COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

LAND COURT DIVISION

) Case No. _______________________

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
) COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff ) 1. LACK OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE;
)
v. ) 2. FRAUD ON THE COURT;
)
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS ) 3. FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT;
REALTY CORP; US BANK NA, AS )
TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED TRUST ) 4. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT;
CMLTI MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH )
CERTIFICATE SERIES 2006-AR1 ) 5. FIRST CIVIL RICO CLAIM;
TRUST; LEADER BANK NA; )
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) 6. SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM;
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AKA )
“MERS” AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, ) 7. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES;
INCLUSIVE; ISABELLE AND )
JEFFREY PERKINS; ) 8. FDCPA AND MCDCA VIOLATIONS;
)
WELLS FARGO NA; ) 9. CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND ABUSE
NELSON MULLINS LLP; ) OF PROCESS;
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC; )
COMMONWEALTH OF ) 10. HAMP AND FALSE CLAIMS
MASSACHUSETTS; MARTHA ) VIOLATIONS;
COAKLEY, ESQ; DAVID E. FIALKOW, )
ESQ; JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, ESQ; ) 11. TAMPERING VIOLATIONS;
PETER HALEY, ESQ; MARY DAHER; )
KEN DAHER, KURT R. MCHUGH, ESQ ) 12. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
) PLAINTIFF’S HOMESTEAD;
Defendants )
) 13. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
)
) 14. SLANDER OF TITLE;
)
) 15. QUIET TITLE;
)
) 16. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
 )
) 17. VIOLATIONS OF T.I.L.A.;
)
) 18. VIOLATIONS OF R.E.S.P.A.;
)
) 19. RECISSION
______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully prefaces this complaint with the

following Disclosure(s):

1. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Complaint against the Defendants is

directly related to ongoing Federal litigation in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.1 This

related Federal litigation includes (but is not limited to): a.) Evidenced allegations of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and b.) Economic

Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, - believed to impact matters of National

Security. Therefore, copies of this related COMPLAINT are sent via email, social

media and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US

Inspector General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions,

members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary

Committee, House Oversight Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI). Copies are similarly delivered to Massachusetts State Legislators, to the direct

attention of Governor - Charley Baker (R-MA) and MA Attorney General - Maura

Healey. A copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL

1
The related Federal litigation references: 1.) HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
cv-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880) and 2.) HARIHAR v. THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
 AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for

documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for personal

safety/security.

2. The TREASON claims referenced above pertain to evidenced judicial misconduct claims

now alleged against SIX (6) Federal (District and Circuit) judges – INCLUDING Chief

Justice – Jeffrey R. Howard, for ruling WITHOUT jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has

necessarily brought judicial misconduct complaints against TEN (10) Officers of the

(Federal) Court,2 for their collective failures to uphold Federal Law(s) and the judicial

machinery of the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand upon by amendment, the

list of Defendants that allegedly bear some responsibility and have contributed (at least in

part) to the damages and increased hardships of the Plaintiff. Additional Defendants may

include (but would not be limited to) related officers of the Court (State and Federal) who

have failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, as evidenced by the record(s).

3. In the referenced federal litigation – HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, the evidenced

judicial misconduct claims of record brought against the initial presiding US District

Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs eventually led to her RECUSAL from

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. This recusal: 1.) re-affirms ALL judicial

claims – including (but not limited to) six (6) counts of TREASON for ruling

WITHOUT Jurisdiction; 2.) shows cause for the Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders;

2
The referenced TEN (10) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judge’s - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr.,
David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard and District Court
Judge Denise J. Casper.
 3.) mandates that the District Court VOID ALL related orders, including the dismissal

order.

4. The evidenced PATTERN(S) OF CORRUPT CONDUCT alleged against the Federal

Judiciary is IDENTICAL and/or resembles similar patterns of corrupt conduct evidenced

by related judgments here in this Commonwealth. This Court is respectfully reminded

that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and former Attorney General – Martha

Coakley are Appellees in the related federal litigation, with evidenced allegations that

include (but are not limited to): 1.) RICO (Civil/Criminal), 2.) Fraud on the Court, 3.)

Due Process, 4.) Color of Law, 5.) Misprision 6.) Conspiracy 7.) Perjury and other

violations. The nearly SEVEN (7) year historical record(s) of this litigation shows an

obvious cause for concern and questions whether this referenced pattern of corrupt

conduct will continue here. While there certainly is concern, the Plaintiff has not yet

appeared before this Massachusetts Land Court. Therefore, there is FULL expectation

for this Court to uphold the law and correct any erred judgments of record by the

Commonwealth. Respectfully, any perceived failure to do so will be in full public view,

and will (at minimum) warrant filing incremental Judicial misconduct complaints.

5. Although Federal litigation is ongoing, the evidenced record3 shows cause to correct the

erred judgments of the Commonwealth and seek damages including (but not limited to)

Quiet Title. The Plaintiff makes clear that with this complaint, it is not intended to

3
The evidenced record includes (but is not limited to) the argument and sworn testimony by
Fraud Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, representing The United States in the related case:
0:2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL. The Fraud Expert’s testimony
conclusively shows that the referenced Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS) Trust –
CMLTI 2006-AR1 is considered VOID, and therefore has NO LEGAL STANDING to the
Plaintiff’s property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
 duplicate damages sought in the related Federal litigation. At the conclusion of this

litigation, any relief awarded to the Plaintiff here will be appropriately deducted from

relief sought in the referenced Appeal(s), to avoid duplication.

6. The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that he additionally seeks CRIMINAL

CHARGES (State AND Federal) and PROFESSIONAL PENALTIES (where it is

warranted) against ALL Defendants (and ALL responsible parties) for the criminal

components associated with this litigation including (but not limited to) FRAUD. Along

with this civil complaint, the Plaintiff necessarily files incremental criminal complaints

with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.4 Copies of both his civil

complaint and the referenced criminal complaint will also be delivered to the direct

attention of MA Attorney General – Maura Healey, Governor Charley Baker (R-

MA), and the FBI via e-mail communication. ANY continued failures by State and/or

Federal Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against referenced parties be in full public

view and will (at minimum) show cause to expand upon (or bring new) claims against the

Commonwealth and/or The United States.

7. A review of the historical record shows that EVERY State and Federal Court associated

with this litigation has been made aware that the referenced property in question has been

identified as an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE by: 1.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators, and 3.) The Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General (AGO).

4See Attachment A – UPDATED FBI AND MA AGO criminal complaints were filed
separately against each Defendant. To avoid excessive repetition, a condensed version is attached
with this complaint.
 8. Plaintiff has also filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, to provide

incremental supporting evidence before a trial jury.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, complaining of the Defendants as

named above, and each of them as follows:

I. THE PARTIES

9. Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, an American-born citizen, is now, and at all times

relevant to this action, a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

10. Defendant – CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP. is recognized as

the parent company to CMLTI 2006 AR-1 - a Residential Mortgage Backed Security

(RMBS) Trust, CMLTI Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-AR1.

11. Defendant - US BANK NA (hereafter “US Bank”), as Trustee for securitized Trust

CMLTI Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-AR1 Trust (hereafter “CMLTI

2006-AR1 Trust”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

US Bank is a National Banking Association, doing business in the County of Middlesex,

State of Massachusetts, and is the purported Master Servicer for Securitized Trust and/or

a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the

Trust as more particularly described in this complaint.

12. Defendant - LEADER BANK NA is a National Banking Association, doing business in

the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts. Plaintiff is further informed and

believes, and thereon alleges, that Leader Bank is the Originator of the loan.

13. Defendant - LEADER BANK NA. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that Defendant Leader Bank NA, is a corporation, doing business in the County

of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts, and is the purported Sponsor for Securitized Trust
 and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of

the Trust as more particularly described in this complaint.

