Reconsideration request by Wells Fargo & US Bank is
Denied. Decision allowing pro se MA foreclosed homeowner to file for new trial - Stands.
Boston, MA, July 17, 2014 Last Thursday, the MA Appeals Court denied a motion filed by 2 out of 3 Appellees Wells Fargo NA and US Bank, requesting that the Court reconsider its decision granting foreclosed homeowner Mohan A. Harihar (Appellant), leave to file for new trial, thus allowing the initial ruling to stand. The 3 rd Appellee, Harmon Law Offices PC, who is also the originally retained counsel for US Bank in this matter, elected not to align with this reconsideration request. 1
As prelude to filing for new trial, Mr. Harihar has filed a motion requesting to initiate a validation process, which will include 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. A recap of this validation is expected to determine whether a corrective path is attainable in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or if transfer to Federal Court and involvement of the MA/US Inspectors General is deemed necessary. 2
As the impact of the US Foreclosure Crisis continues to be Headline News, this growing storyline continues to become more complex, as acts of deception appear to continue with the attempted re- sale of the referenced foreclosure. Regarding the Ethics Complaint filed with the Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR), the 7/14/2014 meeting by the Grievance Committee has determined potential Ethics violations by the associated listing Real Estate Broker/Agent representing the Appellees (US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA) and is moving forward with charging violations of the NAR Code of Ethics, Articles 1, 2, and 12 against the listing Broker/Agent(s). 3 Further investigation and validation pertaining to the listing of the referenced foreclosure is expected to reveal acts of deception by these Appellees (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA) appear to continue, and include the aid of the listing real estate broker/agent(s). Upon filing for new trial, Mr. Harihar intends to amend filing to include ANY additional parties who have willfully chosen to align themselves with the referenced misconduct.
For additional information regarding this growing storyline, follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar
1 Additional information can be viewed in the previous 7/12/14 Media Alert - Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP http://www.scribd.com/doc/233619077 2 A copy of the Motion filed with the MA Appeals Court requesting validation is attached in its entirety (below scroll down to view). 3 See attached Motion, Exhibit B, letter received recapping the 7/14/2014 NEAR Grievance Committee meeting, followed by the NAR Code of Ethics, highlighting the articles of alleged violations by the listing Broker/Agent(s). 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
MOTION - APPELLANT REQUEST FOR ORDER TO INITIATE VALIDATION PROCESS
As follow-up to this Courts 7/17/14 decision on paper #19 allowing the Appellants leave to file for new trial to stand, and in effort to ensure accuracy of information moving forward in this legal process, a motion is respectfully filed with the Court, requesting an order to initiate a validation process to include the following:
1. An order for the production and validation of consistently requested Discovery evidence the recorded conversations during the 22-month loan modification process, between the Appellee - Wells Fargo NA (Mortgage Servicer) and the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar, which are believed to support (at minimum) Deceptive Practices (G.L. c. 93A, 2)by 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
2. Validation regarding signatures on file.
3. Validation regarding Chain of Title.
4. Due to the potential complexity of validation, the Appellant additionally requests an order for assistance from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and also the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), particularly 3 with validation concerns surrounding the associated Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.
5. An order for 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. 4
6. An order for Appellees to provide sworn testimony supporting all claims on file pertaining to alleged harassment, dis-interest, etc...According to the Appellees, these claims stem from parties including the MA Attorney General, members of the media, and other lenders/mortgage servicers found to have committed unsafe/unsound mortgage serving and foreclosure practices.
