Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)
ADMISSION OF GUILT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, who after receiving the Court’s Order on August 24, 2018,
necessarily files this RENEWED MOTION to amend his original complaint, after Discovering
FARGO and the RESPONSE issued by members of the US Senate; (2) Related DOJ/MA
separately, Lender HSBC; and (3) A related decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Both individually and collectively, this newly discovered evidence: (1) RE-AFFIRMS
supporting arguments of the Plaintiff’s complaint which by due diligence could not have been
1
discovered until now; (2) contributes to the Plaintiff’s existing arguments indicating ERRED
judgments by both State and Federal Courts in the related litigation; (3) now raises
CONFLICTS with (ALL) Defendant arguments of record; and (4) re-affirms arguments to
allow the Plaintiff additional DISCOVERY, in order to educate the Court of ALL relative
FACTS before issuing judgment here. It now becomes necessary to inform the Court of this new
evidence and for the Court to allow the Plaintiff to amend his complaint, pursuant (at minimum)
to: (1) MA Land Court Rule 5; (2) Mass. Civ. R. Proc. 60(b)(2) and (3); and (3) Mass. Civ.
R. Proc. 15. A breakdown of these new discoveries and proposed actions are as follows:
found Discovery, the Plaintiff seeks to ADD the following FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
In a regulatory filing1, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a “technical error” kept
review of the bank's internal systems had revealed a calculation error affecting hundreds of
struggling homeowners who had applied for mortgage modifications between April 2010
1 See Exhibit 1, to view the Wells Fargo Second Quarter 10Q Report, in its entirety (Due to
the length of the report – 174 pages), the Plaintiff has attached as a separate PDF file.
2
are providing remediation to the approximately 625 customers who may have been
impacted.”
This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing
financial difficulties.
“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already
from their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure
and mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family
and to have gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel
if that happened to me.”
Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
Throughout nearly Eight (8) years of Federal and State litigation, the Plaintiff has
AFTER RECEIVING EACH DENIAL LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with
Wells Fargo to get further explanation as to WHY his loan modification was denied.
WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH TIME, after learning of this “calculation
error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and
approve the loan modification. EACH TIME (on six (6) different occasions over
THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but you’ll have to start the process
over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through his own experience of record,
the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an
3
As consistently stated in Court record(s), these evidenced claims are further supported,
since ALL phone conversations between the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and
Defendant – WELLS FARGO were recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.”
Despite multiple efforts by the Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State
Now, by this admission, the Plaintiff (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his
original complaint; (2) shows cause to allow for further DISCOVERY; (3) Impacts
Claim(s), re-affirming that the Defendant – WELLS FARGO has purposefully tried
National Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman
Brian Schatz (D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo
over the issue, but Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells
Fargo and said that he expects answers by the end of the month2:
1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?
What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that
time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?
2See Exhibit 2 – to view in its entirety the August 9, 2018 letter from US Senator Brian
Schatz (D-HI) to Timothy J. Sloan (Wells Fargo CEO and President) and Elizabeth A. Duke
(Wells Fargo Chair, Board of Directors).
4
2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who
applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When
will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company
3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells
Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received
this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted
4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate
the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers
5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be
accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?
6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to
remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those
determinations.
condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an
Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by
5
the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial
9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be
If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to
foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo
11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common
stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please
explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder
consumer protection?
12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and
disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,
why not?
13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells
Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to
6
These questions (and others) must now be answered HERE as well, as the Plaintiff
has evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has NOT been entirely
truthful with its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized,
will be severe. The gravity of this Discovery brings substantial conflict with the
B. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – On Wednesday, August 1, 2018,
the Department of Justice reached a $2.1B settlement agreement with the Defendant –
“Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $2.09 Billion Penalty for Allegedly Misrepresenting Quality
This announcement by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED
LITIGATION:
“This settlement holds Wells Fargo accountable for actions that contributed to the
financial crisis,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio. “It
sends a strong message that the Department is committed to protecting the
nation’s economy and financial markets against fraud… Abuses in the mortgage-
backed securities industry led to a financial crisis that devastated millions of
Americans,” said Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California,
Alex G. Tse. “Today’s agreement holds Wells Fargo responsible for originating
and selling tens of thousands of loans that were packaged into securities and
subsequently defaulted. Our office is steadfast in pursuing those who engage in
wrongful conduct that hurts the public….”
