media alert - 5-19-14

78
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’ GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT Lowell, MA, May 19, 2014 In the 3+ year ongoing pro se legal effort by wrongfully foreclosed homeowner Mohan A. Harihar, serious concerns questioning the “Integrity of the Judicial System within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” is in preparation to next be addressed with both the MA and US Inspectors’ General, pending the outcome of the current Appeal being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No: 2013-P-1829, Mohan A. Harihar (Appellant) vs. US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, et al. The collective concerns supporting a “Too Big to Fail mentality” throughout three (3) years of litigation in multiple Courts include (but are not limited to): Infringement of Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, non- disclosure of critical evidence/information by the Lender/Mortgage Servicer, lack of response regarding criminal complaints,* Abuse of Judicial Discretion (multiple counts), and concerns regarding the resulting infringement to intellectual property belonging to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. While the origination of this matter involves wrongful foreclosure directly tied to the US Foreclosure Crisis, it has significantly evolved to now include concerns regarding the Constitutional Rights of an individual, and its impact threatens a project designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery from damages suffered by the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.** It’s important to additionally note that one of the Appellees – Harmon Law Offices PC, who has been involved with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, and who was the originally retained counsel by US Bank NA in this matter, withdrew from this matter as the MA Attorney General had begun an investigation against them for “wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.” In July 2013, the MA Appeals Court granted the MA Attorney General permission to continue

Upload: mohan-harihar

Post on 19-Jan-2016

2.826 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNERPLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FORTRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Media Alert - 5-19-14

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’ GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT Lowell, MA, May 19, 2014 – In the 3+ year ongoing pro se legal effort by wrongfully foreclosed homeowner – Mohan A. Harihar, serious concerns questioning the “Integrity of the Judicial System within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” is in preparation to next be addressed with both the MA and US Inspectors’ General, pending the outcome of the current Appeal being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No: 2013-P-1829, Mohan A. Harihar (Appellant) vs. US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, et al. The collective concerns supporting a “Too Big to Fail mentality” throughout three (3) years of litigation in multiple Courts include (but are not limited to): Infringement of Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, non-disclosure of critical evidence/information by the Lender/Mortgage Servicer, lack of response regarding criminal complaints,* Abuse of Judicial Discretion (multiple counts), and concerns regarding the resulting infringement to intellectual property belonging to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. While the origination of this matter involves wrongful foreclosure directly tied to the US Foreclosure Crisis, it has significantly evolved to now include concerns regarding the Constitutional Rights of an individual, and its impact threatens a project designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery from damages suffered by the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.** It’s important to additionally note that one of the Appellees – Harmon Law Offices PC, who has been involved with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, and who was the originally retained counsel by US Bank NA in this matter, withdrew from this matter as the MA Attorney General had begun an investigation against them for “wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.” In July 2013, the MA Appeals Court granted the MA Attorney General permission to continue

Page 2: Media Alert - 5-19-14

2

the investigation, which is still ongoing. Harmon has also been directly linked to disbarred Florida Foreclosure Kingpin – David Stern. For additional information articulating these concerns, the filed Appellant Brief is attached for publication purposes, as is a recently filed Motion in response to Opposition by retained Counsel for US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA – Nelson Mullins LLP. * Criminal complaints against referenced parties are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and additionally with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. ** Intellectual Property of Mohan A. Harihar includes the FCS model (Copyright, Patent-pending), designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery stemming from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.

For Further Media Information Contact : Mohan A. Harihar Email: [email protected] Phone: 617.921.2526 Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar

Page 3: Media Alert - 5-19-14

3

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX APPEALS COURT OF THE

COMMONWEALTH

DOCKET NO: 2013P1829

MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Appellant

vs.

WELLS FARGO, NA

US BANK, NA

HARMON LAW OFFICES, PC

Appellees

APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES’ MOTION TO STRIKE

BRIEF AND APPEAL DISMISSAL.

Opposition to the Appellees Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the

Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, and hereby moves for this court to deny the

Appellees motion, in which much of its content is considered factually false,

inaccurate, and unsupported. The amount of documented information and

evidence supplied to this Court(s) against these Appellees, and their retained

counsel is overwhelming. Additional evidence supporting this Appellant’s

consistent claims is still forthcoming.

This latest attempt to avoid accountability by two (2) of the three (3) Appellees,

further underlines the initial requests by the Appellant, in seeking protection

against such false defamatory and unsupported attacks by these Appellees and

their retained counsel.

Page 4: Media Alert - 5-19-14

4

INTRODUCTION

The Court is respectfully reminded of the following:

1. There are three (3) Appellees involved in this matter: US Bank NA,

Wells Fargo NA, and Harmon Law Offices PC.

2. This matter coincides with the ongoing investigation of Harmon

Law Offices PC by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and is

documented in 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 General’s office to

continue examining Harmon Law Offices for alleged “unfair and

deceptive acts” related to the firm’s foreclosure and eviction work.

3. Harmon Law Offices PC was the originally retained counsel for US

Bank NA in this matter, which originated in the Lowell District Court,

and where Counsel is on record as stating: “Mr. Harihar’s complaints

and concerns are valid.”

4. Harmon Law Offices has been associated with the vast majority of

50,000 plus foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, however chose to withdraw as counsel from this case

against Mohan A. Harihar. Timing of Harmon’s withdrawal ironically

coincides with the beginning of the MA Attorney General’s

investigation.

5. Harmon Law Offices PC has been definitively linked to disbarred

Florida Foreclosure Kingpin, David Stern.

6. Since this ongoing investigation and link to the disbarred

Foreclosure Kingpin has been brought to the Public’s attention,

Harmon Law Offices PC has made no effort to file any opposition

in this matter.

7. Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA have throughout all

related proceedings avoided any discussion of these facts, and have

refused to provide the Appellant and the Court(s) with the

consistently requested Discovery evidence – specifically, the

recorded conversations between Mr. Harihar and the mortgage

servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification

process.

Counsel is correct in stating that this is not the Appellant’s first Appeal. There are

four (4), all of which are related. In two (2) of these Appeals, including this

Appeal, decisions in the lower Court(s), both the Northeast Housing Court and the

Middlesex Superior Court, were denied without cause, and motions requesting

clarification of these decisions were also denied.

Page 5: Media Alert - 5-19-14

5

With regard to the Northeast Housing Court Appeal involving a decision by Judge

David Kerman, followed by a refusal to clarify the decision, the Notice of Appeal

filed by Mr. Harihar was never processed or delivered to this Court by the

Clerk Magistrate, Susan Trippi, despite multiple follow-ups by Mr. Harihar over

the course of one year, by phone, in-person, and additionally in the Emergency

STAY request to avoid wrongful displacement. All this is clearly documented

with the Court, and a negligence complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi

was filed with the Supreme Judicial Court – Committee on Professional

Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. On May12, 2014 this Committee of the

SJC dismissed the complaint without cause, stating no violation.1 This further

exemplifies the serious concerns of this Appellant, which further supports the

“Too Big to Fail” mentality believed to exist in this Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, as articulated in the associated Appellant brief on file.

To date, since April of 2013, the Notice of Appeal is still yet to be filed,

therefore no Docket number is associated, which has led to the WRONGFUL

DISPLACEMENT of the Appellant.

This Docket is similar in that yet another decision is rendered without cause, and

requests for clarification and reconsideration are also denied. Appellees and their

retained counsel were given notice to cease and desist from making false,

defamatory and unsupported statements against Mr. Harihar, and have repeatedly

ignored this Notice, as is exemplified yet again in the Appellee’s Motion.

