COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

LAND COURT DIVISION

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ADDRESS: (1) DISCREPENCIES W/PERKINS SWORN

AFFIDAVIT; (2) UPDATE RE: INCREASED HARDSHIPS; AND (3) REQUEST FOR STAY

WHILE PREPARING his Opposition to the Defendants Summary Judgement Motions

(Current deadline set for Friday, September 28, 2018), the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar

respectfully requests that the Court FIRST address the following IDENTIFIED ISSUES:

I. DISCREPANCIES WITH PERKINS AFFIDVIT

The Plaintiff has identified discrepancies within the SWORN AFFIDAVIT of

Defendant – ISABELLE PERKINS, which after reviewing (at minimum): (A) raises

incremental (NEW) questions as to whether the Perkins’ have been truthful with this

Court; (B) warrants further clarification for the record; and (C) impacts the content of the

Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion.

1
 A. HOMEOWNER DISCLOSURE1 -To clarify, the referenced Homeowner

Disclosure dated March 23, 2014 was initially delivered (via Email communication

AND certified US MAIL) to Real Estate Brokers – KEN and MARY DAHER,

WEICHERT Realtors/DAHER Companies (Methuen, MA). For the record, please

be advised of the following:

1. Mr. and Mrs. Daher are recognized as the listing real estate brokers to the

Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Property. In their affidavit, Defendants – Jeffrey and

Isabelle Perkins state that they used a “different real estate broker,” but do

not mention who the representing broker is;

2. This Court is reminded that the Defendant - Isabelle Perkins is a

LISCENCED REAL ESTATE INSTRUCTOR AND AGENT for

WEICHERT REALTORS, the SAME parent brokerage as the listing

broker;

3. Now - IN A SWORN AFFIDAVIT, Mrs. Perkins now states that, “they were

not aware of the Plaintiff’s claims until after they were served with the

Amended Complaint in the US District Court Action months after they

purchased the property.” By this statement, the Perkins’ have in a sworn

affidavit suggested that Real Estate Brokers Ken and Mary Daher (who

work under the SAME WEICHERT Real Estate umbrella), NEVER

ONCE brought this disclosure to the attention of: (a) the buyer’s

(unnamed) broker; (b) fellow real estate professional - Isabelle Perkins;

or (c) her husband Jeffrey Perkins. IF this statement is true, then the listing

1 See Exhibit 1
2
 brokers should be subject to legal and professional consequences. EVEN IF

this statement were true (which certainly remains in question) – and listing

brokers did in fact go against the NAR Code of Ethics and intentionally keep

this information from the Defendants, Mrs. Perkins – a licensed real estate

professional (and instructor) has (at minimum) exemplified negligence and

lack of due diligence before moving forward with this real estate purchase;

particularly in a time that involves the LARGEST FORECLOSURE

CRISIS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. The Plaintiff

also believes that he mailed a separate copy of the Disclosure directly to Mr.

and Mrs. Perkins AFTER they illegally purchased his Property – and

BEFORE they were officially served with the civil complaint. The Plaintiff

will need some additional time to sort through nearly EIGHT (8) years of

records (including mail receipts, etc…) to validate the mailing.

4. The Plaintiff has reason to believe that this statement by the Defendants is

materially FALSE; incrementally adding to the Plaintiff’s already supported

FRAUD ON THE COURT and UNCLEAN HANDS arguments.

Furthermore, EVEN IF it were TRUE (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY), as

a licensed REAL ESTATE INSTRUCTOR AND AGENT, Mrs. Perkins

either KNEW, or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN better to do her due

diligence prior to purchasing a FORECLOSURE that followed the US

FORECLOSURE/FINANCIAL CRISIS of 2008;

5. What is more likely to have happened is - that the Perkins’ AND the

referenced Brokers knew the legal risks and never expected there to be

3
 legal accountability following the sale/purchase of this ILLEGAL/VOID

Foreclosure. If it is found that the Perkins’ had knowledge of the disclosure

PRIOR to being served with the referenced Federal complaint, Defendant –

Isabelle Perkins will have (at minimum) committed an act of Perjury. If

the listing real estate broker and/or the (unnamed) buyer’s broker chose to

withhold this information from the Perkins’, they are certainly deserving of

legal and professional accountability. The Court(s) should have NO

TOLERENCE for these (or ANY) DECEPTIVE TACTICS and should

issue appropriate penalties to Defendants/Parties who purposefully attempt to

deceive this Court;