14. Defendant - MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., aka

MERS (“MERS”), Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MERS is

a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of MIDDLESEX, whose last

known address is 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia, 20190; website:

http://www.mersinc.org. MERS is doing business in the County of MIDDLESEX, State

of Massachusetts. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

Defendant MERS is the purported beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and/or a purported

participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the Trust as more

particularly described in this complaint.

15. Defendants - ISABELLE AND JEFFREY PERKINS are the BORROWERS to the

mortgage associated with the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA

01852. The Defendants also reside at the referenced property. Isabelle Perkins is the

Principle of a business specializing in Real Estate Education, offering real estate

courses in the following areas: 1.) NJ Continuing Education, 2.) MA Continuing

Education, 3.) NAR Certification and Designations and 4.) MCNE Designation

courses from the Real Estate Negotiation Institute. Reference website:

http://isabelleperkins.com.

16. Defendant – WELLS FARGO NA, (hereafter "Wells Fargo") is a national bank with a

principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. As described below, Wells

Fargo either directly and/or indirectly through its agents, employees, subsidiaries and/or

related companies, including without limitation Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., held,
 serviced and/or engaged in transactions related to, mortgages of real property within the

Commonwealth, including the Plaintiff’s foreclosed property.

17. Defendant – COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

18. Defendant – MARTHA COAKLEY, ESQ. is a Partner at Foley Hoag, LLP and is the

former Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

19. Defendant – NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP is a law firm

with multiple locations primarily along the east coast of the United States, including a

Boston Office located at One Post Office Square, 30th floor, Boston, MA 02109. Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP served as prior counsel to both Defendants - Wells

Fargo and US Bank (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP). Following their

withdrawal, Nelson Mullins LLP was replaced by K&L Gates, LLP.

20. Defendant – HARMON LAW OFFICES PC is a law firm with a principal office in

Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel by US Bank in this matter, who

withdrew from this case shortly after the MA Attorney General’s Office began its

investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful foreclosures. Harmon has been

labeled the “Foreclosure Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly linked to disbarred

Florida foreclosure kingpin – David Stern.

21. Defendant – DAVID E. FIALKOW, ESQ., is an attorney employed by K & L Gates,

LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, located

in Boston). Following the withdrawal of Hamon Law Offices, Mr. Fialkow first became

the representing attorney for Bank Defendants while employed by Nelson Mullins. Mr.
 Fialkow is currently the retained counsel for Bank Defendants in the related Federal

litigation on Appeal.

22. Defendant – JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, ESQ., is an attorney employed by K & L

Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP,

located in Boston). Mr. Patterson has served as co-counsel with Attorney Fialkow in the

related litigation, and has also appeared as a Guest Speaker in the referenced West

LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and

Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.

23. Defendant – PETER HALEY, ESQ., is the Managing Partner for Nelson Mullins Riley

and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston, MA.

24. Defendant – KURT R. MCHUGH, ESQ., is an attorney employed by Harmon Law

Offices PC, and was the original representing attorney who initiated the referenced illegal

foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Property.

25. Defendant - KEN and MARY DAHER are Real Estate Brokers associated with

Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies located in Methuen, MA. Mr. and Mrs. Daher

were the representing Real Estate Brokers associated with the referenced illegal

foreclosure sale of the Plaintiff’s Property.

26. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff has owned the property located at 168

Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852 (“The Property”).

27. Aside from Defendants – Isabelle and Jeffrey Perkins, and the other parties identified in

the related federal litigation, Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities of basis

for liability of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, each as

fictitiously named Defendant is some manner liable to the Plaintiff, or claims some right,
 title or interest in the Property. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true

names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore

alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned in this complaint, each of the Defendants are

responsible in some manner for injuries and damages to Plaintiff so alleged and that such

injuries and damages were proximately caused by such Defendants, and each of them.

28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned,

each of the defendants were the agents, employees, servants, and/or joint-venturers of the

remaining Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein below,

were acting within the scope of such agency, employment and/or joint venture.

II. JURISDICTION

29. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this complaint all occurred

within Middlesex County, State of Massachusetts.

30. The Property is located within the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts with an

address of 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

III. INTRODUCTION

31. This is an action involving the foreclosure of the residential Property belonging to the

Plaintiff. As a matter of record, this foreclosure was declared ILLEGAL by: 1.) The

Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators and 3.) The

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office).

32. Litigation pertaining to this referenced illegal foreclosure has been ongoing for nearly

seven (7) years – four (4) in Massachusetts State Court(s) and nearly three (3) years in

Federal Court(s). There are two (2) Appeals which are ongoing: 1.) Appeal No. 17-1381,
 HARIHAR v. US BANK et al5 and 2.) Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES.6

33. In the related Federal litigation, the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the

Court claims brought against ALL related Defendants named here shows cause (at least

in part) to: 1.) file this new complaint with the Land Court and 2.) address and correct

erred judgments of the Commonwealth.

34. As described within the referenced federal record(s), Sovereign (and any other form) of

immunity is waived when there exists an evidenced Fraud on the Court claim(s) – as

is the case here.

35. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and

equitable relief, and for compensatory, special, general and punitive damages. The

Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for legal (and associated costs). While Plaintiff is

initially proceeding as a pro se litigant (out of financial necessity) his time is considered

no less valuable that that of opposing counsel.

36. The evidenced allegations brought by the Plaintiff here, and throughout the history of this

litigation are believed to represent only a portion of infractions by the identified

Defendants. Plaintiff retains the right to expand upon by amendment, additional related

claims and/or parties, should it become necessary; also, in the event Plaintiff is successful

in retaining counsel.

5
Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880
6
Lower Docket No. 17-cv-11109
 37. Based on the evidenced PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified

historically by both Federal and State Judiciaries, the Plaintiff here respectfully demands

a TRIAL BY JURY.

38. A thorough review of the record(s) in the related Federal proceedings reveal evidenced

arguments which conclusively show that the referenced CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust has

NO LEGAL STANDING to the Plaintiff’s Property and that the trust itself is considered

VOID. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to address with this Land Court, these

evidenced arguments, and also to correct erred judgments of the Commonwealth as it

pertains to the Plaintiff’s Property and his HOMESTEAD PROTECTION.7

39. Plaintiff, homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in question

(the “Home”), which is the subject of this action, in that the originating mortgage lender,

and others alleged to have ownership of Plaintiff’s mortgage note and/or Deed of Trust,

have unlawfully sold and/or transferred their ownership and security interest in a

Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the Property, and, thus, do not have lawful

ownership or security interest in Plaintiff’s Home which is described in detail herein. For

these reasons, the Court should Quiet Title in Plaintiff’s name.

40. Before proceeding further, Defendants: 1.) CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS

REALTY CORP, 2.) LEADER BANK NA and 3.) MERS are being given a single

opportunity – as a sign of Plaintiff’s GOOD FAITH to reach a mutual agreement.

Should this opportunity be denied or ignored, there will not be another.

7
See Attachment B
 41. As evidenced by the historical record(s), ALL OTHER listed Defendants have been

given MULTIPLE opportunities to seek mutual agreement, and have either denied or

ignored them. Therefore, there will not be another.

42. The Plaintiff makes clear, that aside from maximum civil damages, criminal

accountability and professional licensure penalties (including but not limited to)

disbarment is sought against ALL Defendants, where applicable. Any additional

failure(s) by State AND Federal Prosecutors to bring charges for evidenced criminal

claims brought by this Plaintiff will show cause to (at minimum) expand upon

and/or file NEW RICO (Civil and Criminal), Due Process, Color of Law (and other)

violations.

