privilege without penalty – in itself shows cause for recusal. As grounds therefore,
the Plaintiff respectfully states the following:
1. A Motion for Removal to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is Still Pending –
This Court is respectfully reminded that the Federal Order issued on July 29, 2019 by
RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs is considered
VOID and by definition, an act of JUDICIAL TREASON under ARTICLE III and 18
This Document is included as part of the 9A Package submitted by the Plaintiff.
U.S. Code § 2381.3 Therefore, until jurisdiction has been re-established in the Federal
Court, the motion is still pending. After reviewing the Defendants’ opposition, counsel is
suggesting that the Court should blatantly IGNORE: (a) an evidenced act of judicial
treason; (b) the pending motion for removal; (c) the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments for
recusal – and instead move forward with granting the Defendants’ summary judgement
motion. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1446, this Court does not
have the authority to proceed until a valid Federal order has been issued on the motion
for removal and has remanded the case back to the Commonwealth. Above all – the
Plaintiff respectfully re-states that NO Court should allow ANY attorney to continue
exemplifying such blatant abuse of their litigation privilege.
2. MISPRISION of Treason claim(s), pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 – The Plaintiff
respectfully informs this Court that - with the exception of the Defendant - MERS, all
other Defendants and counsel of record here are considered as witnesses to the
evidenced act of Judicial Treason referenced above. Any refusal to serve as witnesses
to this evidenced Federal crime brings an incremental MISPRISION of Treason claim,
pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382. After reading the Defendants’ opposition, it should
appear clear to this Court (and to any objective observer), that neither the Defendants
(excluding MERS) nor their licensed attorneys – David E. Fialkow (K&L Gates, LLP)
and Jeffrey B. Loeb (Rich May, PC) have any intention of serving as witnesses to an
evidenced act of Judicial Treason. Professional penalties – including (but not limited to)
disbarment is certainly warranted against ANY attorney, when a witnessed act of Treason
is blatantly ignored. This is also an evidenced criminal violation, warranting the attention
See Exhibit B – to view the 6/19/17 Recusal order issued by US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) and the White
House. US Attorney (MA) – Andrew Lelling and Governor Baker will be notified
directly via an email to Clerk Arthur Deguglielmo informing the Court of this 9A
Package. The President will necessarily be updated on evidenced crimes related to
Treason (and as required by Federal law) via www.whitehouse.gov.
3. Expansion of Fraud on the Court claims under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – With
regard to the Defendants opposition to the Plaintiff’s motion for recusal, it is perceived as
nothing more than a poor attempt to avoid accountability and to continue deceiving this
Court. First, as stated in the 8/12/19 email to the Court Clerk, the Plaintiff respectfully
states that - based on his interpretation of Superior Court Rules, the Plaintiff's Recusal
Motion should not require filing under Rule 9A (or require any Defendant opposition), as
the cause for recusal pertains to the presiding judge's evidenced actions (and inaction) of
record. If filing under 9A was applicable, the motions would not have been accepted by
the Court and recorded on the docket in the first place - and would have instead been
returned to the Plaintiff for re-submission as a 9A package. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff is
re-filing the motion as a complete package, to ensure compliance with Rule 9A. Second,
in their opposition, the Bank Defendants state:
“…the Court should deny the Motion because Harihar has not identified a single
piece of evidence supporting his unfounded accusations that Judge Howe is somehow
impartial, lacks integrity, or violated any ethical rules…”
As a matter of record, this is factually and entirely false. A review of the Plaintiff’s
Recusal Motion reveals the following evidenced arguments – EACH one of which is
grounds for recusal:
a. Judge Howe’s Instruction to the Clerk of the Court - NOT to Record Court
Documents Filed by the Plaintiff;
b. Unnecessary Judicial Delay, including (but not limited to) the failure to
validate jurisdiction and the improper transfer of this docket from the MA
c. Failure to acknowledge and uphold Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure
60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court;
d. Ignoring judicial recusals of record and their impact to associated
e. Refusing to accept the Plaintiff’s arguments as FACT and refusing
f. Refusing to acknowledge that: (1) the Department of Justice (DOJ); (2) MA
Office of the Attorney General (MA AGO); and (3) Federal Bank Regulators
– HAVE ALL identified the Plaintiff’s Foreclosure as ILLEGAL;
g. Refusing to re-establish a balance of hardships;
h. Public Perception – MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT;
i. Ignoring Continued Concerns for the Plaintiff’s Personal Safety and Security
To be clear – the Plaintiff’s historical calls for recusal are based on EVIDENCED
ARGUMENTS of record, which has resulted in an UNPRECEDENTED ELEVEN
RECUSALS to date (9-Federal Judges and 2 MA State Judges). The mere suggestion that the
Plaintiff exemplifies “faulty logic or merely disagrees with a Judge’s decision” is again a very
clear effort to deceive this Court. The Court is respectfully reminded that as a matter of record -
there ALREADY EXISTS an UNOPPOSED RULE 60b FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM
against ALL DEFENDANTS. This latest attempt to deceive the Court shows cause for the
Plaintiff to expand upon those claims (against ALL Defendants and their counsel) and for the
Court (State and Federal) to ultimately bring a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff –
Mohan A. Harihar, with prejudice that includes professional sanctions against Attorneys David
E. Fialkow (K&L Gates, LLP) and Jeffrey B. Loeb (Rich May, PC) .
What remains unclear is that ALL named Defendants have expressed to the Plaintiff an interest
in having a mutual agreement discussion. While the details of any potential discussion will
remain confidential, the Court should recognize the Good Faith effort made by the Plaintiff to
even consider extending this opportunity to resolve the existing issues. The continued concern
here shows Defendants who express interest in having a mutual agreement discussion – yet
they continue in the same breath to purposefully deceive the Court. While the Plaintiff is still
willing to consider having a mutual agreement discussion, there remains concern regarding these
continued criminal acts of deception.
