case file now "missing" in harihar foreclosure case
DESCRIPTION
Case file now "Missing" in Harihar Foreclosure caseTRANSCRIPT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Case file now “MISSING” in Harihar Foreclosure Case Lowell, MA, April 17, 2015 – According to the Clerk of the Middlesex Superior Court (Lowell, MA), Michael Brennan, the case file for Docket No: 11-04499, Harihar vs. Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law offices PC. et al, has disappeared. The Harihar case, which began nearly four years ago, has steadily gained the attention of many - both nationally and globally, as supporting evidence continues to come forth. The list of evidenced misconduct includes (at minimum):
1. Fraud 2. Deceptive Practices 3. Anti-trust Violations 4. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 5. Fraudulent Assignments 6. Perjury 7. Aiding and Abetting Fraud 8. 14
th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights. 9. Collusion – involving the MA Attorney General’s Office, the MA US
Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR association, and Defendant’s counsel (prior) – Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.
10. Abuses of Judicial discretion 11. Infractions to the Intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.
Harihar, including projects designed to assist with this Nation’s (and Global) economic recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.
The depth of documented misconduct extends beyond the original Defendants (Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, RMBS CMLTI 2006-AR1, and Harmon Law Offices PC). Additional Defendants in the forthcoming Federal complaint(s) now include: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Nelson Mullins LLP, associated attorneys, associated real estate brokers, and parties who chose to move forward with an illegal foreclosure.
1
Now, as Federal civil and criminal complaints are being prepared, injunctive relief is being sought in the Middlesex Superior Court, giving the Commonwealth an opportunity to take some corrective action as this matter moves to Federal Court. Motions are additionally filed calling for the Court to address attorney misconduct with the Massachusetts BAR (Scroll down to view these pending Motions, filed with the Middlesex Superior Court Lowell, and also an updated correspondence delivered to the MA Inspector General).
1 Associated attorneys include: Atty David E. Fialkow (Now with K&L Gates LLP, Atty Jeffrey S. Patterson (K&L Gates),
Atty Peter Haley (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP). Associated real estate brokers include Ken & Mary Daher
(Daher Companies/Weichert Realtors in Methuen, MA). Jeffrey & Isabelle Patterson are the parties who purchased the illegal
foreclosure, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
2
The problem now, is that the case file has suddenly “disappeared.” For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar Email: [email protected] Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile) Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1
April 18, 2015
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Office of the Inspector General
John W. McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 1311
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Update to Harihar Litigation and Move to Federal Court
Dear Inspector General Cunha:
This email correspondence is sent to your direct attention as follow-up to
prior communications (last delivered, August 22, 2014). The depth of
documented misconduct surrounding the Harihar Foreclosure continues to come
forth. While the Massachusetts Appeals Court has already granted - Mohan A.
Harihar leave to file for new trial, the collective facts surrounding this
matter satisfy (at minimum) the Federal requirements of diversity; damages
exceeding a threshold of $75,000; violations to Federal Antitrust laws;
Constitutional Violations of the 14th Amendment to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights; Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion and
Conflict involving the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, the US
Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, and Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP; and numerous abuses of Judicial discretion on multiple
levels - in which the Commonwealth thus far has failed to address and take
corrective action.
3
ALL parties are additionally aware of the related infringement/damages to
Mr. Harihar’s Intellectual Property. This includes projects designed to
assist with this Nation’s and overall Global economic recovery from the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. New civil and criminal complaints are now
being prepared for filing in Federal Court.
Original Defendants include:
1. Wells Fargo NA
2. US Bank NA
3. RMBS CMLTI 2006-AR1
4. Harmon Law Offices PC
Additional Defendants in the forthcoming Federal civil/criminal actions
will include:
5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
6. Nelson Mullins LLP
7. Attorney David E. Fialkow
8. Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson
9. Attorney Peter Haley
10. Real Estate Brokers Kenneth and Mary Daher
11. Purchasers of the referenced illegal foreclosure – Jeffrey and
Isabelle Perkins.
Please be advised, as a prelude to filing new Federal actions, injunctive
relief is now being sought in the Middlesex Superior Court – providing an
opportunity for the Commonwealth to take corrective action. Any corrective
action taken by the Court (or failure to do so) will be recognized as this
matter moves to Federal Court.
This is a very serious and sensitive matter. The overwhelming amount of
evidenced misconduct directly ties to what many consider the largest case
of FRAUD in the history of these United States. Respectfully, you are aware
that the evidenced allegations, including clear concerns of CORRUPTION,
have made it necessary to involve your office, and a call for (at minimum)
multiple internal investigations.
4
Please be advised - this correspondence (and those prior) are considered
part of the record as this matter moves to Federal Court. Your office is
respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions for
initiating next steps as it relates to these serious allegations.
Additionally, please advise whether the involvement of additional Offices
and/or agencies (please be specific) is now required. A copy of this
correspondence is being filed with the Middlesex Superior Court, in
addition to the Government officials and agencies copied in the list below.
