Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps
multiple parties informed, including the EOP.
Lowell, MA, July 12, 2014 On Friday, foreclosed homeowner - Mohan A. Harihar, filed an Appellate Reply Brief with the Massachusetts Appeals Court, calling for a validation of information on file, as decisions by the Appellee HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with Appellee(s) Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA.
In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has granted the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar, leave to file for new trial, as new evidence and information continues to come forth in support of Mr. Harihars consistent claims, warranting validation. Both Wells Fargo and US Bank have filed a motion in attempt to reconsider and overturn the Courts decision for new trial.
As the impact of the US Foreclosure Crisis continues to be Headline News, this growing storyline is becoming more complex, with concerns related to due process, infringement of intellectual property, and the resulting impact to Court decisions when information is not validated, not supported, or not even produced.
Due to this growing complexity, multiple parties are copied on communications including: The Executive Offices of the President (EOP), the US Attorneys Office, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), and Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA).
The filed Opposition and Appellant Reply Brief are also attached and can be viewed in their entirety (Scroll down to view).
Prior Media Alerts are also available for viewing by clicking on the following links:
MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT ALLOWS FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO FILE FOR NEW TRIAL, BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE http://www.scribd.com/doc/232686869
FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER FILES FOR NEW TRIAL & TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT W/ NEW INFO http://scribd.com/doc/231548551
WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527
For Further Media Information Contact :
Mohan A. Harihar Email: mo.harihar@gmail.com Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar 2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX APPEALS COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH DOCKET NO: 2013P1829
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Appellant
vs.
US BANK NA, WELLS FARGO NA, HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Appellees
OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING NEW TRIAL
Opposition to Appellees Motion for Reconsideration is hereby respectfully submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The Court is additionally asked to review the Appellant Reply Brief associated with this Docket, filed in conjunction with this Opposition.
After a review of the Appellees (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) motion, this Court should allow the filing for new trial to stand, and deny Appellees motion based on the following:
1. Appellee, Harmon Law Offices PC As the third Appellee in this matter, and as the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank in this matter, Harmon has full knowledge of the intricate details involved, and has chosen to file No Opposition or Motion of Reconsideration in response to this Courts decision to grant the Appellant new trial.
Similarly, Harmon has also chosen not to file an opposing Appellee Brief with this associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. As the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank NA, initiated in Lowell District Court 1 , these decisions not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with the current counsel for the Appellee(s) Nelson Mullins LLP. In fact, Court transcripts from the Lowell District Court will support Harmon as stating that Mr. Harihars complaints/concerns are VALID.
This Court is well aware that Harmon Law Offices PC has been under investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General for the past three (3) years, for wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices. 2
1 Lowell District Court, US Bank NA vs. Mohan A. Harihar, Docket No: 201111SU001495 2 See - Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General, filed with this Appeals Court. A recent unanimous ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior Court decision allowing the MA Attorney Generals office to continue examining Harmon Law Offices for alleged unfair and deceptive acts related to the firms foreclosure and eviction work. 3 In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a Foreclosure Mill, having been associated with approximately 50,000 foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to WITHDRAW as counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the Attorney Generals Office was beginning their investigation.
Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin David Stern. This combination of historical facts, ongoing investigation, and disconnect with current counsel, at MINIMUM shows cause to question ALL information submitted by these Appellees, warranting validation, as consistently requested by this Appellant.
2. Claims by Appellees (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) that there is ZERO misconduct associated with this matter conflicts with the overwhelming amount of documented evidence, which has steadily come forth, supporting both civil and criminal misconduct against Appellees and their retained counsel.
3. Appellees consistent refusal to validate information and requested discovery must be addressed along with its historical impact to related court decisions, and to determine if Appellees have been truthful with the Court(s).
4. New Evidence continues to come forth Since the Appellants filing for new trial, new evidence has again come forth, involving Appellee - US Bank vs. Mary McCulley, Docket No. DV 09-562C, the Honorable John C. Brown presiding. The jury rendered its verdict and found that Defendant: US Bank committed fraud and constructive fraud against Plaintiff Mary McCulley and that the fraud and constructive fraud injured and caused damage to Ms. McCulley. The jury also rendered its verdict that found US Bank liable for punitive damages.