7
2. DOJ Announcement RE-AFFIRMS History of Abuses by Defendant – WELLS
FARGO - This latest announcement involving the Defendant – Wells Fargo comes
just THREE (3) MONTHS after the DOJ’s April 2018 Press Release: Wells
Fargo Bank Agrees to Pay $1.2 Billion for Improper Mortgage Lending
Practices:
“Wells Fargo Bank Admits That It Certified that Loans Were Eligible for FHA
Mortgage Insurance When They Were Not, and That It Did Not Disclose
Over the last two years, Defendant – WELLS FARGO has also admitted that it
to pay for insurance policies they did not need. Those practices, and others, also
have incrementally led to more than $1.1 billion in payments to the Consumer
In May 2018, the Defendant – WELLS FARGO announced that it launched a new
to rebuilding stakeholder trust following its fake account scandal. In a press release,
Wells Fargo said the campaign, which launched Sunday (May 6) will demonstrate
8
how the embattled bank is transforming as it emerges from a “challenging period in
VIEW that continues to support this Plaintiff’s consistent claims; further questioning
On Monday, August 6, 2018, London-based bank - HSBC revealed that it recently agreed
to a “settlement-in-principle” with the Department of Justice that would see the bank pay
a $765 million civil penalty that would resolve an investigation into the bank’s mortgage
origination and securitization activities from 2005 to 2007 which include Citigroup
RMBS Trusts.3 As a reminder, the RMBS Trust associated with the Plaintiff’s identified
illegal foreclosure is the Citigroup Trust – CMLTI 2006 AR-1. Additionally, the bank
said that it reached a settlement agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney General over
the state’s investigations into the bank’s mortgage securitization activities during the same
time period. According to the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey,
HSBC will pay $26.8 million to settle allegations that the bank “purchased and
securitized unfair residential mortgage loans” that were in violation of state law. The
3
The Court is respectfully reminded of the separate DOJ Press Release on July 14, 2014 -
Justice Department, Federal and State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement with
Citigroup for Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages. This
settlement included a $45.7 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
9
MA AGO states that HSBC did not originate the subprime loans in question, but did
crisis that deeply harmed Massachusetts communities and caused families to lose their
homes,” Healey said. “We will continue to help consumers who were sold toxic
mortgages by these banking institutions and are pleased that this settlement will provide
significant relief for families that have suffered harm from unsustainable subprime
loans.”
This latest Discovery by the Plaintiff shows cause to amend his original complaint and
the MA AGO for clarity and validation purposes. Once validated, the Plaintiff believes he
will have shown cause to (at minimum) add HSBC as an incremental Defendant to this
complaint.
D. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications - On
August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by
homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them
permanent mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable
demonstrated their eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et
10
al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). “Miscalculations in loans
modification reviews were common before and during the financial crisis. And they
remain an issue today” - Alys Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law
Center. “Consumers should not have to waive their legal rights and that way they can
accept the payment and then figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That
was standard several years ago when the regulators found systemic problems in loan
modification reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. Claims
This Court is respectfully reminded that as part of the historical record (paraphrasing):
1. The Plaintiff submitted as evidence a letter he received from a Vice President for
Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check (issued to Mr. Harihar) was a
reimbursement (with interest) for his “Good Faith” payment that he was
never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years
2. The Plaintiff’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in two (2) separate lawsuits.
The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AGs’ against Defendants that included
Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up
the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B settlement, the
11
Plaintiff received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the Plaintiff reserved
the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell short of the damages
incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved the right to pursue
criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil litigation is to recover
On March 23, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered (via US Mail and Email communication) a
(Weichert Realtors/ Daher Companies, Methuen, MA). The disclosure was delivered
for the specific purpose of informing the Brokers and ANY potential buyers, that
(overview): (1) the referenced foreclosure is considered VOID; (2) there is active/ongoing
litigation related to this illegal foreclosure; and (3) “Any party, having been made aware
of the associated documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this
The Plaintiff ALSO mailed this disclosure directly to Defendants – Jeffrey and Isabelle
Perkins via certified mail, at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. The Defendants
either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the legal risks moving forward and still
VOID FORECLOSURE.
