FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Coakley Announcement Reaffirms Foreclosed Homeowner’s Consistent Claims in 3-year Court Battle. Boston, MA, January 24, 2015 – Foreclosed homeowner (and pro se litigant), Mohan A. Harihar now has the confirmed validation he has been waiting over 3 years for… The announcement, released by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015, and just days before leaving office, addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011 complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks including Wells Fargo N.A.

1The complaint details the Defendant’s unlawful

conduct resulting in void/illegal foreclosures2. The Attorney General states, “Wells Fargo Bank

violated Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal authority to do so.” This declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General reaffirms the consistent claims by Mr. Harihar, through over three (3) years of litigation. Even prior to this announcement, the historical record associated with this matter collectively reflects an overwhelming amount of evidence and information that has steadily come forth, in full support of Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims. The Massachusetts Appeals Court has agreed, recently granting Mr. Harihar leave to file for new trial

3. Mr. Harihar is now in process of preparing the new/updated

complaint, expected to be filed with the appropriate Court by the end of January (2015), or shortly thereafter. The Attorney General’s announcement (at minimum) reaffirms the following:

1. The referenced foreclosure is considered illegal and is therefore void. 2. The referenced foreclosure sale by the Defendant – US Bank NA is considered illegal and is

therefore void. 3. Multiple counts of Civil and Criminal misconduct against Defendant’s including (but not limited

to): Fraud, Deceptive Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and Perjury.

4. Impacts ALL related decisions thus far made in every Massachusetts State Court.

The timing of Coakley’s announcement coincidentally also comes in the same timeframe that evidenced Collusion & Conflict

4 has been brought to the attention of the Court(s) and to the

Massachusetts Inspector General, involving the following parties:

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

2 Includes Mr. Harihar’s referenced foreclosure, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

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

Offices PC, et al. 4 Scroll down to view “After the Bubble Bursts: Mortgage and Foreclosure Issues in Criminal and Civil

Litigation.”

2

1. The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General 2. The US Attorney’s Office 3. The Boston Bar Association 4. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP - Retained counsel for both Wells Fargo & US Bank

in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar. Mr. Harihar now respectfully seeks immediate corrective action and injunctive relief from the Middlesex Superior Court

5, prior to filing the forthcoming civil action, and in effort to prevent additional

unnecessary harm and damages from occurring. The continued pursuit of criminal charges against ALL responsible parties continues as well. This storyline which continues to grow has also revealed the relationship of this legal matter to Mr. Harihar’s Intellectual Property, involving 3 separate projects designed to accomplish the following:

1. Assist this Nation’s and overall Global economic recovery from damages incurred from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis (FCS model ©). Resulting economic growth is estimated in the trillions of dollars, uses an existing infrastructure, requires no new legislation, and not one (1) US tax dollar to implement.

2. A template to assist (at minimum) 4.2 million wrongfully foreclosed homeowners with filing a civil lawsuit against responsible Lenders/parties.

3. A template to assist (at minimum) 4.2 million wrongfully foreclosed homeowners with filing criminal complaints, in the pursuit of criminal charges against responsible Lenders/parties.

Prior to leave being granted by the MA Appeals Court, Mr. Harihar’s filed Appellate Brief included the following statement: “I’ve been respectful to this and every Court, followed the law, and have clearly gone over and above, perhaps more so than any individual in this Commonwealth or Country to not only prove this case, but to also provide a solution to help ALL parties affected.” For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile) Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1

5 Scroll down to view: PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

APPEAL, AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DECISION REVERSAL(S) AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF

3

4

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 ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

APPEAL, AND MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE DECISION REVERSAL(S) AND

INJUCTIVE RELIEF

2. The Plaintiff, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this opposition to

the Defendant’s attempt to collect bill costs associated with the referenced Appeal, based

on the January 16, 2015 announcement by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha

Coakley.

3. The announcement just released by Attorney General Coakley on January 16, 2015

addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011 complaint filed by the

Commonwealth against four banks including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A. The

complaint details the Defendant’s unlawful conduct resulting in void/illegal

foreclosures6. The Attorney General states, “Wells Fargo Bank violated

Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by

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

5

illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal

authority to do so.” This declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General reaffirms the

consistent claims by this Plaintiff, through over three (3) years of litigation.