Concerns regarding the decisions of Docket No’s: 2012-P-1515 and 2013-P-

0671 exist as well for similar reasons of decisions lacking cause, despite

overwhelming evidence provided by the Appellant, and will be addressed

accordingly, moving forward.

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has made it very clear, that this matter far

exceeds a singular wrongful foreclosure. It has been directly linked to this

Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis, and the summation of serious concerns regarding

ALL related court decisions, articulated in the Appellant’s filed brief, question

the integrity of the judicial system in this Commonwealth and the “Too Big to

Fail” mentality being echoed throughout this Nation.

If fair judgment and accountability appears unattainable in this matter, Mr.

Harihar is prepared to address the entire matter with the MA and US

Inspectors’ General, as articulated in the Appellant brief, and additionally

petition to move this entire matter to Federal Court for infractions

pertaining to Due process and Equal Protection Rights, under the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 5: Enforcement.2

1 See Exhibit A - filed Complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi in its entirety, along with

May 12, 2014 decision by SJC Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. 2 In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state

denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being

denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts, and to provide

Page 6: Media Alert - 5-19-14

6

ARGUMENT

I. Based on the amount of documented evidence and information which

continues to come forward in support of this Appellant’s consistent

claims, and because this matter has been directly tied to this Nation’s

Foreclosure Crisis, decisions rendered without cause are called into

question. When further clarification of said decisions are requested

and additionally denied, red flags are raised regarding the integrity of

the system. This has consistently occurred throughout 3+ years of

litigation.

In this specific situation, the Appellant has requested for Court protection against

constant defamatory, false, and unsupported attacks by the Appellees, and in

defiance to the Cease and Desist - Demand Notice issued by the Appellant. Mr.

Harihar respectfully reminds this Court, that while counsel continues to attach

labels such as: improper, frivolous, meritless and baseless claims, they have

refused to:

A. Provide critical Discovery evidence consistently requested by Mr.

Harihar.

B. Validate Chain of Title.

C. Validate Signatures on File.

D. Provide supporting documentation after speaking on behalf of

government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to

have committed similar misconduct, and the media.

E. Disclose Critical evidence, such as the April 2011 Report by Federal

Bank Regulators.

F. Complete the validation of statements questionnaire (see appellant

brief Appendix)

These Appellees and their retained counsel, who continue to state that there is

ZERO MISCONDUCT associated with this matter, have spent over three years

in an effort to prevent ALL FACTS from being presented to the Court(s).

II. The continued characterization of frivolous, baseless, and meritless

claims warrants the request for subpoenaed testimony from

additional parties.

Since it is the continued insistence by the Appellees and their retained counsel to

incorrectly characterize Mr. Harihar’s documented and supported claims, perhaps

sworn testimony by appropriate parties, such as the MA Attorney General, should

be requested/ordered by the court to assist with proper validation of the numerous

criminal and civil liability for state officials and agents or persons associated with them who

violate protected rights. These statutory measures designed to eliminate discrimination "under

color of law" present no problems of constitutional foundation.

Page 7: Media Alert - 5-19-14

7

areas in question, particularly since there is already a 3+ year ongoing

investigation involving one of these Appellees – an investigation recently

allowed by this Court to continue.

To be clear, this Appellant has made no threat of intimidation, or any effort to

prevent an appellate brief from being filed. HOWEVER, the continued false

characterizations and unsupported statements by these parties, which have caused

harm and accruing damages to this Appellant, will no longer be tolerated.

Misconduct by these Appellees and their retained counsel is both criminal as well

as civil. It is documented, and this Appellant will continue to pursue the criminal

charges for complaints already on file with both the MA Attorney General’s

Office as well as the Fraud investigations Unit of the FBI.

III. Relationship to the US Foreclosure Crisis

Appellees and their retained counsel have gone to great lengths in an attempt to

avoid associating this matter with the US Foreclosure Crisis, which has irrefutably

caused harm to millions of Americans and this Nation’s economy. This Appellant

has provided the Court(s) with an overwhelming amount of evidence which show

that in fact this matter is directly related to the Crisis. This Appellant has also

been completely clear and up-front with ALL parties and the Court(s), of the

intention to share FACT-BASED information related to this matter with multiple

parties including: Government Officials, other Lenders and Mortgage servicers

found by Federal Bank Regulators to have committed unsafe and unsound

mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, the media, and the public.

The continued insistence by counsel to suggest that these parties have nothing to

do with this matter, or are disinterested with the FACT-BASED information and

evidence related to this matter are also unsupported. Mr. Harihar requests that the

Court order the Appellees to supply sworn testimony by these parties in an effort

to validate these claims.

IV. Relationship to Intellectual Property

Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has informed the Appellees and the Court, of

intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which has been created for

the purpose of assisting with US and overall Global economic recovery from

damages incurred by the US Foreclosure Crisis. The Court has been made aware

that this project has been thus far successfully presented to multiple parties

including:

A. The Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee

B. The Office of the MA Attorney General

C. The NH Attorney General, NH Sec of State, NH Governor’s Chief of

Staff, and members of the Governor’s Council.

Page 8: Media Alert - 5-19-14

8

D. A Congressional Office

E. Two State Senators

F. A Senior Lender VP of Risk Compliance

G. The Chairman of a nationally-ranked Strategic Communications firm.

This project has additionally been reviewed by the Senior Economic advisor of a

sitting US Senator, and this Appellant has been invited back to Washington to

present to a US Senate Office. Finally, this project has been sent to the

Executive Offices of the President of the United States, at the specific request

of Vice President Biden, for the specific purpose of presentation and review

by the EOP.

For this reason, multiple government officials will continue to be copied on

communications pertaining to this litigation, and any decisions which may

unnecessarily bring risk to a project designed to help this Nation’s and

overall Global economy.

Appellees and their retained counsel are well aware of these facts and have

avoided their discussion entirely. The Court may deem necessary to additionally

subpoena testimony from these government officials to confirm this information

as well. This Appellant is happy to have further discussion upon request to

provide additional clarification if necessary.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to deny Appellees’ Motion, for

the numerous reasons stated within, and requests that this Court order these

Appellees to properly validate information prior to submitting unsupported

documents. If such unsupported information is found to be false, or if parties

refuse to provide validation, the Appellant respectfully requests that there is

accountability for the harm caused. The Appellant additionally reminds the

Court that the Appellee – Harmon law Offices PC, who is under investigation

by the MA Attorney General, has filed NO OPPOSITION or related motion.

This Appellant has been open and honest with this Court, exemplifying complete

disclosure, while the Appellees and their retained counsel have not. Appellees

have been afforded numerous opportunities to seek agreement for harm caused

and repeatedly chosen to ignore or deny these opportunities. The collective

Page 9: Media Alert - 5-19-14

9

circumstances surrounding this matter has now escalated which now questions the

integrity of the judicial system within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

necessitating the collective concerns associated with this Nation’s Foreclosure

Crisis, as stated in the Appellant’s filed Brief, and the potential need to

collectively raise this matter with the MA and US Inspectors’ General, and

petition the transfer of this matter to Federal Court, pending the outcome of this

Appeal.

