harihar files request for special prosecutor in federal foreclosure/rico complaint

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Harihar Files Request for Special Prosecutor in Federal Foreclosure/RICO Complaint. Boston, MA, November 6, 2015 – A second amended complaint was filed on Friday in the US District Court (Boston, MA) by Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar (Scroll down to view 2

nd amended complaint in its

entirety). 14 Defendants include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the RMBS

1 - CMLTI 2006-AR1, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Attorney General of Massachusetts (former) – Martha Coakley, Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, David E. Fialkow (Esq.), Jeffrey S. Patterson (Esq.), Peter Haley (Esq.), Real Estate Brokers – Mary & Ken Daher (Daher Companies located in Methuen, MA), and homeowners Jeffrey & Isabelle Perkins – who apparently disregarded disclosures and moved forward with purchasing an illegal foreclosure.

2

The 173-page civil/criminal complaint adds 1600 additional pages of supporting documentation, dozens of email communications over nearly five (5) years to numerous government officials and agencies, Certified SEC documents, and 22-months of recorded conversations detailing deceptive practices during the attempted loan-modification process. In the meantime – Attorney General Maura Healey has officially BLOCKED Mr. Harihar on the Massachusetts AGO social media TWITTER page (for reasons unknown), and Massachusetts legislators are aggressively attempting to pass proposed Bill - S 1981, “CLEARING OF TITLE TO CERTAIN FORECLOSED PROPERTIES”. On September 17, 2015, the Massachusetts State Senate, in a vote of 31 – 7, passed a proposed bill that would restrict homeowners to 3 years (down from 20 years) to sue the responsible lender in order to regain their home after illegal foreclosure. This significant effort by Massachusetts State legislators to push through this legislation raises a number of immediate RED FLAGS. The growing list of Federal and State allegations includes (but is not limited to): RICO violations, “Color of Law violations”, 14

th Amendment infractions to Due Process & Equal Protection Rights, False

Claims, Fraud (including Deceptive Practices), Fraudulent Concealment/Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Fraudulent Assignments. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has publicly stated that the referenced foreclosure is ILLEGAL, VOID, and does not possess CLEAR TITLE. Per the direction of the US District Court, Harihar has filed through the Executive Branch of Government (DOJ/US Inspector General) – requests to appoint a special prosecutor, and additionally for Whistleblower protection.

1 RMBS - residential mortgage-backed security.

2 Referenced illegal foreclosure is located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

2

For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar Email: [email protected] Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile) Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1

mailto:[email protected]

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 2015-cv-

11880

Plaintiff

v.

WELLS FARGO NA,

US BANK NA,

RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

MARTHA COAKLEY

HARMON LAW OFFICES PC,

NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP,

DAVID E. FIALKOW – ESQ,

JEFFREY PATTERSON – ESQ,

PETER HALEY – ESQ,

MARY AND KEN DAHER - DAHER COMPANIES,

JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS

Defendants

CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 38(B) – SECOND AMENDED

PREFACE

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully

submits this second amended complaint to address a substantial

amount of both Federal and State violations – some of which

have been already confirmed by the United States Department of

Justice (DOJ), and others.

4

It has become the clear belief of this Plaintiff, that the

well-supported and historically evidenced misconduct outlined

in this complaint is part of a greater scheme – which continues

to evolve, now adding (at minimum) clear violations of the RICO

Act, as well as Color of Law violations. Therefore, the

Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this civil action by bringing

to the Court’s attention the following:

1. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, have ALREADY

concluded that violations to both Federal and State law

have been identified with the Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and

as indicated through the $25B National Mortgage

Settlement.3 Moving forward, the proper articulation of

these violations will require (at minimum) the cooperation

and subpoenaed testimony from the Department of Justice

(DOJ) and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.

