Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

Re: 18 MISC 000144 - Plaintiff Files Formal JUDICIAL FRAUD ON THE

COURT and TREASON Claims
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:59 PM
To: Jennifer Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>,
david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, june.black@mail.house.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, emily.rosa@jud.state.ma.us, igo-
fightfraud@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Clerk Masello and Counsel,

Please be advised of the following:

1. Attached is the Plaintiff's NOTICE/RESPONSE to the VOID Order issued by the presiding
Judge - Michael Vhay on Tuesday, October 23, 2018;
2. Upon filing this legal document, formal claims are now brought against the presiding judge
that include (but are not limited to): (1) Judicial Fraud on the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) AND Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); (2) TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3; and
(3) Violations of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution;
3. The Court Clerk, ALL Defendants and their respective counsel serve as witnesses to these
evidenced civil/criminal claims;
4. These claims are IDENTICAL to the EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT, as
evidenced in the related Federal/State litigation, where FIFTEEN (15) Judicial Officers are
now identified, including the presiding Judge Michael Vhay;
5. Based on the severity of these claims and Plaintiff's interpretation of the law, the following
parties are necessarily copied on this Court filing: (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (2)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (4) US
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (5) the DOJ, including US Attorney Andrew
Lelling (MA); (6) US Inspector General Michael Horowitz; (7) MA Inspector General
Glenn Cunha; and (8) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA).
6. POTUS and SCOTUS will necessarily be informed through separate communication(s), as
required by Federal law.
7. A copy of this email and court filing will be made available to the PUBLIC out of the Plaintiff's
CONTINUED CONCERNS for HIS PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted,

1
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

(SCROLL DOWN to view Court Filing in its Entirety)

2
 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 )
)

NOTICE – JUDICIAL FRAUD UPON THE COURT, PURSUANT TO

FED. R. CIV P. 60(b)(3) AND MASS. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3)

PLAINTIFF DISCLOSURE

Please be advised, on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, an order1 was issued by this MA Land

Court WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, this NOTICE necessarily brings a

claim of judicial misconduct including (but not limited to) FRAUD ON THE COURT

against the judicial officer presiding over this docket – Judge Michael Vhay, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) AND Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). This evidenced judicial misconduct

is IDENTICAL to the PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT that has been publicly

exposed in the related Federal litigation, referencing: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al,

1
See Exhibit 1

3
 Appeal No. 17-13812; (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-20743;

and (3) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.

As a matter of record, the Plaintiff has previously informed this Court that the severity of

legal issues involving the related State and Federal litigation (AND including this complaint)

has warranted regular updates to the following Offices/Courts/Committees/Agencies:

a. POTUS;

b. SCOTUS;

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

Duff;

d. The House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

e. OIG (Office of the Inspector General) – specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;

f. MA Legislative Leaders including (but not limited to): (1) Gov. Charlie

Baker (R-MA); (2) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator

Ed Markey (D-MA); and (4) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA);

g. MA OIG – specifically, MA IG Glenn Cunha;

h. The DOJ, including US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and US Attorney

Andrew Lelling (MA);

i. The FBI;

j. The PUBLIC has also been regularly updated (via social media) for

information purposes and out of continued concerns for Mr. Harihar’s

personal safety and security.

2
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880
3
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Lower Docket No. 17-cv-11109

4
 On Monday, October 22, 2018, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, a pro se litigant

with NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE, filed a RESPONSE to a judicial order issued by Judge

Vhay on 10/12/18, calling for his IMMEDIATE RECUSAL.4 That same day – at 3:49 pm,

the Plaintiff received an email from the Court Clerk – Jennifer Masello which stated the

following:

“The court has scheduled a hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal on 10/30/2018 at
11:00 A. Defendants shall file oppositions, if any, to this motion no later than Friday,
October 26, 2018.”5

On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an electronic response6 that identified

incremental issues; as it appears that an ALREADY-DISQUALIFIED JUDGE IS

PLANNING TO PRESIDE OVER HIS OWN RECUSAL HEARING. The response was

filed electronically to primary recipients: (1) the Court Clerk – Jennifer Masello; (2) David

E. Fialkow, Esq. – representing attorney for Bank Defendants WELLS FARGO and US

BANK; and (3) Jeffrey Loeb, Esq. – representing attorney for Defendants Jeffrey Perkins,

Isabelle Perkins and MERS Inc. The email filing also stated the following:

“the severity of legal issues addressed here in this Land Court complaint and in the related
Federal/State litigation are perceived to impact matters of National Security. Therefore,
parties copied on this email will include: (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (2) US
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (4) US
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (5) the DOJ, including US Attorney Andrew
Lelling (MA); (6) US Inspector General Michael Horowitz; (7) MA Inspector General
Glenn Cunha; and (8) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA).”