This Appellant re-states that it is my sincere hope that this Court will assist with a

constructive path in reaching an agreement regarding this matter.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

Page 10: Media Alert - 5-19-14

10

Exhibit A

Page 11: Media Alert - 5-19-14

11

April 10, 2014

Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court Attn: Thomas Ambrosino John Adams Courthouse, Room 2500 1 Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Official Complaint filed against Susan Trippi, Northeast Housing Court

VIA US MAIL

Mr. Ambrosino:

My name is Mohan A. Harihar, and I wish to file an official complaint under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar, additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. This matter is related to my 3+ year ongoing, pro se effort against a wrongful foreclosure, involving the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. Since the initial ruling by the Northeast Housing Court, an overwhelming amount of information and evidence has come forth over the past 3 years, supporting my consistent claims of misconduct against referenced parties, along with the MA Appeals Court granting leave to file for New Trial in the lower Court(s). On April 29, 2013, following a hearing before Judge David Kerman, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail informing me that my request for new trial had been DENIED, despite the new evidence/information presented, showing no cause or reason supporting the decision. A Motion was then immediately filed with the Court, requesting CLARIFICATION of the decision. On May 14, 2013, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail DENYING MY REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE DECISION.

A Notice of Appeal was immediately filed in person with the Northeast Housing Court (See Exhibit A). While filing the Notice of Appeal, I was approached by Ms. Trippi, requesting for me to be patient with regard to the Assembly of the Record, and that it might take a “couple of weeks” for the assembled record to be received by the MA Appeals Court. Nearly a year later, and after multiple follow-ups with the Northeast Housing Court Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer. I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Courtin Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result.

Mohan A. Harihar 14 Circle Rd. Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 12: Media Alert - 5-19-14

12

The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.

*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple Parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s Office as well as the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. For this reason, please be advised - multiple parties are copied on this communication including, but not limited to: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senator Ed Markey, MA Governor Deval Patrick, MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas, MA State Senator Eileen Donoghue, and the US Attorney’s Office.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 13: Media Alert - 5-19-14

13

Exhibit A

Page 14: Media Alert - 5-19-14

14

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice

of Appeal with this court in the above referenced matter, after first receiving the

Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013,

followed by the denied Motion requesting Clarification of the Order, received

May 14, 2013.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

[email protected]

Page 15: Media Alert - 5-19-14

15

Page 16: Media Alert - 5-19-14

16

May 19, 2014

VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk of the Appeals Court John Adams Courthouse One Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Docket No. 2013-P-1829

Dear Sir/Madam Clerk:

Attached is the Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and

Appeal Dismissal.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

Cc: David Fialkow, Kurt R. McHugh

Page 17: Media Alert - 5-19-14

17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mohan A. Harihar, do hereby certify that I have served all parties in this action, listed below, with signed copies of the documents herein below specified by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, to the following addresses: Document(s):

1. Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and Appeal

Dismissal.

Parties Served: Attorney David Fialkow Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP One Post Office Square, 30

th Floor

Boston, MA 02109 Attorney Kurt R McHugh Harmon Law Offices PC P.O. Box 610389 150 California Street Newton, MA 02458-0389 May 19, 2014

___________________ Mohan A. Harihar

Page 18: Media Alert - 5-19-14

18

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Appeals Court

Docket No. 2013-P-1829

_________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar

Appellant

vs.

US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A.,

Harmon Law Offices PC et al

Appellees

__________________________________________

On Appeal From A Judgment Of The

Middlesex Superior Court

__________________________________________

Brief For The Appellant

____________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar

Pro Se

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Phone)

[email protected]

Page 19: Media Alert - 5-19-14

19

Table of Contents

Table of Authorities............................3

A. Cases

B. Other Authorities

Issues Presented................................4

Statement of the Case...........................6

Statement of Facts..............................10

Summary of the Argument.........................17

Argument........................................18

Conclusion......................................26

Judgment Order on Appeal........................31

Certificate of Compliance.......................32

Addendum........................................33

Record Appendix.................................37

Page 20: Media Alert - 5-19-14

20

Table of Authorities

Cases:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Bank of America NA,

BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, BAC GP LLC, JP Morgan

Chase Bank NA, Citibank NA, Citimortgage Inc,

GMAC Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank NA,Mortgage

Electronic Registration System Inc, and MERSCORP Inc.

Civ. A. No.11-4363.............................20

United States District Court for the District of Rhode

Island.

Master Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA).................20

Bradburn vs. ReconTrust, et al., Superior Court of the

State of Washington for Snohomish County.

Docket No.11-2-08345-2.........................20

Department of Justice vs. Ocwen Financial

Settlement..........................................20

Statutes and Rules:

Massachusetts General Laws

G.L. c. 93A, § 2....................7, 11, 19, 27

G.L. c. 223A, § 3..............................27

SJC Court Rule 3:13........................13, 21

Page 21: Media Alert - 5-19-14

21

Issues Presented

1. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – Stare Decisis.

2. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – Pro se litigant.

3. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – refusal to clarify

Decision(s).

4. Similar Abuses of Judicial Discretion with regard

to Decisions in the Northeast Housing Court and

documented Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate.

5. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – refusal/failure to

validate requested information prior to making

Decision.

6. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – repeated failure

to enforce production of critical Discovery

evidence.

7. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – failure to address

and grant protection regarding Plaintiff’s/

Appellant’s concerns of slander, defamation of

character, etc… documented in remarks by opposing

counsel; Counsel’s refusal to abide by Notice to

Cease and Desist.

Page 22: Media Alert - 5-19-14

22

8. State and Federal Prosecutors lack of response to

address documented criminal misconduct by

Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel

(current and prior).

9. Lack of response by MA Office of the Attorney

General to provide the Court(s) with communication

supporting that the referenced foreclosure and

eviction of Mr. Harihar directly coincides with the

Attorney General’s 3+ year ongoing investigation of

Harmon Law Offices PC.

10. Overall Impact to Due Process and Equal

Protection Rights.

11. Wrongful Displacement

12. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – refusal to grant

STAY of Eviction Order, and refusal to clarify

decision.

13. FAIR decision(s) and accountability pertaining to

the documented misconduct, accruing harm and

damages, caused by these Defendants/Appellees, their

retained counsel, which now includes Negligence by

the Northeast Housing Court and impact to due

process (on multiple levels) and equal protection

rights, is no longer believed to be possible.

Page 23: Media Alert - 5-19-14

23

Preparations are being made to address the entire

matter with the MA/US Inspectors’ General.

14. These collective concerns directly bring

increased risk to the Intellectual Property of the

Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, which includes the

project known as the FCS model, designed to assist

and repair this Nation’s, and overall Global

economy. In addition to collective Appellee/Counsel

misconduct, related Court decisions in question are

adding to that increased risk. This further

exemplifies the likely need to bring this entire

matter to a higher authority if corrective action is

not taken by the Court(s).

Statement of the Case

Appellant respectfully states to this Court that while

acting pro se (out of financial necessity) for over

three (3) years, to address the documented civil and

criminal misconduct associated with this matter, every

effort has, and continues to be taken to respectfully

comply with the Rules of the Court.

Page 24: Media Alert - 5-19-14

24

Since initial decisions were rendered in the lower

Courts, an overwhelming amount of information and new

evidence supporting this Appellant’s consistent claims,

and in-line with the documented misconduct associated

with the United States Foreclosure/Financial Crisis, has

been made available to the Court(s). Additionally,

critical Discovery evidence that this Appellant has

requested in every Court proceeding for the past three

(3) years, has not been provided, and the Court(s) have

failed to enforce their production. Referenced Discovery

requests include, but are not limited to:

1. Recorded conversations during the 22-month

loan modification process which irrefutably

support the Appellee’s misconduct including

deceptive practices (G.L. c. 93A, § 2).

2. Validation of the securitized mortgage trust

associated with the foreclosure.

3. Validation of Chain of Title.

4. Validation of signatures on file.

This Appellant’s concerns are now significantly

compounded by:

Page 25: Media Alert - 5-19-14

25

1. The collective abuses of Judicial

discretion.

