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 )
)
)

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO BANK DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION FOR RECUSAL,

AND CALL FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST K&L GATES ATTORNEY

DAVID E. FIALKOW

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

Defendants and Attorney Fialkow has been evidenced by the record throughout the 8-year

1
See Exhibit A, to review the 8/12/19 email communication to Middlesex Superior Court Clerk - Arthur
Deguglielmo.
history of this litigation (Federal and State). This latest attempt of deception appears to be one of

desperation, as the remaining Defendants (Jeffrey Perkins, Isabelle Perkins and MERS Inc.) do

not appear to be in alignment and have not filed any opposition to the Plaintiff’s recusal motion.

Respectfully, it is time for this Massachusetts Superior Court (once jurisdiction has been re-

established) to put an end to this deceptive conduct and assess sanctions against Attorney

Fialkow and ANY officer of the Court who continues to abuse their litigation privilege. As

grounds therefore, the Plaintiff 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

U.S. Code § 2381.2 Therefore, until jurisdiction has been re-established in the Federal

Court, the motion is still pending. After reviewing the Bank 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 - NO Court should allow ANY attorney to continue exemplifying such blatant

abuse of their litigation privilege.

2
See Exhibit B – to view the 6/19/17 Recusal order issued by US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
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 Bank Defendants’ opposition, it

should appear clear to this Court (and to any objective observer), that neither the Bank

Defendants nor their licensed attorney – David E. Fialkow 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 of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Governor Charlie

Baker (R-MA) and the White House.

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. 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 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 the improper transfer of this docket from the MA Land

Court;

c. Failure to acknowledge and uphold Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure

60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court;

d. Public Perception – MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT;

and

e. 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 Bank Defendants and their counsel) and for the

Court (State and Federal) to rightfully bring a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff –

Mohan A. Harihar, with prejudice that includes professional sanctions against K&L Gates

Attorney David E. Fialkow. With regard to the remaining Defendants – Jefferey Perkins,

Isabelle Perkins and MERS, Inc., parties have expressed interest in having a mutual agreement

discussion. While the details of that discussion will remain confidential, the Court should

recognize the effort made by the Plaintiff and these Defendants to resolve the existing issues.

Any potential mutual agreement is expected to at minimum, aid in judicial economy moving

forward.

Wherefore, for the reason stated above and in the original Motion, the Plaintiff calls for the

recusal of presiding Judge – Hon. Janice W. Howe, as 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 professional sanctions including (but not limited to) disbarment, against K&L

Gates Attorney - David E. Fialkow.

Please be advised, this Middlesex Superior Court civil complaint is related to referenced

Federal litigation and a new complaint now being prepared for filing in The United States

Court of Federal Claims; and includes matters perceived to impact National Security.

Therefore, the following government offices/agencies/committees will necessarily receive copies

of this filing (via email, US Mail and/or social media):

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov)3;

2. US Secret Service;
3. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
4. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
5. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;
6. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
7. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;
8. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;
9. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
10. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
11. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
12. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA);
14. The MA Office of the Inspector General; and
15. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Copies of this Response – including the original Motion and the Bank Defendants

Opposition 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 this Response, 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.

3
See Exhibit C to review to the 08/13/2019 email communication to the White House.
 Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
August 13, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit A
 Mohan Harihar <moharihar@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
To: Arthur T Deguglielmo <arthur.deguglielmo@jud.state.ma.us>
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@massmail.state.ma.us>,
governor.schedule@state.ma.us, elizabeth warren <elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
theresa watson3 <theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov>, andrew lelling <andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov>, mary
murrane <mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, christina sterling <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>, sydney levin-
epstein <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>, lori trahan <lori.trahan@mail.house.gov>, ayanna
pressley <ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov>, chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov,
CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-
fightfraud@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, "Jeffrey B. Loeb"
<JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>

Clerk Deguglielmo,

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.

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)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
 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 )
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOR RECUSAL, PURSUANT TO SJC RULE 1:22 AND

MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT RULE 3:09

After being ordered to appear before the Hon. Janice W. Howe in the Middlesex Superior Court

on Thursday, July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant with no

legal experience, identifies what is perceived as a continued, inaccurate and/or misconstrued

account of the historical facts that: (1) shows cause to question the presiding judge’s impartiality,

integrity and ethics; (2) resemble an 8-year historical pattern of corrupt conduct identified for the

record in the related state/federal litigation; (3) shows a failure to accept the Plaintiff’s claims as

FACT prior to DISCOVERY; and (4) shows cause for the immediate RECUSAL of the

presiding Judge – the Hon. Janice W. Howe, pursuant to SJC 1:22 and the Massachusetts

Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 3:09.