On 10/23/18, 2:33pm, the Plaintiff received the following email communication from the

Court Clerk, indicating (at minimum): (1) an INACCURATE and MISCONSTRUED

4
See Exhibit 2, to view the filed 10/22/18 Plaintiff RESPONSE in its entirety.
5
See Exhibit 3, to view the filed 10/23/18 email for the scheduled a hearing.
6
See Exhibit 4, to view the filed 10/23/18 Plaintiff RESPONSE (Email), in its entirety

5
 portrayal of Mr. Harihar’s response; (2) Judge Vhay’s REFUSAL to recuse sua sponte; (3)

the INTENT to ensure increased hardship to Mr. Harihar; and (4) the evidenced INTENT to

continue ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION:7

"Mr. Harihar sent the Sessions Clerk today an e-mail setting forth his position on several
issues. The Court will docket the e-mail for the record. Mr. Harihar’s Motion for Recusal,
and today’s e-mail, suggest that Mr. Harihar is awaiting action on a request to postpone
the October 30, 2018 hearing in this matter to a later date. The Court DENIES the
postponement request. The Court has jurisdiction to hear all of the pending motions until
such time as the Court rules on Mr. Harihar’s motion for recusal. The Court will hear
arguments on ALL of pending motions, starting first with the recusal motion, on October
30, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Should the Court grant Mr. Harihar’s motion for recusal, the
Court likely will suspend arguments on the remaining motions pending reassignment of
this case. SO ORDERED.

NOW, AFTER REVIEWING the VOID Order issued by Judge Vhay – WITHOUT

JURISDICTION on October 23, 2018, the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully

disagrees; and identifies a continued, inaccurate and/or misconstrued account of the facts that:

(1) shows cause to question the judge’s impartiality, integrity and ethics; (2) resembles

IDENTICAL patterns of corrupt conduct identified for the record in the related state/federal

litigation; (3) shows a failure to accept the Plaintiff’s claims as FACT prior to

DISCOVERY; (4) shows cause to call for Judge Vhay’s immediate REMOVAL FROM

THE BENCH; (5) shows cause to bring a JUDICIAL FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) AND Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3); and (6) shows cause to

bring a claim of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 for continuing to rule

WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

7
See Exhibit 1

6
As grounds therefore, the Plaintiff references his filed call for recusal AND based on his

interpretation of both State and Federal laws, Mr. Harihar states the following:

1. “A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state

judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge

is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and

lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must

meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court.” People v. Zajic, 88

Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980). While this Court MAY still have jurisdiction,

Judge Vhay DOES NOT.

2. Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a

requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the

reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d

1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality,

whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28

U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but

rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").

3. That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor

v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th

Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually

receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."

7
4. The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must

satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct.

1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A

judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not

give the appearance of justice.

5. “Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in

support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the

stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).

6. Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion

asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated

that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua

sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

7. Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound

to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then

the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which,

possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the

disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of

partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by

any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear

that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.

8. Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due

Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845

8
 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on

section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

9. Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the

party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been

engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The

judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial

capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful

authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge).

However, some judges may not follow the law.

10. Mr. Harihar is a pro se (non-represented) litigant, where it appears the court has not

followed the law as to non-represented litigants, the judge has expressed an

"appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has

disqualified him/herself.

11. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he

acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge

acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without

jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason,

and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

12. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts.

Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no

judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

9
 CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for the Court to initiate following

actions AND recognize the following:

1. The IMMEDIATE recusal (or REMOVAL from the Bench, if necessary) of Judge

Michael Vhay;

2. The Plaintiff has now evidenced for the record, related judicial misconduct both HERE

and throughout multiple MA State Courts that collectively, clearly shows cause to (at

minimum) question the INTEGRITY and ETHICS of this State’s Judiciary.