2. Federal Bank Regulators have separately identified and

concluded similar findings of misconduct associated with

the Plaintiff’s foreclosure, through an independent

foreclosure review specific to the Plaintiff’s

foreclosure.4

3 See Attachment A

4 See Attachment B, Letter of Eligibility for Independent

Foreclosure Review, followed by a letter from the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve and the OCC, identifying the

5

3. Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968) -

revealing clearly improper relationships between the

Defendant’s retained counsel (current and prior)5, the

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s

Office, and the Boston BAR Association. In related

proceedings, the Plaintiff has already brought this

concern to the attention of the following Massachusetts

Courts and Authorities:

a. The Northeast Housing Court (Middlesex County)

b. The Middlesex Superior Court

c. The Massachusetts Appeals Court

d. The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General

e. The Office of the Massachusetts Inspector General

f. The US Attorney’s Office (MA)

g. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

These clearly evidenced improper relationships have thus

far been completely ignored by the referenced

Plaintiffs’ foreclosure. The 18-page, April 2011 Interagency

Review of Foreclosure Practices and Policies Report is

additionally filed separately for reference – See Attachment C. 5 Defendants’ current counsel is K&L Gates, LLP; prior counsel

is Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.

6

Massachusetts Courts, adding Deprivation of Rights

violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242.6

4. The US Foreclosure Crisis is considered by many to be the

“Largest CASE of FRAUD in the History of these United

States.” The following documents are submitted as

reference to assist with articulating and clarifying the

magnitude of related misconduct, and the resulting

harm/damages to this Nation’s Economy, and to millions of

Americans:

a. Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and

Practices - Federal Reserve System/ Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift

Supervision, Washington D.C., 20117

b. WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS:Anatomy of a

Financial Collapse – Majority and Minority Staff

Report, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,

United States Senate.8

c. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of

the National Commission on the Causes of the

Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States.9

6 Plaintiff will further articulate RICO allegations, and

additional Color of Law allegations within this complaint. 7 See Attachment C.

8 See Attachment D.

9 See Attachment E.

7

d. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney

Procedure Manual, Version 1.10

e. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John

O’Brien, 1/18/12 Press Release.11

f. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General

Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12).12

5. This civil complaint draws from synonymous civil/criminal

lawsuits filed by numerous parties across the nation.

Three(3) of the supporting complaints referenced include:

a. The US DOJ complaint associated with the $25B

National Mortgage Settlement.

b. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ACE CORPORATION, et

al, Docket No:13-cv-00464-JFA (US District Court,

Western District of North Carolina) – which includes

the sworn testimony of FRAUD EXPERT, LYNN SYZMONIAK.

c. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. WELLS FARGO, et al,

filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Docket No:

11-4363-BLS.

Substantial subpoenaed testimony and Discovery from

multiple parties, including (but not limited to)

FRAUD EXPERT – LYNN SYZMONIAK will be necessary to

assist with articulating the ALREADY IDENTIFIED

10

See Attachment F. 11

See Attachment G. 12

See Attachment H.

8

violations to Federal and State law, related to the

Plaintiff’s foreclosure.

6. As directed by this Court, the Plaintiff has filed

complaints through the Executive Branch of Government,

with the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) and

the Office of the Inspector General, to address referenced

alleged RICO violations, Color of Law violations,

protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and

related complaints filed with the Fraud Investigations

Unit of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). As

previously stated, alignment with Federal and State

Prosecutors is crucial moving forward in this matter.

The Plaintiff is currently awaiting an update from the US

DOJ/Office of the Inspector General, along with the

assignment of a Special Prosecutor.

The Plaintiff respectfully now seeks additional

protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act

(Requests for protection have been submitted to the US

DOJ/Inspector General), where the ALREADY IDENTIFIED

misconduct of these Defendants (including False Claims)

damages the ability to implement the Plaintiff’s

Intellectual Property known as the FCS Model, thereby

cheating Federal and State governments, and the Public out

9

of economic benefit estimated in the trillions of

dollars.13

7. The announcement released by former 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 Defendant - Wells Fargo N.A.