7. Completion of the VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE previously provided to the Appellees, which Apellees (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA) have historically refused to answer. 5
8. Validation of 14 th Amendment infractions, pertaining to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. 6
9. A recap of the validation results, comparing these results to the information initially filed by the Appellees with the Court. This recap will additionally aid with determining next steps pertaining to:
a. A better understanding of whether or not a corrective path is attainable within this Commonwealth or if transfer to Federal Court and involvement of the MA/US Inspectors General is deemed necessary. b. Addressing State and Federal Criminal Charges against referenced parties, regarding criminal complaints
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. 5 See Exhibit A Clarification request, Questionnaire, and Refusal to Clarify Notice. 6 See Appellant Brief associated with this Docket No: 2013-P- 1829 for further detail, pages 13, 21, and 42-45. 4 already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. c. Follow-up by the Court regarding Counsel accountability and complaints already filed with the MA Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Council 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. d. Concerns surrounding the related Summary Judgment associated with Docket No. 2012-P-1515, and additionally Docket No. 2013-P-0671.
10. 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.
Mr. Harihar respectfully requests an immediate reversal of the associated eviction order, based on the irrefutable 14 th
Amendment infractions to due process, thus allowing 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.
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 will make clear that distinction.
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 Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA (see original motion). That offer is now considered VOID. This validation process will reveal the number of opportunities afforded to these Appellees in effort to seek agreement for harm and accruing damages, all of which have been either declined or simply ignored. 5
2. Regarding the Ethics Complaint filed with the Northeast Association of Realtors, the 7/14/2014 meeting by the Grievance Committee has determined potential Ethics violations by the associated listing Real Estate Broker representing the Appellees (US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA) and is moving forward with charging violations of the NAR Code of Ethics, Articles 1, 2, and 12 against the listing Broker/Agent(s). 7 Further investigation and validation pertaining to the listing of the references foreclosure is expected to reveal that acts of deception by these Appellees (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA) appear to continue, and include the aid of the listing real estate broker/agent(s). Upon filing for new trial, this Appellant intends to amend filing to include ANY additional parties who have willfully chosen to align themselves with the referenced misconduct.
3. New Evidence continues to come forth Since the Appellants filing request 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.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
7 See Exhibit B, letter received recapping the 7/14/2014 Grievance Committee meeting, followed by the NAR Code of Ethics, highlighting the articles of alleged violations by the listing Broker/Agent. 6
EXHIBIT A
7
July 16, 2013 Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP Attn: David Fialkow FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES One Post Office Square, 30 th Floor Boston, MA 02109 RE: CLARIFICATION REQUESTED
VIA US MAIL
Attorney Fialkow: As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a copy of this Communication to your respective clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA. After reviewing the collective documents submitted to the Court(s) by you (David E. Fialkow) on behalf of your clients Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, there are numerous statements contained within that I wish to clarify, so that there are no misunderstandings as we move forward with the Legal process. For simplicity, a separate questionnaire has been prepared which lists the areas requiring clarification (see attached). After each question, space has been provided for your response. Once completed, please mail back a signed hardcopy to my attention. Please be advised, other parties are included in this communication including: The Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office (Criminal Bureau), other government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers associated with unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and numerous members of the media. In addition, a copy of this communication and your subsequent reply will be filed with both the Massachusetts Appeals Court as well as the Middlesex Superior Court, to assist with the Legal process as it moves forward. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile) 8 REQUESTED CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENTS REGARDING HARIHAR vs. WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA, et al. The following questions are raised by Mohan A. Harihar following a review of statements contained within Court documents, made by US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, on behalf of their retained counsel David E. Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar. These documented statements require further clarification for the record, as they are either unsupported, or where evidence/information supporting Mr. Harihars consistent claims are ignored and/or unanswered. Mr. Harihar requests clarification for the record to assist the legal process moving forward. Please be advised, as with prior communications, additional parties will receive this communication. Parties include (but are not limited to): The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (Criminal Bureau), select government officials, select members of the media, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, for the purpose of forwarding to senior management.
Please provide clarification in the spaces provided (highlighted in RED). Upon completion, please sign, date, and return by mail three (3) hardcopies to Mr. Harihars attention. Two (2) copies will be filed with the Courts (MA Appeals Court and Middlesex Superior Court), and Mr. Harihar will retain one copy on file.
Are both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA maintaining the position that there is NO misconduct associated with the referenced foreclosure, or with any circumstances leading up to/or following the foreclosure, including the 22- month Loan modification process?