43. In the related federal litigation, the other major component of the Plaintiff’s Appeals

pertains to the Misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property – also considered

a Trade Secret, protected under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Evidenced

claims of Economic Espionage are issues of record. Therefore, any failure to take correct

action here will show cause to expand upon existing, or to bring NEW claims against

ALL responsible parties, including the Commonwealth.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendant – CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP CAN MAKE NO

LEGAL CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY

44. Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in

her lawsuit (along with The United States)8 that, “Defendants used fraudulent

mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages

8
Docket No: 2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL
 valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4

trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities.

Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to

make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization

FAIL.” The Department of Justice is well aware of this FACT, as is the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts.

45. Every securitization — requires the creation and funding of a securitization trust that

must take physical possession and control of the trust property on or before the closing

date of the trust. The securitization trustee is the sole and exclusive legal title holder of

the thousands of promissory notes, original mortgages and assignments of mortgage. This

transfer of the trust property, the legal res, to the trust at or around the loan origination is

a necessary condition precedent to a valid securitization. It is necessary for several

reasons:

a. First, someone must be the “legal” owner of the mortgage loan. Only the legal

owner of the loan has the legal right to sell mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”)

to investors.

b. Second, actual physical transfer of ownership is necessary because the cash flows

that go from the homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS

purchasers are tax exempt. If the trust does not perfect legal title by taking

physical possession of the notes and mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code,

specifically 26 U.S.C. § 860G(d)(1), provides for a 100 percent tax penalty on

those non-complying cash flows.

 c. Third, the legal ownership of the loans must be “bankruptcy remote” that is,

because bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back and seize assets from

bankrupt entities, the transfer to the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee

in the securitization chain of title can have any cognizable interest in the loans.

For this reason, all securitization trusts are “special purpose vehicles”

(“SPVs”) created for the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans and

all securitization trustees represent and certify to the MBS purchasers that the

purchase is a “true sale” in accordance with FASB 140.9 But it never happened.

No securitization trustee of any securitized mortgage loan originated from

2001 to 2008 ever obtained legal title or FASB 140 “control” of any

securitized loan.

46. THEREFORE – a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can make NO LEGAL

CLAIM to the PLAINTIFF’S referenced Property located at 168 Parkview Avenue,

Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust cannot make a legal claim to the property, it

had no right to collect any monies from the Plaintiff or to foreclose on the Plaintiff;

c.) If the Trust had no right to foreclose, it also had no right to re-sell the property,

thereby making the foreclosure sale VOID. This evidenced argument of record stands

UNOPPOSED by ALL Defendants in the referenced Federal litigation.10

THEREFORE, those same Defendants can have NO argument here.

9 Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140

10 Reference HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880
B. Evidenced (AND UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court Claims

47. Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. “That cheaters

should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our

society and one of the underpinnings of our legal system.”11

48. The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set

forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the

court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has

sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the

judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing

the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or

defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . .

49. Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,

misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL DEFENDANTS were

aware, or should have been aware that clear title did not exist with the Plaintiff’s property

and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud the Plaintiff of his HOMESTEAD.

The Court is well aware that this is not an isolated incident. The Plaintiff is able to

conservatively provide 4.2 million other examples of this scheme, as described by the

DOJ, Federal Bank Regulators, and the Massachusetts Attorney General.

50. A summary overview of the scheme begins with the RMBS Trust which, as detailed in

the Plaintiff’s preceding paragraphs, has no legal standing to the Plaintiff’s property.

Every action thereafter is impacted; has no legal standing and therefore is moot/void;

11
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
 ranging from collecting monthly mortgage payments, to foreclosure, resale, etc... As

previously detailed, ALL Defendants have benefited from the alleged scheme against

the Plaintiff, either personally or financially; Litigation privilege should not apply

when there is no legal standing, nor should sovereign immunity. The Defendant

Trust, Bank Defendants, attorney and law firm Defendants, Defendant Real Estate

Brokers and Defendant Homebuyers have benefitted financially from the alleged scheme

– when they had no legal standing to do so; resulting in severe detriment to the Plaintiff.

51. The Plaintiff believes the Commonwealth has refused to prosecute and correct erred

judgments (at minimum) out of fear of implicating themselves, and to avoid setting a

precedent for the Nation. Regardless, their failure to hold parties accountable is

UNACCEPTABLE. As evidenced by the Federal record(s), the UNOPPOSED Fraud

on the Court Claim against Defendant – Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Defendant

– Former Attorney General Martha Coakley, mandates waiver of their right to sovereign

(or any other form of) immunity.

52. As a general proposition, substantive misconduct provides grounds for default with

prejudice because it more clearly and directly subverts the judicial process. The Plaintiff

respectfully calls for this Court to recognize the evidenced Federal and State records and

conclude that the conduct forming the basis for Defendant default was willful or done in

BAD FAITH or was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority.

53. In the referenced Federal litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Lower Docket No.

15-cv-11880), the Plaintiff raised – “Fraud on the Court” claims against ALL Defendants

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The record clearly shows that the Defendants’ arguments

show the intention to purposefully DECEIVE the Court. The Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)
 motion went UNOPPOSED, warranting DEFAULT with Prejudice in favor of the

Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar. But that’s not all – the Defendants’ federal arguments

of record are identical to previous arguments from related litigation in

Massachusetts State Court(s). Therefore:

a. The Plaintiff shows cause here to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against

Bank Defendants, their Attorneys and the RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1;

b. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as

UNOPPOSED, there CANNOT be a deviation from that position as it relates to

the SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact

both Federal and State litigation, bringing incremental misconduct claims;

c. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT

Judgment IN FAVOR of the Plaintiff WITH PREJUDICE;

d. Respectfully, any failure to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be

interpreted as a failure to uphold the judicial machinery on the Court,

IDENTICAL to the PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT currently

experienced in the related Federal litigation. Should this occur, the Plaintiff will

similarly show cause here to file a judicial misconduct complaint(s).

C. Federal RECUSAL Shows Cause to VOID ALL Related Orders

54. The sua sponte RECUSAL of US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from

the related Federal Litigation, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (17-cv-11109)

 shows cause for this Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders, INCLUDING related

judgments from Massachusetts State Courts.12

D. Historical FACTS Demonstrating DECEPTIVE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

55. As with the identified deceptive techniques by Judge Burroughs that contributed to

her RECUSAL, a THOROUGH review of the Federal AND State record(s) shows the

Plaintiff has similarly identified IDENTICAL tactics by ALL presiding State and

Federal judges. It becomes necessary to respectfully inform this Court of these evidenced

techniques which include (but are not limited to):

a. Failure to consider the possibility of (related) erred judgments;

b. Ignoring the Law;

c. Citing Invalid Law;

d. Ignoring the Facts;

e. Ignoring Issues;

f. Corruptly calling a complaint "frivolous" and denying motions with no valid

explanation whatsoever;

g. Block Filing of Motions and Evidence;

h. Denying Constitutional Rights;

i. Automatically Ruling against PRO SE litigants;

j. Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct;

k. Allowing Perjury;

12
Related judgments from Massachusetts State Courts include the following Appeal/Dockets
No.’s: 1.) 2013-P-1829, 2.) 2013-P-0671, 3.) 2011-P-1515, 4.) 11-04499, 5.) 11-SP-3032, 6.)
1311AC001497, 7.) 1311AC001498, 8.) 1311AC001499, 9.) 1311AC001500, 10.)
1311AC001501 and 11.) 1311AC001502
 l. Premature Dismissal PRIOR to DISCOVERY; and

m. Denying a Hearing(s) without cause.

56. EACH ONE of these DECEPTIVE TACTICS detailed within the record constitute

obvious and egregious judicial errors that warrant vacating referenced dismissals

with damages.