2. Documented negligence, caused by the Clerk

Magistrate, Susan Trippi of the Northeast

Housing Court3, resulting in harm,

accruing damages, and the Wrongful

Displacement of the Appellant, causing

impact to DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION

RIGHTS.

3. The lack of response by both state and

federal authorities to address criminal

complaints on file. Documented criminal

misconduct includes:

a. Fraud

b. Deceptive Practices

c. Aiding and Abetting Fraud

d. Fraudulent Concealment

e. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

f. Perjury.

This Appellant sadly believes that the “Too Big to Fail”

mentality which has been echoed throughout this Nation,

exists in this Commonwealth and has specifically

3 See Appendix - pages 42-45, Negligence complaint

filed with the Committee on Professional

responsibility for Clerks of the Court.

Page 26: Media Alert - 5-19-14

26

impacted this matter. While the Appellant maintains a

firm belief in the judicial system as a whole, the

documented facts as it relates to over 3 years of these

collective proceedings and events clearly questions the

integrity of that system. Pending the decision of this

Appeal, and due to the increased risk pertaining to

Intellectual Property designed to assist this nation’s

and overall global economic recovery, preparations are

now being made to address this entire matter with the MA

and US Offices of the Inspector General.

This Appellant maintains the intention to legally hold

accountable, the Appellees, their retained counsel, and

ALL responsible parties for documented civil and

criminal misconduct, which has caused irreparable harm

and accruing damages to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar,

impacting family, marriage, career, future retirement,

credit, and everyday living.

Page 27: Media Alert - 5-19-14

27

Statement of Facts

A. Appellant’s/Plaintiff’s Evidence

The following are the relevant and undisputable facts

pertaining to this matter:

1. Since the initial decisions rendered by the

Northeast Housing Court and the Middlesex

Superior Court, an overwhelming amount of

information and evidence has been provided to

the Court(s) to irrefutably support civil and

criminal misconduct by the Appellees and their

retained counsel which, at minimum has clearly

warranted a new trial in the lower court(s).

New evidence and information includes (but is

not limited to):

a. The NON-DISCLOSED April 2011 Report by

Federal Bank Regulators. The report

identifies related misconduct by the

Appellees Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA.

b. Misconduct associated with the referenced

foreclosure, identified by the MA Office

of the Attorney General and the National

Mortgage Settlement. Settlement payment

Page 28: Media Alert - 5-19-14

28

received by the Appellant for related

misconduct.

c. Misconduct associated with the referenced

foreclosure, additionally identified by

Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement

payment received by the Appellant for

related misconduct.

2. It is a fact, that the recorded conversations

during the 22-month loan modification process,

which irrefutably support deceptive practices

(at minimum), and which by law must still be

made available, have been requested in every

court hearing through Discovery, have never

been provided by the Appellees, and the

Court(s) have never enforced their production

(G.L. c. 93A, § 2).

3. It is a fact, that Criminal misconduct against

the Appellees and their retained counsel is

documented with the Court(s) and in criminal

complaints filed with the MA Office of the

Attorney General and the Fraud Investigation

Unit of the FBI. Infractions include: Fraud,

Deceptive Practices, Aiding and Abetting Fraud,

Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent

Page 29: Media Alert - 5-19-14

29

Concealment, and Perjury. Despite multiple

communications sent directly to both Attorney

General Coakley as well as the US Attorney’s

Office, charges are yet to be filed for this

documented misconduct.

4. It is a fact, that despite the collective

information and evidence supporting the

Appellant’s consistent claims, decisions of

denial have been rendered without cause in the

Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior

Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme

Judicial Court. In these instances, requests to

clarify the Courts’ decision(s) have also been

denied.

5. It is a fact, that the Appellees and their

retained counsel have, and continue to make

slanderous and defamatory remarks against the

Appellant, despite receiving notice to Cease

and Desist.4Appellant has additionally

addressed this matter with the Middlesex

Superior Court, requesting the protection of a

4 See Appendix - page 46-47, Appellee Demand Letter to

Cease and Desist.

Page 30: Media Alert - 5-19-14

30

Court order against such attacks.5 The request

was denied by the Court, showing no cause for

the denial, and stating that the request was

“improper”. Appellant’s REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION WAS ADDITIONALLY DENIED.

6. It is a fact that a complaint has now been

filed with the Committee on Professional

Responsibility for Clerks of the Court, under

SJC Court Rule 3:13 against the Clerk

Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court –

Susan Trippi, citing negligence. This

misconduct has led to the wrongful displacement

of the Appellant, incurring additional harm and

damages, and impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL

PROTECTION RIGHTS.

7. It is a fact that numerous requests for

validation have been either ignored or

disregarded by the Appellees and the Court(s).6

Validation requests include:

1) Chain of Title

2) Signatures on file

5 See Appendix – page 50-51, Motion Requesting Cease

and Desist Court Order 6 See Appendix – pages 52-61, Requested Clarification

of Statements

Page 31: Media Alert - 5-19-14

31

3) SEC and IRS concerns related to

the associated Securitized Mortgage

Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1

4) The April 2011 Report by Federal

Bank Regulators.

8. It is a fact that the Appellant has filed for a

subpoena with the Commonwealth, requesting that

the MA Attorney General’s office provide a

communication which supports that the

referenced foreclosure and eviction directly

coincides with the Attorney General’s 3+ year

ongoing investigation of Harmon Law Offices

PC.7

9. It is a fact, that it has been clearly

communicated to the Appellees and their

7 Since the recent filing of both state and federal

criminal complaints, information has been uncovered by

Mr. Harihar which reveals that Harmon Law Offices PC

is directly tied to disbarred FL foreclosure kingpin

David Stern. Mark Harmon, founder & President of

Harmon Law Offices PC, served as Director of DJSP

Enterprises, a company created by Stern, and

considered one of America's largest foreclosure

servicers. Harmon Law Offices has been under

investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General

since 2010, for infractions related to foreclosure and

eviction practices. The timeline of the Attorney

General’s investigation also coincides with Harmon’s

withdrawal as counsel from the foreclosure case

involving Mr. Harihar.

Page 32: Media Alert - 5-19-14

32

retained counsel that multiple parties would be

included in future communications, to bring

awareness to the civil and criminal misconduct

believed to be associated with this matter.

Parties include (but are not limited to):

government officials, media sources, other

lenders found to be associated with unsafe and

unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure

practices, the public and additional employees

of Nelson Mullins LLP, for the purpose of

forwarding to senior management and Human

Resources of the associated Law Firm.

10. It is a fact, that the FCS model is the

Intellectual property belonging to the

Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar. Properly

implemented, the FCS model is designed to

assist this Nation’s and overall Global economy

with recovery from damages caused by the US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.

11. It is a fact, that over the past 2+ years,

the FCS model has been successfully presented

to multiple parties including: The Deputy Chief

Counsel of the House Finance Committee, The

Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General,

Page 33: Media Alert - 5-19-14

33

The New Hampshire Attorney General, NH

Secretary of State, NH Governor’s Chief of

Staff, several members of the NH Governor’s

Council, a MA Congressional Office, two (2) MA

State Senators, A Lender-Senior VP of Risk

Compliance, A Chairman of a Nationally ranked

Strategic Communications firm. The FCS model

has additionally been reviewed by the Senior

Economic advisor of a sitting US Senator, who

is a member of the US Senate Banking Committee,

and has invited the Appellant back to

Washington to present the FCS model.