[Click to type your response]
Is counsel maintaining that there is NO misconduct or deceptive practices associated with the conversations that took place between the servicer Wells Fargo NA and Mr. Harihar during the 22-month loan modification attempts? If so, please provide a detailed explanation why Discovery requests by Mr. Harihar throughout this litigation, to produce these recorded conversations (in order to validate) has been repeatedly refused for over two (2) years?
[Click to type your response]
Please explain counsels reason(s) for refusing to validate Chain of Title with regard to the referenced property.
[Click to type your response]
Is counsel stating that the Court(s) should uphold decisions made in the infancy stages of this Nations Foreclosure crisis, when evidence/information now in possession was not yet available, or where counsel repeatedly refused to provide critical evidence through the Discovery process? If yes, please provide documentation to support this position.
9
[Click to type your response]
The following questions pertain to documented statements made by retained counsel David E. Fialkow, stating that Mr. Harihars consistent claims are meritless and baseless.
With regard to the April 2011 investigation/report conducted by Federal Bank Regulators where both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA were among the numerous Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, is counsel stating that this report is considered meritless and baseless?
[Click to type your response]
Please clarify for the record why counsel did not disclose the findings of the 2011 Investigation by Federal Bank Regulators prior to pursuing legal action against Mr. Harihar, in any Court (Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court)?
[Click to type your response]
Is counsel stating that the 2011 investigation by Federal Bank Regulators is incorrect, or that somehow, this referenced foreclosure has different circumstances than the other 4.2 million affected foreclosures?
[Click to type your response]
Is counsel stating that the Federal Bank Regulators separate investigation of Mr. Harihars Foreclosure (which stemmed from the 2011 investigation findings, and which resulted in a settlement payment to Mr. Harihar) is baseless and meritless? It is also noted that the payment issued was an amount greater than the minimum payment issued to 4.2 million affected recipients, indicating a greater degree of misconduct. Is this fact considered to be baseless and meritless?
[Click to type your response]
Is counsel stating that the separate class-action litigation involving all fifty (50) Attorneys General, against lenders including Wells Fargo NA, and which resulted in the National Mortgage Settlement and additional separate payment to Mr. Harihar, is considered baseless and meritless?
[Click to type your response]
10 Counsels statements characterizing claims as baseless and meritless conflict with statements made by prior counsel retained by US Bank NA - Harmon Law Offices PC, known to be associated with the vast majority of 58,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, who stated on multiple occasions before the Lowell District Court, that Mr. Harihar has valid complaints/concerns. Court transcripts will support. Please explain counsels change in position and provide documents to support this abrupt change. Also, please explain what necessitated the withdrawal of Harmon Law Offices PC from this litigation?
[Click to type your response]
The following questions are in response to allegations of threats and harassment, made by US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel against Mr. Harihar. These allegations are completely unfounded, unsupported, and utterly false, and have continued despite being previously put on notice by Mr. Harihar to cease and desist. Mr. Harihar has made it abundantly clear to counsel that the facts and documented misconduct associated with the referenced foreclosure and throughout this litigation will be brought to the Publics attention, for the specific purpose of creating public awareness, & in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct. I f anything, Mr. Harihar has made it a point to over- communicate and include counsel in most, if not all communications which have been sent to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, select government officials, select media personnel, additional employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, and other lenders and mortgage servicers also found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, even though there was no requirement to do so. Of the multiple communications sent to the previously mentioned parties, there has been no response from any party, including the senior management of Nelson Mullins LLP, to suggest harassment, disinterest, etcas is stated and suggested by Attorney Fialkow.
Has counsel received communication from the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
Has counsel received communication from any of the media sources stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
Has counsel received communication, from the other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers (Listed on the Federal Reserve Website), found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage serving and foreclosure practices, stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct and increased Lender risk associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
Has counsel received communication from any of the other government officials stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct associate with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.