If your office has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional information,
please advise.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Charles Baker (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
5
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
MOTION FILED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A AND 60B;
MOTION TO INFORM THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS/
BAR COUNSEL
1. Comes now the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully files this
separate Motion, in conjunction with Opposition related to the Defendant’s attempt to
collect bill costs. Upon review of the new evidence and information presented to the
Court,2 The Plaintiff calls for this Court to now inform the MA Board of BAR
Overseers/BAR Counsel of counsel misconduct, which includes (but is not limited to)
COLLUSION3 and PERJURY, by Defendant’s retained counsel (current and prior), well
2 Reference - OPPOSITION TO ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH APPEAL; FILED IN
ACCORDANCE TO SUPERIOR COURT RULES 9A AND 60B, for additional detail. 3 See Exhibit A, “After the Bubble Bursts.”
6
documented with the Court(s) and in line with complaints already filed against them –
specifically:
(1) Attorney David E. Fialkow, Partner (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP, Boston Office)
(2) Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson, Partner (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
LLP, Boston Office)
(3) Attorney Peter Haley, Managing Partner (Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP, Boston Office)
(4) Nelson Mullins LLP (Multiple US Offices, Boston affiliate is Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough, LLP)
(5) Harmon Law offices PC (Newton, MA)
The Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court, that the initially retained law firm (to Defendant
– US BANK NA) in this matter is Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC. This is the same
law firm considered by many as the “Foreclosure Mill of the Commonwealth,” associated
with over 50,000 foreclosures in the Commonwealth alone. This is the same law firm that
WITHDREW from this matter, approximately six (6) months after litigation against this
Plaintiff began, and three (3) days after the Plaintiff informed them they would be held legally
accountable for their actions. This is the same law firm that has been under investigation by
the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office for over three years for illegal foreclosure
and eviction practices. This is the same law firm directly tied to disbarred FLORIDA
foreclosure kingpin David Stern. This also is the same law firm who has not refuted ANY
7
of the Plaintiff’s allegations against them since new evidence and information has come
forth.
The continued course of deception has been clearly evidenced and historically well
documented over the past three (3) years with the currently retained firm - Nelson Mullins
LLP, retained attorneys – David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson, and managing partner –
Peter Haley on record for stating the firm’s full support of this deceptive misconduct.4
The damages suffered to this Plaintiff are considered severe, and responsible parties have
shown no signs of remorse or accountability for their actions. The record will show, that
ample opportunity has been afforded to these parties to CEASE AND DESIST, and seek
agreement – all opportunities have been either refused or ignored. Referenced representing
attorneys and their respective law firms must now too, be held accountable.
It is the understanding of this Plaintiff, that LYING to ANY Court is still regarded as a serious
offense. This Plaintiff is certain, that the level of ethics exemplified by retained counsel
(current and prior) fails to meet the standard which is demanded by this Commonwealth, or
any other state in this Nation. The level of attempted deception by these parties to aid and abet
their clients’ misconduct over the past years is disturbing, and must no longer be tolerated.
The Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to now notify the Massachusetts Board of BAR
Overseers/BAR Counsel of these clearly evidenced allegations, and the recommendation for
4 See Exhibit B, Email correspondence from Peter Haley – Managing Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP.
8
immediate action, including but not limited to disbarment. The Plaintiff additionally petitions
the Court to assign a Special Prosecutor to assist with addressing the evidenced criminal
portions of associated misconduct, including (but not limited to) referenced Collusion,
Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation,
Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury.5
This Plaintiff finds no pleasure in taking this necessary course of action. However, the
insistence by referenced parties to continue causing irreparable harm and accruing damages,
warrants an immediate call for action.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
5 A thorough review of all related historical documents submitted to the Court, email correspondences, etc… is
necessary to reveal the referenced infractions, and frequency of occurrence.
9
EXIBIT A
10
11
EXHIBIT B
12
From: M Harihar [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 12:03 AM To: 'Peter Haley'
Subject: M Harihar - Notice
Importance: High
Mr. Haley,
Thank you for your response. I am well aware of David Fialkow’s title and his location in the
Boston Office, since this legal matter has included Nelson Mullins LLP for over two (2) years,
replacing prior counsel (Harmon Law Offices PC**) retained by your client (US Bank NA)
who immediately withdrew from this case after being informed they would be held
accountable for their involvement with associated civil and criminal misconduct.
Since you acknowledge having reviewed the facts of this matter, you are aware of the
following:
1. Only until definitive, documented misconduct against David E. Fialkow
was in possession, were multiple parties of Nelson Mullins LLP regularly copied on communications, for the specific purpose of forwarding to senior management/human resources.
2. Numerous communications to Mr. Fialkow (and additionally on file with the Courts) have requested that additional contact information (senior management and human resources of Nelson Mullins LLP) be provided to Mr. Harihar. None has ever been provided, including your contact information.
3. The documented information and evidence in possession is entirely FACT-BASED, and irrefutably shows definitive misconduct, both civil and criminal, revealing that the referenced lender – US Bank NA, mortgage servicer – Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel have purposefully misled the Court(s) for over 2 ½ years. Documented misconduct includes (but is not limited to):
A. Negligent misrepresentation B. Fraud C. Aiding and abetting fraud
Furthermore, your documented comments (below) supporting Mr. Fialkow’s conduct of this
litigation, now suggest this misconduct extends beyond David E. Fialkow, and includes (at
minimum) the Boston Office of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.