12. The FCS model has additionally been sent to

the Executive Offices of the President of the

United States – specifically, AT THE REQUEST OF

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, and for the specific

purpose of presenting the FCS model to the

Executive Offices of the President of the

United States.

B. The Defendant’s/Appellee’s Evidence

1. Appellees and their retained counsel simply

maintain that there is no misconduct associated

Page 34: Media Alert - 5-19-14

34

with this matter, while refusing to validate,

acknowledge, and simply ignore the overwhelming

amount of documented information and evidence

that confirm civil and criminal misconduct, as

stated by the Appellant and on file with the

Court(s).

2. Appellees have additionally chosen to ignore

the facts and potential legal consequences

related to the intellectual property belonging

to Appellant, which includes the FCS model.

Summary of the Argument

I. Collective Abuse of Judicial Discretion

II. Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate of the

Northeast Housing Court

III. Lack of Response by State and Federal Prosecutors

IV. “Too Big to Fail” Mentality is Believed as

Driving Factor, Prohibiting Fairness and

Accountability

V. Necessity to Involve MA/US Inspectors’ General.

Page 35: Media Alert - 5-19-14

35

Argument

I. Collective Abuse of Judicial Discretion

Appellant firmly believes that the Abuse of

Judicial Discretion has existed historically

throughout all related proceedings where judges

and court personnel systematically discriminate

against litigants who appear pro se, often

dismissing their petitions or motions out of

hand, regardless of their merits. This has been

exemplified and documented in related

proceedings from the Northeast Housing Court,

Middlesex Superior Court, MA Appeals Court, and

the MA Supreme Judicial Court. Documented

examples on file with the respective Court(s)

include:

a. Failure to show cause for a denial(s).

b. Refusal to Clarify a Decision(s)

c. Repeated failure to enforce production of

critical Discovery evidence. This is best

exemplified by the refusal to enforce the

production of the recorded conversations

during the 22-month loan modification

Page 36: Media Alert - 5-19-14

36

process, which clearly demonstrates (at

minimum) deceptive practices in violation

of G.L. c. 93A, § 2, by the Appellee –

Wells Fargo NA, mortgage servicer.

d. Refusal/failure to validate requested

information prior to rendering Decision

(ex. Chain of Title, Signatures on file,

etc…).

e. Failure to acknowledge submitted evidence

of misconduct by reputable sources (MA

Office of the Attorney General and Federal

Bank Regulators), aligned with the US

Foreclosure Crisis.

f. Failure to address and hold Appellees and

their retained counsel accountable for

documented infractions including:

Fraudulent Concealment/ Fraudulent

Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting

Fraud, and Perjury.

g. Failure to address and grant protection

regarding Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s concerns

of slander, defamation of character, etc…

found in remarks documented by opposing

Page 37: Media Alert - 5-19-14

37

counsel; Counsel’s refusal to abide by

Notice to Cease and Desist.8

h. Failure to acknowledge referenced cases as

listed in the Table of Authorities,

particularly, United States District Court

for the District of Rhode Island. Master

Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA), which references

the same issues, same Lender – US Bank NA,

same Mortgage Servicer – Wells Fargo NA,

and same retained Counsel – BOTH Harmon

Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP,

specifically David E. Fialkow.9

Abuse of Judicial Discretion – Stare Decisis is

additionally considered to have historically played a

significant role, with Justices in a current case

treating decisions in past similar cases as

authoritative precedents, and as seemingly directed by

opposing counsel, refusing to make the decision in a

way that departs from such precedents, regarding all

of them as correctly decided – Particularly since

initial decisions rendered by the lower Courts were

8 See Appendix, Pages 46-47 9 See Table of Authorities, Page 3, for list of

referenced cases which bear impact to this matter.

Page 38: Media Alert - 5-19-14

38

made prior to the public release of information

regarding misconduct surrounding the US Foreclosure

Crisis, and additionally taking into account CRITICAL

NON-DISCLOSED information by counsel, which includes

the APRIL 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators.

II. Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate of the

Northeast Housing Court

An official complaint has been filed with the

Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of

the Court, under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against

Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast

Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence

in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to

the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar,

additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL

PROTECTION RIGHTS.10

III. State and Federal Prosecutors Lack of Response

Criminal complaints are filed with the MA Office

of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations

Unit of the FBI, however, there has yet to be any

action taken from either office, despite numerous

10 See Appendix - Pages 42-45, for filed complaint

against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi in its entirety.

Page 39: Media Alert - 5-19-14

39

email communications sent directly to, and received by

Attorney General Martha Coakley, and also by Christina

Sterling at the US Attorney’s Office (MA).

A request was also made, and seemingly ignored by the

Attorney General’s Office, to assist with providing

communication to the Court(s), supporting that the

referenced foreclosure and eviction directly coincides

with the AG’s 3+ year ongoing investigation of Harmon

Law Offices PC. This request was made in effort to

secure a STAY of Eviction Order pertaining to the

referenced property. This request was ignored. A

subpoena has now been filed with the Commonwealth in

effort to secure this information & overturn this

Wrongful Displacement.

IV. “Too Big to Fail” Mentality

The referenced foreclosure has been definitively

associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis, considered

by many to be the largest case of FRAUD in the History

of the United States. Movies have been made about it –

ex. “Too Big to Fail” (2011) as well as Documentaries

– ex. “Inside Job” (2010). This misconduct has caused

Page 40: Media Alert - 5-19-14

40

harm to millions of American families and considerable

damage to this Nation’s and Global economy.

This Appellant has provided the Court(s) with an

overwhelming amount of evidence and information to

irrefutably support his consistent claims over the

past 3 years, and it has been seemingly disregarded,

without cause. Combined with negligence exemplified by

a Clerk Magistrate and Prosecutors who are seemingly

ignoring criminal complaints, it has become

increasingly clear to this Appellant, that the “Too

Big to Fail” mentality exists here in this

Commonwealth, and that a Fair Decision and

accountability for the related misconduct appears

unattainable, despite the overwhelming evidence and

information provided to the Court(s) to support this

Appellant’s consistent claims.

V. Necessity to Involve MA/US Inspectors’ General

The decision to address this entire matter with a higher

authority will become necessary should the following

occur:

Page 41: Media Alert - 5-19-14

41

a. If Fair judgment and accountability

for collective reasons stated within

continue to appear unattainable in the

Massachusetts Judicial Court system.

b. If collective infractions to due

process and equal protection rights of

the Appellant are not addressed and

corrected. This includes negligence by

the Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast

Housing Court.

c. Decisions in favor of the Appellees,

which are unfairly allowed to stand, and

additionally cause increased risk to

intellectual property of the Appellant,

Mohan A. Harihar, which has been

specifically designed to assist the

United States of America with economic

recovery from damages caused by the US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.

Page 42: Media Alert - 5-19-14

42

In hindsight, it should be noted that if the

Appellees had taken the time to understand the

objectives of Mr. Harihar, and specifically

the benefits of a successfully implemented FCS

model, which by design create substantial

benefit to ALL parties including the

Appellees, these years of ongoing litigation

and accruing damages to Mr. Harihar might have

been avoided entirely.

It should be noted to ALL parties, that a

successfully implemented FCS model by design,

will deliver significant benefit to ALL

parties involved – the wrongfully foreclosed

homeowner, state and federal government, the

overall US and Global economy, and even the

lenders/mortgage servicers responsible for

creating this crisis. And while the

Foreclosure Crisis is anticipated to tie up

the Judicial Court system for another decade,

successful implementation of the FCS model is

designed to significantly reduce or eliminate

that timeline entirely.

Page 43: Media Alert - 5-19-14

43

Efforts by any party to negatively impact or

cause increased risk to the FCS model will

necessitate additional legal action.