The complaint details the Defendant’s unlawful conduct

resulting in void/illegal foreclosures14. In her January

2015 announcement, Attorney General Coakley re-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.”

8. The letter and payment sent by a Senior Vice-President of

Defendant - Wells Fargo, and received by the Plaintiff on

January 20, 2015, irrefutably re-affirms (at minimum)

consistent claims of deceptive practices.15

9. Certified SEC Documents – associated with Defendant CMLTI

2006-AR1, have been secured by the Plaintiff, and will be

13

See Attachment I, FCS (Foreclosure Crisis Solution) Model©

presentation, delivered to multiple high-ranking government

officials, including the Executive Offices of the President, at

the specific request of Vice President, Joe Biden. 14 See Attachment J, Complaint filed by the Commonwealth in

Suffolk Superior Court, Docket No: 11-4363. 15 See Attachment K

10

provided at trial, illustrating (at Minimum) the

FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS supporting FALSE CLAIMS associated

with the Plaintiffs’ Foreclosure.

10. The Plaintiff will be providing at trial, dozens of

supporting letter/email correspondences sent over the last

several years, delivered to the following

parties/offices/agencies: The Executive Office of the

President of the United States (EOP) – to the specific

attention of Vice President Joe Biden, US Attorney Carmen

Ortiz (MA), MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, MA

Attorney General Maura Healey, US Senator Elizabeth Warren

(MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki

Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen Donoghue(MA), Governor

Deval Patrick (MA), Governor Charles Baker (MA), Deputy

Director Andrew McCabe (FBI – Washington), Inspector

General Glen Cunha (MA), Timothy Sheehan (Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau – CFPB), Susan Herman

(President, American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU), the MA

Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, the Defendant’s

retained counsel (current and prior), and others.

11. The Plaintiff, who has historically acted as a pro se

litigant (out of financial necessity), continues to

aggressively seek and retain qualified counsel with regard

to this matter. There is considerable concern whether a

11

fair and just outcome is realistic as a pro se litigant,

considering magnitude of complex issues being addressed.

With the filing of this second amended complaint, the

Plaintiff respectfully re-files with the Court a separate

“Motion to Renew the Appointment of Counsel” per Title 28

U.S.C. § 1915.

12. The vast majority of impacted homeowners who have

been identified in this foreclosure crisis, lack the

finances, legal expertise, time, etc., to pursue legal

action for the already identified crimes committed against

them. This Plaintiff has dedicated the last five (5) years

of his life in this legal effort, primarily out of

principle, and with the clear intention of ultimately

providing a solution to a crisis that continues to plague

this nation. The results thus far have uncovered not only

a greater level of misconduct on multiple levels, but a

system set up for failure – with virtually no realistic

chance for the average American to succeed in this effort.

It is my sincere hope, that this Court will take the time

to understand and validate - what exactly has transpired

historically in this matter; as this matter proceeds to

trial; and prior to making its final decision(s).

13. It remains the clear objective of this Plaintiff to

gain agreement with ALL parties, and to succeed in the

12

implementation of a framework that proves beneficial to

ALL parties, and this Nation. Should a successful

agreement between parties be reached, the Plaintiff MAY

consider the withdrawal of filed criminal complaints.

14. With the filing of this second amended complaint, it

is the Plaintiff’s hope that this version provides

additional clarification for the serious and sensitive

concerns stated within, and which also complies with the

rules of the Court. Still, unless a mutual agreement is

reached beforehand, it is expected, that upon successfully

retaining legal counsel, a third amended complaint will

likely be necessary.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

II. JURIDICTION AND VENUE

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

B. Defendants

IV. BACKGROUND

A. Real Estate Sale, Mortgage Finance, and Foreclosure

Procedures.

B. Plaintiff’s Mortgage.

13

C. Deceptive Practices During Plaintiff’s 22-Month Loan

Modification Effort.