E. Incremental Actions/Evidenced Documents Supporting the Illegal Foreclosure

Argument(s)

57. EVEN IF the referenced Trust (or ANY other referenced Defendant) had legal standing

to the Plaintiff’s Property, the Plaintiff will, through DISCOVERY, provide before a

jury an incremental list of evidenced actions/Documents supporting his illegal

foreclosure arguments. This PARTIAL list includes (but is not limited to) the following:

a. The RECORDED conversations between the Plaintiff and Defendant –

WELLS FARGO NA (as servicer) during the 22-month loan modification effort

revealing the DECEPTIVE TACTICS demonstrated by the mortgage servicer;

b. The collective actions which led to the $25B Mortgage Settlement, where the

Plaintiff’s foreclosure was identified as ILLEGAL, along with 4.2M other

foreclosures. This referenced settlement included Defendants – WELLS

FARGO NA and US BANK NA;

c. The collective actions which similarly led to the $8B+ settlement between

Federal Bank Regulators and Financial Institutions including Bank Defendants

– WELLS FARGO NA and US BANK NA;

d. Incremental legal actions taken by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office,

under former Attorney General (and Defendant) – Martha Coakley. Even as

 recent as January 2018, the current MA Attorney General – Maura Healey has

boasted publicly about the AGO’s settlement with Nationstar (aka Mr. Cooper),

which included fines and sanctions over servicing abuses. However, it remains

unclear as to WHY the Attorney General (former and current) have

blatantly ignored and refused to address and prosecute the Plaintiff’s

PUBLICLY evidenced claims;

e. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

(Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift

Supervision);

f. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and Minority Staff Report,

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate;

g. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of the National Commission

on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States;

h. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual;

i. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John O’Brien, 1/18/12 Press

Release;

j. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General Martha Coakley, (Public

Document No. 12); and others.

F. Commonwealth’s FAILURE to Protect the Plaintiff’s Homestead

58. The Plaintiff references Attachment B, which shows the filed DECLARATION OF

HOMESTEAD, associated with his property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell,

MA 01852, filed with the North Middlesex County Registry of Deeds on January 26,

2009. The historical record(s) shows that EVERY State and Federal Court related to this
 litigation has COMPLETELY IGNORED the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims regarding

his homestead. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments of (Federal) record(s)

conclusively show that ALL Defendants/Appellees13 KNEW that there was NO LEGAL

STANDING to the Plaintiff’s property, and STILL CONSPIRED to DEFRAUD the

Plaintiff of his HOMESTEAD.

G. Plaintiff brings FIRST of TWO (2) CIVIL RICO Claims

59. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, at least for the purposes of a Rule 12 (b)(6) dismissal, the

evidenced arguments - described further in the proceeding sections, are adequate to

support each of the statutory elements for the predicate acts that allegedly divested

Plaintiff of his homestead. See Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg)

S.A., 119F.3d 935, 949 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that in order to survive a motion to

dismiss, a Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support each of the statutory elements

for at least two of the pleaded predicate acts) (citing Central Distribs. Of Beer, Inc. v.

Conn, 5 f.3d 181, 183-184 (6th Cir. 1993)).

H. SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM (18 U.S.C. § 1962)

60. The Plaintiff brings a second CIVIL RICO violation claim, described further in the

proceeding sections, revealing improper relationships between: Defendants – Nelson

Mullins LLP, the DOJ/US Attorney’s Office, the MA Office of the Attorney

General, the Boston BAR Association, and Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson. The

relationships in question references the West LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the

13
The Plaintiff references ALL Defendants/Appellees associated with Harihar v. US Bank et
al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Appeal No. 17-1381.
 Bubble Bursts”– Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil

Litigation.14

I. Documented Judicial Misconduct

61. The referenced judicial misconduct complaints against the TEN (10) Federal (District

and Circuit) Judges stem from documented actions within the records of: Harihar v. US

Bank (Appeal No. 17-1381, Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880), Harihar v. The

United States (Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109), and also

include the actions (or lack thereof) of the Judicial Council associated with Judicial

Misconduct Complaint No. 90033 against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. Collectively,

these evidenced claims show cause to (at minimum) expand upon existing conspiracy

claims. The Plaintiff respectfully states that evidenced judicial misconduct includes (but

is not limited to) the following:

a. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. § 1915 – Assistance with the Appointment of

Counsel;

b. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court;

c. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;

d. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 1832 – Misappropriation of Trade

Secrets/Economic Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;

e. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;

f. Ignoring or failing to address Complainant’s repeated concerns for personal safety

and security;

g. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 2382; Misprision of Treason;

14 See Attachment C
 h. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 4; Misprision of a Felony;

i. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III, Section

3, of the United States Constitution;

j. Ignoring EVIDENCED claims believed to impact matters of National Security;

k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC § 2671, 28 USC § 2674 and

28 USC § 1346;

l. Color of Law violations, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 242;

m. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1964

n. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

from Docket No. 17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES;

o. Evidence within the record demonstrating Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

p. Refusal to RECUSE;

q. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to

Plaintiff/Appellant/Complainant, Mohan A. Harihar;

r. Failing to maintain a BALANCE of HARDSHIPS;

s. False Statements; and others.

Please be advised, this partial list claims evidenced within the record(s) shows cause to

conclude that the INTEGRITY of both this US District Court and the First Circuit Court

of Appeals is compromised. JURISDICTION is also impacted.

62. It SHOULD be clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, that a deep-seated favoritism

or antagonism exists in the referenced federal litigation, making fair judgment

impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface), that elements of corruption may

exist; and that an effort has been made (at minimum) – by TEN (10) Federal Judges, to
 brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome. At this

stage, it is unclear whether the referenced judges are part of a greater conspiracy designed

to (in part) ultimately prevent the successful implementation of the Plaintiff’s Intellectual

Property/Trade Secret – The HARIHAR FCS Model. For these reasons, the related

litigation has been brought to the attention of: (1) The President, (2) Congress, (3) the

House Judiciary Committee, (4) US Attorney General – Jeff Sessions, and (5) US

Inspector General – Michael Horowitz.

63. Before a trial Jury, Plaintiff will call for a thorough review of ALL related State litigation

drawing identical and/or similar comparison to numerous judicial failures and erred

judgments in state courts.

J. Economic Espionage and Perceived Threats to National Security

64. A thorough review of the related federal litigation reveals evidenced claims by this

Plaintiff that are believed to impact matters of National Security, and include: 1.) The

Misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, protected under the

Economic Espionage Act of 1996, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, and 2.) Acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, warranting the intervention of Congress, the FBI and

the Department of Justice, to address associated criminal (and other) legal components.

Evidenced Treason claims of record have been raised against referenced judges for

ruling without jurisdiction. The record clearly shows that with each claim of evidenced

Treason, the President has been notified by the Appellant (as is required by Federal

law) via e-mail communication (www.whitehouse.gov). Proof of delivery and receipt

from the White House is included as attachments with each court filing.15 Since this

15
See Attachment D, for proof of delivery (and receipt) of this Civil Complaint sent to the
direct attention of the President.
 complaint is related to the referenced federal litigation, a copy has necessarily been

delivered to the attention of the President.

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.

LACK OF STANDING

A. NO DEFENDANT had Legal Standing to Foreclose or Re-Sell Plaintiff’s Property

65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

66. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants

specified hereinabove, regarding their respective rights and duties, in that Plaintiff

contends that Defendants, and each of them, had no right to displace the Plaintiff, nor did

they have a right to foreclose and re-sell the Property because Defendants, and each of

them, have failed to perfect any security interest in the Property, or cannot prove to the

court they have a valid interest. Thus, the purported power of sale by the above specified

Defendants, and each of them, no longer applies.