3. These EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES involving BOTH Federal and

State Judiciaries have been acknowledged by SCOTUS and yet are still IGNORED

HERE; questioning whether it is even possible to receive a fair and impartial judgment

in this Commonwealth.

4. At minimum, the Plaintiff necessarily brings the following formal claims against MA

Land Court Judge – Michael Vhay:

a. JUDICIAL FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(3) AND Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

b. TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION;

c. Violations of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

5. Serving as WITNESSES to these evidenced judicial misconduct claims (including

Treason), are: (1) the Court Clerk – Jennifer Masello; (2) ALL Defendants including

their respective attorneys – Jeffrey Loeb, Esq., and David E. Fialkow, Esq.

Respectfully, please be advised, ANY failure (or refusal) to acknowledge these

10
 evidenced judicial misconduct claims will (at minimum) show cause to question

whether these parties have COLLUDED with the presiding judge in order to reach

a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME (RICO - 18 U.S. Code

Chapter 96). FUTHERMORE - ANY failure (or refusal) to serve as witness to an

evidenced act of Treason will show cause to bring a claim of MISPRISION - 18 U.S.

Code § 2382 against referenced parties.

6. The Court should concur that Judge Vhay’s action(s) was willful or executed in bad faith

or was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of his authority, and shows intent to

ultimately harm the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR. This bad faith action(s)

additionally impacts: (1) the related Federal/State litigation; (2) (at minimum)

60,000 illegally foreclosed homeowners in this Commonwealth; AND (3) 4.2M

illegally foreclosed homeowners nationwide.8

7. Since Judge Vhay is disqualified and is no longer considered to have JURISDICTION,

the Court SHOULD IMMEDIATELY suspend ALL arguments on the remaining

motions and reassign this case to a Land Court Judge who has jurisdiction.

8. The Plaintiff necessarily updates the aforementioned Offices/Agencies/Courts with the

filing of this response, either: (1) by copying (cc) in the emailed response delivered to

MA Land Court Clerk – Jennifer Masello; (2) in a separate email to POTUS, as required

by Federal Law involving all Treason claims (www.whitehouse.gov); (3) in a separate

filing to SCOTUS; (4) in separately filed CRIMINAL complaints to the FBI; and (5)

via social media.

8
The Plaintiff references illegally foreclosed homeowners IDENTIFIED as a matter of record by: (1) the
Department of Justice (DOJ); (2) Federal Bank Regulators; and (3) the MA Attorney General’s Office (MA
AGO).

11
 9. As a matter of record, the Plaintiff has identified a PLETHORA of complex legal issues

that CLEARLY warrant the assistance of experienced legal counsel in the referenced

Federal and State litigation (including this Land Court complaint). Mr. Harihar’s

evidenced criminal claims additionally warrant the involvement (and alignment) of

Federal/State Prosecutors. Therefore, US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and

Attorney General Maura Healey (MA) will necessarily receive a copy of this filed

response via email communication.

10. The Plaintiff has now evidenced for the record – NO LESS THAN FIFTEEN (15)

Federal and State Judicial Officers that: (1) have exemplified a pattern of corrupt

conduct; (2) appear to have had the intention of arriving at a corrupt and pre-

determined outcome; and (3) are considered disqualified to rule in this or any related

litigation. At minimum, referenced Congressional leaders of this Commonwealth are

expected to bring this EGREGIOUS (and certainly UNPRECEDENTED) level of

judicial misconduct to the attention of the House/Senate Judiciary Committees.

The Plaintiff respectfully states for the record that THROUGHOUT the history of this

litigation, that while under NO OBLIGATION to do so, he has – IN GOOD FAITH offered

ALL Defendants numerous opportunities to seek a mutual agreement. The Defendants have

either ignored or denied every opportunity extended to them.

