Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO, et al Docket No. 1981-cv-00050, REPLY to

VOID Order Issued 10-3-19
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 1:54 PM
To: Arthur T Deguglielmo <arthur.deguglielmo@jud.state.ma.us>
Cc: governor.schedule@state.ma.us, "Constituent.services@state.ma.us"
<constituent.services@massmail.state.ma.us>, elizabeth warren
<elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>, lori trahan <lori.trahan@mail.house.gov>, ayanna pressley
<ayanna.pressley@mail.house.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>, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us,
maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, Nairoby Gabriel
<Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov>, Nora Keefe <Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov>, sydney levin-
epstein <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>,
"Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>

Clerk Deguglielmo,

Attached, please find a REPLY to the VOID Judicial order issued by DISQUALIFIED Middlesex
Superior Court Judge - Hon. Janice W. Howe. Please be advised, as described in the attached reply,
the Plaintiff has yet to receive formal communication from the Court - one (1) week after the void
order was issued, raising incremental communication concerns. Additionally, the severity of legal
issues involving judicial officers of this Middlesex Superior Court warrant copying multiple government
offices/agencies including (but not limited to): (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (2) Members of
Congress; and (3) Federal and State Prosecutors. Hardcopies of this REPLY are being mailed to the
Court and to counsel of record today, October 10, 2019, and are expected to be delivered via US
Priority Mail by tomorrow, Friday, October 11, 2019. Thank you for your attention to this very
serious and sensitive matter.

Respectfully,

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

Plaintiff REPLY to VOID Order Issued 10-3-19.pdf

459K
 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 REPLY TO VOID ORDER ISSUED ON 10-03-2019 BY DISQUALIFIED

JUDICIAL OFFICER – HON. JANICE W. HOWE

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant with no legal experience, respectfully

PREFACES this reply by stating that this docket is directly related to a civil complaint which is

still proceeding in the US District Court of Massachusetts (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK et al,

Docket No. 15-cv-11880). As a matter of record, this Court has already been made aware that

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a named Defendant in the referenced Federal lawsuit.

A portion of the evidenced claims against the Commonwealth include (but are not limited to) the

following:

1. Judicial Fraud on the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3) – where MA State judicial

officers appear INTENT on deceiving the Court, exemplifying Patterns of Corrupt

Conduct by brushing aside ALL motions in order to arrive at a corrupt and pre-

determined outcome. These evidenced judicial failures are IDENTICAL to that

 evidenced in the related Federal litigation which has now resulted in an

UNPRECEDENTED NINE (9) Federal RECUSALS. The overall INTENT to

consciously commit this Fraud is (at minimum) believed to be twofold:

a. To Prevent Legal Precedent from being Set – as it pertains to the illegal

securitization of mortgages and other crimes identified with the 2008 US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis; and

b. To Irreparably Damage the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret –

known as “THE HARIHAR FCS MODEL©” which was designed to assist The

United States with Economic growth and recovery from damages resulting from

the 2008 Foreclosure/Financial Crisis - and is ultimately protected under the

Economic Espionage Act.;

2. Judicial Treason violations under ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. CODE § 2381 – for

continuing to rule after disqualification was evidenced and jurisdiction had been lost.

3. Civil RICO violations under 18 U.S. Code § 1964 - where it appears that judicial

officers representing multiple MA State (and Federal) Courts have colluded in order to

brush aside all motions and ultimately arrive at a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.

4. Color of Law violations under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – as evidenced by the 8-year record

throughout multiple MA State Courts including this Middlesex Superior Court.

5. Due Process violations - Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive

any person “of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Two (2) Examples

include (but are not limited to): (1) the refusal of Discovery; and (2) refusing a trial by

jury.
This Court is respectfully reminded that a motion to remove this docket and transfer it to the US

District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 is still pending. It is the Plaintiff’s understanding that

under 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. This Court is also aware that the July 29, 2019 order issued by RECUSED US

District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs is considered VOID and by definition,

an incremental act of JUDICIAL TREASON under ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381.1

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff randomly checked the Court website (as he has yet

to receive ANY notification from the Court) – where to his surprise, a ruling had been issued

nearly a week prior by Judge Howe DENYING the Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal2:

10/08/2019 Endorsement on Motion for Recusal (#36.0): DENIED After careful consideration of the submissions of the
parties, as well as the court's assessment of its ability to rule fairly and without any disabling bias or prejudice,
the court finds that it is impartial and there is no reason that its' impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Accordingly the plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Dated: October 3, 2019 Judge: Howe, Hon. Janice W

Judge Howe’s decision to issue the referenced order – when she clearly lacks the authority to do

so now adds to the list of legal issues which remain unresolved, including (but not limited to)

the following:

1. Ignoring ARTICLE III, 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446 – Judge Howe’s

decision to IGNORE: (1) an evidenced act of Treason by the referenced Federal

judge; and also (2) the restrictions under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, in itself questions the judge’s

1
See Exhibit 1 – to view the 6/19/17 Recusal order issued by US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
2
See Exhibit 2
 ability to rule fairly and shows cause for her disqualification and recusal. This latest

judicial failure also shows cause for the Plaintiff to amend his original complaint against

the Commonwealth in the above-referenced Federal lawsuit.