Regarding your statement (below): “As I am sure you can recognize, the very nature of
matters being litigated before the courts necessarily requires that parties advocate for the
13
positions of their clients in a manner which is adverse to the other side in the litigation.” –
Suggests that you approve of this documented misconduct in order to advocate for the
position of a client.
While Mr. Fialkow’s historical reputation as a lawyer may be outstanding, he is irrefutably
and directly associated with misconduct in this matter. You are aware that a complaint against
Mr. Fialkow has already been filed with the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel, and it now
appears that additional communication with the Bar Counsel will be necessary once the depth
of misconduct and all additional parties involved are identified.
Additional complaints are on file with the MA Office of the Attorney General and most
recently with the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This matter has been definitively associated with FRAUD ON A NATIONWIDE MASS
SCALE. Those familiar with the details of this country’s foreclosure crisis consider this to be
the largest case of fraud in US history.
Despite the numerous opportunities afforded to your clients – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo
NA to cease and desist from causing harm and accruing damages to Mr. Harihar, they have
repeatedly refused to do so. In addition to ongoing litigation, and with documented
misconduct in possession, Mr. Harihar will additionally pursue criminal charges against all
parties involved, including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and retained
counsel Nelson Mullins LLP. Additional infractions including deceptive practices are
anticipated, as multiple questions and concerns exist surrounding the validation of the
associated securitized mortgage trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1, validation regarding Chain of
Title, and the recorded conversations during the 22-month loan modification process
(Lenders consistently refused to provide in the Discovery process). The Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) are anticipated to aid in
this validation process moving forward.
This matter now includes concerns regarding the infringement of Intellectual property
belonging to Mohan A. Harihar (see Notice sent September 27, 2013).
Your request to refrain from copying others within Nelson Mullins LLP is denied, as the
involvement of the Boston office with associated misconduct is now questioned. Since you
are aware of the facts of this matter, you are aware of Mr. Harihar’s efforts to expose this
misconduct and all parties responsible. Mr. Harihar fully intends to continue ALL fact-based
communications related to this misconduct and the associated projects. Government officials,
the media, and all other lenders/mortgage servicers associated with similar misconduct will
continue to be included unless otherwise specified. A copy of the latest Media Alert, dated
September 19, 2013 is additionally attached for your reference.
**Harmon Law Offices PC has been associated with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
14
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
From: Peter Haley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 6:09 PM To: M Harihar
Cc: Jim Gray; Michael Hollingsworth; Mike Cole; Tracy Tomlin; Jim Lehman; Marc Williams; Tom Moran; Larry Papel; Noah Huffstetler; Tim Fitzgibbon; Denise Gunter; Joseph Donovan; Chris Cushing;
Kate Lipper; Christy Cox; David Fialkow Subject: RE: M Harihar - Notice Regading Intellectual Property
Mr. Harihar David Fialkow is a senior associate in the firm, he works in our Boston office. I am the managing partner in that office, if you wish to communicate with someone within the firm concerning Mr. Fialkow you may write to me. Please refrain from randomly copying others within the firm. I have reviewed the facts of this matter. The firm has complete confidence in Mr. Fialkow and his conduct of this litigation on behalf of our client. As I am sure you can recognize, the very nature of matters being litigated before the courts necessarily requires that parties advocate for the positions of their clients in a manner which is adverse to the other side in the litigation. Mr. Fialkow has an outstanding reputation as a lawyer and I have complete confidence that he has acted appropriately in this instance. Peter Haley Peter J. Haley | Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Managing Partner, Boston (e) [email protected]| (p) 617.573.4714 | (f) 617.573.4750 From: M Harihar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 5:11 PM
To: David Fialkow Cc: Jim Gray; Peter Haley; Michael Hollingsworth; Mike Cole; Tracy Tomlin; Jim Lehman; Marc
Williams; Tom Moran; Larry Papel; Noah Huffstetler; Tim Fitzgibbon; Denise Gunter; Joseph Donovan; Chris Cushing; Kate Lipper; Christy Cox
Subject: M Harihar - Notice Regading Intellectual Property
Importance: High
Attorney Fialkow,
Please be advised – a hardcopy of the attached notice has been mailed to your attention.
15
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO INFORM THE MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF BAR OVERSEERS/
BAR COUNSEL
2. Comes now the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who after reviewing the
Defendant’s Opposition6 to informing the Massachusetts BAR of Overseers/BAR Counsel
respectfully files this response:
1. The Opposition filed by counsel again appears to be a last minute act of desperation to
avoid accountability. ALL stated charges made against referenced attorneys are
proper, have been fully supported, and are clearly based on documented fact and law.
Plaintiff is happy to address ANY portion of these clearly evidenced and supported
charges, if the Court so desires.
6 Plaintiff references opposition received from Defendants US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-
AR1. Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC has filed no opposition, and is therefore in default.