As grounds for recusal and based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Massachusetts laws

(including the Code of Judicial Conduct), Mr. Harihar respectfully states the following:

I. Judge Howe’s Instruction to the Clerk of the Court - NOT to Record Court Documents

Filed by the Plaintiff - The referenced documents include three separate Notices to inform

the Court of formal letters/email communications – all of which bear impact to this litigation,

written by the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar and delivered to:

A. President Donald J. Trump;

B. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and

C. US Senator (and 2020 Presidential Candidate) Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

The content of these formal communications speaks to the evidenced failures related to this

litigation in all three (3) branches of both federal and state government, including this

Middlesex Superior Court. This Court is aware that to date: (1) A total of EIGHT (8)

Middlesex Superior Court Judges associated with this litigation stand accused of judicial

misconduct. This includes the Hon. Kenneth J. Fishman, who recused himself sua sponte -

after being formally accused of Judicial TREASON under ARTICLE III for continuing to

rule after JURISDICTION was lost. Judge Maureen Hogan ALSO recused herself for

reasons unknown, before the case was assigned to Judge Howe. To date, there has been an

UNPRECEDENTED ELEVEN (11) Recusals (9 Federal and 2 State) related to this

litigation. The Plaintiff’s communications to the President, Governor Baker and Senator

Warren also respectfully propose formal meetings for discussion including the potential

opportunity to reach a mutual agreement(s) with all parties. The Court has been made aware

that the Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO/US BANK and Defendants –

 Jeffrey/Isabelle Perkins have expressed to the Plaintiff an interest in having a preliminary

mutual agreement discussion. The Plaintiff (in Good Faith) – while under no legal obligation

to do so, has stated for the record that he is willing to consider entering into a mutual

agreement discussion with ALL parties, including the Commonwealth and the Federal

Government.

At the conclusion of the 7/25/19 summary judgement hearing – and after Judge Howe exited

the courtroom, the Plaintiff asked the Court Clerk – Arthur Deguglielmo the following

question in the presence of the Defendants’ retained counsel – David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L

Gates, LLP) and Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC) :

“Clerk Deguglielmo, why has the clerk’s office refused to officially docket my three (3)

filed Notices?” His response, “It was the judge’s decision.” My reply – “For what reason?”

Clerk Deguglielmo - “It was the judge’s decision.”

Based on this new discovery alone, the verbal admission by the Court Clerk shows cause to

question Judge Howe’s impartiality, integrity and ethics – calling for her immediate

recusal. Any objective observer would agree.

II. Unnecessary Judicial Delay - by the Superior Court, leading up to the 7/25/19 hearing

include evidenced failures to address NINE (9) Plaintiff Motions, filed June 26, 2019, which

still have yet to be ruled on. Each of the motions are believed to impact whether or not the

7/25 summary judgement hearing was even necessary. For example, the Plaintiff has

evidenced the IMPROPER DISMISSAL and TRANSFER of the case from the MA Land
 Court to the Superior Court, as these orders were issued by Land Court Judge – Hon.

Michael Vhay, who LOST jurisdiction to issue such an order. The 7/25 hearing transcript

will confirm that when asked to validate the improper dismissal and transfer, Judge Howe

failed to do so. Similarly, Judge Howe failed to articulate exactly how the Superior Court

could possibly have jurisdiction over the docket, considering the improper dismissal and

transfer from the Land Court. Other examples evidenced by the 7/25 hearing transcript will

include (but are not limited to): (1) Refusing to first validate evidenced criminal claims –

related to this civil complaint, with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (MA

AGO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ); (2) Refusing to first acknowledge evidenced

judicial failures of record; (3) Refusing to first address the Plaintiff’s injunction request to

re-establish the balance of hardships; (4) Refusing to first recognize additional Defendants

associated with the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims; (5) Refusing to first acknowledge

incremental claims against ALL named Defendants (and Defendants still to be named); and

(6) Refusing to acknowledge Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure (See example below).

Collectively, these evidenced judicial failures represent a repeating pattern of corrupt conduct

far too familiar – where it seems clear that the presiding judge intends to brush aside ALL

motions, only to arrive at a pre-determined outcome. Even the mention of ELEVEN (11)

judicial recusals (unprecedented) related to this litigation (and the impact to related

decisions) was brushed off as if irrelevant.