5. This matter now extends considerably beyond a singular foreclosure as articulated in the Appellant Brief, Reply Brief, etc...additional factors which must be considered involve: a. 14 th Amendment infractions b. Relationship to US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis c. Impact to Appellants Intellectual Property d. Whether the involvement of the MA/US Inspectors General is necessary.
The Court is asked to reference the Appellants associated Brief and Reply Brief for added explanation fully supporting this position.
Since the initial decisions rendered in the Lower Courts, and with the overwhelming amount of information which has come forth since, it has become clear that one side has been truthful with the Court(s), and one side has not. Validation now is necessary to make clear that determination.
Finally, and as follow-up to the originally filed motion for new trial, the Appellant informs the Court of the following:
1. As of July 9, 2014 at 5pm EST, no reply was received pertaining to the final opportunity to voluntarily seek agreement afforded to 4 Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA (see original motion). That offer is now considered VOID.
Therefore, based on the collective reasons stated within, and also within the original motion, the Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to:
1. Deny Appellees Motion for reconsideration.
2. Transfer of this matter, including all related Dockets to Federal Court: 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671, and 2013-P-1829. Transfer will also address the 4 th Notice of Appeal, never received by this Court, which irrefutably involves 14 th Amendment infractions previously stated (Docket N/A).
3. Issue a Court order for the production and validation of Discovery evidence the 22-months of recorded conversations between the Mortgage Servicer, Wells Fargo NA and the Appellee Mohan A. Harihar, which is believed to support Deceptive Practices of the Appellee(s). The purpose of the Order is to additionally validate if these recordings still exist or if they have been tampered with, destroyed, lost, etc
4. Due to the potential complexity of validation, the Appellant additionally calls for assistance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), particularly with validation concerns surrounding the associated Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.
5. Order subpoenaed testimony from MA Attorney General Martha Coakley regarding the relationship of this matter to the 3+ year ongoing investigation of APPELLEE - Harmon Law Offices PC.
6. Address State and Federal Criminal Charges against referenced parties, regarding criminal complaints already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI.
7. Follow-up by the Court regarding Counsel accountability and complaints already filed with the MA Board of Bar Overseers against the following parties: Attorney David E. Fialkow (Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), Peter Haley (Managing partner, Boston Office Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), Nelson Mullins LLP in its entirety, and Harmon Law offices PC.
8. Appellant additionally seeks to introduce a special prosecutor to address the number of concerns (on multiple levels), involving the infringement of intellectual property of the Appellant, and increased risk to a project designed to assist the US and overall global economic recovery, as detailed in the filed Appellant Brief to Docket 2013-P-1829.
9. Allow the Appellant to rightfully return to his home, while this legal matter proceeds, and for Appellees to incur all costs associated with the Wrongful Displacement of the Appellant.
Please advise whether motions are required to be filed separately for all impacted Dockets Nos: 2012-P1515, 2013-P-0671, 2013-P-1829. 5
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
6
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Appeals Court
Docket No. 2013-P-1829
_________________________________________
Mohan A. Harihar Appellant
vs.
US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A., Harmon Law Offices PC et al Appellees __________________________________________
On Appeal From A Judgment Of The Middlesex Superior Court
__________________________________________
Reply Brief For The Appellant
____________________________________________
Mohan A. Harihar Pro Se 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Phone) Mo.harihar@gmail.com
7
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities............................3
A. Cases
B. Other Authorities
Issues Presented................................4
Summary of the Argument.........................5
Argument........................................6 Conclusion......................................15 Judgment Order on Appeal........................21 Certificate of Compliance.......................22 Addendum........................................23 Record Appendix (Refer to filed Appellant Brief Appendix)
8
Table of Authorities
Cases:
US Bank NA vs. Mohan A. Harihar.....................6 Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General.............7 United States District Court, Northern District of California..........................................9
Statutes and Rules: Massachusetts General Laws G.L. c. 93A, 2............................9, 13 G.L. c. 223A, 3...........................9, 13 SJC Court Rule 3:13.........................19
9 Issues Presented
Upon receipt and review of one (1) out of two (2) Appellee Briefs associated with Docket No. 2013-P-1829, the Appellant presents the following issues: 1. No Appellate Brief filed by the Appellee HARMON LAW OFFICES PC. 2. Whether Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, have historically provided the Court(s) with validated and supported information? 3. Impact of non-validated, unsupported, and information not provided to this, and all related decisions warrants protection from this Court. 4. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to this matter. 5. Decisions to ignore critical facts.