16
2. Referenced attorneys, who may have historically claimed to have impeccable
professional records, no longer have that luxury. The Plaintiff has provided the
Court(s), irrefutable evidence of Collusion, Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent
Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding
and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury. Counsel’s suggestion that not a single fact of
violation has been submitted is clearly false. Even counsel’s superior, Peter Haley –
the managing partner of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP (Boston),
has not uttered a single word to defend his position (or that of representing
counsel – Attorney David E. Fialkow), since implicating his entire firm over a
year and a half ago.
3. The clear and irrefutable evidence of Collusion reveals existing relationships which
are clearly improper between the Defendant’s counsel, the Massachusetts Attorney
General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston BAR Association. The
Plaintiff restates that NO party or agency has made ANY attempt to deny these clearly
evidenced allegations. If criminal charges against referenced parties are not moving
forward; If further investigations are not taking place; and if the Court(s) are failing to
address ANY of these serious allegations – this Plaintiff has clear reason to suspect
that these improper relationships play a role, which are believed to involve variables of
corruption. The Plaintiff has made clear, that these collective concerns question the
integrity of judicial system in this Commonwealth. It has additionally shown cause to
inform and involve the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office, and a move to
17
Federal Court.7Moving forward, the appointment of a special prosecutor is clearly
necessary.
4. With respect to counsel’s reference to historical decisions, some clarification is
deemed necessary here:
i) ALL prior decisions related to this matter are impacted based on the newly
received and collective evidence already on file with the Court(s). Counsel’s
desperation plea to this Court to “turn a blind eye”, simply ignore such critical
evidence, and to rely solely on prior judgments, reaffirms the content of the filed
complaints, and the need to inform the Massachusetts BAR.
ii) The basis for the Appeal related to Docket No: 2013-P-1829 pertains ONLY to a
protection order that the Plaintiff was seeking against the Defendants. While the
Massachusetts Appeals Court denied the protection order (considering this portion
alone to be frivolous), the Court believed there to be enough evidence and merit to
grant this Plaintiff leave to file for a new trial for a SECOND TIME. The
mischaracterization here by counsel should be noted, as it is in line with their
historical misrepresentation of the facts.
5. Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC is in Default – As experienced in the recent
Appeal, Docket No. 2013-P-1829, and the request for injunctive relief, Defendant
Harmon Law Offices PC makes no effort to file any opposition against Plaintiff’s
Motion to inform the MA Board of BAR Overseers/ BAR Counsel. All Defendants
received Plaintiff’s Motions via US Priority Mail on February 10, 2015. Superior
Court Rule 9A states that opposition to a motion shall be served within ten (10) days,
plus three (3) days for mailing. The allotted timeline for Harmon has since expired,
7 As referenced in the Appellant Brief to Docket No: 2013-P-1829.
18
and the Plaintiff submits the required 9A package with opposition received from
Defendants – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-AR1 only. Plaintiff
therefore moves for this Court to find Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC in default,
per Mass. Civil Procedure Rule 55.
The Defendant’s default also calls for the Court to take notice, of the lack of alignment
and clear conflict between Defendants. As recently experienced in the Appeals Court,
this conflict questions the validity of everything submitted by Defendants US Bank
NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-AR1.
6. The Plaintiff restates to this Court the relationship of Defendant – Harmon Law
Offices PC, to disbarred Florida Foreclosure Kingpin David Stern, and the ongoing
investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office for unlawful foreclosure
and eviction practices. Further review and understanding of the related facts will
reveal that Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP are considered the “second tier
law firm” to foreclosure mill litigation in this Commonwealth.
7. This Plaintiff has followed the rules of the Court; has clearly conducted himself in an
ethical manner; exemplified complete transparency, and shown beyond ANY doubt,
evidenced misconduct by Defendant’s and their retained counsel. It is understandable
to suspect, that a degree of embarrassment exists – knowing that this pro se litigant has
exemplified the ability to successfully argue this matter in a Court of law. Regardless,
their position now comes by their own hand. Requests now by counsel to restrict
Plaintiff’s speech and future filings are made in apparent desperation, as their
collective actions have now brought them certain increased legal risk.
19
8. The Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel has previously
communicated to the Plaintiff that it continues to monitor this matter, and will only
consider additional action upon receiving communication from the Court.
In conclusion, for the reasons set forth herein, and in the original Motion, the Plaintiff
respectfully restates its request for this Court to notify and inform the Massachusetts Board of
BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel – along with recommendations for corrective action the Court
deems appropriate. The Court should also DENY Defendants request for additional fees and
efforts that would in any way restrict Plaintiff’s speech or future filings (if necessary).
The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s consideration of this Motion. As with the Motion
requesting injunctive relief, any corrective action taken by this Court will be recognized as
this matter moves to Federal Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
20
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
MOTION FILED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A AND 60B;
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
3. Comes now the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully files this
separate Motion, in conjunction with Opposition related to the Defendant’s attempt to
collect bill costs. Upon review of the new evidence and information presented to the
Court,8 immediate corrective action and injunctive relief is now respectfully sought prior
to filing the forthcoming civil action, in effort to prevent additional and unnecessary harm
and damages to this Plaintiff:
8 Reference - OPPOSITION TO ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH APPEAL; FILED IN
ACCORDANCE TO SUPERIOR COURT RULES 9A AND 60B, for additional detail.