6. This questionable affidavit of Mrs. Perkins shows cause to STAY (and re-

schedule, if even necessary) the current filing date for the Plaintiff’s

opposition until these (and any other) questions surrounding the affidavit are

validated;

7. This questionable affidavit of Mrs. Perkins now calls for subpoenaed

testimony from: (1) the listing brokers; and (2) the UNNAMED buyer’s

broker – in order to validate Mrs. Perkins’ statement;

8. IF it is found that the LISTING BROKERS – KEN AND MARY DAHER

(Weichert Realtors/Daher Companies) AND/OR the UNNAMED

REPRESENTING BROKER DID in fact fail to inform Mr. and Mrs.

Perkins of the Homeowner Disclosure, there is cause to question both their

motive and intent to impact the LEGAL STANDING to Mr. Harihar’s

Property. The Court is respectfully reminded that the Daher’s were initially

4
 listed as Defendants in the original complaint. The affidavit of Defendant –

Isabelle Perkins shows cause for amendment to again INCLUDE these

parties as (NEW) Defendants here.

II. UPDATE RE: PLAINTIFF’S INCREASED HARDSHIPS

On September 11, 2018, Judge Vhay issued an order denying an injunction requested by

the Plaintiff. On September 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting further

detailed CLARIFICATION for the record and for RECONSIDERATION regarding

the injunction request. The Plaintiff made clear to this Court that he would soon endure

INCREASED HARDSHIPS (at minimum) involving HOUSING and

TRANSPORTATION if the requested injunction is not issued. Now, TWELVE DAYS

(12) LATER, there still remains no answer to the Plaintiff’s requests for clarification and

reconsideration. The Plaintiff has AGAIN had to: (1) BURDEN FAMILY MEMBERS

for access to transportation; and (2) Mr. Harihar’s 40(b) affordable housing lease is set to

EXPIRE in LESS THAT SIX (6) WEEKS. This UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL

DELAY is IDENTICAL (or at minimum EXTREMELY SIMILAR) to PATTERNS

of CORRUPT CONDUCT identified for the record in related Federal and State

litigation. If left uncorrected, this unnecessary delay and failure to issue the requested

injunction will certainly show cause to question Judge Vhay’s impartiality and call for

his immediate recusal. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER who has thoroughly reviewed

the historical record will certainly agree.

III. PLAINTIFF REQUEST FOR A STAY ORDER

Based on these issues (described above), the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court

issue a STAY order – as it relates to the filing deadline for his Opposition to the Motion

5
 for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff requests the STAY order remain in effect until

such time it has determined that ALL referenced (and ANY other related) issues have

been resolved; at which time a NEW deadline for filing the Plaintiff’s Opposition will

be set (if it even becomes necessary to do so).

It becomes necessary here to remind this Court that the related judgements that continue

to be referenced by the Defendants are either: (1) Considered VOID; (2) attached to a

judicial RECUSAL; or (3) attached to a Judicial Officer(s) who has refused to

recuse and continues STILL to issue orders WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

Furthermore, this Court is respectfully reminded that the COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS is an APPELLEE in the referenced Appeal No. 17-1381, IN

PART for its judicial failures and erred judgments – including (but not limited to)

DUE PROCESS and COLOR OF LAW VIOLATIONS. These judicial failures and

erred judgments continue still in both the Northeast Housing Court and the

Middlesex Superior Court, showing cause to further expand claims against the

Commonwealth. If after reviewing the ENTIRE 7-YEAR RECORD, Judge Vhay finds

no possibility of erred judgements (by either State of Federal Courts), the Plaintiff will

show cause to find a PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exists here. As a

respectful reminder, the Plaintiff provides the following legal update for the record:

A. The Evidenced JUDICIAL ABUSES of Federal Record Have Resulted in

FOURTEEN (14) Judicial DISQUALIFICATIONS:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

6
 2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

3. US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit);

4. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez;

9. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch;

10. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;

11. US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);

12. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);

13. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME);

14. US District Court Judge William G. Young;

B. TREASON CLAIMS have Necessarily been Filed against EIGHT (8) Judicial

Officers for Continuing to Rule WITHOUT JURISDICTION:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

