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 RE: NEW DISCOVERY UNDER MASS. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2)

IDENTIFYING CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN DISQUALIFIED JUDICIAL

OFFICER – HON. JANICE W. HOWE AND REAL ESTATE/INSURANCE

BUSINESSMAN (AND HUSBAND) DOUGLAS HOWE, JR.

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

files this Motion in accordance of Rule 9A and Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) bringing to this Court’s

attention NEW information that at minimum evidences a conflict of interest involving

DISQUALIFIED Middlesex Superior Court Judge – Hon. Janice W. Howe and her

HUSBAND – Douglas Howe Jr. Apparently, this is the same Douglas Howe Jr. who’s award-

winning real estate and insurance businesses have been recognized as leaders in the Andover,

MA marketplace since the 1950’s. The Plaintiff references Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09:

Code of Judicial Conduct, under Canon 2, Rule 2.11 Disqualification, (A)(3):

1
“The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse,

domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge’s family residing in the

judge’s household, has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or is a party

to the proceeding.”

An overview of Mr. Howe’s Real estate businesses shows that Howe Real Estate (established

by his father, Douglas Howe, Sr. in 1955) merged with J.B. Doherty Associates (established in

1981.) Since becoming Prudential Howe & Doherty REALTORS® in 1995, the team earned

the #1 ranking in Andover from 2000 – 2013, when it was then acquired by William Raveis -

The No. 1 family-owned real estate company in the Northeast and the No. 9 real estate

company in the country, according to REAL Trends.1 According to the William Raveis –

Andover profile on LinkedIn:

“All three Manager/Partners - Doug Howe, JB Doherty and Chris Doherty - are Officers in

the company and are actively involved in the day to day management of the company. They

grew up here and continue to live and do business in the area. All three owners remain active

within a variety of community activities.”2

Aside from business ties to Real Estate is The Howe Insurance Agency, started by Douglas

Howe Sr. in 1955 – as a full-service insurance and real estate firm on Main Street in Andover,

1
See Exhibit 1 – to view the 2013 article which announces the acquisition of Prudential Howe & Doherty
REALTORS® by William Raveis (Douglas Howe, Jr. is pictured at the top of the photo).
2
See Exhibit 2 – to view the current William Raveis LinkedIn page.

2
Massachusetts. Howe Insurance, Agency Inc. is now a stand-alone insurance business located

at 4 Punchard Ave., Andover MA 01810.

CLEARLY, there exists (at minimum) substantial conflicts of interest and a clear violation(s) to

the SJC Code of Judicial Conduct - when a civil lawsuit involving real estate issues is being

presided over by a Judge who has failed to disclose that her husband has (for decades) had

countless business transactions with THREE (3) of the Defendants: (1) WELLS FARGO;

(2) US BANK; and (3) MERS, Inc. This Court is already aware that the Plaintiff has evidenced

as part of the record, multiple judicial violations that have not only DISQUALIFIED Judge

Howe from ruling in this case but also call for her immediate removal from the bench. The list of

evidenced violations includes (but are not limited to):

1. Judicial Fraud on the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3);

2. Civil (and Criminal) RICO violations under (at minimum) 18 U.S. Code § 1964;
3. Color of Law violations under 18 U.S. Code § 242;
4. Due Process violations under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;
5. Ignoring ARTICLE III, 18 U.S.C. § 2381 and 28 U.S.C. § 1446 - as it pertains to
the referenced Federal litigation;
6. Refusing to Recuse;
7. 18 U.S. Code § 2076 - by instructing a Court Clerk – Arthur Deguglielmo not
to accept or Docket filed documents by the Plaintiff;
8. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;
9. Failure to acknowledge and uphold Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure
60(b)(3) - Fraud on the Court, as it pertains to evidenced (and UNOPPOSED)
claims against named Defendants;
10. Ignoring ELEVEN (11) judicial recusals of record (9 Federal, 2 State, all related
to this litigation) and their impact to associated judgements;
11. Refusing to accept the Plaintiff’s arguments as FACT, refusing DISCOVERY
and Refusing to Allow the Plaintiff to Depose Witnesses;
12. 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 referenced Foreclosure as ILLEGAL;
13. Refusing to re-establish a balance of hardships;
14. Refusing to Acknowledge Public Perception and the MASSACHUSETTS
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT; and
15. Ignoring Continued Concerns for the Plaintiff’s Personal Safety and Security