21
(1) Reversal of this Court’s initial decision associated with this Docket No. 11-
04499, previously in favor of the Defendant(s), with the majority of damages
to be addressed in the forthcoming civil action.
(2) Reversal of the associated Summary Judgment made by the Northeast Housing
Court9, as the referenced foreclosure is considered illegal by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
(3) Corrective action regarding the Wrongful Displacement of the Plaintiff, who is
still HOMELESS since his eviction nearly one (1) year ago, February, 2014.
The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief to the extent that this Court
orders the Defendants to provide equivalent interim housing to Mr. Harihar,
while legal matters proceed.10
(4) The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the new
replacement cost of all furnishings, belongings, etc… the Plaintiff was forced
to liquidate, give away or leave behind, as a result of the referenced illegal
foreclosure/ displacement.11
(5) The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the Defendants to
provide a new replacement vehicle (or equivalent new replacement cost), for
the forced vehicle repossession resulting from the Defendant’s misconduct.
The Plaintiff has since had to burden family members to assist with providing
9 If the Middlesex Superior Court lacks the authority to overturn the referenced Summary Judgment, please
advise. 10
Equivalent interim housing is defined as a twenty-six hundred (2600) square foot, four (4) bedroom, two plus
(2+) bath single-family, condominium, townhome, or apartment, with a minimum of two (2) parking spaces. The
location of this interim housing is requested in the city of Boston, MA, as the Plaintiff has been forced to take a
significantly lesser job as a part-time bartender. Interim housing is requested in close proximity to the Plaintiff’s
place of employment, and which meets the approval of the Plaintiff. 11
Replacement cost is equated to new replacement cost.
22
transportation, including assistance with acquiring a leased vehicle, which is
now at risk of exceeding allowed mileage. 12
(6) The Defendants collective misconduct has caused severe (and still accruing)
damage to this Plaintiff’s marriage, family, career, credit, retirement planning,
and everyday life. An enormous amount of debt has resulted, causing
additional legal action against Mr. Harihar. While it has clearly been within the
Plaintiff’s rights to file bankruptcy, it remains the Plaintiff’s intention to
rightfully repay ALL debts which are considered due to ALL parties, including
– The Internal Revenue Service, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, all
creditors (including both secured and unsecured debt). The Plaintiff plans to
address this in the forthcoming civil lawsuit, and respectfully requests that this
Court now issue an injunction – Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against
ALL parties, agencies, etc…, so that legal matters may proceed without
distraction.
(7) The Plaintiff brings to this Court’s attention, that with the collective and
extensive new evidence and information that continues to come forth,
Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC has not refuted ANY claims of
misconduct made against them13
. This Plaintiff has committed the last several
years of his life in this pro se effort – to research, learn the law, its procedures,
etc…This commitment has easily exceeded a standard 40-hour workweek, 52
weeks a year, for over three years. Mr. Harihar’s time is considered no less
valuable than that of the opposing counsel. Therefore, an order is respectfully
12
New Vehicle replacement vehicle cost equated to a 2015 BMW X5. 13
Reference MA Appeals Court Docket 2013-P-1829, in which no Appellate Brief, Reply Brief, or opposition of
any kind was filed by Appellee – Harmon Law offices PC.
23
requested for immediate relief from Harmon Law offices PC – separate from
relief being sought in the forthcoming civil action, as reimbursement for this
Plaintiff’s time spent while the Harmon served as retained counsel to
Defendant – US Bank NA (Estimated time as retained counsel – 6 months, or
26 weeks; Plaintiff caps legal hours at 40 hours per week). The hourly rate is
set equal to, but not greater than the hourly rate charged by Harmon Law
Offices PC to its client, US Bank NA (Estimated at $250 per hour).14
The total
requested relief for this timeframe is $260,000 (Separate Motion filed).
The damages suffered to this Plaintiff are considered severe, and responsible parties have
shown no signs of remorse for their actions. Corrective action and the granting of requested
relief will allow this Plaintiff to at least re-establish a foundation while legal matters proceed.
The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s consideration of this request, and any additional relief
it deems appropriate.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
14
Approximate timeframe is believed to be April 2011 thru September 2011.
24
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION REGARDING
REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
4. Comes now the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who after reviewing the
Defendant’s opposition15
, reveals the Defendants continued efforts to deceive the Court(s).
This apparent act of desperation comes now as the depth of exposed misconduct to their
clients, and to their firm is considerable, and still growing. The Plaintiff therefore
respectfully files this response:
1. Defendants fail to address MA Attorney General Announcement dated 1/16/2015
– Defendants here make no attempt to even address the announcement made by (then)
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015, which
15
Plaintiff references opposition received from Defendants US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-
AR1. Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC has filed no opposition, and is therefore in default.
25
reaffirms that the referenced foreclosure is considered VOID by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This announcement impacts ALL prior related
decisions/judgments, and in itself warrants the granting of injunctive relief to this
Plaintiff.