10 Summary of the Argument I. The decision not to file an Appellate Brief by Appellee Harmon Law offices PC warrants a motion for summary disposition/reversal of the decision and request the Court set this case for submission (and rule in Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a response brief. II. Continued refusal by Appellees to provide requested Discovery or to validate information must be addressed and enforced. III. Impact of non-validated, unsupported, and information not provided to this, and all related decisions warrants protection from this Court. IV. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to this matter. V. Facts surrounding the relationship of this matter to the Nations Foreclosure Crisis and Appellees Intellectual property have been consistently ignored.
11 Argument I. The decision not to file an Appellate Brief by Appellee Harmon Law offices PC warrants a motion for summary disposition/reversal of the decision and request the Court set this case for submission (and rule in Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a response brief. As the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank NA, initiated in Lowell District Court 3 , the decision not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with the current counsel for the Appellee(s) Nelson Mullins LLP. In fact, Court transcripts from the Lowell District Court will support Harmon as stating that Mr. Harihars complaints/concerns are VALID. This Court is well aware that Harmon Law Offices PC has been under investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General for the past three (3) years, for wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices. 4
In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a Foreclosure Mill, having been associated with approximately 50,000 foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to WITHDRAW as counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the Attorney Generals Office was beginning their investigation.
3 Lowell District Court, Docket No: 201111SU001495 4 See - Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General, filed with this Appeals Court. A recent unanimous ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior Court decision allowing the MA Attorney Generals office to continue examining Harmon Law Offices for alleged unfair and deceptive acts related to the firms foreclosure and eviction work. 12 Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin David Stern. This combination of historical facts, ongoing investigation, and disconnect with current counsel, at MINIMUM shows cause to question ALL information submitted by these Appellees, warranting validation, as consistently requested by this Appellant. Validation of information in itself will support the Appellants initial request for the Courts protection. Since the Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA continue to claim ZERO misconduct of any sort, there should be no pushback with regard to any validation of information, nor ANY reason to withhold requested Discovery evidence. II. Continued refusal by Appellees to provide requested Discovery or to validate information must be addressed and enforced. Despite numerous (and ongoing) efforts by the Appellant requesting validation of information, the Appellees have refused to do so, which is exemplified by (but not limited to) the following: a. The recorded conversations which took place during the 22-month loan modification process, between the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar and the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo NA. These recorded conversations will irrefutably support the consistent claims of the Appellant, which include (but are not limited to) deceptive practices by the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo NA. 5
The consistent refusal FOR THREE (3) YEARS, to provide the
5 G.L. c. 93A, 2, G.L. c. 223A, 3 13 recorded conversations suggest that these Appellees have not been truthful with the Court(s), and question whether this evidence still exists, or has been destroyed, lost, tampered with, etc... b. Refusal to validate signatures on file, where the Court is now aware of the $67M settlement by the Appellees very own Shareholders regarding forged documents on a mass scale. 6
c. Refusal to validate Chain of Title. d. Refusal to provide supporting testimony of any kind regarding Statements made on behalf of Attorney General Martha Coakley, other government officials, the media, the public, or even senior management of retained counsel Nelson Mullins LLP, referencing harassment, disinterested parties, etc... In fact, to assist with ease of validation, the Appellees were provided with a validation questionnaire, which they refused to answer and complete. 7
These collective facts clearly suggest that these Appellees have not been truthful with the Court(s), that the facts pertaining to this matter have not been accurately presented, thus warranting further validation prior to rendering a decision. Validation will additionally reveal the necessity to restrain the speech of these Appellees and their retained counsel, as originally requested by the Appellants original Motion.