Finally, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR states that he has: (1) been respectful to this

and EVERY Court; and (2) followed the law to the best of his ability. While this EIGHT (8)

year legal battle has shown cause to lose faith in government, it remains Mr. Harihar’s sincere

12
hope, that there will soon be a JUST RESOLUTION to RESTORE that faith. The Plaintiff is

grateful for the Court’s consideration in this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted this 25th Day of October, 2018

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

13
Exhibit 1

14
 Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

RE: 18 MISC 000144 - Motion to Amend Complaint

Jennifer Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us> Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM
To: moharihar@gmail.com, JLoeb@richmaylaw.com, david.fialkow@klgates.com
Cc: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow
<david.fialkow@klgates.com>

Mr. Harihar and Counsel,

The following is a docket entry as of today:

"Mr. Harihar sent the Sessions Clerk today an e-mail setting forth his position on several
issues. The Court will docket the e-mail for the record. Mr. Harihar’s Motion for Recusal, and
today’s e-mail, suggest that Mr. Harihar is awaiting action on a request to postpone the October
30, 2018 hearing in this matter to a later date. The Court DENIES the postponement
request. The Court has jurisdiction to hear all of the pending motions until such time as the
Court rules on Mr. Harihar’s motion for recusal. The Court will hear arguments on ALL of
pending motions, starting first with the recusal motion, on October 30, 2018 at 11:00
a.m. Should the Court grant Mr. Harihar’s motion for recusal, the Court likely will suspend
arguments on the remaining motions pending reassignment of this case. SO ORDERED.

Jennifer Masello
Sessions Clerk
Land Court Department of the Trial Court
Tel:(617) 788-7406
Fax:(617) 788-8951

15
Exhibit 2

16
 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 RESPONSE TO 10/12/18 ORDER AND MOTION FOR RECUSAL

AFTER REVIEWING the Order issued by Judge Vhay on October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff –

Mohan A. Harihar respectfully disagrees; and identifies a continued, inaccurate and/or

misconstrued account of the facts that: (1) shows cause to question the judge’s impartiality,

integrity and ethics; (2) resembles similar/identical patterns of corrupt conduct identified for

the record in related state/federal litigation; (3) shows a failure to accept the Plaintiff’s claims

as FACT prior to DISCOVERY; and (4) shows cause to call for Judge Vhay’s immediate

recusal. As grounds therefore AND based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Massachusetts

laws, Mr. Harihar states as follows:

I. THE 10/12/18 ORDER IGNORES PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO REVISIT

INJUNCTION REQUEST PRIOR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING

The Plaintiff has respectfully made clear for the record – (1) in his filed RESPONSE to

the Oder issued 9/11/18; (2) in his 9/28/18 filed OPPOSITION to the Defendant’s

17
Summary Judgment motion; and (3) in his OPPOSITION to the Defendant’s Motion to

Continue (filed 10/11/18), his IMMEDIATE CONCERNS prior to moving forward

remain to ACCURATELY RE-ESTABLISH A BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS. This

remains an UNRESOLVED issue, as it appears that the judge has (AGAIN)

misconstrued the facts pertaining to the status quo – AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO

THE IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE. The Plaintiff has requested the exact

relief that would restore this specific balance of hardships; and disagrees with any

suggestion that he is attempting to alter it. Furthermore, the interpretation that the

requested injunction is the same as ultimate damages sought is incorrect. Mr. Harihar has

made clear that he seeks to restore balance to housing and transportation needs – while

litigation is ongoing ONLY. The Plaintiff has since had to (ONCE AGAIN) burden

family members to secure daily transportation; and his 40(b) affordable housing lease is set

to expire on October 31, 2018. Despite bringing these facts to the attention of Judge

Vhay, he has failed to initiate corrective action. Here, with a NATIONALLY

RECOGNIZED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE SCENARIO, the result has been an

imbalance of hardships weighing heavily IN FAVOR of Mr. Harihar. To be clear, the

Plaintiff IS NOT stating that he should be paid monetary damages as part of the

injunction; but does believe there can be multiple solutions to restoring that balance

without compromising the intended legal purpose of the injunction. For example,

restoring balance as it pertains to housing and transportation (while litigation proceeds

only) might include (but not be limited to) the following:

A. Allowing Mr. Harihar to return to HIS property;

B. Providing Mr. Harihar with comparable rental housing while litigation is ongoing;

18
 C. Providing Mr. Harihar with a comparable lease or rental vehicle while litigation is

ongoing.