11
[Click to type your response]
I t has been specifically communicated to attorney David E. Fialkow on numerous occasions that the documented misconduct associated with this ongoing litigation is believed to exist not only with US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, but also their retained counsel. I t is unclear at this time, whether the documented misconduct is limited to Attorney David E. Fialkow or if misconduct extends beyond to include additional members of Nelson Mullins LLP. For this reason, and as previously communicated to counsel, other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP are copied on communications for the specific purpose of forwarding to senior management. Ongoing investigations which include the Office of the Attorney General Criminal Bureau are expected to assist in determining the depth of misconduct.
Is counsel stating that communications intended for Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP are harassing, or that Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP is disinterested in learning more about the misconduct and increased legal risk associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements. Additionally, if there are alternative email addresses for specific Senior Managers of Nelson Mullins LLP, including Human Resources, which are preferred for future communications, please provide that information as well.
[Click to type your response] The following questions pertain to documented statements made by Attorney David E. Fialkow, stating that Mr. Harihar has made all sorts of baseless claims about criminal, civil, and bar complaints and investigations. To be clear, Mr. Harihar understands this is a very serious matter, and documented complaints were not filed until documents supporting definitive misconduct were in possession. I t is a fact, that Mr. Harihar has filed a detailed criminal complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, and has in possession documentation believed to irrefutably support criminal and civil misconduct against US Bank NA as trustee, the associated securitized mortgage trust, Wells Fargo NA, and their retained counsel. I f any party chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General directly 617.727.2200 (Phone), and their Boston office is located at One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1518.
Is counsel stating or suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not filed a criminal complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, and that there is no documented evidence of criminal misconduct to support this complaint?
[Click to type your response]
I t is a fact that, Mr. Harihar has filed a complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow, of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel, for documented misconduct, has had multiple conversations with the Bar Counsel regarding this matter, and has informed the Bar Counsel that additional complaints regarding incremental counts of both civil and criminal misconduct against David E. Fialkow are expected and are likely to follow. I f any party chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel directly 617.728.8700 (Phone), and their office is located at 99 High Street, Boston, MA 02110.
Is counsel stating or suggesting that a complaint has not been filed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel against David E. Fialkow, and that there is no documented evidence already provided to the Counsel to support misconduct
[Click to type your response]
I t is a fact that counsel has been made aware by Mr. Harihar that, with documented misconduct now in possession, a review of all related court documents/transcripts submitted over the past two (2) years is under review, and is believed to now constitute numerous counts of misconduct including (but not limited to) slander and defamation against Mr. Harihar. Court documents include ongoing active litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the recently filed Appeal Brief/Appendix filed by counsel associated with Appeal 1 of 3. Since this is the first of three Appeals on file with the Court, counsel is expected to file two (2) additional Briefs as required. Once all 12 Court documents are submitted and reviewed, misconduct associated with (but not limited to) slander and defamation is expected to be addressed collectively either by New Trial (if granted by the Court) or in a separate civil complaint.
If there is any confusion regarding forthcoming litigation against all related parties, please advise.
[Click to type your response]
I t is a fact, that the misconduct associated with the referenced parties and subsequent damages to Mr. Harihar initiated what has now been nearly five (5) years of research into this Nations Foreclosure Crisis, and has resulted in the development of two (2) separate projects, for the specific purpose(s) of assisting those individuals impacted by this Foreclosure Crisis (for reference, entitled Project 1), as well as providing an economic plan designed to assist with the nations recovery (for reference, entitled Project 2). Both projects are considered the intellectual property of Mohan A. Harihar (Founder HFA llc, Copyright, All Rights Reserved, Patent pending). Over the past two (2) years, Mr. Harihar has presented this economic plan to multiple parties including:
1. A Senior member of the House Finance Committee (Washington, DC) 2. Two (2) Attorneys General 3. Two (2) State Senators 4. A Secretary of State 5. A Congressional Office 6. A Lender Senior VP of Risk Compliance 7. The Chairman of a nationally ranked Strategic Communications firm.