3. US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit);

4. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

7
 8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez (NEW Claim)2;

C. There are EIGHT (8) RECUSALS TO DATE – Collectively, the evidenced

allegations brought forth by Mr. Harihar have forced the following recusals:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs – sua sponte recusal from

HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109, for reasons

unknown;

2. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella – TWO (2) sua sponte recusals

from HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently

from HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;

3. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta - TWO (2) sua sponte recusals

from HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently

from HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;

4. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron - TWO (2) sua sponte recusals from

HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently from

HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074. Please be

advised, Judge Barron has also ADMITTED to having a financial

relationship with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO; and

5. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch - sua sponte recusal from

HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), for reasons unknown.

2
The appellant brings a NEW claim of Treason, under ARTICLE III, Section 3 against Circuit
Judge Kermit V. Lipez, as part of the REPLACEMENT Circuit Panel associated with Appeal
No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al. As a matter of record, this panel continued to
ignore the Appellant’s judicial misconduct claims and proceeded to issue an order/judgment after
LOSING JURISDICTION. The Appellant, Court Clerk – Margaret Carter, Appellees and their
retained counsel ALL serve as WITNESS to this Treason claim(s).
8
D. FILED CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS – The Appellant filed Criminal complaints with

the FBI on March 19, 2018 against referenced judicial officers (excludes Judges -

Lipez, Stahl and Young, who will be added to the updated criminal complaint). Please

Note, also serving as WITNESS to these evidenced civil/criminal claims are:

1. Circuit Court Clerk – Margaret Carter;

2. Assistant US Attorney (MA) – Mary Beth Murrane;

3. Assistant US Attorney (MA) – Dina M. Chaitowitz;

4. Assistant US Attorney (MA) – Cynthia Young;

5. ALL Appellees and representing counsel associated with HARIHAR v US

BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381.

E. US Government Offices/Courts/Agencies Regularly Updated – Aside from

informing the PUBLIC, Mr. Harihar - as a matter of record, has regularly updated (via

US Mail, email, or social media) the following Federal (and State) Offices/Agencies/

Courts of the referenced judicial infractions:

1. POTUS;

2. SCOTUS;

3. US Office of the Inspector General (OIG) – specifically, IG Michael

Horowitz;

4. The Administrative Office of US Courts – specifically, Director James C.

Duff;

5. DOJ – specifically, US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions;

6. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives – with specific

reference to the Appellant’s legislative leaders in MA: (1) US Senator

9
 Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), (2) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and (3) US

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA);

7. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

8. House Oversight Committee;

9. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – including (but not limited to)

specific communications delivered to (former) Deputy Director Andrew

McCabe;

10. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

11. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

12. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

13. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and

14. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

NOT ONLY have the Defendants thus far FAILED TO MENTION these FACTS of

RECORD, but the accused Judicial Officers have yet to deny a single claim brought

by the Plaintiff against them. If there’s going to be ANY defendant argument that

references a related judgment, this Court should first establish whether or not the

judgment is in fact valid or if it has been made in error. The Plaintiff re-states that any

failure to recognize JUDICIAL ERRORS made by related State and Federal Courts will

certainly show cause to question Judge Vhay’s Impartiality and (at minimum) expand

upon existing claims against the Commonwealth.

10
 CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR

respectfully calls for the following:

1. RECOGNIZE the identified DISCREPANCIES identified with the Defendant –

Isabelle Perkins Affidavit and initiate next steps to address all issues including (but not

limited to): (a) Subpoenaed testimony from listing Brokers – KEN and MARY

DAHER (Daher Companies/Weichert Realtors, Methuen, MA); (b) Subpoenaed

testimony from the representing (yet to be named) Broker of the Defendants –

ISABELLE and JEFFREY PERKINS;

2. Provide a timely ANSWER to the Plaintiff’s filed Motion for Clarification and

Reconsideration pertaining to his request for INJUNCTION;

3. ISSUE a STAY order regarding the Plaintiff’s timeline for filing his Opposition to the

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Once ALL ISSUES identified here have

been TIMELY answered for the record (and is it is still even necessary), the Plaintiff

respectfully requests to RE-SCHEDULE an appropriate deadline for filing his

opposition.