This Court is again respectfully reminded that the DOJ, MA AGO and FEDERAL

BANK REGULATORS have already identified the Plaintiff’s foreclosure as ILLEGAL

and have awarded him DAMAGES as a result. The 10/12 Order IGNORES these (and

other) facts entirely and fails to make ANY effort to re-establish a balance of hardships

before proceeding. If there was ever ANY question about the referenced imbalance,

Judge Vhay could have called upon Federal/State Agencies and Federal Regulators;

allowing DISCOVERY, subpoenaed testimony, depositions, etc… to resolve any

questions. Instead, Judge Vhay has clearly refused to accept the Plaintiff’s claims as fact,

prior to Discovery and INTENDS to (at minimum): (1) keep the Plaintiff at a

substantial disadvantage; and (2) create increased hardships as it relates to basic

housing and transportation needs. This judicial failure is IDENTICAL to the evidenced

judicial misconduct in the related Federal (and State) litigation.9 The Plaintiff no longer

feels safe appearing before a presiding judge who appears to lack impartiality; and where it

appears that the judge intends to cause him increased hardship. Therefore, Mr. Harihar has

shown cause for Judge Vhay’s immediate recusal.

9
Related Federal litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381; and (2) HARIHAR
v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074.

19
 II. FAILURE TO UPHOLD MASS. R. CIV. P. 56(g) - AFFIDAVITS MADE IN BAD

FAITH

The Plaintiff has brought to the attention of this Court, TWO (2) separate examples that

AFFIRM – Defendants have submitted Affidavits made in BAD FAITH under Mass. R.

Civ. P. 56(g); referencing: (1) the SWORN AFFIDAVIT of Defendant ISABELLE

PERKINS; and (2) separately, the Plaintiff has brought an evidenced argument that

conclusively shows that the RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006 AR-1 associated with the

Plaintiff’s Foreclosure is considered VOID. Therefore, it becomes clear that any related

affidavit(s) that has been documented with the Middlesex County (North) Registry of

Deeds has been impacted, each representing a violation to section 2 of chapter 93A.10

These facts only strengthen the Plaintiff’s existing: (1) UNNOPPOSED Fraud on the

Court; and (2) UNCLEAN HANDS arguments.

By failing to address uphold Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(g) and M.G.L Chapter 93A, Section 2,

the Plaintiff shows incremental grounds for the judge’s recusal and disqualification.

III. INACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF - FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS

Next, after reviewing the 10/12 Order, the Plaintiff identifies a MISCONSTRUED

version of his Fraud on the Court claims:

“…Mr. Harihar next mentioned fraud on the court in a Motion to Bring Default Judgment
Against Defendants, Pursuant to Mass. Civ. R. Proc. 60(b)(3). The Court denied that

10
Mass R. Civ. P. 56(g) Affidavits made in bad faith - Should it appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time
that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this rule are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay,
the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable
expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any
offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt.

20
motion by order dated June 25, 2018, as nothing in the motion indicated that
Defendants had committed any fraud upon the Land Court…”

In his motion filed on 6/24/18, the Plaintiff informs the Court of an acknowledgment by

SCOTUS, recognizing a PLETHORA of UNRESOLVED ISSUES that ultimately

creates substantial conflict(s) in ALL RELATED STATE AND FEDERAL

LITIGATION, including this QUIET TITLE COMPLAINT. Furthermore, the

Plaintiff has clearly evidenced for the record, that the Defendant arguments before THIS

COURT are in fact IDENTICAL to their arguments in the related federal litigation.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has CLEARLY shown just cause to raise a Fraud on the Court

claim(s) here.

The Plaintiff respectfully disagrees that JUDICIAL ECONOMY and ECONOMY OF

THE PARTIES is a just reason to delay any recognition of FRAUD ON THIS COURT.

This court CLEARLY should have scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine the

validity of the Fraud on the Court claim PRIOR to moving forward with the Summary

Judgment Motion. Judicial Economy and Economy of the Parties is certainly better served

when the Court FIRST VALIDATES whether or not the Defendants have committed

Fraud upon the Court. By not doing so - and combined with the judicial failure(s)

previously identified, the Plaintiff finds incremental cause to question the judge’s

impartiality. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would certainly agree. Therefore, the

Plaintiff shows incremental cause for Judge Vhay’s recusal.

