Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
After reviewing the Opposition collectively filed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.
HARIHAR, identifies the same repeating patterns of corrupt conduct, including statements
which are factually false, inaccurate and misleading – intended to purposefully deceive this
Court, to the extent that the evidenced criminal behavior involving not only the Defendants, but
also a judicial (and other court) officer(s) warrants the involvement of The Department of Justice
1
The Plaintiff therefore, necessarily makes the following corrections to the Defendants’
I. The Plaintiff’s Motion Calls for Judge Howe’s REMOVAL from the Bench – Well
BEFORE Judge Howe issued the VOID Judgment order, the Plaintiff evidenced for the
record a lengthy list of judicial violations warranting Judge Howe’s sua sponte recusal. As a
matter of record, the judge refused to do so. The pattern of corrupt conduct exemplified here
is IDENTICAL to that evidenced throughout the history of this litigation – in both MA State
Federal and 2 State). The severity of these evidenced claims includes (but is not limited to)
criminal violations to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S.C. § 2381 – Judicial Treason. Therefore,
based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law - if the Defendants are not willing to reach
a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff, it is incumbent upon this Superior Court (along
with the DOJ/US Attorney’s Office) to remove the disqualified judicial officer from the
bench in order to: (1) restore jurisdiction; and (2) initiate corrective action, beginning with
upholding the Plaintiff’s evidenced (and UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court claims, under
II. The Plaintiff’s NEW Discovery Seeks (in part) to Validate the Identity and Business
Dealings of Judge Howe’s Husband – Douglas Howe, Jr. – As stated in the Plaintiff’s
motion, information has been received which shows a husband-wife relationship between
two (2) people by the name of Douglas Howe, Jr. and Janice W. Howe, who are believed to
reside in North Andover, MA. The Plaintiff believes this is the same Janice W. Howe who is
listed as the presiding judge associated with this complaint. In his research, the Plaintiff has
2
found a bio (summary) for Janice W. Howe - https://www.mylife.com/janice-
Janice Howe was born on 01/17/1952 and is 67 years old. Before moving to Janice's
current city of North Andover, MA, Janice lived in Salem MA and Andover MA. Janice
also answers to J Weisman and Janice W Howe, and perhaps a couple of other names.
Partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP is presently Janice's occupation. Background details
that you might want to know about Janice include: ethnicity is Caucasian, whose political
affiliation is unknown; and religious views are listed as Christian. Currently, Janice is
married. Janice's personal network of family, friends, associates & neighbors include
Douglas Howe, Cliff Howe, Douglas Howe, Jane Howe and Kimberly Lawrence. Janice's
annual salary is between $250K+; properties and other assets push Janice's net worth over
Greater than $499,999.1
If the Plaintiff’s findings are found to be true, then it is also believed that Judge Howe’s
husband is in fact the same Douglas Howe, Jr. whose business dealings in real estate and
insurance date back to the 1950’s and a real estate brokerage started by his father – Douglas
Howe, Sr. For the reasons stated in the Plaintiff’s motion, validation of this undisclosed
conflict of interest only adds to the list of evidenced judicial violations that (at minimum)
DISQUALIFY Judge Howe from ruling further on this (or any related) docket.
III. It Appears that the Bank Defendants and Defendant MERS are DENYING any
Business Dealings that are Associated with Douglas Howe, Jr. – The effort put forth in the
should in itself raise a number of red flags to this Court and to any objective observer. If it is
the Defendants’ decision to maintain their legal position here – it will (at minimum)
certainly add to the Plaintiff’s RICO/collusion claims that reveal the intention of reaching a
corrupt and pre-determined outcome. The Plaintiff will then necessarily seek a court order to
1
See Exhibit 1
3
subpoena ALL historical business records associated with the Judge Howe’s husband -
Douglas Howe, Jr., including (but not limited to) all business transactions associated with:
DEFENDANT – MERS, Inc. are suggesting that hey have NEVER had a business dealing
and/or relationship with ANY of the above-referenced real estate and insurance businesses, it
is not only unlikely, but literally impossible. Any OBJECTIVE observer would agree.