Wherefore, for the reason stated above and in the original Motion, the Plaintiff calls for the
recusal of presiding Judge – Hon. Janice W. Howe. Even if the US District Court were to
remand the case back to the Commonwealth and jurisdiction were to be restored, it continues to
be clear that a fair judgement is unlikely in this Commonwealth. Any objective observer who has
thoroughly reviewed the 8-year history of this litigation would agree. Until the Federal Motion
for removal is ruled on, it is the Plaintiff’s understanding that this Court should cease from any
further rulings. However, based on counsel’s continued efforts to purposefully deceive this
Court, the Plaintiff calls for this Court to issue professional sanctions including (but not limited
to) disbarment, against K&L Gates Attorney - David E. Fialkow and Rich May PC Attorney
– Jeffrey B. Loeb.
Finally, after reviewing the order issued on August 14, 2019, the Plaintiff respectfully re-files
this Motion for Recusal, the Defendants Opposition and the Plaintiff’s Response as a complete
package and as required under Superior Court Rule 9A.
See Exhibit C to review to the 08/16/2019 email communication to the White House.
Copies of the Plaintiff’s Rule 9A package will also be made available to the Public and to media
outlets nationwide for documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for my personal
safety and security. If your Honor has ANY questions regarding any portion of the 9A package,
or requires additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request. The Plaintiff is
grateful for the Court’s attention to this very serious matter.
August 16, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Re: 19-50 Harihar v US Bank, NA et al - Expansion of Rule 60(b) Claims
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:23 AM
governor.schedule@state.ma.us, elizabeth warren <elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>,
murrane <mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, christina sterling <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>, sydney levin-
pressley <ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov>, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov,
fightfraud@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, "Jeffrey B. Loeb"
Over the weekend, I received by regular US Mail an opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for recusal,
filed by K&L Gates attorney - David E. Fialkow, representing counsel for the Bank Defendants in
this case - WELLS FARGO and US BANK. Please be advised - the Plaintiff plans to file a response
to this opposition as it appears there is a continued effort to purposefully deceive this Court, showing
(at minimum) cause to expand upon the Plaintiff's existing Rule 60b claims (State and Federal). It
also appears that the Bank Defendants are suggesting that this Court should blatantly ignore
the evidenced act(s) of judicial treason by US District Court Judge - Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs. With the exception of the Defendant - MERS, all other Defendants are considered as
witnesses to the evidenced act of Judicial Treason - a clear violation to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S.
Code § 2381. Any refusal to serve as witness to this evidenced crime will bring an incremental
MISPRISION of Treason claim, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382. The Court will notice that the
remaining Defendants have not joined in this apparent desperation effort to avoid accountability. Also,
this continued effort by a licensed attorney to continue purposefully deceiving the Court is certainly
grounds for professional sanctions, including disbarment. The Plaintiff respectfully reminds this
Court that Attorney David E. Fialkow is also a Defendant in the related Federal litigation -
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. As is the case in Federal Court under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), litigation privilege here is also considered WAIVED, when Fraud on the
Court has been evidenced under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
While further explanation will be provided in the filed response, the Plaintiff states that - based on his
interpretation of Superior Court Rules, the Plaintiff's Recusal Motion should not require filing under
Rule 9A (or require any Defendant opposition), as the cause for recusal pertains to the presiding
judge's evidenced actions (and inaction) of record. If filing under 9A was applicable, the motions
would not have been accepted by the Court and recorded on the docket in the first place - and would
have instead been returned to the Plaintiff. There is also a motion still pending in the US District Court
to remove this complaint from State Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 as the order issued by the
RECUSED federal judge is considered VOID.
Finally, this Court is well-aware of the severity of legal issues involving this case, the related
federal litigation (which includes the Commonwealth as a Defendant) and its overall perceived
impact to National Security. Therefore, it remains necessary to continue copying multiple
government offices/agencies (referenced above) and the Public - out of continued concerns for my
personal safety and security. The Plaintiff's response to the Bank Defendant's opposition is expected
to be filed with the Court no later than Wednesday, August 14, 2019. If the Court has any questions
or concerns, please advise.
16. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov)5;
17. US Secret Service;
18. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
19. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
20. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;
21. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
22. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;
23. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;
24. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
25. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
26. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
27. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
28. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA);
29. The MA Office of the Inspector General; and
30. MA Attorney General Maura Healey
See Exhibit A to review to the 07/28/2019 email communication to the White House.
Documents similaires à HARIHAR'S Email to Court Clerk and US Attorney's Office Calls for Acknowledgment of Judicial Treason, Criminal Indictments and Attorney Sanctions