D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff.

E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments.

F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure

Policies and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift

Supervision).

G. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and

Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations, United States Senate.

H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual.

I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement.

J. Federal Bank Regulators – Independent Foreclosure

Review.

K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion.

L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law

offices PC.

M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion throughout Multiple

Massachusetts State Courts.

N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal

Protection Rights.

O. Evidenced Tampering Violations.

14

P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to

State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.

Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiff’s Foreclosure

Identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney

General; also by an Independent Foreclosure Review

Conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.

R. Secondary Defendants.

S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff.

V. THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET

A. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, and the Trustees’

Role

B. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, Controlled by the

Trustee Bank Defendants Allegedly Purchased Notes and

Mortgages on Homes in Massachusetts and Across the

United States.

C. The Foreclosure Problem in Massachusetts and the United

States

VI. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

VII. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A),

Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor

Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.

15

COUNT II FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(B),



COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D),

Against ALL Defendants

COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G),


COUNT V FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(C),

Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a

Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C.

§ 3729 (a)(1)(B), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D), and 31

U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G)

COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act

Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 §§ 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),


COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder

of the Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)

COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation

of G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Failing to identify the Present

Holder of the Mortgage in Notice of Sale (as to the

Bank Defendants)

COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

16

G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Falsely Representing Status as

Holder of Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)

COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and

Servicing Practices (as to the Bank Defendants

COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Failure to Register Assignment of

Mortgages (as to the Bank Defendants)

COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of

Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation

of

G. L. c. 185, § 67 (as to All Defendants)

COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due

Process and Equal Protection Rights.

COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968)

COUNT XV Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,

Title 18, USC, § 242

COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C. § 501 (copyright infringement)

COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) (criminal

copyright infringement for profit)

COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants

17

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

IX. REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Plaintiff, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, brings

this enforcement action to hold multiple parties

accountable – from their violations of both Federal and

Massachusetts law, stemming from the US Foreclosure Crisis

that has gripped Massachusetts and this Nation since 2007.

These referenced violations have already been confirmed by

the United States Department of Justice, the Massachusetts

Attorney General’s Office, and Federal Bank Regulators.

The resulting damages to this Plaintiff are considerable.

Accordingly, pursuant to (at minimum) the Massachusetts

Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A, § 4, and G. L. c. 12,

§ 10, the Plaintiff seeks to require Defendants Wells Faro

NA, US Bank NA, and the Residential Mortgage Backed

Security (RMBS) – CMLTI 2006-AR1, and others to pay civil

penalties, restitution, and other compensation for harms

caused by their unfair and deceptive conduct (at minimum),

in Massachusetts.

2. This action is additionally brought to recover damages and

penalties arising from conduct by the defendants in

18

creating, selling, and servicing securities allegedly

backed by notes and mortgages respecting residential real

estate when in fact, the trusts that issued the securities

did not possess the notes and assignments of the

mortgages. When Defendants needed to bring foreclosure

actions they used fraudulent mortgage assignments to

conceal that over 1400 mortgage backed securities16 trusts

(“MBS Trusts”), each with mortgages valued over $1

billion, are missing these critical mortgage assignments

and notes. Without the notes and mortgage assignments,

which should have been delivered at the inception of the

trust, the trusts do not hold good title to the loans and

mortgages that investors and the Plaintiff have been told

secure the notes.17

3. The Primary Defendants names herein include (i) Trustees

which controlled the MBS Trusts whose assets consisted of

pools of residential mortgages in Massachusetts and

throughout the United States, (ii) the mortgage servicing

companies that managed the day-to-day operations of the

payment processing and foreclosure proceedings at the

direction of the trustee banks, and (iii) the depositors

16 Including MBS associated with Plaintiffs’ foreclosure,

Defendant - CMLTI 2006-AR1. 17

Subpoenaed Testimony will be required by (at minimum) Fraud

Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak.