Conclusion

It is now the firm belief of the Appellant, Mohan A.

Harihar that a Fair Judgment, as it pertains to the

documented civil and criminal misconduct associated

with the referenced Wrongful Foreclosure and now

Wrongful Displacement, does not appear attainable. The

overall impact of these decisions moving forward,

threatens not only the rights of an individual, but

additionally stands to hinder or threaten a project

designed to help this Nation’s and Global economy

recover from damages caused by the US Foreclosure

/Financial Crisis.

Collectively, the combination of the following has

impacted DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS:

1. Abuse of Judicial Discretion (Multiple counts).

2. Negligent misconduct by the Clerk Magistrate of

the Northeast Housing Court.

Page 44: Media Alert - 5-19-14

44

3. Lack of response by state and federal

prosecutors regarding documented criminal

misconduct stated in criminal complaints on

file.

Even if New Trial were to be granted to Mr. Harihar,

the collective history surrounding this matter has

raised too many questions and concerns regarding the

integrity of the system, on multiple levels,

supporting a “Too Big to Fail” mentality.

Should ANY question remain to clarify misconduct by

these Appellees, this Appellant again requests that

the Court issue an order requiring the Appellees to

finally provide the REQUESTED DISCOVERY, the 22-months

of recorded conversation between the Appellant – Mohan

A. Harihar and the Appellee/Mortgage servicer – Wells

Fargo NA, during the loan modification process, as has

been consistently requested for the past 3+ years,

which at minimum supports deceptive practices

enforceable under Consumer Protection Laws, which by

law, these recordings must still be made available.

The Appellant believes that the only potential

corrective path left for consideration (prior to

Page 45: Media Alert - 5-19-14

45

escalating this matter to a higher authority) is for

the Court to order both parties to mediation in effort

to reach an appropriate settlement agreement – as is

the order referenced in the synonymous case from the

United States District Court for the District of Rhode

Island, Master Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA). It should be

noted that the Appellant has made multiple efforts, to

reach a settlement agreement with the Appellees. These

efforts have either been ignored or declined.11 Since

this has been the continued stance of these Appellees,

the pursuit of criminal charges is expected to

continue, against ALL parties, as well as

accountability for counsel misconduct associated with

this matter and documented in complaints filed with

the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel.

The Appellant additionally and separately requests

that the decision pertaining to the Wrongful Eviction

of the Appellant:

1. Be overturned immediately, allowing Mr. Harihar

to rightfully return to his home,

11 See Appendix – Pages 46-49, Demand Letters 2013 and

2014.

Page 46: Media Alert - 5-19-14

46

2. And that related damages, and accruing costs,

including cost to move all belongings back to the

property, are immediately paid for by the

Appellees.

Pending the decision and outcome of this Appeal, and

from the historical concerns stated within, the

Appellant believes it will likely be necessary to next

address this entire matter with the MA/US Inspectors’

General, and preparation has already begun regarding

next steps. Upon the filing of this Appellant Brief,

and because of the heightened concerns stated within,

communication including a copy of this Appellant Brief

has additionally been sent to President Obama, Vice

President Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim Sheehan

(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), The American

Civil Liberties Union, US Senator Elizabeth Warren

(MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval

Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), US

Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen

Donoghue (MA), Christina Sterling (US Attorney’s

Office, and the managing partners of Nelson Mullins

LLP.

Page 47: Media Alert - 5-19-14

47

Above all, this is a matter of principle, and the

basic difference between right and wrong. I have spent

the last 5 years addressing the misconduct associated

with this matter, 3+ years as a pro se litigant (out

of financial necessity), while continuing my efforts

to re-enter the workforce, creating an economic

solution which helps this country, and now, addressing

the challenge of having a roof over my head. I

respectfully ask, and it is my hope, that this Court

will assist with providing a constructive path to

repair the damage that has been done by these parties.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

Pro Se

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526

[email protected]

Page 48: Media Alert - 5-19-14

48

Page 49: Media Alert - 5-19-14

49

Page 50: Media Alert - 5-19-14

50

ADDENDUM

Page 51: Media Alert - 5-19-14

51

Addendum Table of Contents

G.L. c. 93A, § 2....................................35

G.L. c. 223A, § 3...................................35

MA SJC Rule 3:13....................................36

Page 52: Media Alert - 5-19-14

52

G.L. c. 93A, § 2

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct

of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

G.L. c. 223A, § 3

Section 3. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction

over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to

a cause of action in law or equity arising from the

person’s

(a) transacting any business in this commonwealth;

(b) contracting to supply services or things in this

commonwealth;

(c) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in

this commonwealth;

(d) causing tortious injury in this commonwealth by an

act or omission outside this commonwealth if he

regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any

other persistent course of conduct, or derives

substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or

services rendered, in this commonwealth;

(e) having an interest in, using or possessing real

property in this commonwealth;

(f) contracting to insure any person, property or risk

located within this commonwealth at the time of

contracting;

(g) maintaining a domicile in this commonwealth while

a party to a personal or marital relationship out of

which arises a claim for divorce, alimony, property

settlement, parentage of a child, child support or

child custody; or the commission of any act giving

rise to such a claim; or

(h) having been subject to the exercise of personal

jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth which has

resulted in an order of alimony, custody, child

support or property settlement, notwithstanding the

subsequent departure of one of the original parties

from the commonwealth, if the action involves

modification of such order or orders and the moving

party resides in the commonwealth, or if the action

involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the

domicile of the moving party.

Page 53: Media Alert - 5-19-14

53

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:13:

Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of

the Courts

[Disclaimer]

The Supreme Judicial Court may establish a committee

on professional responsibility to investigate any

action of a Clerk Magistrate, as defined in Rule 3:12,

including (a) conviction of a crime, (b) wilful

misconduct in office, (c) wilful misconduct which,

although not related to duties as a Clerk Magistrate,

brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into disrepute,

(d) conduct prejudicial to the administration of

justice or conduct unbecoming a Clerk Magistrate,

whether conduct in office or outside of duties as a

Clerk Magistrate, that brings the office of Clerk

Magistrate into disrepute, or (e) any conduct that

constitutes a violation of Rule 3:12. The committee

may receive information, investigate, and make

recommendations relative to any mental or physical

disability, including habitual intemperance, of a

Clerk Magistrate. The committee shall consist of at

least five persons, none of whom shall be a Justice of

the Supreme Judicial Court, at least one of whom shall

be a currently elected Clerk Magistrate and at least

one of whom shall be an appointed Clerk Magistrate.

The composition and rules of the committee shall be as

established by the Supreme Judicial Court. This rule

shall not be interpreted to abrogate the authority of

the Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court, the

Chief Administrative Justice, or an Administrative

Justice of a Department of the Trial Court in any of

these areas.

Page 54: Media Alert - 5-19-14

54

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Appeals Court

Docket No. 2013-P-1829

_________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar

Appellant

vs.