Corrective action initiated by this Land Court MAY allow for consideration in resolving (at

least a portion of) existing misconduct claims against Appellee - Commonwealth of

Massachusetts (Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK).

The Plaintiff is grateful the Court’s consideration. The evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff are

believed to have National implications including (but not limited to) matters of National

11
Security. Therefore, a copy of this MOTION will be sent to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2)

members of Congress; (3) the DOJ; (4) the FBI; (5) the OIG; and (6) Governor Charlie

Baker (R-MA). The PUBLIC will also be copied out of the Plaintiff’s continued concern for his

personal safety and security. Confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See

Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this

motion, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a

separate hearing and with the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted under the pains and penalties of perjury this 7th Day of September, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

12
Exhibit 1

13
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
March 23, 2014
Weichert Realtors, Daher Companies FOR DOCUMENTATION AND
Attn: Kenneth Daher, Mary E. Koontz-Daher DISCLOSURE PURPOSES
235 East Street
Methuen, MA 01844
RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability

VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION

Mr. and Mrs. Daher,

It is my understanding that your company, Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies, located in

Methuen, MA, has elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview
Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
Please be advised of the following:
1. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with
misconduct by both the MA Office of the Attorney General and the National Mortgage
Settlement. Settlement payment received.

2. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with
misconduct by Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement payment received.

3. Civil and criminal misconduct is documented, and constitutes (at minimum): Fraud,
Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Aiding
and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury. Additional SEC and IRS infractions pertaining to the
referenced securitized mortgage trust are believed to exist, requiring further validation.

4. Criminal charges for documented misconduct are aggressively being pursued at both state
and federal levels against the following parties: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the
Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson
Mullins LLP. Complaints are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the
Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI.

5. This matter directly coincides with the MA Attorney General’s 3+ ongoing investigation
of Harmon Law Offices PC*, for misconduct related to unlawful foreclosure and eviction
practices. Harmon has been definitively tied to disbarred FL Foreclosure Kingpin –
David Stern.

14
 6. Complaints are additionally filed with the following parties: The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), and the MA Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel**.

7. Civil litigation regarding this matter and related misconduct is still proceeding in the MA
Appeals Court.

⚫ Page 2 March 23, 2014

8. Referenced parties have refused to validate Chain of Title, have refused to validate
signatures on file related to the foreclosed property, and have refused to provide
requested Discovery which further supports deceptive practices, specifically – the
recorded conversations between homeowner Mohan A. Harihar and the Mortgage
Servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification attempt.

9. Any Real Estate Broker or Real Estate Agent, having been made aware of the associated
documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure
for the purpose of resale, will be considered as aiding and abetting fraud, and may be
subject to forthcoming litigation (Civil and Criminal).

10. Any party, having been made aware of the associated documented misconduct, who
chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure for the purpose of purchase,
may be subject to forthcoming litigation against them (Civil and Criminal).

11. The recent eviction of Mohan A. Harihar from the referenced foreclosure property is being
considered an act of Wrongful Displacement, and is being addressed with the Court, as
well as state and federal prosecutors.

12. It is my understanding that by law, you will be required to disclose all information related
to the referenced foreclosure, including this communication.

13. Due to the serious nature of this matter, additional parties will be copied on this
communication including: Vice President Joe Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim
Sheehan (CFPB), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth
Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA),
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA),
State Senator Eileen Donoghue (MA), the Massachusetts Association of Realtors
(MAR, via twitter), the National Association of Realtors (NAR, via Twitter), and
Nelson Mullins LLP - including the individual managing partners of the firm, since
documented misconduct extends beyond the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

14. This communication is additionally being published for the purpose of exposing this
misconduct to the nation, as it is arguably considered the largest case of FRAUD in the
history of the United States, and in effort to assist the millions of wrongfully foreclosed
homeowners identified by the US Foreclosure Crisis, all fifty (50) Attorneys’ General, and
Federal Bank Regulators.

15
*Harmon Law Offices PC, originally retained by US Bank NA in the case against Mohan A.
Harihar, has been associated with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, withdrew as counsel from this case, in the same timeframe as
the MA Attorney General was beginning their investigation against them.
**Complaints are on file with the MA Board of Bar Overseers against Attorney David E.
Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley (both of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
LLP) and also Harmon Law Offices PC.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

16
Exhibit 2

17
18
19
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 24, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow

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

20