67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and there upon alleges that the only individual who has

standing to foreclose is the holder of the note because they have a beneficial interest. The

only individuals who are the holder of the note are the certificate holders of the

securitized trust because they are the end users who pay taxes on their interest gains;

furthermore, all of the banks or other entities holding the note in the middle of the chain

of transfers were paid in full.

68. Plaintiff further contends that the above specified Defendants, and each of them, had no

right to foreclose on the Property because said Defendants, and each of them, did not

properly comply with the terms of Defendants’ own securitization requirements and
 falsely or fraudulently prepared documents required for Defendants, and each of them, to

foreclose as a calculated and fraudulent business practice.

69. Plaintiff requests that this Court find that the purported power of sale contained in the

Note and Deed of Trust has no force and effect at this time, because Defendants’ actions

in the processing, handling and foreclosure of this loan involved numerous fraudulent,

false, deceptive and misleading practices, including, but not limited to, violations of State

laws designed to protect borrowers, which has caused Plaintiff to be at an equitable

disadvantage to Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff further requests that title to the

Property remain in its name, with said Deed of Trust remaining in beneficiaries’ name,

during the pendency of this litigation, and deem that any attempted sale of the Property is

“unlawful and void.”

70. The irrefutable argument referenced above which voids all mortgages contained within

the referenced trust and the trust itself, indicates that all actions having occurred since are

considered “unlawful and void.” Therefore, not a single Defendant listed above including

Defendant MERS can have any legal, equitable or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in

the Property. Plaintiff re-states that ALL referenced Defendants also named in the related

federal litigation stand UNOPPOSED to this evidenced argument.

71. Defendants, and each of them, through the actions alleged above, have or claimed the

right to illegally commence foreclosure under the Note on the Property via a foreclosure

action supported by false or fraudulent documents. Said unlawful foreclosure action has

caused and continues to cause Plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury in that real property

is unique.
72. The wrongful conduct of the above specified Defendants, and each of them, unless

restrained and enjoined by an Order of the Court, will continue to cause great and

irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not had the beneficial use and enjoyment of

his home since being wrongfully displaced by Defendants following the referenced

illegal foreclosure of the property.

73. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy and the injunctive relief prayed

for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to remedy the irreparable loss to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future unless

Defendants’ wrongful conduct is restrained and enjoined because real property is

inherently unique and it will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount

of damage it will suffer.

VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION.

FRAUD ON THE COURT

74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

75. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants

specified hereinabove, where, in the related litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, the

evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff indicate that (at minimum) the failed securitization

of the referenced Trust removes ALL legal standing to Plaintiff’s Property.

76. The Plaintiff’s evidenced argument conflicts with the Defendant’s arguments contained

within their Motions to Dismiss, and collectively throughout the historical record.

77. Plaintiff therefore necessarily filed a Fraud on the Court claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. Rule 60(b)(3).

78. Defendants filed NO OPPOSITION to the Rule 60(b) motion, which therefore stands as

UNOPPOSED.

79. The Plaintiff now shows cause to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against same

Defendants, as their arguments of record in related State litigation matches their

arguments in Federal Court(s).

80. Therefore, State records clearly reveal that Defendants’ identical arguments show their

intention to purposefully DECEIVE the following State Courts: 1.) The Lowell District

Court, 2.) The Massachusetts Housing Court, 3.) The Middlesex Superior Court, 4.) The

Massachusetts Appeals Court and 5.) The Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Plaintiff’s

Rule 60(b) motion went UNOPPOSED, warranting DEFAULT with Prejudice in favor

of the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar.

81. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as

UNOPPOSED, there CANNOT be a deviation from that position as it relates to the

SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact both

Federal and State litigation, showing cause to bring incremental misconduct claims;

82. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT

Judgment IN FAVOR of the Plaintiff WITH PREJUDICE;

83. Respectfully, any failure here to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be

interpreted as a failure to uphold the judicial machinery on the Court, IDENTICAL to

the PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT currently experienced in the related

Federal litigation. Should this occur, the Plaintiff will similarly show cause here to file a

judicial misconduct complaint(s).

 VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION.
FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT

84. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

85. The Defendants concealed the fact that the Loans were securitized as well as the terms of

the Securitization Agreements, including, inter alia: 1.) Financial Incentives paid; 2.)

existence of Credit Enhancement Agreements; and 3.) existence of Acquisition

Provisions. By concealing the securitization, Defendants concealed the fact that

Borrower’s loan changed in character inasmuch as no single party would hold the Note

but rather the Notes would be included with other notes, split into tranches, and multiple

investors would effectively buy shares of the income stream from the loans. Changing the

character of the loan in this way had a materially negative effect on the Plaintiff that was

known by Defendants and not disclosed.

86. Defendants knew or should have known that had the truth been disclosed, Plaintiff would

not have entered into the Loans.

87. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff based in these misinterpretations and improper

disclosures.

88. Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance upon the misrepresentations was detrimental. But for

failure to disclose the true and material terms of the transaction, Plaintiff could have been

alerted to issues of concern. Plaintiff would have known of Defendant’s true intentions

and profits from the proposed risky loan. Plaintiff would have known that the actions of

the Defendants would have an adverse effect on the value of Plaintiff’s home.

89. Defendants’ failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction induced Plaintiff to

enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein.
90. Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them.

91. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment, Plaintiff was

damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to costs of Loan,

damage to Plaintiff’s financial security, emotional distress, marriage, and Plaintiff’s

incurred costs and legal fees.

92. Defendants are guilty of malice, fraud and/or oppression. Defendants actions were

malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff in

that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff. As such Plaintiff is entitled to recover,

in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Defendants and to deter them

from engaging in future misconduct.

VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION –

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

93. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

94. Defendants intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiff those Defendants who were entitled

to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the Deed of Trust. In fact,

Defendants were not entitled to do so and have no legal, equitable or actual beneficial

interest whatsoever in the Property.

95. Defendants misrepresented that they are the “holder and owner” of the Note and the

beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. However, this was not true and was a misrepresentation

of material fact. Documents state that the original lender allegedly sold the mortgage loan

to CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust. Defendants were attempting to collect on a debt to which

they had no legal, equitable, or pecuniary interest in. This type of conduct is outrageous.

Defendants have fraudulently foreclosed on the Property for which they have no
 monetary or pecuniary interest. This type of conduct – confirmed also by: 1.) the

Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, and

3.) Federal Bank Regulators - is outrageous.

96. Defendant’s failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction induced the Plaintiff

to enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein.

97. The material misrepresentations were made by Defendants with the intent to cause

Plaintiff to reasonably rely on the misrepresentation in order to induce the Plaintiff to rely

on the misrepresentations and foreclose on the Property. This material

misrepresentation was made with the purpose of initiating the securitization process

as illustrated above, in order to profit from the sale of the Property by selling the

note to sponsors who then pool the note and sell it to investors on Wall Street and

other New York investment banks.

98. Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them.

99. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment, Plaintiff was

damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to costs of Loan,

damage to Plaintiff’s financial security, emotional distress, marriage, and Plaintiff’s

incurred costs and legal fees.

100. Defendants are guilty of malice, fraud and/or oppression. Defendants actions

were malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of

Plaintiff in that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff. As such Plaintiff is entitled

to recover, in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Defendants and to

deter them from engaging in future misconduct.

 IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
FIRST CIVIL RICO CLAIM

101. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

102. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants, Harmon Law

Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP unlawfully employed the United States Mail,

Massachusetts State Courts, and perjured and fabricated evidence to divest him of

his homestead. He alleges that Defendants were the principals of or participated in

the operation or management of the enterprise itself and that the pattern of

racketeering included at least two acts:

a. transmission through the use of the mail of fake assignments of Mortgage

and

b. fictitious corporate signatures.

103. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s civil RICO claim is not time-barred inasmuch as

Plaintiff asserts that he was prevented from discovering that he was the victim of fraud

by Defendants’ concealment of the alleged fraud.

104. Plaintiff has alleged that Bank Defendants, Harmon Law Offices PC and

Nelson Mullins LLP, fabricated documents in furtherance of a conspiracy to unlawfully

divest him of HIS homestead. Consequently, this Court MUST find that the Plaintiff’s

allegations present a question of FACT as to whether the Defendant’s activities violated

Massachusetts and Federal Law, and he MUST be allowed the opportunity to

establish those facts through discovery.

 X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM

105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

106. The Plaintiff’s second CIVIL RICO violation claim reveals improper

relationships between Defendants – Nelson Mullins LLP, the DOJ/US Attorney’s Office,

the MA Office of the Attorney General, the Boston BAR Association, and Defendant -

Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson. The relationships in question references the West LegalEd

Center course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts”– Mortgage and Foreclosure issues

in Criminal and Civil Litigation.16 Here, these referenced Defendants and others,

have together colluded, contributed to, and/or TAUGHT A CLASS ON HOW TO

DEFEND LENDER CLIENTS AGAINST ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE.

107. The Course DESCRIPTION reads as follows:

“Criminal and civil litigation in mortgage and foreclosure cases is an area in which
legal issues are rapidly evolving, stakes are high and uncertainty is rampant. As a
result, a variety of different areas of practice overlap for many clients and
practitioners.

This program will focus on criminal and regulatory issues emerging from the collapse
of the national real estate and secondary mortgage markets. Among the topics to be
explored are: the uncovering of widespread fraud in the origination of mortgages prior
to the collapse, and the priorities of state and federal authorities in prosecuting such
cases; civil and criminal authorities priorities in confronting fraud in connection with
post-collapse foreclosure rescue transactions; and criminal and regulatory issues
relating to banking and foreclosure practices in connection with mortgages held in
pooled investment vehicles.

Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of leading prosecution officials, including
the Attorney General and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud and
foreclosure cases. Learn about important practical issues and valuable strategies for
criminal defense attorneys in this area, including the likely impact of new regulations

16 See Attachment C
 at the state and federal level in the area of consumer protection in connection with
mortgages. Two panels of experts will present some of the latest breaking developments
in this area, including the impact of the SJC’s ground-breaking Ibanez decision.”

108. The Course is comprised of two (2) Panels:

a. Panel I: Post-Crash Criminal Prosecutions

• Property Flips
• Foreclosure Rescue Schemes
• Lender and Borrower Misconduct
• Fraud in the Secondary Market
• Defending Real Estate Professionals

b. Panel II: The Regulatory Response

• Consumer Fraud Protections in the Dodd Frank Act

• Lender Liability
• Post-Ibanez Litigation

109. Program Co-Chairs include:

a. Juliane Balliro, Esq., Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
b. Paul G. Levenson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney,
c. The United States Attorney's Office District of Massachusetts

110. Program Speakers include:

a. James H. O'Brien - Assistant Attorney General - Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General
b. Paul Levenson - Assistant US Attorney (Panel I Moderator) - US Attorney’s
Office
c. Defendant Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq. - Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP
d. Juliane Balliro - Partner (Panel II Moderator) - Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP
e. James Patrick Dowden - Assistant U.S Attorney - US Attorney's Office
f. Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. - Pierce Atwood, LLP

111. Successful completion of this course received Accreditation in the following

States: AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CPE-NASBA, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NJ, NY-
EXPER, OK, PA, RI, VI, VT, WV

112. These improper relationships CLEARLY fall within the definition of

COLLUSION and (at minimum) show cause to FIRST question WHY criminal
 complaints filed by the Plaintiff WERE NEVER brought as charges before the

Court(s). The Plaintiff MUST be allowed the opportunity to present these facts before a

trial jury.

XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

113. Plaintiff necessarily draws comparison to Coursen vs. JP Morgan Chase,

Docket No: 8:12-cv-690-T-26EAJ, US District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa

Division.

114. As with Coursen vs. JP Morgan, here the Plaintiff similarly alleges Deceptive

Trade Practices under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act M.G.L. 93A § 21

against the Bank Defendants and the Defendant – Citigroup Global Realty Corp;

Plaintiff is allowed to Bring Suit (per Ch. 93A §9); Remedies Available include

Injunction, double or treble damages, attorney's fees and costs (Ch. 93A §11).

115. These Deceptive Trade Practice allegations are exemplified (in part) in the

recorded conversations between the Plaintiff and the Mortgage servicer (Defendant –

Wells Fargo NA) during the 22-month loan modification attempt(s).

116. The recorded conversations between mortgage servicer and the Plaintiff will

reveal (at minimum) that: 1.) The servicer stated a 90-day default was a requirement

to qualify for a loan modification under HAMP, 2.) The Plaintiff DID IN FACT

QUALIFY for a loan modification under HAMP guidelines, as many as six (6) times

over a 22-month period, but was denied due to the servicer’s “calculation errors” that

could not, or would not be corrected.

117. Court must find that Plaintiff’s allegations present a question of fact as to whether

the Bank Defendant’s activities violated Deceptive Trade Practice Laws, and he must be

allowed the opportunity to establish those facts through the course of discovery.

XII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

FDCPA AND MCDCA VIOLATIONS

118. 15 U.S.C. §1692(a)(6) defines the term “debt collector” to include any person

who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the

principal purpose of which is the enforcement of security interests.

119. Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants knew that they did not possess the legal

right to collect monies from the Plaintiff.

120. Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, “[a] debt collector may not use unfair or

unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Subparagraph (6) of that

section specifically prohibits taking or threatening to take any non-judicial action to

effect dispossession or disablement of property ... if there is no present right to possession

of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest. As

previously discussed, Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants implemented deceptive

practices in furtherance of a conspiracy to unlawfully divest Plaintiff of his homestead.

Consequently, this Court must find that Plaintiff’s allegations present a question of fact as

to whether the Bank Defendant’s activities violated the FDCPA, and he must be allowed

the opportunity to establish those facts through the course of discovery.

121. Questions of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under the Massachusetts

Act at MD COML §§ 14-201-204, as well, because he plainly alleges that Bank

Defendants and Citigroup Global Realty Corp., knew they did not have the legal right to

collect the alleged debt and created manufactured evidence, sham pleadings and
 deceptive conduct to do so. Massachusetts Statutes provides that “no person shall attempt

to collect a debt which is not owed or is the result of a “manufactured default.”

122. Plaintiff will show that Bank Defendants asserted a legal right that did not exist,

with actual knowledge that the right did not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s

allegations in support of his MCDCA claim should be considered sufficient to overcome

a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.

XIII. NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND ABUSE OF PROCESS

123. The Plaintiff adds a civil conspiracy claim that proves: (a) the existence of an

agreement between two or more parties; (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by

unlawful means; (c) the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy; and (d)

damage to Plaintiff as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy. Olson v. Johnson,

961 So. 2d 356, 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007).

124. A cause of action for abuse of process requires a showing of willful or intentional

misuse of process for some wrongful or unlawful object, or ulterior purpose not intended

by law. Peckins v. Kaye, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (citing Cline

v. Flagler Sales Corp., 207 So. 2d 709(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)). Plaintiff should be able

to overcome dismissal of his common law claims for civil conspiracy and abuse of

process at this stage of the proceedings through his factual allegations that Defendants (at

minimum, Bank Defendants) acted unlawfully, and in agreement, with the intent to

defraud him through the use of sham documents and fabricated evidence, and that their

actions caused him damages.