6 United States District Court, Northern District of California, Docket No. 3:11-cv-02369-SI, a Shareholder Derivative Action addressing Robo-signing activities at Wells Fargo, and subsequent breach of their Fiduciary duty and loyalty. 7 See Appellant Brief Appendix, pages 52-61 14 III. Resulting Impact of non-validated, un-supported, and information not provided, to this decision, and all related decisions warrants protection from this Court. Clearly, the resulting impact to the Appellant has been severe. The collective and accruing damages incurred as a result of non- validated, un-supported, and information not provided by these Appellees have impacted ALL related Court decisions from the Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, this MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Judicial Court. These actions and accompanying statements by Appellees are also viewed (at minimum) as slanderous and defamatory against Mr. Harihar, thus warranting the initial request that protection be provided by the Court. Harm and accruing damages to Mr. Harihar extend far beyond slander and defamation. These contributing factors have negatively impacted Mr. Harihars: Marriage, family, career, credit, future retirement, and everyday living. These actions by the Appellees have now led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of the Appellant, who is HOMELESS and still UNEMPLOYED as a result. As stated in the Appellant Brief, impact is additionally assessed to the Appellants Intellectual Property, and a project designed to assist this Nations and Overall Global Economy. The logical course of corrective action must include validating information prior to making ANY decision. Should validation and ordered production of Discovery evidence continue to provide support to this Appellants consistent claims, protection by the Court from further damages is clearly justified. 15 Decisions which have been made, when so much critical information has not been validated, properly supported or even produced, clearly shows a legal error which has prejudiced this, and all related cases, and so justifies a motion for summary reversal(s). IV. Appellee case examples fail to reflect circumstances equivalent to this matter. The information and evidence already available and in possession is entirely FACT-BASED, well-documented with the Court(s), irrefutably shows definitive civil and criminal misconduct, and reveals that the referenced lender US Bank NA, mortgage servicer Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel have purposefully misled the Court(s) for over three (3) years. Documented misconduct includes (but is not limited to): 1. Fraudulent Concealment 2. Negligent Misrepresentation 3. Fraud 4. Deceptive Practices 5. Aiding and Abetting Fraud 6. Perjury The Appellant respectfully brings to this Courts attention, that upon review of the supporting cases submitted over three (3) years by the Appellee(s), there does not appear to be one (1) case example provided, which reflects circumstances equivalent to this 16 matter. Specifically, no case example has been provided to the Court(s) which includes the magnitude of documented civil and criminal misconduct as does this matter. In fact, the Appellant does not believe there to be a case decision, in this Commonwealth, or any state in the Nation, which articulates and provides justification in lieu of documented civil and criminal misconduct provided. Therefore, all such related arguments by Appellees, and their impact to ALL related decisions, respectfully, must be considered VOID. Any continued argument by opposing parties based on the same premise, further justifies necessity for new trial. V. Facts surrounding the relationship of this matter to the Nations Foreclosure Crisis and Appellees Intellectual property have been consistently ignored. The Appellant brings to the attention of this Court, the continued decision by Appellees to completely ignore and avoid any discussion involving this matters IRREFUTABLE relationship to the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. Similarly, Appellees have avoided any discussion regarding the resulting impact to this Appellants Intellectual property, which includes a project designed to assist this Nations and overall Global economy. 8
8 Additional information regarding the Appellants Intellectual property is included in the Appellant Brief associated with this Docket. 17 Conclusion Based on the decision not to file any Opposition or Appellate Brief by Appellee Harmon Law offices PC exemplifies a clear disconnect with the other two (2) Appellees Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, and in itself warrants a motion for summary disposition/ reversal of the decision and request for the Court to set this case for submission (and rule in Appellants favor) in light of the Appellee's failure to file a response brief. Second, for Court decisions to have been made, when so much critical information has not been validated, properly supported or even produced, clearly shows a legal error which has prejudiced this, and all related cases, and so justifies a motion for summary reversal(s). These arguments alone are irrefutable, and must invalidate any and all laws used against this Appellant. Adding the failure to provide equivalent case examples, Appellee refusal to abide by Cease and Desist Notices, and the collective concerns articulated in the Appellant Brief, there are a number of serious actions which are deemed necessary. In an effort for this matter to begin a corrective path within this Commonwealth, the Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to issue the following order(s): 1. Summary reversal in favor of the Appellant, followed by a protective order restraining speech of the Appellees and their retained counsel, as a validation process is initiated. 