19

that failed to convey to the trusts their rights and

interests in each mortgage loan.

4. Defendants concealed that the notes and assignments were

never delivered to the MBS Trusts and disseminated false

and misleading statements to the investors, including the

United States (“U.S”) Government, the states of

California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia,

North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of

Chicago and the City of New York.

5. The U.S. government and the States of California,

Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,

New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, North Carolina, the

District of Columbia, the City of Chicago and the City of

New York purchased securities issued by the MBS Trusts

that used the Defendants as depositors, trustees or

servicers, and are missing notes and assignments, or

include forged assignments. The U.S. Government and the

States of California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New

Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia,

North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of

20

Chicago and the City of New York are harmed by: (i) the

resulting impaired value of the purchased securities, (ii)

overcharges for fraudulent services and for services not

provided, imposed by the trustees and the mortgage service

companies, and (iii) the increased cost to prove good

title to the mortgages purportedly in their MBS’ asset

pools, since the supporting documents are either missing

or forged. The U.S. Government was further harmed by

payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking

valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not

entitled to demand or receive said payments.

6. The Plaintiff, Pursuant to (at minimum) the Federal False

Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.18 (the “FCA”),

references the investigations made by Nationally

recognized Fraud Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak, in furtherance of

a False Claims Act qui tam action and found that the

Defendants pursued and continue to pursue foreclosure

actions using false and fabricated mortgage assignments.

Those fabricated documents were filed in Courts throughout

the United States. In many instances, the Fraud Expert

also found that the notes, representing the title to the

18

This action is brought pursuant to both (i) the FCA as it

stood prior to the enactment of the Fraud Enforcement and

Recovery Act of 2009 (the “FERA”) and (ii) the FCA as amended

by the FERA.

21

mortgage, were never transferred to the Trusts, which

never held good title to the mortgages.

7. When the depositors and the trustee banks discovered that

the mortgage assignments were missing, the trustee banks,

together with associated servicing companies, default

Management Company and/or mortgage loan documentation

companies, devised and operated a scheme to replace

missing assignments, with fraudulent, fabricated

assignments. Likewise, to conceal that the Trusts were

never assigned the notes, the trustee banks in concert

with the mortgage servicing companies, which needed

possession of the note in order to foreclose, prepared

affidavits falsely representing that the Trusts had

possession of the note.

8. The purpose of the scheme was to meet the evidentiary

requirements imposed by courts in the foreclosure cases,

and to conceal from trust certificate holders the true,

and impaired value of the assets of each of the trusts,

crippled by the missing documents.

9. Furthermore, the MBS Trusts and their trustees, depositors

and their servicing companies misrepresented to the

investing public the assets of the Trusts and issued false

statements in their prospectuses and certifications of

compliance.

22

10. As similarly stated by the Massachusetts Office of

the Attorney General, the conduct alleged has affected

thousands of homeowners (MA) through their residential

mortgage loans, and includes, without limitation:

a) Engaging in unfair and deceptive foreclosure practices

by conducting foreclosures when the defendants lacked

the right to do so and misrepresenting to homeowners

their roles as mortgagees or as the holders of the

mortgages;

b) Engaging in false documentation practices to facilitate

their foreclosure practices;

c) Deceiving homeowners in the course of servicing

mortgage loans by misrepresenting to borrowers

regarding its loan modification programs, acting

deceptively in implementing loan modifications and

deceiving borrowers regarding foreclosure proceedings;

and

d) Failing to comply with Massachusetts' registration

statute.

11. As stated by the Department of Justice, Federal bank

Regulators and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney

General, the Defendants, and their subsidiaries and

related entities, are responsible for the vast majority of

unlawful foreclosures that occurred in the Commonwealth in

23

the last four (plus) years. The scope of both civil and

criminal misconduct alleged is significant, involves

complex facts, will (at minimum) require voluminous

discovery, subpoenaed testimony by multiple parties, and

the likely need for substantial case management. It

additionally calls for alignment with federal and/or state

prosecutors regarding associated criminal complaints19,

and the continued pursuit of criminal charges (at minimum)

against these Defendants.