2. Refusing to Recuse - EVEN IF the US District Court were to remand the case back to

the Commonwealth, Judge Howe fails to provide ANY clarification as to how she arrived

at her decision not to recuse herself. As a matter of record, the Plaintiff has already

evidenced judicial actions that warrant immediate disqualification, beginning with the

Court’s jurisdiction and the improper transfer from the MA Land Court. Considering the

severity of claims associated with this litigation (State and Federal) that include judicial

officers, the generic explanation associated with the VOID 10/03/19 order aligns with

patterns of corrupt conduct exemplified by ELEVEN (11) related judicial recusals (9

Federal 2 State). Judge Howe now becomes the NINETH (9th) Middlesex Superior Court

Judge considered disqualified from ruling further on this docket.3 It should be clear to

any objective observer who has thoroughly reviewed the 8-year history of this litigation

that a fair judgement in this Commonwealth is unlikely, further warranting removal to the

Federal Court.

3. Judge Howe’s Instruction to the Clerk of the Court NOT to Record Court

Documents Filed by the Plaintiff – as described in the Plaintiff’s original motion,

including related communications delivered to: (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

(2) US Senator (and 2020 Presidential Candidate) Elizabeth Warren; and (3) The

White House;

3
The EIGHT (8) other Superior Court Judges considered disqualified to rule on this (or any related) docket include:
(1) Hon. Kenneth J. Fishman (Recused); (2) Hon. Joshua Wall; (3) Hon. Christine M. McEvoy; (4) Hon. Jane
Haggerty; (5) Hon. Maynard M. Kirpalani; (6) Hon. Edward P. Leibensperger; (7) Hon. Daniel M. Wrenn; and (8)
Hon. William Sullivan
4. Unnecessary Judicial Delay - including (but not limited to) the failure to validate

jurisdiction and the improper transfer of this docket from the MA Land Court;

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

Fraud on the Court - as described in the Plaintiff’s original motion;

6. Ignoring judicial recusals of record and their impact to associated judgements - as

described in the Plaintiff’s original motion;

7. Refusing to accept the Plaintiff’s arguments as FACT, refusing DISCOVERY and

Refusing to Allow the Plaintiff to Depose Witnesses - as described in the Plaintiff’s

original motion;

8. 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;

9. Ignoring the Deceptive Conduct by the Defendants’ Counsel of Record – Referencing

Attorneys David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP), Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (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.

10. Refusing to re-establish a balance of hardships - as described in the Plaintiff’s original

motion;

11. Refusing to Acknowledge Public Perception and MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF

JUDICIAL CONDUCT - as described in the Plaintiff’s original motion;

 12. Ignoring Continued Concerns for the Plaintiff’s Personal Safety and Security - as

described in the Plaintiff’s original motion

Plaintiff’s Efforts to Reach a Mutual Agreement - The Plaintiff respectfully informs the Court

that he has in Good Faith, extended an offer(s) to reach a mutual agreement(s) with ALL

Defendants. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law – IF a Defendant party(s) were to

successfully reach a mutual agreement with the Plaintiff, there would no longer be a need to

proceed further with the CIVIL portions of the complaint against them, as they would likely be

perceived as moot. Previously, it was reported to the Court that ALL Defendants had expressed

an interest in having a mutual agreement discussion. HOWEVER, despite the Defendants

statement of record, they have failed to timely provide the Plaintiff with a settlement proposal.

Therefore, the offer has expired and is off the table. It may behoove the Defendants to

consider re-engaging in a settlement discussion considering the severity of legal issues at

hand.

Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law – and for the reasons stated within, the

referenced order issued on 10/03/19 is considered VOID and Hon. Judge Janice W. Howe is

considered disqualified to rule any further on this docket or any other related complaint pursuant

to SJC RULE 1:22 and MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT RULE

3:09. Judicial Immunity is also considered WAIVED when Judicial Fraud has been evidenced

under Rule 60. Any decision by a judicial officer to continue ruling after jurisdiction is lost will

be considered an act of judicial treason and violation of ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. CODE

§ 2381. The Plaintiff will then be compelled under Federal law to report such violations to: (1)
the Court; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) President Donald J. Trump. The Plaintiff

will also seek to again file an amendment to the referenced Federal complaint – pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3) and (4), bringing incremental claims against the Commonwealth for

these latest judicial failures of record.

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);

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 REPLY 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 the Court has ANY questions regarding any portion of this REPLY, 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)
October 10, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
10/08/2019 Endorsement on Motion for Recusal (#36.0): DENIED After careful consideration of the submissions of the
parties, as well as the court's assessment of its ability to rule fairly and without any disabling bias or prejudice,
the court finds that it is impartial and there is no reason that its' impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Accordingly the plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Dated: October 3, 2019 Judge: Howe, Hon. Janice W
Exhibit 2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 10, 2019, I filed the foregoing REPLY with the Clerk of the
Court and to counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via US Mail and Email Communication:

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq.

Rich May, PC
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

David E. Fialkow
K&L Gates, LLP
State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
david.fialkow@klgates.com

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