2. Initiate a validation process to review all supporting documentation historically provided (or not provided) by Appellees. Validation to also include Chain of Title and ALL signatures on file. 18 3. A Court order for the production and validation of consistently requested Discovery evidence the 22-months of recorded conversations between the Mortgage Servicer, Wells Fargo NA and the Appellee Mohan A. Harihar, which is believed to support Deceptive Practices of the Appellee(s). The purpose of the Order is to additionally validate if these recordings still exist or if they have been tampered with, destroyed, lost, etc.... 4. Subpoenaed testimony from MA Attorney General Martha Coakley regarding the relationship of this matter to the 3+ year ongoing investigation of APPELLEE - Harmon Law Offices PC. 5. Due to the potential complexity of validation, the Appellant additionally calls for assistance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), particularly with validation concerns surrounding the associated Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1. 6. Pending a recap of the validation process, a follow-up by the Court regarding Counsel accountability and complaints already filed with the MA Board of Bar Overseers against the following parties: Attorney David E. Fialkow (Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), Peter Haley (Managing partner, Boston Office Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP), Nelson Mullins LLP in its entirety, and Harmon Law offices PC. 7. Address State and Federal Criminal Charges against referenced parties, regarding criminal complaints already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. 8. Appellant additionally seeks to introduce a special prosecutor to address the number of concerns (on multiple levels), involving the infringement of intellectual property of the Appellant, and increased risk to a project designed to assist the US and overall Global 19 economic recovery, as detailed in the filed Appellant Brief to Docket 2013-P-1829. 9. Summary reversal of the associated eviction order, where infringement to Due Process under 14 th Amendment is also irrefutable (SJC Court Rule 3:13) 9 , and to allow the Appellant to rightfully return to his home, while this legal matter proceeds, and for Appellees to incur all costs associated with the Wrongful Displacement of the Appellant (Motion filed separately).
In line with the filed Appellant Brief, these crucial next steps will determine whether or not a successful corrective path regarding this entire matter is attainable within this Commonwealth, or if the outcome necessitates transfers to Federal Court, and the involvement of the MA/US Inspectors General. Upon the filing of this Appellant Reply Brief, and because of the growing complexity of this matter and heightened concerns stated within, communication including a copy of this Appellant Brief has additionally been sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim Sheehan (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), The American Civil Liberties Union, US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), US Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen Donoghue (MA), Christina Sterling (US Attorneys Office), and the managing partners of Nelson Mullins LLP. Thank you for your consideration.
9 See Appellant Brief Appendix, pages 42 - 45 20
Respectfully submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar Pro Se 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
21
22 23
ADDENDUM
24
Addendum Table of Contents
G.L. c. 93A, 2....................................35
G.L. c. 223A, 3...................................35
MA SJC Rule 3:13....................................36
25
G.L. c. 93A, 2
Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.
G.L. c. 223A, 3
Section 3. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action in law or equity arising from the persons (a) transacting any business in this commonwealth; (b) contracting to supply services or things in this commonwealth; (c) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this commonwealth; (d) causing tortious injury in this commonwealth by an act or omission outside this commonwealth if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this commonwealth; (e) having an interest in, using or possessing real property in this commonwealth; (f) contracting to insure any person, property or risk located within this commonwealth at the time of contracting; (g) maintaining a domicile in this commonwealth while a party to a personal or marital relationship out of which arises a claim for divorce, alimony, property settlement, parentage of a child, child support or child custody; or the commission of any act giving rise to such a claim; or (h) having been subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth which has resulted in an order of alimony, custody, child support or property settlement, notwithstanding the subsequent departure of one of the original parties from the commonwealth, if the action involves modification of such order or orders and the moving party resides in the commonwealth, or if the action involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the domicile of the moving party. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:13: Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts
[Disclaimer]
26 The Supreme Judicial Court may establish a committee on professional responsibility to investigate any action of a Clerk Magistrate, as defined in Rule 3:12, including (a) conviction of a crime, (b) wilful misconduct in office, (c) wilful misconduct which, although not related to duties as a Clerk Magistrate, brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into disrepute, (d) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or conduct unbecoming a Clerk Magistrate, whether conduct in office or outside of duties as a Clerk Magistrate, that brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into disrepute, or (e) any conduct that constitutes a violation of Rule 3:12. The committee may receive information, investigate, and make recommendations relative to any mental or physical disability, including habitual intemperance, of a Clerk Magistrate. The committee shall consist of at least five persons, none of whom shall be a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, at least one of whom shall be a currently elected Clerk Magistrate and at least one of whom shall be an appointed Clerk Magistrate. The composition and rules of the committee shall be as established by the Supreme Judicial Court. This rule shall not be interpreted to abrogate the authority of the Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court, the Chief Administrative Justice, or an Administrative Justice of a Department of the Trial Court in any of these areas.