2. Counsel Fails to address recent evidence by their own client - Senior Vice
President to Defendant, Wells Fargo - The evidenced correspondence and check
sent to the Plaintiff by Wells Fargo Senior Vice President (Leesa Whitt-Potter),
illustrates beyond any doubt, damning proof of deceptive conduct, thus supporting this
Plaintiff’s consistent claims, and shattering the defendant’s argument(s). This too, in
itself, impacts ALL prior related decisions/judgments, and warrants the granting of
injunctive relief to this Plaintiff. The decision by counsel to completely avoid
addressing these two (2) critical pieces of evidence, and to instead submit a deceptive
and false version of the facts, exemplifies an act of apparent desperation, thus
reaffirming continued acts of fraudulent misrepresentation.
3. The Massachusetts Appeals Court – has granted this Plaintiff/Appellant leave to file
for new trial – FOR A SECOND TIME.16
The Massachusetts Appeals Court
clearly believes that the abundance of facts supporting this Plaintiff’s consistent
claims of injury contain merit. Granting any party leave to file for new trial is not
“automatic.” Granting leave to this Plaintiff a second time is substantial. The
Defendant’s complete omission of these facts aligns with their historical deceptive
tactics. All references by Defendant’s stating that the Plaintiff’s claims are meritless
and/or baseless are therefore entirely false. Plaintiff’s consistent claims have been
fully supported. The Plaintiff is happy to revisit ANY portion of these claims if so
16
Reference Docket Sheet for Appellate case no: 2013-P-1829, #19
26
requested by the Court. Furthermore, these continued false characterizations by
Defendants reveal that it is THEY who are in fact slanderous and defamatory – not the
other way around.
4. Three-Part Balancing Test to Validate Request for Injunction – The Defendant’s
portrayal here is again incorrect, as the Plaintiff has clearly gone over and above to
satisfy the request for injunctive relief. The Plaintiff’s collective injuries are divided
into four (4) sections:
i) Damage to marriage, family, career, credit, future retirement and everyday living.
The injunctive relief sought here, and prior to a move to Federal Court, addresses
only a small (but necessary) portion of personal damages – establishing a place to
live, a means of transportation, compensation for time, and the requested
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) while legal matters proceed. These clearly
appropriate requests are based on prior standard of living conditions, and
proximity to current employment. Defendant’s attempts to suggest otherwise are
simply false. The balance of personal damages will be addressed in the
forthcoming civil action.
ii) Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving a project designed to assist
the Nation’s and overall economic recovery from damages suffered during the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.17
The documented MERITS of this project are
significant, having successfully reached the Executive Offices of the President of
the United States (EOP) – at the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden, the
Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee, Senior Economic adviser
17
References the Appellate Brief associated with Docket No: 2013-P-1829, and further description of Plaintiff’s
Intellectual Property, known as the “FCS Model”. ; Plaintiff is happy to provide a copy of the Appellate Brief in
its entirety upon request.
27
to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), Congresswoman Niki Tsongas’ Office
(MA), the Chairman of a nationally ranked Strategic Communications firm, the
Attorney General Offices of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and two (2)
Massachusetts State Senators. Effectively implemented, this project is expected to
have a positive economic impact estimated in the trillions of dollars. Any party,
agency, court, etc… whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any
portion of this project are expected to be included as Defendants in the
forthcoming civil action.
iii) Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving a template designed to assist
(at minimum) the 4.2 million parties, identified in the US Foreclosure Crisis, with
filing a civil action against the responsible Lender/party. Any party, agency, court,
etc… whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any portion of this
project are expected to be included as Defendants in the forthcoming civil action.
iv) Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving a template designed to assist (at
minimum) the 4.2 million parties, identified in the US Foreclosure Crisis, with filing a
criminal action against the responsible Lender/party. Any party, agency, court, etc…
whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any portion of this project are
expected to be included as Defendants in the forthcoming civil action.
The Plaintiff additionally notes, that leave recently granted by the Massachusetts
Appeals Court, was based on all four (4) phases of damages, as detailed here.
28
Much has occurred since the initial rulings made by this Court, and the Northeast
Housing Court. The Plaintiff recommends that the Court REVIEW AND VALIDATE
ALL facts, evidence, and information which has steadily come forth since the initial
ruling. Such review will reveal Plaintiff has long since satisfied all three parts
articulated in Packaging Indus. 380 Mass. At 618-20.
5. Forthcoming Civil Action will be filed in Federal Court – The Plaintiff makes no
effort to retry this case here. The facts surrounding this matter satisfy (at minimum)
the Federal requirements of diversity; damages exceeding a threshold of $75,000;
violations to Federal Antitrust laws; Constitutional Violations of the 14th
Amendment
to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights; Evidenced Collusion and Conflict, in
which the Commonwealth thus far has failed to address and take corrective action;
Additional Defendants in the forthcoming civil action will include: The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Nelson Mullins LLP, Attorney David E. Fialkow,
Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson, Attorney Peter Haley, Real Estate Brokers Kenneth and
Mary Daher, and purchasers of the referenced illegal foreclosure – Jeffrey and Isabelle
Perkins.
6. Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC is in Default – As experienced in the recent
Appeal, Docket No. 2013-P-1829, and in accordance to Superior Court Rule 9A,
Defendant Harmon Law offices PC has failed to file timely opposition to Plaintiff’s
requests for injunctive relief. Similarly, Harmon makes no effort to file any opposition
against Plaintiff’s Motion to inform the MA Board of BAR Overseers/ BAR Counsel.
All Defendants received Plaintiff’s Motions via US Priority Mail on February 10,
2015. Superior Court Rule 9A states that opposition to a motion shall be served within
29
ten (10) days, plus three (3) days for mailing. The allotted timeline for Harmon has
since expired, and the Plaintiff submits the required 9A package with opposition
received from Defendants – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-AR1
only. Plaintiff therefore moves for this Court to find Defendant Harmon Law Offices
PC in default, per Mass. Civil Procedure Rule 55, and to award the Plaintiff the
injunctive relief requested.
The Defendant’s default also calls for the Court to take notice, of the lack of alignment
and clear conflict between Defendants. As recently experienced in the Appeals Court,
this conflict questions the validity of everything submitted by Defendants US Bank
NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-AR1.
7. Defendant’s (US Bank, Wells Fargo, and CMLTI 2006-AR1) latest acts of
deception against the Plaintiff and this Court warrant additional relief – As
clearly evidenced historically and now in the Defendant’s latest opposition, the
fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts must no longer be tolerated. It is largely the
reason why this Plaintiff continues to endure hardship, and a case which should have
been settled long ago. The Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to recognize the
many instances these Defendants have been afforded the opportunity to seek mutual
agreement, all of which have been ignored or denied. Here again, the Plaintiff’s
attempt to extend an “olive branch” has again been disregarded, as deceptive and
harmful tactics continue.
Therefore, similar to the injunctive relief sought for the Plaintiff’s time while
Defendant – Harmon Law Offices served as retained counsel to Defendant US Bank,
30
Plaintiff now wishes to expand this request to include the timeline Nelson Mullins has
served as current counsel.18
While the Plaintiff had originally planned to include this
portion of damages in the forthcoming Federal civil action, the Defendant’s decision to
show such blatant disrespect and deception before this Court warrants the expansion of
injunctive relief.
It is through sheer arrogance and the apparent belief of being “ABOVE THE LAW”
that these Defendants now find themselves in this position of increased legal risk.
Their position now is by their own hand. As this pro se Plaintiff has abided by the
rules of the Court, so too, must these Defendants and counsel be held accountable
when they violate and abuse the law.
This Plaintiff is grateful to this Court for its consideration in this request for injunctive
relief. Any corrective action taken by this Court will be recognized as this matter
moves to Federal Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
18
Estimated timeline as retained counsel begins October 2011 to present, approximately 175 weeks; capped at 40
hours per week, at the same hourly rate charged to their clients – Defendants Wells Fargo and US Bank; Rate is
believed to range between $500 - $1000 per hour; Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court validate the rate
charged throughout this timeframe to ensure accuracy. Total relief for Plaintiff’s time while Nelson Mullins has
served as retained counsel is estimated between $3.5M - $7M.
31
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT
DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA, RMBS CMLTI2006 AR-1,
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BAR PLAINTIFF
FROM MAKING FUTURE FILINGS
5. Comes now the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who after reviewing the
Defendant’s Motion to Bar Plaintiff from future filings, respectfully files this Opposition:
1. The Motion filed by Defendants appears to be a last minute act of desperation, as the
growing list of evidence against them (and their retained counsel) is substantial. ALL
stated charges made against these Defendants and referenced attorneys are proper,
have been fully supported, and are clearly based on documented fact and law. As
32
detailed in the Motions accompanying this Opposition, perhaps the most damning
evidence information to date is the most recent:
i) Defendants fail to address MA Attorney General Announcement dated
1/16/2015 – Defendants here make no attempt to even address the announcement
made by (then) Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on January 16,
2015, which reaffirms that the referenced foreclosure is considered VOID by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This announcement impacts ALL prior
related decisions/judgments, and in itself warrants the granting of injunctive
relief to this Plaintiff.19
ii) Counsel Fails to address recent evidence by their own client - Senior Vice
President to Defendant, Wells Fargo20
- The evidenced correspondence and
check sent to the Plaintiff on January 20, 2015 by Wells Fargo Senior Vice
President (Leesa Whitt-Potter), illustrates beyond any doubt, damning proof of
deceptive conduct, thus supporting this Plaintiff’s consistent claims, and shattering
the defendant’s argument(s). This too, in itself, impacts ALL prior related
decisions/judgments, and warrants the granting of injunctive relief to this Plaintiff.
The decision by counsel to completely avoid addressing these two (2) critical
pieces of evidence, and to instead submit a deceptive and false version of the facts,
exemplifies an act of apparent desperation, thus reaffirming continued acts of
fraudulent misrepresentation.
19
See Exhibit A – reference to Docket No.11-4363, filed in Suffolk County Superior Court. 20
See Exhibit B – Wells Fargo Correspondence and check issued to Plaintiff.