US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A.,

Harmon Law offices PC, et al

Appellees

__________________________________________

On Appeal From A Judgment Of The

Middlesex Superior Court

__________________________________________

Appendix For The Appellant

____________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar

Pro Se

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Phone)

[email protected]

Page 55: Media Alert - 5-19-14

55

Appendix Table of Contents

Civil Docket Case Summary from

Middlesex Superior Court.........................39-41

Negligence Complaint against Clerk Magistrate

Of the Northeast Housing Court...................42-45

Demand Letter 3/15/2013..........................46-47

Demand Letter 4/23/2014..........................48-49

Motion Request for Court Order...................50-51

Motion Requesting Clarification..................52-61

Page 56: Media Alert - 5-19-14

56

Page 57: Media Alert - 5-19-14

57

Page 58: Media Alert - 5-19-14

58

Page 59: Media Alert - 5-19-14

59

May 19, 2014

Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court Attn: Thomas Ambrosino John Adams Courthouse, Room 2500 1 Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Official Complaint filed against Susan Trippi, Northeast Housing Court

VIA US MAIL

Mr. Ambrosino:

My name is Mohan A. Harihar, and I wish to file an official complaint under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar, additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. This matter is related to my 3+ year ongoing, pro se effort against a wrongful foreclosure, involving the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. Since the initial ruling by the Northeast Housing Court, an overwhelming amount of information and evidence has come forth over the past 3 years, supporting my consistent claims of misconduct against referenced parties, along with the MA Appeals Court granting leave to file for New Trial in the lower Court(s). On April 29, 2013, following a hearing before Judge David Kerman, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail informing me that my request for new trial had been DENIED, despite the new evidence/information presented, showing no cause or reason supporting the decision. A Motion was then immediately filed with the Court, requesting CLARIFICATION of the decision. On May 14, 2013, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail DENYING MY REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE DECISION.

A Notice of Appeal was immediately filed in person with the Northeast Housing Court (See Exhibit A). While filing the Notice of Appeal, I was approached by Ms. Trippi, requesting for me to be patient with regard to the Assembly of the Record, and that it might take a “couple of weeks” for the assembled record to be received by the MA Appeals Court. Nearly a year later, and after multiple follow-ups with the Northeast Housing Court Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer.

Mohan A. Harihar 14 Circle Rd. Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 60: Media Alert - 5-19-14

60

I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Court in Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result. The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.

*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued

against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s Office as well as the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. For this reason, please be advised - multiple parties are copied on this communication including, but not limited to: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senator Ed Markey, MA Governor Deval Patrick, MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas, MA State Senator Eileen Donoghue, and the US Attorney’s Office.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 61: Media Alert - 5-19-14

61

Exhibit A

Page 62: Media Alert - 5-19-14

62

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice of Appeal with

this court in the above referenced matter, after first receiving the Court’s Order denying

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013, followed by the denied Motion

requesting Clarification of the Order, received May 14, 2013.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

[email protected]

Page 63: Media Alert - 5-19-14

63

Page 64: Media Alert - 5-19-14

64

Page 65: Media Alert - 5-19-14

65

May 19, 2014

Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP FOR DOCUMENTATION, NEGOTIATION

Attn: David Fialkow & SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

One Post Office Square, 30th Floor

Boston, MA 02109

RE: Demand Letter – Mohan A. Harihar,

168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852

VIA US MAIL

Mr. Fialkow:

As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a

copy of this Demand Letter to your respective clients – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.

Please be advised of the following:

1. As expected, new information and evidence supporting misconduct by your client (s) continues to

come forward, and in support of the consistent claims of Mohan A. Harihar. The latest information

pertains to the Wells Fargo Foreclosure manual, also referred to as the Wells Fargo Foreclosure

“Fraud” manual, and multiple cases are proceeding in both State and Federal court(s) for related

misconduct associated with this manual.

2. Motions are again being prepared for filing with the Court(s) to address the still growing amount of

new information and evidence against your clients, in addition to the collective concerns as outlined in

the April 17th and 21

st 2014 email communications, sent to you, and the managing partners of Nelson

Mullins LLP.

3. Since it appears necessary to address this entire matter with the Massachusetts and/or the United

States Inspector(s) General, for the collective reasons previously stated, clear communication will be

made to inform the public, and to ALL OTHER parties including Lenders and Mortgage Servicers

identified with similar misconduct, who MAY be subject to increased legal risk as a result of these

actions, and to clearly identify ALL parties responsible for this increased risk.

4. It has been communicated to you, that the referenced misconduct may bring increased risk to the

intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which includes the FCS model, designed to

assist this Nation’s and overall Global economy with recovery from the Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.

Despite these concerns communicated to you, the actions (by your clients and your firm) to cause

harm and increased risk continue. It has therefore become necessary to inform and include in

communications government officials and associated agencies, familiar with the FCS model, of these

increased risks, and the parties responsible. Government officials and agencies include :

a. The Vice President of the United States

b. Members of the US Senate

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 66: Media Alert - 5-19-14

66

c. Members of Congress

d. The US Attorney’s Office

e. The Governor of Massachusetts

f. The Massachusetts Attorney General

g. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

h. The American Civil Liberties Union

i. Members of the Massachusetts State Senate

A final opportunity is being afforded to your referenced clients (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA), and to

Nelson Mullins LLP in effort to reach a settlement agreement, for the associated harm and accruing damages

incurred by Mohan A. Harihar, and to potentially avoid the necessity of additional legal action. Please note, your

response, or lack thereof, will be shared at minimum, with the parties listed above.

This is a very serious matter that requires your immediate attention. It is strongly recommended that you contact

Mr. Harihar immediately to address and resolve this situation. Failure to do so by 5pm (EST), this Friday, April

25, 2014, will be noted to ALL parties, and the legal process and exposure of related misconduct will move

forward, as scheduled. This letter is your final opportunity to resolve this matter amicably.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

Page 67: Media Alert - 5-19-14

67

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

MOTION FILED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A, REQUESTING COURT ORDER

AGAINST DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES AND RETAINED COUNSEL TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM

MAKING FALSE, UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

In accordance of Superior Court Rule 9A, Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, requesting a Court Order to cease and desist be issued against the Defendants/Appellees (US Bank NA, Wells

Fargo, NA, and their retained counsel, Attorney David E. Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP), from

making false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant.

In the recent documents submitted by the Appellees (on file with the Appeals Court) regarding the Appellant’s timeline

extension request, and again in recently filed opposition, allegations of harassment are made against the Appellant. These

allegations completely unfounded, unsupported and utterly false.

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 Public’s attention, for the specific purpose of

creating public awareness, and in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct resulting

from this Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis. If 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, etc…as is stated and suggested by Attorney Fialkow.

The Appellees/Defendants and their retained counsel were previously put on notice in March 2013 to cease and desist from misconduct including (but not limited to), slanderous and defamatory statements against Mohan A. Harihar (see Exhibit

A). Prior concern with regard to bullying-style tactics and unethical conduct of the Appellees’ retained counsel, David E.

Fialkow, has existed since being retained by the Appellees, and historically includes his conscious decisions to file documents with the Court(s) containing false, slanderous, and defamatory statements. Misconduct is further supported in

Court transcripts. Mr. Harihar respectfully reminds the Court that the associated Appeal – Docket No. 2013-P-0671

pertains to documented false statements (on file with the Court) made by Attorney David E. Fialkow which ultimately influenced a Superior Court decision.

Despite being put on notice, misconduct is continued in the associated Appeal (Docket No. 2013-P-0671) with unfounded allegations of harassment. Counsel goes further to make unsupported statements and suggestions on behalf of other parties

including the Office of the Attorney General. This ongoing misconduct by counsel to discredit Mr. Harihar additionally

raises concerns regarding the security Mr. Harihar’s intellectual property, which has now been disclosed by counsel.

To assist ALL parties including the Court with clarification, a questionnaire has been created to address the growing

number of unsupported/unanswered documented statements in question (see Exhibit B). Mr. Harihar has mailed a copy of the questionnaire to counsel and has requested its completion to assist the legal process moving forward. Once completed

and received by Mr. Harihar, copies will be filed with this Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Office of the

Attorney General (to assist with the Criminal Complaint on file), and additionally communicated with ALL affected parties.