4. Even prior to this announcement, the historical record associated with this matter

collectively reflects an overwhelming amount of evidence and information that has

steadily come forth, in full support of this Plaintiff’s consistent claims. The Massachusetts

Appeals Court has agreed, recently granting this Plaintiff leave to file for new trial7. The

Plaintiff is now in process of preparing the new/updated complaint, expected to be filed

with the appropriate Court by the end of January (2015), or shortly thereafter.

5. The Attorney General’s announcement (at minimum) reaffirms the following:

1. The referenced foreclosure is considered illegal and is

therefore void.

2. The referenced foreclosure sale by the Defendant – US Bank

NA is considered illegal and is therefore void.

3. Multiple counts of Civil and Criminal misconduct against

Defendant’s including (but not limited to): Fraud, Deceptive

Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent

Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Assignments, Aiding and

Abetting Fraud, and Perjury.

4. Impacts ALL related decisions thus far made in every

Massachusetts State Court.

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

Offices PC, et al.

6

6. Immediate corrective action and injunctive relief is now respectfully sought in this Court

with the filing of this opposition, and prior to filing the forthcoming civil action, in effort

to prevent additional and unnecessary harm and damages to this Plaintiff:

1. Reversal of this 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 Court8, as the referenced foreclosure is

considered illegal by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

3. Corrective action regarding the Wrongful Displacement of the

Plaintiff, who is still HOMELESS since his eviction nearly one

(1) year ago, February, 2014. The Plaintiff respectfully requests

injunctive relief to the extent that this Court orders the

Defendants to provide equivalent interim housing to Mr.

Harihar, while legal matters proceed.9

4. The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the

replacement cost of all furnishings, belongings, etc… the

8 If the Middlesex Superior Court lacks the authority to overturn the referenced Summary Judgment, please

advise. 9 Equivalent interim housing is defined as a twenty-six hundred (2600) square foot, four (4) bedroom, two plus

(2+) bath single-family, condominium, townhome, or apartment, with a minimum of two (2) parking spaces. The

location of this interim housing is requested in the city of Boston, MA, as the Plaintiff has been forced to take a

significantly lesser job as a part-time bartender. Interim housing is requested in close proximity to the Plaintiff’s

place of employment, and which meets the approval of the Plaintiff.

7

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

result of the referenced illegal foreclosure/ displacement.10

5. The Plaintiff respectfully requests injunctive relief ordering the

Defendants to provide a new replacement vehicle (or equivalent

new replacement cost), for the forced vehicle repossession

resulting from the Defendant’s misconduct. The Plaintiff has

since had to burden family members to assist with providing

transportation, including assistance with acquiring a leased

vehicle, which is now at risk of exceeding allowed mileage. 11

6. The Plaintiff brings to this Court’s attention, that with the

collective and extensive new evidence and information that has

come forth, Defendant – Harmon Law Offices PC has not

refuted any claims of misconduct made against them12

. This

Plaintiff has committed the last several years of his life in this

pro se effort – to research, learn the law, its procedures,

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 requested for

immediate relief from Harmon Law offices PC – separate from

relief being sought in the forthcoming civil action, as

10

Replacement cost is equated to new replacement cost. 11

New Vehicle replacement cost equated to a 2015 BMW X5. 12

Reference MA Appeals Court Docket 2013-P-1829, in which no Appellate Brief, Reply Brief, or opposition of

any kind was filed by Appellee – Harmon Law offices PC.

8

reimbursement for this Plaintiff’s time spent while the Harmon

served as counsel to Defendant – US Bank NA (Estimated time

as retained counsel – 6 months, or 26 weeks; Plaintiff caps legal

hours at 40 hours per week). The hourly rate is set equal to, but

not greater than the hourly rate charged by Harmon Law Offices

PC to its client, US Bank NA (Estimated at $250 per

hour).13

The total relief for this timeframe is $260,000.

7. The Plaintiff requests that this Court now inform the MA BAR

of OVERSEERS/BAR COUNSEL of misconduct by

Defendant’s retained counsel (current and prior), well

documented with the Court(s) and in line with complaints

already filed on file against them.

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

provide upon request.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Mo.harihar@gmail.com

13

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