33
2. The Massachusetts Appeals Court – has granted this Plaintiff/Appellant leave to file
for new trial – FOR A SECOND TIME.21
The Massachusetts Appeals Court
clearly believes that the abundance of facts supporting this Plaintiff’s consistent
claims of injury contain merit. Granting any party leave to file for new trial is not
“automatic.” Granting leave to this Plaintiff a second time is substantial. The
Defendant’s complete omission of these facts aligns with their historical deceptive
tactics. All references by Defendant’s stating that the Plaintiff’s claims are meritless
and/or baseless are therefore entirely false. Plaintiff’s consistent claims have been
fully supported. The Plaintiff is happy to revisit ANY portion of these claims if so
requested by the Court. Furthermore, these continued false characterizations by
Defendants reveal that it is THEY who are in fact slanderous and defamatory – not the
other way around.
3. Referenced attorneys, who may have historically claimed to have impeccable
professional records, no longer have that luxury. The Plaintiff has provided the
Court(s), irrefutable evidence of Collusion, Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent
Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding
and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury. Counsel’s suggestion that not a single fact of
violation has been submitted is clearly false. Even counsel’s superior, Peter Haley –
the managing partner of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP (Boston),
has not uttered a single word to defend his position (or that of representing
counsel – Attorney David E. Fialkow), since implicating his entire firm over a
year and a half ago.
21
Reference Docket Sheet for Appellate Docket No: 2013-P-1829, #19
34
4. The clear and irrefutable evidence of Collusion22
reveals existing relationships which
are clearly improper between the Defendant’s counsel, the Massachusetts Attorney
General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston BAR Association. The
Plaintiff restates that NO party or agency has made ANY attempt to deny these clearly
evidenced allegations. If criminal charges against referenced parties are not moving
forward; If further investigations are not taking place; and if the Court(s) are failing to
address ANY of these serious allegations – this Plaintiff has clear reason to suspect
that these improper relationships play a role, which are believed to involve variables of
corruption. The Plaintiff has made clear, that these collective concerns question the
integrity of judicial system in this Commonwealth. It has additionally shown cause to
inform and involve the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office, and a move to
Federal Court.23
Moving forward, the appointment of a special prosecutor is clearly
necessary.
5. Forthcoming Civil Action will be filed in Federal Court – The Plaintiff makes no
effort to retry this case here. The facts surrounding this matter satisfy (at minimum)
the Federal requirements of diversity; damages exceeding a threshold of $75,000;
violations to Federal Antitrust laws; Constitutional Violations of the 14th
Amendment
to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights; Evidenced Collusion and Conflict, in
which the Commonwealth thus far has failed to address and take corrective action;
Additional Defendants in the forthcoming civil action will include: The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Nelson Mullins LLP, Attorney David E. Fialkow,
Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson, Attorney Peter Haley, Real Estate Brokers Kenneth and
22
See Exhibit C 23
As referenced in the Appellant Brief to Docket No: 2013-P-1829.
35
Mary Daher, and purchasers of the referenced illegal foreclosure – Jeffrey and Isabelle
Perkins.
6. This matter is one which is irrefutably and directly tied to what many consider the
largest case of FRAUD in the history of these United States. The extensive and still
growing amount of evidence supporting this Plaintiff’s consistent claims continues to
expose the depth of this FRAUD and apparent CORRUPTION. It has shown clear
cause to inform and involve the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office, and the
immediate call for multiple internal investigations. The failure thus far, by this
Commonwealth on multiple levels to initiate appropriate corrective action is
troublesome, and now warrants the involvement of Federal authorities. Furthermore,
multiple parties will continue to be regularly updated and informed with related
FACT-BASED information, as this matter is irrefutably tied to the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. Parties include (but are not limited to): The Executive
Offices of the President of the United States, members of the United States Senate,
members of Congress, the Media, and the Public.
7. Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC is in Default – As detailed in the related
Motions submitted to the Court, Harmon’s default calls for the Court to take notice of
the lack of alignment and clear conflict between Defendants. As recently experienced
in the Appeals Court, this conflict questions the validity of everything submitted by
Defendants US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and CMLTI 2006-AR1.
8. This Plaintiff has followed the rules of the Court; has clearly conducted himself in an
ethical manner; exemplified complete transparency, and shown beyond ANY doubt,
evidenced misconduct by Defendant’s and their retained counsel. It is understandable
36
to suspect, that a degree of embarrassment exists – knowing that this pro se litigant has
exemplified the ability to successfully argue this matter in a Court of law. Regardless,
their position now comes by their own hand. Requests now by counsel to restrict
Plaintiff’s speech and future filings are made in apparent desperation, as their
collective actions have now brought them certain increased legal risk.
Therefore, the Plaintiff respectfully moves for this Court to DENY the Defendant’s Motion,
and restates necessity for validation of ALL Court documents submitted by Defendants. Any
corrective action taken by this Court will be recognized as this matter moves to Federal Court.
If the Court has ANY questions, or needs additional information, this Plaintiff is happy to
provide upon request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
37
EXHIBIT A
38
39
EXHIBIT B
40
41
42
EXHIBIT C
43