Similarly, there is a 100% chance that these referenced businesses have had real
the illegally securitized trust associated with the Plaintiff’s illegal foreclosure – CMLTI
2006 AR-1. If this is the path that the Defendants wish to go down, an evidenced history is
IV. If ANY of the Plaintiff’s Claims were Baseless, Frivolous, etc… there would NOT be an
continue to label the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims as, “baseless, frivolous…” - failing
however to provide ANY support to show how they could attach such a label. The insistence
here by the Defendants - to continue aligning with a disqualified judge is consistent with the
patterns of corrupt conduct evidenced throughout the history of this litigation. The Plaintiff
2
RMBS – Residential Mortgage-Backed Security
4
respectfully states that if there is a question regarding a single one (1) of his evidenced
claims, he is more than happy to review the record and the supporting arguments to
Involvement of the DOJ and the Secret Service – Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of
the law and as a matter of record, the list of evidenced CRIMINAL claims disqualifying
Judge Howe include (but are not limited to): (1) Judicial Treason; (2) Fraud on the Court; (3)
RICO/Collusion; (4) Economic Espionage and a host of others. It should also be noted that
Judge Howe has NOT addressed, refuted or denied a single one (1) of these evidenced claims
VI. The Plaintiff’s Effort(s) to Reach a Mutual Agreement with the Defendants - The
Plaintiff makes absolutely clear for the record that while under no obligation to do so, he has
IN GOOD FAITH, offered ALL Defendant parties the opportunity to reach a legal
settlement agreement. This Court is respectfully reminded that it is the Defendants, who in
an open Courtroom before Judge Howe stated that they are willing to have a settlement
discussion. The Plaintiff has even put together settlement proposals as requested by the
Defendants. Without disclosing the details, the proposed agreements are based on ALL of
the evidenced litigation history, not just a select, incomplete portion of it - and takes into
consideration the many legal issues which still remain. However, the Defendants have
3
The United States Secret Service - On March 1, 2003, the Secret Service was transferred from the Department of
the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security. Recognized for its central role in the protection of the
nation’s leaders and the financial and critical infrastructure of the United States, the Secret Service contributes to the
Department of Homeland Security’s common mission of protecting the American people from harm.
5
declined the proposal, with no feedback or counter-offer that identify any gaps in the
proposal - in order to help move the discussion further. The Plaintiff has even requested
additional detail in order to have a better understanding – so that this Court(s) and Federal
Prosecutors can be updated on the status of the settlement discussion. However, the
Defendants have refused to do so. Instead, it appears that these Defendants are somehow
certain that these egregious judicial abuses are going to continue – in order to
offered by this Court. Unless a legal (and timely) settlement agreement(s) is reached
between parties, it becomes necessary to move forward with next legal steps (as referenced
above), beginning with: (1) the Court’s removal of Judge Howe from the bench; (2) restoring
jurisdiction; and (3) reversing the (VOID) judgment order and upholding Rule 60 with a
VII. Any Continued Failure by the Middlesex Superior Court to Initiate Corrective
Action Shows Cause to Amend the Federal Complaint against the Commonwealth – The
Plaintiff respectfully states that IF efforts to secure a settlement agreement between parties is
unsuccessful and these referenced judicial failures continue – each incidence will (at
minimum) show cause to amend the Plaintiff’s Federal complaint,4 bringing incremental
VIII. Violations to Executive Order No. 13818 – As a matter of record, the Plaintiff has
evidenced – in full public view, what can only be described as corruption associated with
4
References HARIHAR v US BANK, et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, US District Court, Boston, MA.
6
government and banking at the highest of levels. In 2017, the President of The United States
issued Executive Order No. 13818 which in part, states the following:
...” CORRUPTION undermines the values that form an essential foundation of stable,
democratic institutions; degrades the rule of law; perpetuates violent conflicts; facilitates
the activities of dangerous persons; and undermines economic markets. The United States
seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who engage in corruption,
as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same
persons…”
The Plaintiff respectfully states that any continued failure to initiate corrective action - as it
pertains to this (and all related) litigation shows cause to involve the DOJ, Secret Service and
the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in order to enforce EO No. 13818.
Wherefore, for the reasons set forth within and in his original Motion, the Plaintiff respectfully
confirm whether or not the litigants can resolve their issues BEFORE necessarily
Plaintiff calls for the Court to validate for the record, the identity and business dealings of
Judge Howe’s spouse – Douglas Howe Jr. – determining whether or not a conflict of
interest exists, in addition to the list of judicial violations already evidenced as part of the
7
record. This includes a Court order to subpoena the business records referenced within to
determine how many business transactions have occurred between the husband of a
Superior Court Judge and THREE (3) of the listed Defendants (Referencing Bank
3. If the conflict of interest claim is proven to be true, the disqualification of Judge Howe is
further validated. The conflict also shows cause for the Plaintiff to amend his complaint,
bringing (at minimum) additional Fraud on the Court claims under Mass. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) against the named Defendants, who appear determined to continue deceiving
this Court.
egregious judicial abuses evidenced against Judge Howe calls for her immediate removal
from the bench, if no corrective action is initiated. That includes correcting the erred
judgment, upholding Rule 60 and issuing a DEFAULT judgment in favor of the Plaintiff,
with prejudice.
Finally, the Plaintiff has evidenced his concerns regarding the filing of his documents with this
Court – including what is believed to be INSTRUCTION from Judge Howe to Clerk Arthur
Degugliemo NOT to docket certain documents filed by the Plaintiff (some of which STILL have
yet to be entered upon the docket). Therefore, it has become necessary to deliver all filings to the
direct attention of Michael A. Sullivan – Clerk of the Courts (Middlesex County). Due to the
severity of evidenced criminal violations involving not only the Defendants, but also judicial
(and other court) officers - Federal/State Prosecutors, Governor Baker’s Office and other
government offices/agencies will receive copies of the Plaintiff’s 9A package (and ALL related
8
court filings). The Public and media outlets nationwide will also receive copies 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 Rule 9A package, 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 23, 2019 Mo.harihar@gmail.com
9
Exhibit 1
10
11