21
IV. IDENTIFIED PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT IN RELATED

LITIGATION

The Plaintiff has, as a matter of Federal record, EVIDENCED what is believed to be an

UNPRECEDENTED level of misconduct within the Federal (and State) judiciary. By

refusing to: (1) Re-establish a Balance of Hardships; (2) TIMELY uphold Mass. R.

Civ. P. 56(g) and M.G.L. Chapter 93A, Section 2; and (3) TIMELY uphold Mass.

Civ. R. Proc. 60(b)(3), the Plaintiff identifies IDENTICAL PATTERNS OF

CORRUPT CONDUCT in this Land Court. It becomes CLEAR to this Plaintiff (and

should be clear to any OBJECTIVE observer) that the presiding judge appears

determined to reach a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME. Therefore,

the Plaintiff shows incremental cause for Judge Vhay’s immediate recusal.

V. PUBLIC PERCEPTION – MASSACHUSETTS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

“The Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09, establishes standards
for the ethical conduct of judges.
PREAMBLE [2] - Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and
avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and
personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest
possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and
competence.”

Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial Conduct; and

for reasons stated within and throughout the record - there is cause to (at minimum)

question the judge’s: (1) impartiality; (2) integrity; and which (3) ultimately impacts

the public’s confidence, considering there are no less than 60,000 IDENTIFIED

ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES in the Commonwealth alone. Therefore, the Plaintiff

shows incremental cause for Judge Vhay’s immediate recusal.

22
 VI. ADDED CONCERNS FOR PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY

The Plaintiff has historically stated throughout the record his concerns for personal safety

and security, considering the magnitude of legal issues associated with the 2008

Foreclosure Crisis that ultimately impact: (1) This Commonwealth; (2) The United

States; and potentially (3) Global Financial Markets. EVERY COURT, including this

MA Land Court, has IGNORED the Plaintiff’s concerns and instead, has proceeded to

virtually brush aside ALL motions in order to: (1) reach a CORRUPT and PRE-

DETERMINED OUTCOME; and (2) cause incremental harm to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff shows incremental cause for Judge Vhay’s recusal.

VII. CAUSE TO EXPAND UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH

Based on the Plaintiff’s evidenced judicial misconduct claims stated within, Mr. Harihar

shows cause to expand upon existing (or file NEW) claims against the Commonwealth in

the related Federal litigation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for the following actions:

1. The IMMEDIATE recusal of Judge Michael Vhay;

2. The Plaintiff has now evidenced for the record, related judicial misconduct throughout

multiple MA State Courts that collectively, clearly shows cause questions the

INTEGRITY and ETHICS of this State’s Judiciary. These EXTRAORDINARY,

UNRESOLVED ISSUES involving BOTH Federal and State Judiciaries have been

23
 acknowledged by SCOTUS and yet are still IGNORED HERE; questioning whether it

is even possible to receive a fair and impartial judgment in this Commonwealth.

3. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of State (and Federal) law, Judge Vhay is no

longer considered to have JURISDICTION here and is DISQUALIFIED from ruling

further in this, or any related litigation. As similarly identified in the related Federal

litigation, any conscious decision to continue ruling AFTER losing jurisdiction will be

interpreted as an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION and similarly against the Constitution of this

Commonwealth.

4. The hearing currently set for Tuesday, October 30, 2018 should be STAYED, ONLY

AFTER JURISDICTION HAS BEEN RE-ESTABLISHED and allowed to resume

only AFTER the referenced extraordinary issues have been resolved;

5. The severity of legal issues addressed here in this Land Court complaint and in the

related Federal/State litigation are perceived to impact matters of National Security –

and therefore shows cause to UPDATE the following Offices/Agencies/Courts:

a. POTUS (See Exhibit 1);

b. SCOTUS;

c. The House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

d. OIG (Office of the Inspector General) – specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;

e. MA Legislative Leaders including (but not limited to): (1) Gov. Charlie

Baker (R-MA); (2) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator

Ed Markey (D-MA); and (4) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA);

f. MA OIG – specifically, MA IG Glenn Cunha;

24
 g. The DOJ, including US Attorney General Jeff Sessions and US Attorney

Andrew Lelling (MA);

h. The FBI.

6. A copy of this motion will be made available to the PUBLIC and distributed to media

sources nationwide, for documentation purposes and out of the Plaintiff’s

CONTINUED CONCERNS FOR HIS PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY.

The Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar is grateful for the Court’s consideration in this very serious

matter.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd Day of October, 2018

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

25
Exhibit 1

26
27
28
Exhibit 3

29
 Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

RE: 18 MISC 000144 - Motion to Amend Complaint

Jennifer Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us> Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 3:49 PM
To: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>

Mr. Harihar and Counsel,

The court has scheduled a hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal on
10/30/2018 at 11:00 A. Defendants shall file oppositions, if any, to this motion no
later than Friday, October 26, 2018.

Thank you,

Jennifer Masello
Sessions Clerk
Land Court Department of the Trial Court
Tel:(617) 788-7406
Fax:(617) 788-8951

30
Exhibit 4

31
 Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

RE: 18 MISC 000144 - Motion to Amend Complaint

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:56 PM
To: Jennifer Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>,
david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, june.black@mail.house.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, emily.rosa@jud.state.ma.us, igo-
fightfraud@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Ms. Masello and Counsel,

After receiving the email yesterday - Monday, October 22, 2018 (Attached below), regarding the
newly scheduled hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Attached); and based on the
Plaintiff's interpretation of State (and Federal) laws, there are now several NEW issues that
respectfully, warrant the Court's immediate attention and further clarification:

1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (filed 10/22/18) DID NOT request a separate hearing -
The Plaintiff has evidenced in his Motion and as a matter of Public record, multiple judicial
failures that call for Judge Vhay's Recusal. It is UNCLEAR as to WHY a separate hearing is
necessary when: (1) it was not requested; and (2) The Plaintiff has made clear that he DOES
NOT feel comfortable appearing before a (disqualified) judge where it appears (at least on
the surface) the judge (at minimum) lacks impartiality. IF there was ANY intention by
Judge Vhay to initiate CORRECTIVE action here, respectfully, a hearing is not believed to be
considered necessary.
2. Judge Michael Vhay is considered DISQUALIFIED - Respectfully, based on the Plaintiff's
interpretation of Massachusetts laws and for the reasons stated in his Motion, Judge Vhay is
now considered DISQUALIFIED and WITHOUT JURISDICTION to rule further in this (or any
related litigation). Should a judicial officer from this Court continue ruling after losing
jurisdiction, it will be interpreted as: (1) an Act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of
the US Constitution; (2) Treason against the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts; and (3) IDENTICAL to the Patterns of Corrupt Conduct evidenced in the
related Federal Litigation.
3. Defendant Opposition (If filed) - The Plaintiff makes clear that the Defendants, their
retained counsel AND the Court Clerk ALL serve as WITNESS to the evidenced judicial
misconduct claims of record. While it is certainly within the Defendants' rights to file
Opposition to the Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal, doing so will (at minimum): (1) show cause to
question whether Defendants have COLLUDED with a judicial officer in order to reach a
CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED outcome; and (2) show cause to expand upon existing
(or file NEW) claims against Defendants AND their retained counsel in the related Federal
litigation (Referencing - HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 and HARIHAR v
CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134).
4. Clarification regarding Re-establishing Jurisdiction and STAY Order - in the email
notification received on October 22, 2018 and as identified on the Docket, there is no

32
 reference to first re-establishing JURISDICTION or to the requested STAY Order for the
Summary Judgment Hearing currently scheduled for 10/30/18.
5. Continued Concerns for the Plaintiff's personal safety and security - the email
notification received on October 22, 2018 makes NO reference to the Plaintiff's CONTINUED
concerns for his personal safety and security.
6. Parties necessarily copied on this (and future) communications - Please be advised, the
severity of legal issues addressed here in this Land Court complaint and in the related
Federal/State litigation are perceived to impact matters of National Security. Therefore,
parties copied on this email will include: (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (2) US
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (4) US
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (5) the DOJ, including US Attorney Andrew
Lelling (MA); (6) US Inspector General Michael Horowitz; (7) MA Inspector General
Glenn Cunha; and (8) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA).
7. Separate Notice to be filed with the Court - Please be advised, the content of this email
and the parties informed will be captured and filed via a separate NOTICE to ensure
documentation as a part of the record.

Respectfully submitted,

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

33
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 25, 2018, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court and
counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication. Hardcopies will also be
delivered via US Mail to:

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq.

David E. Fialkow, Esq.

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

34
35
36