HARIHAR Updates National Association of REALTORS (NAR), Seeking Licensure Revocation for Evidenced Code of Ethics Violations by WEICHERT Realtors/Daher Companies in Massachusetts (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK, et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
In Addition to Civil/Criminal Penalties, HARIHAR Seeks Revocation of Professional Licensure from WEICHERT Real Estate Brokers - Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies - Methuen, MA)... Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK, et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880
HARIHAR to K&L Gates Chairman Michael Caccese: " K&L Gates, LLP can now be credited for helping to publicly expose an unprecedented, and certainly egregious level of judicial abuse in both the MA State and Federal Judiciary..."
HARIHAR Slams Wells Fargo Executive, Showing Cause to Expand Upon Existing Claims of Slander/Defamation and Economic Espionage against Defendant - WELLS FARGO (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
HARIHAR Exposes Tangled Web of Corruption in Massachusetts Courts - Involving Disqualified MA Superior Court Judge - Hon. Janice W. Howe, Her Husband - Real Estate Businessman Douglas Howe Jr. and Attorneys for Bank Defendants - WELLS FARGO, US Bank and MERS Inc.
HARIHAR Extends Opportunity To Reach Settlement Agreement W/ Real Estate Brokers WEICHERT REALTORS/Daher Companies in Methuen, MA (Ref. HARIHAR V US BANK Et Al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
HARIHAR Files NOTICE in MA Superior Court RE: Upcoming Congressional Meetings in March (2020) to Discuss the Ongoing Committee Investigation of Defendant - WELLS FARGO Consumer Abuses - Including the Plaintiff's Offer to Testify.
HARIHAR's NOTICE Officially Docketed w/ Massachusetts Superior Court, Exposing MA AGO's Failure (or REFUSAL) to Bring Criminal Indictments Against Defendants - WELLS FARGO, US BANK, Judicial Officers and other Named Defendants
HARIHAR Files Notice w/ MA Superior Court: "MA AGO’S Continued Failures to Address Evidenced Criminal Violations of Record Shows Cause to Expand Upon Color of Law, Due Process, RICO Claims, etc., against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts"
HARIHAR Files NOTICE w/ MA Superior Court - Documenting Email to Mass AG Maura Healey and Extended Offer to Reach a Mutual Agreement with the DEFENDANT - Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
HARIHAR's Increased Exposure of CORRUPTION Between Government and Bank Defendants - WELLS FARGO/US BANK Calls For Intervention by DOJ and US Secret Service To Enforce EO No. 13818
BREAKING NEWS: HARIHAR's NEW Discovery Evidences UNDISCLOSED Conflict of Interest Between Middlesex Superior Court Judge - Hon. Janice W. Howe and her Husband - William Raveis Managing Partner (Andover, MA), Douglas Howe, Jr. (Ref. HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO, Docket No. 1981-cv-00050)
HARIHAR Files EMERGENCY Motion for the Removal of Disqualified MA Superior Court Judge - Hon. Janice W. Howe, Including NEW Claims against Defendant - Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Related Fed Lawsuit (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
HARIHAR Brings Evidenced Obstruction of Justice Claims Under 18 U.S. Code § 1503 Against Disqualified MA Superior Court Judge - Hon. Janice W. Howe and Court Clerk (HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO et al, Docket No. 1981-cv-11880)
HARIHAR Brings Evidenced Obstruction of Justice Claims Involving RECUSED US District Court Judge - Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs and Referenced Clerks to the Attn of US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and Deputy Chief Dan Jackson (AO US Courts)
HARIHAR Evidences Incremental Criminal Violations Against WELLS FARGO, US BANK & Atty's for K&L Gates LLP, Including Misprision of Treason, Fraud, RICO and Economic Espionage (Ref. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880)
HARIHAR Submits Whistleblower Form to House Financial Services Committee, calling out Evidenced Judicial Abuses, DOJ Failures and Nonfeasance by Legislative Leaders incl. 2020 Presidential Candidate - US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)