III. Failure to acknowledge and uphold Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure 60 (b)(3) –

As a matter of record, the court transcript associated with the 7/25/19 hearing will show that

Judge Howe refused to address an evidenced (and UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court

claim, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)(3). This too, is perceived as a familiar and
 repetitive pattern of corrupt conduct, evidenced previously in: (1) this Middlesex Superior

Court; (2) the Northeast Housing Court; (3) the US District Court (MA); (4) The First Circuit

Appeals Court; and (5) the US Supreme Court. Since the 60b claim was originally raised

more than four (4) years ago, all referenced Defendants have never once disputed the

evidenced Fraud on the Court claim (including the recent 7/25/19 hearing), which speaks to

the failed RMBS securitization associated with the Plaintiff’s identified illegal

foreclosure. These evidenced FACTS collectively indicate a failed system within the judicial

branch of government (State and Federal). If Rule 60b was rightfully upheld, the result would

have been (and STILL should be) a DEFAULT judgement, in favor of the Plaintiff – Mohan

A. Harihar, with prejudice. Raising even more red flags is the Defendants’ continued silence

– as if knowing that the presiding judge(s) has no intention of upholding the law.

IV. Public Perception – MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

“The Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09, establishes standards
for the ethical conduct of judges.
PREAMBLE [2] - Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and
personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest
possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and
competence.”

Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct; and

for reasons stated above - there is cause to (at minimum) question the presiding judge’s:

impartiality and integrity; ultimately impacting the public’s confidence. Therefore,

the Plaintiff shows incremental cause for Judge Howe’s immediate recusal.

V. Ignoring Continued Concerns for the Plaintiff’s Personal Safety and Security

The Plaintiff has historically stated throughout the record his concerns for personal safety

and security, considering the magnitude of legal issues associated with the 2008
 Foreclosure Crisis that are perceived to impact: (1) This Commonwealth; (2) The

United States; (3) National Security and potentially (4) Global Financial Markets.

When it continues to be evidenced – in full public view, that State/Federal Judicial

Officers blatantly ignore the law; and Prosecutors refuse to bring criminal

indictments for evidenced criminal complaints, the Plaintiff has every right to be

concerned for his personal safety and security. EVERY COURT, including this

Middlesex Superior Court, has IGNORED the Plaintiff’s evidenced concerns and instead,

has proceeded to literally brush aside ALL motions in order to: (1) reach a CORRUPT

and PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME; and (2) to cause incremental harm to the

Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff again shows cause for Judge Howe’s recusal.

VI. Cause for Removal to Federal Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446 – This Court is

already aware that the Plaintiff has filed a motion with the US District Court, calling for

removal of this complaint to the Federal Court. This Court is also aware that the motion was

accepted and docketed in the Federal Court less than two (2) hours after the 7/25 hearing was

recessed. The Plaintiff will next amend the Federal motion, as the evidenced transcript (as

described within) shows cause to expand upon – not only reasons for removal, but also to

amend the original complaint against: (1) Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US

BANK; (2) Defendants – Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins; and (3) Defendant –

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff also shows cause to add MERS, Inc., as a

Defendant to the original Federal complaint (Referencing HARIHAR v US BANK, et al –

Docket No. 15-cv-11880).

 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for the following actions:

1. The IMMEDIATE recusal of Judge Janice W. Howe;

2. The Plaintiff has now evidenced for the record, related judicial misconduct throughout

multiple MA State Courts that irrefutably show that the INTEGRITY of this State’s

judiciary is compromised. These EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES

involving BOTH the Federal and State Judiciary have even been acknowledged by the

United States Supreme Court and yet, are still IGNORED HERE. The Plaintiff no

longer believes it is even possible to receive a fair and impartial judgment in this

Commonwealth. Any objective observer would certainly agree.

3. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of State (and Federal) law, Judge Howe is no

longer considered to have JURISDICTION here and is therefore DISQUALIFIED

from ruling further in this, or any related litigation. As similarly identified in the related

Federal litigation, any conscious decision to continue ruling AFTER losing jurisdiction

will be interpreted by the Plaintiff as an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,

Section 3 of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and similarly against the

Constitution of this Commonwealth.

Please be advised, this Middlesex Superior Court civil complaint is related to referenced

Federal litigation and a new complaint now being prepared for filing in The United States

Court of Federal Claims; and includes matters perceived to impact National Security.

Therefore, the following government offices/agencies/committees will necessarily receive copies

of this filing (via email, US Mail and/or social media):

 16. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov)4;
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

Copies of this email 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 this MOTION, 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
July 28, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com

4
See Exhibit A to review to the 07/28/2019 email communication to the White House.
Exhibit A