Page 68: Media Alert - 5-19-14

68

Notice is additionally given to the Court - With the collective evidence and new information supporting Mr. Harihar’s

consistent claims now in possession, 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 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assist with validation.

The Appellant/Plaintiff respectfully requests that, the Appellee’s and their retained counsel be held accountable for this

continued blatant misconduct and bullying-style tactics, and additionally requests that the Court issue an Order to protect and prohibit similar conduct by the Appellee and their retained counsel moving forward.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

Page 69: Media Alert - 5-19-14

69

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

MOTION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULES 9 AND 60B; REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff/Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully requests clarification with regard to the recently denied request for a

Court order against Appellees – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow (from making

false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant) in the above referenced matter.

After a review of the Court’s decision, clarification regarding classification of the Motion as “Improper” is requested.

In addition, Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully states the following to the Court:

1. The Court order was requested to prevent false, damaging statements (made by the Appellees) against the Plaintiff/Appellant from continuing and potentially impacting on-going litigation currently in the MA

Appeals Court, and also the related intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar.

2. Plaintiff/Appellant communications to ALL parties (including government officials, the media, other lenders/mortgage servicers and senior members of Nelson Mullins LLP) are FACT-BASED, and

supporting documentation has consistently been provided to the Court. Mr. Harihar is happy to have

further discussion regarding any of these communications, and the now overwhelming and body of evidence/information which irrefutably shows definitive misconduct by the Defendants/Appellees and

their retained counsel.

3. The Plaintiff/Appellant fully intends to continue ALL fact-based communications related to this misconduct and the associated projects. Government officials, the media, and other lenders/mortgage

servicers associated with similar misconduct will continue to be included unless otherwise specified. If the

Appellees and their retained counsel no longer wish to be included in future communications, it is suggested that a written request be submitted to the Plaintiff/Appellant for removal from the associated

distribution list.

4. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully re-states to the Court that, in addition to seeking accountability for the Defendants/Appellees misconduct associated with this foreclosure, the associated projects (which are

considered the intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar), have been designed

to:

a. Assist the other 4.2 million parties who have suffered significant damages by similar misconduct

associated with this US Foreclosure Crisis. b. Provide a plan which assists the Nation with economic recovery.

c. Assist the Justice Department with a pathway for future prosecution related to this ongoing crisis.

d. Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel are additionally hereby put on notice that any actions or misconduct which influences, impacts, or causes damages in any way to the Appellant’s

intellectual property/projects will be met with additional legal action.

5. Since the last request to this Court requesting new trial, a separate investigation of the referenced

foreclosure by Federal Bank Regulators has resulted with the following new evidence now in

possession:

a. Appellant Mohan A Harihar has received financial compensation, issued through Federal

Bank Regulators, on behalf of the Defendants/Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.

Page 70: Media Alert - 5-19-14

70

This compensation is a result of the April 2011 Report and separate investigation by Federal

Bank Regulators which found both Defendants/Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA

guilty of “committing unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.”

It has become increasingly apparent in associated correspondences, Court documents, and the Defendants/Appellees recent

refusal to clarify for the record (19) statements, that the Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel intend to avoid

addressing ALL new information/evidence, with the expectation that by doing so, they will avoid accountability. Despite a 2

½ year effort by the Appellees to suppress evidence and avoid accountability, documented misconduct by the Defendants/Appellees is now in possession, and continues to come forward, as anticipated.

The April 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators, separate investigation and received payment(s), irrefutably confirms that the Defendants/Appellees have purposefully chosen to mislead this Court, and all related proceedings for the

past 2 ½ years. Additional supporting evidence includes separate compensation associated with the National Foreclosure

Settlement, received by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and the Court is also aware of documented false statements made by the retained counsel. The Appellant is happy to discuss any of these matters in further detail if requested.

Those familiar with the details of this country’s foreclosure crisis consider this to be the largest case of fraud in US history. Documentaries have been produced (ex. “Inside Job” 2010) as well as movies (ex. “Too Big to Fail” 2011) articulating the

level and depth of misconduct. Anyone with access to the internet who begins a search entitled “US Foreclosure Crisis” will

find over 5 million related links. The continued insistence by the Defendants/Appellees, stating that there is no misconduct

associated with this foreclosure is insulting and is a blatant lie to this Court(s).

At this time, Appellant Mohan A. Harihar wishes to file criminal charges with this Court, against the Appellees – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow, as documented infractions are believed to include (but are

not limited to):

1. Negligent Misrepresentation

2. Fraud 3. Aiding and Abetting Fraud

As the legal process continues to move forward, additional counts of misconduct (including but not limited to deceptive practices) are anticipated to be addressed with regard to:

1. The validation of the associated securitized mortgage trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1 2. The recorded conversations (during the 22-month loan modification process) which the Appellees refused

to provide during the Discovery process.

The Plaintiff/Appellant additionally requests that this Court inform/update the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel of the

misconduct associated with the Appellees retained counsel. A complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow is already on file. It is unclear at this time if the documented misconduct extends beyond this attorney (which restates the necessity of

including Senior Management of the retained law Firm – Nelson Mullins LLP in communications).

Under Superior Court Rule 60b reconsideration is respectfully requested as this misconduct has been definitively

associated with fraud on mass scale.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

Page 71: Media Alert - 5-19-14

71

July 16, 2013

Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP

Attn: David Fialkow FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES

One Post Office Square, 30th 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

General’s 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)

Page 72: Media Alert - 5-19-14

72

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. Harihar’s 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. Harihar’s 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.

1. 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]

2. 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]

3. Please explain counsel’s reason(s) for refusing to validate Chain of Title with regard to the

referenced property.

[Click to type your response]

Page 73: Media Alert - 5-19-14

73

4. Is counsel stating that the Court(s) should uphold decisions made in the infancy stages of this

Nation’s 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.

[Click to type your response]

The following questions pertain to documented statements made by retained counsel – David E. Fialkow, stating that

Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims are meritless and baseless.

5. 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]

6. 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]

7. 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]

8. Is counsel stating that the Federal Bank Regulator’s separate investigation of Mr. Harihar’s

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]

Page 74: Media Alert - 5-19-14

74

9. 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. Counsel’s 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 counsel’s 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 Public’s attention, for the specific purpose

of creating public awareness, & in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct. If

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, etc…as is stated and

suggested by Attorney Fialkow.

11. Has counsel received communication from the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General

stating that Mr. Harihar’s 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]

12. Has counsel received communication from any of the media sources stating that Mr. Harihar’s

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]

Page 75: Media Alert - 5-19-14

75

13. 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. Harihar’s 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]

14. Has counsel received communication from any of the other government officials stating that

Mr. Harihar’s 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.

[Click to type your response]

It 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. It 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.

15. 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.

It 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. If 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.

16. 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]

Page 76: Media Alert - 5-19-14

76

It 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. If 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.

17. 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]

It 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 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.

18. If there is any confusion regarding forthcoming litigation against all related parties, please

advise.

[Click to type your response]

It 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 Nation’s 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

nation’s 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. Harihar’s 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.

Page 77: Media Alert - 5-19-14

77

19. Is counsel stating that Mr. Harihar should not be allowed to assist those parties affected and

harmed by this Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis? Or, is counsel suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not

been involved with two (2) separate projects stemming from this Nation’s 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 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assist with clarification.

Thank you for your assistance with this clarification. Please sign and date upon completion (below).

_______________________________________ _________________

Signature Date

Page 78: Media Alert - 5-19-14

78

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

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