 XIV. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
HAMP AND FALSE CLAIMS VIOLATIONS

125. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

126. EVEN IF referenced Defendants had ANY standing to the Plaintiff’s Property,

there is just cause to bring HAMP and False Claims violations against the Defendant

mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo NA.

127. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the

federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to offer loan modifications

to borrowers who demonstrated their eligibility during a trial period (The case is Corvello

v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). The

Plaintiff has consistently stated that the Bank Defendants refused to modify the

Plaintiff’s mortgage over a 22-month effort (ALL conversations recorded),17 even

though the Plaintiff clearly met the requirements set forth by HAMP (and other) loan

modification programs. The Plaintiff must be allowed the opportunity to establish the

facts through discovery.

XV. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

TAMPERING VIOLATIONS

128. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

17
ALL State and Federal Courts associated with this litigation have, WITHOUT CAUSE,
refused to allow DISCOVERY for any and all Plaintiff’s claims, including (but not limited to)
producing the recorded conversations detailing the Plaintiff’s 22-month effort to receive a
loan modification.
129. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1519, the Plaintiff will add one Count (each

Defendant) of Tampering allegations, per 18 U.S. Code § 1519 against DEFENDANTS

FIALKOW, PATTERSON, and HALEY.

130. The tampering allegation of the related Middlesex Superior Court file has been

well documented with Massachusetts State Courts and has been completely ignored by

the Commonwealth. According to information given by the Middlesex County

Superior Court Clerk’s Office, the Plaintiff is not aware of any parties - other than

referenced Defendants or Court employees to have accessed the referenced file, or who

would have reason to alter/displace its contents.

131. Court must find that Plaintiff’s allegations present a question of fact as to

whether these Defendants tampered with the Superior Court file, and he must be allowed

the opportunity to establish those facts through the course of discovery and further

investigation (if necessary).

132. As managing partner of the Boston Office, Peter Haley is on record in an email

communication to the Plaintiff, stating that both he and the firm fully support ALL

actions taken by Attorney Fialkow in representing the client(s).

XVI. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFFS’ HOMESTEAD

133. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

134. Plaintiff brings evidenced allegations which irrefutably show that ALL

Defendants knew, or should have known, that they had NO LEGAL STANDING to the
 Plaintiff’s Property yet STILL Conspired to Defraud him of his evidenced

HOMESTEAD.

135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff has incurred

and continues to incur damages in an amount according to proof but not yet ascertained

including without limitation, statutory damages and all amounts paid or to be paid in

connection with the transaction.

136. Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff who is therefore

entitled to restitution and disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants.

137. Defendants’ actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious,

fraudulent and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount

appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in the same behavior.

XVII. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

138. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

139. The actions set forth by Defendants, as set forth herein, are considered to have

been made in BAD FAITH, where the Plaintiff has unlawfully been removed from and

has lost the rights to the property.

140. This outcome has been created without any right or privilege on the part of the

Defendants, and, as such, their actions constitute outrageous or reckless conduct on the

part of Defendants.

141. Defendants intentionally, knowingly and recklessly misrepresented to the Plaintiff

those Defendants were entitled to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the
 Deed of Trust. In fact, Defendants were not entitled to do so and have no legal, equitable

or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in the Property.

142. Defendants’ conduct – fraudulently claiming the right to foreclose and then

actually foreclosing on a property in which they have no right, title or interest – is so

outrageous and extreme that it exceeds all bounds which is usually tolerated in a

civilized community.

143. Such conduct was taken with the specific intent of inflicting emotional distress on

the Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff would be so emotionally distressed and debilitated that he

would be unable to exercise legal rights in the property; the right to title in the property,

the right to cure the alleged default, right to verify the alleged debt Defendants attempted

to collect, and right to clear title of the Property, and right to clear title to the Property

such that said title will regain its marketability and value.

144. At the time (and since) the Defendants began their fraudulent foreclosure

proceedings, Defendants were not acting in good faith while attempting to collect on the

subject debt. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts set forth above with

complete utter and reckless disregard of the probability of causing the Homeowner to

suffer severe emotional distress.

145. As an actual proximate cause of Defendants’ fraudulently foreclosing on

Plaintiff’s home or claim of the right to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home, the Plaintiff has

suffered severe emotional distress including lack of sleep, anxiety and depression.

146. Plaintiff did not default in the manner stated in the Notice of Default, yet because

of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has been living under the constant emotional

nightmare of losing his Property.

147. As proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has experienced many

sleepless nights, severe depression, loss of employment, loss of marriage, loss of

retirement savings, and has been forced to endure a reduced standard of living.

148. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as herein described, was so vile,

base, contemptable, miserable, wretched and loathsome that it would be looked down

upon and despised by ordinary people. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages

in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in

similar conduct.

XVIII. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

SLANDER OF TITLE

149. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

150. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above. Defendants,

and each of them, disparaged Plaintiff’s exclusive valid title by and through the

preparing, posting, publishing, and recording of the documents previously described

herein, including, but not limited to, the Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and

Trustee’s Deed.

151. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such documents were improper

in that at the time of execution and delivery of said documents, Defendants had no right,

title or interest in the Property. These documents were naturally and commonly to be

interpreted as denying, disparaging and casting doubt upon Plaintiff’s legal title to the

Property. By posting, publishing and recording said documents, Defendants’

disparagement of Plaintiff’s legal title was made to the world at large.

152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct in publishing these

documents, Plaintiff’s title to the Property has been disparaged and slandered, and there

is a cloud on Plaintiff’s title, and Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages

in an amount to be proved at trial.

153. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has incurred

expenses in order to clear title to the Property. Moreover, these expenses are continuing,

and Plaintiff will incur additional charges for such purpose until the cloud on Plaintiff’s

title to the Property has been removed. The amounts of future expenses and damages are

not ascertainable at this time.

154. As a further proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, and emotional and physical distress,

resulting in the loss of sleep and other injuries to his health and well-being, and continues

to suffer such injuries on an ongoing basis. The amount of such damages shall be proven

at trial.

155. At the time that the false and disparaging documents were created and published

by the Defendants, Defendants knew the documents were false and created and published

them with the malicious intent to injure Plaintiff and deprive him of his exclusive right,

title and interest in the Property, and to obtain the Property for their own use by unlawful

means.

156. The conduct of the Defendants in publishing the documents described above was

fraudulent, oppressive and malicious. Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of

punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants for their malicious

conduct and deter such misconduct in the future.

 XIX. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
QUIET TITLE

157. Plaintiff’s title to the above-described property is derived as follows: On or about

December 30, 2005 (hereafter referred to as “Closing Date”) Plaintiff entered into a

Consumer Credit transaction with Wells Fargo, NA by obtaining a $340,000 mortgage

loan secured by Plaintiff’s principal residence (Subject Property). This note was secured

by a First Trust Deed on the property in favor of Wells Fargo, NA.

158. All Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse

to Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the note secured by the deed of

trust to the property, the subject of this suit.

159. All Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse

to Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the deed of trust securing the note

to the property, the subject of this suit.

160. The claims of all Defendants are without any right whatsoever, and Defendants

have no right, estate, title, lien or interest in or to the property, or any part of the property.

161. The claim of all Defendants herein named, and each of them, claim some estate,

right, title, lien, or interest, in or to the property adverse to Plaintiff’s title, and these

claims constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property.

162. Plaintiff, therefore, alleges upon information and belief, that none of the parties,

to neither the securitization transaction, nor any of the Defendants in this case, hold a

perfected and secured claim in the Property, and that all Defendants are estopped and

precluded from asserting an unsecured claim against Plaintiff’s estate.