4 See Exhibit 3
12
II. PROPOSED AMENDMENT – REQUEST TO ADD DEFENDANT, HSBC
Defendant - HSBC North America Holdings Inc., (hereafter “HSBC”), as the Parent
“CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust”), whose last known address is 452 5th Ave, New York, NY
10018. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
State of Massachusetts, and is believed to be 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. The Plaintiff respectfully calls
The Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint included a supported (and UNOPPOSED) claim(s) of
Fraud on the Court, evidenced in both MA State and Federal Courts. From the initial hearing
in this Court on May 8, 2018, Judge Vhay determined that it was “too early” to consider this
type of claim under Mass. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(3). Now, however, with the recent
an INCREMENTAL argument to support his Fraud on the Court claim. The two (2)
A. The EVIDENCED Securitization FAILURE of the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1;
and
13
B. The ADMISSION OF GUILT by the Defendant – WELLS FARGO, and this
Based on these FACTS of record, and the Defendant’s arguments of record (or lack thereof),
there can be NO DOUBT that these Defendants, both individually and collectively are
respectfully requests that the Court (at minimum) ALLOW a NEW Cause of Action – Fraud
on the Court, to be added to the existing complaint, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. Proc.
60(b)(2)(3); Proposed language for the new claim includes (but is not limited to) the
following5:
1. Per Mass. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our
2. 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
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) . . .
3. Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,
5
Numbering sequence to be revised in final draft, if necessary.
6
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
14
misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL DEFENDANTS were
aware, or should have been aware that the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006 was VOID, and
therefore clear title did not exist with the Plaintiff’s property. Nevertheless, ALL
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.
4. 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;
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.
5. 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.
15
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.
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)
Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar. But that’s not all – the Defendants’ federal arguments
of record are identical to previous arguments from related litigation in MA State Court(s).
Therefore:
a. The Plaintiff shows cause here to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against
b. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as
the SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact
c. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT
d. Respectfully, any failure to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be
16
IDENTICAL to the PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT - PUBLICLY
Plaintiff will similarly show cause here to (at minimum) question the Judge’s
impartiality.
Based on this latest Discovery and following any INJUNCTION granted by the Court, the
Plaintiff shows cause to bring (at minimum) a DEFAULT Judgment, in favor of the
With regard to future Discovery and based on the recent ADMISSION OF GUILT by the
Defendant – WELLS FARGO, the Plaintiff firmly believes that the Court may already
have enough evidence to support Mr. Harihar’s arguments. However, if that is not the case,
the Plaintiff makes clear that he seeks: (1) additional DISCOVERY to support his new
claims (once the court has granted permission to present new claims); and (2) Discovery in
order to oppose Defendant’s summary judgment motions. There exists some concern to
timely filing the required affidavit(s) under Rule 56(f), as parties with first-hand knowledge
of the facts (including the DOJ and MA AGO) have thus far been UNCOOPERATIVE
Through their own extensive investigations, these State and Federal government agencies
have definitively identified the Plaintiff’s foreclosure as VOID include (but are not
limited to): (1) the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (MA AGO), specifically –
Department of Justice (DOJ). Additional parties include Federal Bank Regulators and
17
specific employees of the Defendant -Wells Fargo, who interacted directly with the
The Plaintiff respectfully requests additional time to file his Opposition to the Defendants’
A. Related Litigation – The Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that he is also a pro
se litigant in related litigation involving FIVE (5) other State/Federal Courts. The
Plaintiff is only ONE (1) person, who is NOT a legal expert and whose ONLY legal
option has been to represent himself. The substantial time needed to address the
totality of legal issues associated with this litigation requires the assistance of a
LEGAL TEAM, never mind a single pro se litigant. Aside from representing himself
criminal issues with the DOJ AND as recent as TODAY, September 7, 2018,
Barron. There have now been SIX (6) recusals associated with this
litigation;
18
4. Middlesex Superior Court – HARIHAR v. WELLS FARGO et al, Docket
motion to VOID judgment and RESTORE the case, considering the newly
vehicle and his current AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEASE expires at the END OF
hardships;
19
D. Plaintiff’s Current Employment – In addition to managing this list of issues/legal
tasks, Mr. Harihar has a job as a part-time bartender, working five (5) nights a week
THEREFORE, for these reasons (stated above), the Plaintiff respectfully requests a
timeline extension to Friday, September 28, 2018, for filing his Opposition to the
The Plaintiff believes that with these latest developments (as referenced within), there is just
cause to bring incremental claims including (but not limited to): (1) Fraud in the
Concealment; and (2) Fraud in the Inducement against ALL Defendants. The Plaintiff
respectfully wished to clarify whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to address these
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has
requiring (at minimum) the Court to initiate the following next steps:
20
2. ALLOW the Plaintiff a timeline extension to Friday, September 28, 2018, for filing
