FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Coakley Announcement Reaffirms Foreclosed

Homeowners Consistent Claims in 3-year Court Battle.
Boston, MA, January 24, 2015 Foreclosed homeowner (and pro se litigant), Mohan A. Harihar now
has the confirmed validation he has been waiting over 3 years for The announcement, released by
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015, and just days before leaving
office, addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011 complaint filed by the Commonwealth
1
against four banks including Wells Fargo N.A. The complaint details the Defendants unlawful
2
conduct resulting in void/illegal foreclosures . The Attorney General states, Wells Fargo Bank
violated Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by
illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal authority
to do so. This declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General reaffirms the consistent claims by
Mr. Harihar, through over three (3) years of litigation.
Even prior to this announcement, the historical record associated with this matter collectively reflects
an overwhelming amount of evidence and information that has steadily come forth, in full support of
Mr. Harihars consistent claims. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has agreed, recently granting Mr.
3
Harihar leave to file for new trial . Mr. Harihar is now in process of preparing the new/updated
complaint, expected to be filed with the appropriate Court by the end of January (2015), or shortly
thereafter.
The Attorney Generals announcement (at minimum) reaffirms the following:
1. The referenced foreclosure is considered illegal and is therefore void.
2. The referenced foreclosure sale by the Defendant US Bank NA is considered illegal and is
therefore void.
3. Multiple counts of Civil and Criminal misconduct against Defendants including (but not limited
to): Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation,
Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury.
4. Impacts ALL related decisions thus far made in every Massachusetts State Court.
The timing of Coakleys announcement coincidentally also comes in the same timeframe that
4
evidenced Collusion & Conflict has been brought to the attention of the Court(s) and to the
Massachusetts Inspector General, involving the following parties:

Wells Fargo NA is a Defendant in active litigation vs. Mohan A. Harihar.

Includes Mr. Harihars referenced foreclosure, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
3
See MA Appeals Court Docket No. 2013-P-1829, Harihar v. US Bank NA Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law
Offices PC, et al.
4
Scroll down to view After the Bubble Bursts: Mortgage and Foreclosure Issues in Criminal and Civil
Litigation.
2

1. The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General

2. The US Attorneys Office
3. The Boston Bar Association
4. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Retained counsel for both Wells Fargo & US Bank
in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar.

Mr. Harihar now respectfully seeks immediate corrective action and injunctive relief from the Middlesex
5
Superior Court , prior to filing the forthcoming civil action, and in effort to prevent additional
unnecessary harm and damages from occurring. The continued pursuit of criminal charges against
ALL responsible parties continues as well.
This storyline which continues to grow has also revealed the relationship of this legal matter to Mr.
Harihars Intellectual Property, involving 3 separate projects designed to accomplish the following:
1. Assist this Nations and overall Global economic recovery from damages incurred from the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis (FCS model ). Resulting economic growth is estimated in the
trillions of dollars, uses an existing infrastructure, requires no new legislation, and not one (1)
US tax dollar to implement.
2. A template to assist (at minimum) 4.2 million wrongfully foreclosed homeowners with filing a
civil lawsuit against responsible Lenders/parties.
3. A template to assist (at minimum) 4.2 million wrongfully foreclosed homeowners with filing
criminal complaints, in the pursuit of criminal charges against responsible Lenders/parties.
Prior to leave being granted by the MA Appeals Court, Mr. Harihars filed Appellate Brief included the
following statement:
Ive been respectful to this and every Court, followed the law, and have clearly gone over and
above, perhaps more so than any individual in this Commonwealth or Country to not only
prove this case, but to also provide a solution to help ALL parties affected.

For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar

Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com
Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Follow on Twitter:
Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1

Scroll down to view: PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
APPEAL, AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DECISION REVERSAL(S) AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS

SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
APPEAL, AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DECISION REVERSAL(S) AND
INJUCTIVE RELIEF
2. The Plaintiff, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this opposition to
the Defendants attempt to collect bill costs associated with the referenced Appeal, based
on the January 16, 2015 announcement by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha
Coakley.
3. The announcement just released by Attorney General Coakley on January 16, 2015
addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011 complaint filed by the
Commonwealth against four banks including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A. The
complaint details the Defendants unlawful conduct resulting in void/illegal
foreclosures6. The Attorney General states,