3
The issued Dismissal/Judgement orders associated with this docket are therefore considered

VOID, as stated in the PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO VOID ORDERS (DOCUMENT NO.’S

38 AND 39) PURSUANT TO MASS. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4), filed on November 29, 2019 which

as of December 10, 2019, has yet to be docketed, showing cause to bring incremental

obstruction, tampering and concealment claims. It should be noted that Judge Howe has not

addressed, denied or refuted a single one of the evidenced claims referenced above,

including her refusal to recuse herself. Now, with this new discovery involving her husband

Douglas Howe Jr., the argument can certainly be made that if Judge Howe had adhered to her

judicial oath and upheld the law here in favor of the Plaintiff, it would (at minimum) likely stand

to have substantial economic impact on her husband’s real estate and insurance businesses – and

separately, impact to the ongoing related Federal litigation.3 The judge’s failure to disclose this

information and her refusal to recuse only adds to the Plaintiff’s arguments that evidence

patterns of corrupt conduct - indicating Judge Howe’s intentions from the beginning have

been to wrongfully brush aside ALL of the Plaintiff’s motions in order to reach a corrupt

and pre-determined outcome.

On Saturday, December 7, 2019 the Plaintiff received by mail a Motion from the Bank

Defendant’s counsel requesting that this Court issue an order that would BAR the Plaintiff from

making any future filings. This motion comes after Bank Defendants requested a legal

settlement proposal from the Plaintiff. In a follow-up email delivered to representing counsel -

David E. Fialkow on December 1, 2019, the Plaintiff informed attorney Fialkow of NEW

Discoveries (including criminal violations) involving multiple Judicial/Court Officers that

3
References the $42B Federal Lawsuit – HARIHAR v US BANK, et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880) which includes
the Defendant – COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

4
were necessarily being reported to: (1) the Court; (2) Federal Prosecutors; and (3) The White

House (via www.whitehouse.gov ). The Plaintiff is certain that this new motion by Bank

Defendants is an effort to prevent (at least in part) this latest discovery(s) involving Judge Howe

from being exposed. It should be clear that Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO/US BANK,

Defendant - MERS, Inc. and their retained counsel have been aware of this conflict of interest

and have consciously chosen to remain silent. While the Plaintiff plans to timely file a separate

Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion, it is imperative to first inform the Court, Federal

Prosecutors and the White House of this latest discovery. Aside from filing this motion as part of

a required Rule 9A package, copies will first be delivered to the Federal Offices and Agencies

referenced above, as the discovery of this conflict (at minimum) shows cause for the Plaintiff to

amend his original complaint here, expanding upon multiple civil/criminal violations already

evidenced (referenced above). The Plaintiff additionally shows cause to: (1) amend the related

Federal complaint (HARIHAR v US BANK et al), which includes the Defendant -

Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and (2) file a separate civil complaint for damages against

Judge Howe and her husband pursuant to 48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86, which states that

if an inferior judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291

N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509. Any assumed judicial immunity is considered waived, once

disqualification has been evidenced.

Finally, the Plaintiff – while under no obligation to do so, states for the record that he has IN

GOOD FAITH, offered ALL Defendant parties the opportunity to reach a legal settlement

agreement. The Plaintiff has even put together settlement proposals as requested by the

Defendants. However, no agreement has been made at this stage with ANY party. Unless a legal

5
(and timely) settlement agreement(s) is reached between parties, it becomes necessary to move

forward with next legal steps (as referenced above), beginning with the Court’s removal of Judge

Howe from the bench and restoring jurisdiction.

Aside from notifying the above-referenced government offices/agencies, copies of this Motion

will 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 Motion, or if additional information is required, the

Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s attention to

this very serious and sensitive legal matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
December 10, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com

6
Exhibit 1

7
8
Exhibit 2

9
10