opposition to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (if it even becomes
necessary);
3. Issue an Order for subpoenaed testimony from the DOJ and MA AGO in order to
validate for the record the details of: (a) the Plaintiff’s VOID foreclosure; and (b) the
4. Since Defendants have previously stated they ARE NOT interested in reaching a mutual
agreement, these recent developments re-affirm the Plaintiff’s supported arguments for:
(1) Substantial DISCOVERY, pursuant to MA Land Court Rule 8; and (2) a move for
Corrective action initiated by this Land Court MAY allow for consideration in resolving (at
The Plaintiff is grateful the Court’s consideration. The evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff are
believed to have National implications including (but not limited to) matters of National
Security. Therefore, a copy of this MOTION will be sent to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2)
members of Congress; (3) the DOJ; (4) the FBI; (5) the OIG; and (6) Governor Charlie
Baker (R-MA). The PUBLIC will also be copied out of the Plaintiff’s continued concern for his
personal safety and security. Confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See
21
Exhibit 4) with the filed Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this
motion, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
22
Exhibit 1
(See the separate PDF Attachment to view the 174-page
Wells Fargo Second Quarter 10Q Report, in its entirety)
23
Exhibit 2
24
25
26
27
28
Exhibit 3
29
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
March 23, 2014
Weichert Realtors, Daher Companies FOR DOCUMENTATION AND
Attn: Kenneth Daher, Mary E. Koontz-Daher DISCLOSURE PURPOSES
235 East Street
Methuen, MA 01844
RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability
2. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with
misconduct by Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement payment received.
3. Civil and criminal misconduct is documented, and constitutes (at minimum): Fraud,
Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Aiding
and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury. Additional SEC and IRS infractions pertaining to the
referenced securitized mortgage trust are believed to exist, requiring further validation.
4. Criminal charges for documented misconduct are aggressively being pursued at both state
and federal levels against the following parties: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the
Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson
Mullins LLP. Complaints are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the
Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI.
5. This matter directly coincides with the MA Attorney General’s 3+ ongoing investigation
of Harmon Law Offices PC*, for misconduct related to unlawful foreclosure and eviction
practices. Harmon has been definitively tied to disbarred FL Foreclosure Kingpin –
David Stern.
30
6. Complaints are additionally filed with the following parties: The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), and the MA Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel**.
7. Civil litigation regarding this matter and related misconduct is still proceeding in the MA
Appeals Court.
8. Referenced parties have refused to validate Chain of Title, have refused to validate
signatures on file related to the foreclosed property, and have refused to provide
requested Discovery which further supports deceptive practices, specifically – the
recorded conversations between homeowner Mohan A. Harihar and the Mortgage
Servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification attempt.
9. Any Real Estate Broker or Real Estate Agent, having been made aware of the associated
documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure
for the purpose of resale, will be considered as aiding and abetting fraud, and may be
subject to forthcoming litigation (Civil and Criminal).
10. Any party, having been made aware of the associated documented misconduct, who
chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure for the purpose of purchase,
may be subject to forthcoming litigation against them (Civil and Criminal).
11. The recent eviction of Mohan A. Harihar from the referenced foreclosure property is being
considered an act of Wrongful Displacement, and is being addressed with the Court, as
well as state and federal prosecutors.
12. It is my understanding that by law, you will be required to disclose all information related
to the referenced foreclosure, including this communication.
13. Due to the serious nature of this matter, additional parties will be copied on this
communication including: Vice President Joe Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim
Sheehan (CFPB), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth
Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA),
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA),
State Senator Eileen Donoghue (MA), the Massachusetts Association of Realtors
(MAR, via twitter), the National Association of Realtors (NAR, via Twitter), and
Nelson Mullins LLP - including the individual managing partners of the firm, since
documented misconduct extends beyond the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
14. This communication is additionally being published for the purpose of exposing this
misconduct to the nation, as it is arguably considered the largest case of FRAUD in the
history of the United States, and in effort to assist the millions of wrongfully foreclosed
homeowners identified by the US Foreclosure Crisis, all fifty (50) Attorneys’ General, and
Federal Bank Regulators.
31
*Harmon Law Offices PC, originally retained by US Bank NA in the case against Mohan A.
Harihar, has been associated with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, withdrew as counsel from this case, in the same timeframe as
the MA Attorney General was beginning their investigation against them.
**Complaints are on file with the MA Board of Bar Overseers against Attorney David E.
Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley (both of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough
LLP) and also Harmon Law Offices PC.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
32
Exhibit 4
33
34
35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 7, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication:
Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
36