This economic project has also reached a select office of the current Presidential administration, and a presentation is now being prepared for a member of the US Senate. All meetings are documented, and ALL parties have responded favorably. While it was not initially intended or considered necessary to inform the Court(s) of Mr. Harihars related projects, the ongoing attempts by counsel to discredit Mr. Harihar have now made it necessary to provide this overview, restating that both projects are considered the intellectual property of Mohan A. Harihar. This matter now extends far beyond a singular wrongful foreclosure. Is counsel stating that Mr. Harihar should not be allowed to assist those parties affected and harmed by this Nations Foreclosure Crisis? Or, is counsel suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not been involved with two (2) separate projects stemming from this Nations Foreclosure Crisis? Please explain.
[Click to type your response]
A significant portion of this matter is still being assembled and is forthcoming, involving the process and facts associated with the securitization of mortgages and the securitized mortgage trust referenced in litigation against Mr. Harihar CMLTI 2006-AR1 .Since numerous questions and concerns continue surround this securitized trust, a report is being filed with the I nternal Revenue Service (IRS) to assist with clarification.
Thank you for your assistance with this clarification. Please sign and date upon completion (below).
_______________________________________ _________________ Signature Date
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
13 MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff/Appellant
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.
Defendants/Appellees
NOTICE REGARDING CLARIFICATION REFUSAL BY APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS
After a review of the Defendants/Appellees opposition to the associated Motion being filed with this Court, Notice is hereby respectfully submitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, notifying the Court of the following:
1. Refusal to Clarify Statements - With regard to the associated Motion requesting a Court order against Defendants/Appellees (submitted in accordance Superior Court Rule 9A), the request made by Mr. Harihar, for the clarification of multiple statements, as articulated in the Motion and additionally communicated in separate Notices filed with both this Court, as well as the Appeals Court this clarification for the record has been clearly ignored by the Defendants/Appellees, and is viewed by Mr. Harihar as a refusal to clarify information critical to facts pertaining to this Motion and the overall case.
This further exemplifies the tactics used by the Defendants/Appellees in effort to suppress the validation of facts associated with this case(s). A review of the Defendants filed opposition reveals the absolute necessity for clarification.
Mr. Harihar respectfully requests that the Court take this latest action by the Defendants into account when considering this Motion and Court Order.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
14
EXHIBIT B
15
July 21, 2014
Mohan Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
RE: Ethics Complaint: M. Harihar vs K. Daher and M. Koontz
Dear Mohan: I am writing to you to inform you that the NEAR Grievance Committee has met and reviewed the complaint referenced above and has recommended that the case be forwarded to the NEAR Professional Standards Committee for a hearing. The Grievance Committee amended the complaint by deleting Articles 3, 11, and 14. Therefore, the complaint will go forward charging a violation of Articles 1, 2, and 12 against the REALTOR that you named in your complaint. I have enclosed a copy of Form E-22, Appeal of the Grievance Committee Dismissal of Ethics Complaint. Should you choose to appeal the deletion of articles from your complaint, you would cite the articles that you believe should have remained in the complaint, and they would be forwarded for review by our Board of Directors Professional Standards Tribunal with your complaint. No new information may be added or attached to the form, and the directors may consider only the documents the Grievance Committee reviewed in making its determination. Should you choose to appeal, Form E-22 must be filed within 20 days of your receipt of this letter. Should the appeal period pass without an appeal, I would then forward a copy of the complaint with a reply form to the respondent, and when the reply is received, I would forward a copy of it to you. Additionally, both parties would then be given the opportunity to challenge any of the potential panelists for the hearing. In the meantime, should you require additional, please dont hesitate to contact me anytime at 978/577-6138 x15.
Best regards,
Sharon Sarvela Member Services Coordinator & Professional Standards Secretary
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 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"
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 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 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 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)
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 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 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 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)
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 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 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'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
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 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)