163. Plaintiff requests the decree permanently enjoins Defendants, and each of them,

and all persons claiming under them, from asserting any adverse claim to Plaintiff’s title

to the Property; and

164. Plaintiff requests the Court award Mohan A. Harihar costs associated with this

action, and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

XX. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

DECLATORY RELIEF

165. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

166. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants

concerning their respective rights and duties regarding the Note and Trust Deed.

167. Plaintiff contends that Defendants had no authority to Displace the Plaintiff from

his Property, nor did they have the authority to Foreclose upon and sell the property.

168. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that Defendants

dispute Plaintiff’s contention and instead contend they had the authority to displace,

foreclose upon and sell the property.

169. Plaintiff therefore requests a judicial determination of the rights, obligations, and

interest of the parties with regards to the Property, and such determination is necessary

and appropriate at this time under the circumstances so that all parties may ascertain and

know their rights, obligations, and interest with regard to the property.

170. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Trust Deeds as of the

Date the Notes were assigned without a concurrent assignation of the underlying Trust

Deeds.
171. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the NOD (Notice of

Default).

172. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of whether any Defendant had

the authority to foreclose on the Property.

173. Plaintiff requests all adverse claims to the real property must be determined by a

decree of this Court.

174. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff is entitled to the

exclusive possession of the property.

175. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff owns in fee simple,

and is entitled to the quiet and peaceful possession of, the above-described real property.

176. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Defendants, and each of

them, and all persons claiming under them, have no estate, right, title, lien or interest in

or to the real property or any part of the property.

XXI. SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

VIOLATION OF TILA, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, ET. SEQ.

177. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

178. Defendants violated TILA by failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate material

disclosures required under TILA and not taking into account the intent of State

Legislature in approving this statute which was to fully inform home buyers of the pros

and cons of adjustable rate mortgages in a language (both written and spoken) that they

can understand and comprehend; and advise them to compare similar home products with
 other lenders. It also requires the lender to offer other loan products that might be more

advantageous for the borrower under the same qualifying matrix.

179. Any and all statute(s) of limitations relating to disclosures and notices required

pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et.seq. were tolled due to Defendants’ failure to effectively

provide the required notices and disclosures.

180. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiff, who contends he has the right

to rescind the loan on the Subject Property alleged in this Complaint, and based on

information and belief, Defendants deny that right.

181. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations Plaintiff has incurred

and continues to incur damages in an amount according to proof but not yet ascertained

including without limitation, statutory damages and all amounts paid or to be paid in

connection with the transaction.

182. Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff who is therefore

entitled to restitution and disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants.

183. Defendants’ actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious,

fraudulent and oppressive, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount

appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in the same behavior.

XXII. EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.

VIOLATION OF RESPA, 1 U.S.C. § 2601, ET. SEQ.

184. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

185. The loan to Plaintiff was a federally regulated mortgage loan as defined in

RESPA.
186. Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) 1999 Statement of Policy

established a two-part test for determining the legality of lender payments to mortgage

brokers for table funded transactions and intermediary transactions under RESPA:

a. Whether goods and facilities were actually furnished or were actually performed

for the compensation paid and;

b. Whether the payments are reasonably related to the value of the goods or facilities

that were actually furnished or services that were actually performed.

187. In applying this test, HUD believes that total compensation should be scrutinized

to assure that it is reasonably related to the goods, facilities or services furnished or

performed to determine whether it is legal under RESPA. The interest and income that

Defendants have gained is disproportionate to situation Plaintiff finds himself in due

directly to Defendant’s failure to disclose that they will gain a financial benefit while

Plaintiff suffers financially as a result of the loan product sold to Plaintiff.

188. No separate fee agreements, regarding: 1.) the use of Wells Fargo “Cost of

Savings” as the Index for the basis of this loan, 2.) Disclosures of additional income due

to interest rate increases or 3.) the proper form and procedure in relation to the

Borrower’s Rights to Cancel were provided.

189. Defendants violated RESPA because the payments between the Defendants were

misleading and designed to create a windfall. These actions were deceptive, fraudulent

and self-serving.

190. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has incurred damages not

yet ascertained, to be proven at trial.

 XXIII. NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION.
RECISSION

191. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.

192. Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the loan and all accompanying loan documents for

all of the foregoing reasons: 1.) Fraud on the Court; 2.) TILA violations; 3.) Failure to

provide a Mortgage Loan Origination Agreement; 4.) Fraudulent Concealment; 5.)

Fraudulent Inducement; 6.) failure to abide by the PSA; 7.) making illegal or fraudulent

transfers of the note and deed of trust; and 8.) Public Policy Grounds, each of which

provides independent grounds for relief.

193. The Public interest would be prejudiced by permitting the alleged contract to

stand; such action would regard an unscrupulous lender.

194. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an

amount not yet ascertained, to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for rescission of the stated loan in its entirety.

XXIV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, will ask for the following for each Cause of Action to be

awarded:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – STANDING

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
 b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have no
estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of the
property.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD ON THE COURT

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For a DEFAULT judgment WITH PREJUDICE in favor of the Plaintiff, and as
mandated by Federal and State law(s).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FIRST CIVIL RICO CLAIM

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
 i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FDCPA AND MCDCA VIOLATIONS

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

NINETH CAUSE OF ACTION – CIVIL CONSPIRACY AND ABUSE OF

PROCESS

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – HAMP AND FALSE CLAIMS VIOLATIONS

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
 g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – TAMPERING VIOLATIONS

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

PLAINTIFF’S HOMESTEAD

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
 j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – I.I.E.D.

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.

FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – SLANDER OF TITLE

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – QUIET TITLE

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
 d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF T.I.L.A.

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF R.E.S.P.A.

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION – RECISSION

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
 c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

PRIOR to moving forward, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court FIRST issue a

separate INJUNCTION to establish a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS as it pertains to: 1.)

Housing, 2.) Transportation and 3.) other related costs as they existed BEFORE the

referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE.

Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The

President, confirmation from the White House is attached (See Attachment D) with the filed

Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Complaint, the Plaintiff is happy

to provide additional supporting information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd Day of February, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
The INFORMATION (Text Box) reads as follows:

“This UPDATED Criminal Complaint is filed by Massachusetts resident - Mohan A. Harihar for
the specific purpose of bringing CRIMINAL CHARGES (Federal and State) against ALL
identified parties associated with the ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE of his residential
Property/HOMESTEAD located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. As a respectful
reminder: 1.) The Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) The MA Attorney General’s Office and 3.)
Federal Bank Regulators have ALL identified the referenced foreclosure as ILLEGAL. Civil
litigation related to the referenced illegal foreclosure is ongoing in the First Circuit Appeals
Court – Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v US BANK et al, and Appeal No. 17-2074
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES. A third complaint is now being filed with the
Massachusetts Land Court, in conjunction with this criminal complaint (which will be included
as an attachment for the Court’s records). Evidenced CRIMINAL claims of record include (but
are not limited to): FRAUD, Criminal RICO, Conspiracy, Economic Espionage, Treason,
Misprision, Fraud on the Court and others. ANY continued failure to prosecute these evidenced
criminal claims will show cause to expand upon (or bring NEW) Color of LAW/Due Process
violations against THE UNITED STATES and ALL responsible parties. Please be advised - on
January 24, 2018, 10:12am (EST), I placed a call to FBI Headquarters to report an evidenced act
of TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE against The United States. After nine (9) minutes
of articulating these evidenced claims (ALL of which are documented by court record(s)), the
intake FBI agent HUNG UP on the phone call. This is a serious concern which must be legally
addressed, as it impacts the ongoing litigation. It is also interpreted that these evidenced criminal
claims impact NATIONAL SECURITY. It is my understanding that ALL calls are recorded. Out
of fear for my personal SAFETY AND SECURITY, copies of this criminal complaint are made
available to the public.”
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF users:

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