Wells Fargo Bank violated

Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by

6

Includes the referenced foreclosure related to this Docket, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal
authority to do so. This declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General reaffirms the
consistent claims by this Plaintiff, through over three (3) years of litigation.
4. Even prior to this announcement, the historical record associated with this matter
collectively reflects an overwhelming amount of evidence and information that has
steadily come forth, in full support of this Plaintiffs consistent claims. The Massachusetts
Appeals Court has agreed, recently granting this Plaintiff leave to file for new trial7. The
Plaintiff is now in process of preparing the new/updated complaint, expected to be filed
with the appropriate Court by the end of January (2015), or shortly thereafter.
5. The Attorney Generals announcement (at minimum) reaffirms the following:
1. The referenced foreclosure is considered illegal and is
therefore void.
2. The referenced foreclosure sale by the Defendant US Bank
NA is considered illegal and is therefore void.
3. Multiple counts of Civil and Criminal misconduct against
Defendants including (but not limited to): Fraud, Deceptive
Practices,

Fraudulent

Concealment,

Fraudulent

Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding and

Abetting Fraud, and Perjury.
4. Impacts ALL related decisions thus far made in every
Massachusetts State Court.

See MA Appeals Court Docket No. 2013-P-1829, Harihar v. US Bank NA Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law
Offices PC, et al.

6. Immediate corrective action and injunctive relief is now respectfully sought in this Court
with the filing of this opposition, and prior to filing the forthcoming civil action, in effort
to prevent additional and unnecessary harm and damages to this Plaintiff:
1. Reversal of this Courts initial decision associated with this
Docket No. 11-04499, previously in favor of the Defendant(s),
with the majority of damages to be addressed in the forthcoming
civil action.
2. Reversal of the associated Summary Judgment made by the
Northeast Housing Court8, as the referenced foreclosure is
considered illegal by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
3. Corrective action regarding the Wrongful Displacement of the
Plaintiff, who is still HOMELESS since his eviction nearly one
(1) year ago, February, 2014. The Plaintiff respectfully requests
injunctive relief to the extent that this Court orders the
Defendants to provide equivalent interim housing to Mr.
Harihar, while legal matters proceed.9
4. The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the
replacement cost of all furnishings, belongings, etc the

If the Middlesex Superior Court lacks the authority to overturn the referenced Summary Judgment, please
advise.
9
Equivalent interim housing is defined as a twenty-six hundred (2600) square foot, four (4) bedroom, two plus
(2+) bath single-family, condominium, townhome, or apartment, with a minimum of two (2) parking spaces. The
location of this interim housing is requested in the city of Boston, MA, as the Plaintiff has been forced to take a
significantly lesser job as a part-time bartender. Interim housing is requested in close proximity to the Plaintiffs
place of employment, and which meets the approval of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was forced to liquidate, give away or leave behind, as a

result of the referenced illegal foreclosure/ displacement.10
5. The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the
Defendants to provide a new replacement vehicle (or equivalent
new replacement cost), for the forced vehicle repossession
resulting from the Defendants misconduct. The Plaintiff has
since had to burden family members to assist with providing
transportation, including assistance with acquiring a leased
vehicle, which is now at risk of exceeding allowed mileage. 11
6. The Plaintiff brings to this Courts attention, that with the
collective and extensive new evidence and information that has
come forth, Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC has not
refuted any claims of misconduct made against them12. This
Plaintiff has committed the last several years of his life in this
pro se effort to research, learn the law, its procedures,
etcThis commitment has easily exceeded a standard 40-hour
workweek, 52 weeks a year, for over three years. Mr. Harihars
time is considered no less valuable than that of the opposing
counsel. Therefore, an order is respectfully requested for
immediate relief from Harmon Law offices PC separate from
relief being sought in the forthcoming civil action, as

10

Replacement cost is equated to new replacement cost.

New Vehicle replacement cost equated to a 2015 BMW X5.
12
Reference MA Appeals Court Docket 2013-P-1829, in which no Appellate Brief, Reply Brief, or opposition of
any kind was filed by Appellee Harmon Law offices PC.
11

reimbursement for this Plaintiffs time spent while the Harmon

served as counsel to Defendant US Bank NA (Estimated time
as retained counsel 6 months, or 26 weeks; Plaintiff caps legal
hours at 40 hours per week). The hourly rate is set equal to, but
not greater than the hourly rate charged by Harmon Law Offices
PC to its client, US Bank NA (Estimated at $250 per
hour).13The total relief for this timeframe is $260,000.
7. The Plaintiff requests that this Court now inform the MA BAR
of

OVERSEERS/BAR

COUNSEL

of

misconduct

by

Defendants retained counsel (current and prior), well

documented with the Court(s) and in line with complaints
already filed on file against them.

If the Court has ANY questions, or needs additional information, this Plaintiff is happy to
provide upon request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
13

Approximate timeframe is believed to be April 2011 thru September 2011.