12. Since much of the referenced misconduct has already

been confirmed20, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that

the Court allow for the re-filing of injunctive relief in

order to remedy, address, and prevent additional harm

arising out of the defendants' conduct, while legal

matters proceed.

13. Relief is sought for the infringement and damage to

the Plaintiff’s related Intellectual property, which

includes the project known as the FCS Model©.

14. The historical record on file with Massachusetts

State Courts in this matter collectively reflects an

19

See Attachment L, which includes a criminal complaint filed

with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI). 20

Confirmation of referenced misconduct has been made by the

Department of Justice, Massachusetts Attorney General, and

Federal Bank Regulators.

24

overwhelming (and still growing) amount of evidence and

information which has steadily come forth, in full support

of this Plaintiff’s consistent claims – thus clearly

warranting new trial and this move to Federal Court.21

15. A thorough REVIEW AND VALIDATION of ALL related

Dockets22, transcripts, decisions, etc… will be necessary,

to confirm this Plaintiff’s consistent claims through over

four (4) years of litigation, as well as to expose/reveal

the serious concerns experienced in Massachusetts State

Courts including (but not limited to):

a) Clearly evidenced PERJURY allegations of the

Defendants (specifically, Defendants Wells Fargo NA, US

Bank NA, CMLTI 2006-AR1, and their retained counsel),

who have maintained that ZERO misconduct is related to

this matter.

b) The historical refusal by Defendants to provide

critical Discovery, and the failure of Massachusetts

State Courts to enforce and compel their production.

This is best exemplified by the repeated refusal to

21 Massachusetts State Courts include: Lowell District Court,

Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 22 Related Dockets throughout Massachusetts State Courts include:

2013-P-1829, 2013-P-0671, 2011-P-1515, 11-04499, 11-SP-

3032,1311AC001497, 1311AC001498, 1311AC001499, 1311AC001500,

1311AC001501, 1311AC001502

25

compel the production of the recorded conversations

during the 22-month loan modification process, which

clearly demonstrates (at minimum) deceptive practices

in violation of G.L. c. 93A, § 2, by the Defendant –

Wells Fargo NA, mortgage servicer.

c) Multiple abuses of Judicial discretion;

d) Irrefutable negligence and 14th Amendment infractions to

Due Process and Equal Protection Rights experienced in

the Northeast Housing Court. 23

16. The Plaintiff respectfully brings to this Court’s

attention, the clearly evidenced discovery of IMPROPER

RELATIONSHIPS including DOCUMENTED COLLUSION and

CONFLICT24, involving the Defendant’s prior counsel -

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney

General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston

Bar Association. It has necessitated the involvement of

the US DOJ/Inspector General’s Office, the requested call

for (at minimum) multiple internal investigations, and

restates to necessity to involve Federal prosecutors to

address the numerous criminal allegations associated with

23 See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal never

received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, preceded by the

complaint filed with the Committee on Professional

Responsibility for Clerks of the Court. 24 See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center

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

Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.

26

this complaint, including (but not limited to): Violations

to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968), and Deprivation of Rights

violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242. These

collective actions – the referenced misconduct of the

Defendants, and the failures of the Commonwealth (to

prosecute and/or take corrective action), further

threatens the Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff. This

Intellectual Property consists of projects, created by

this Plaintiff, designed to assist these United States

with economic recovery and growth, from damages suffered

by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.

17. There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,

the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,

or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of

COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.

18. Re-stating, the announcement released by the former

Attorney General - Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015

addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011

complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks

27

including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A.25 The complaint

(which includes alleged misconduct synonymous to that

stated in this Docket), details the Defendant’s unlawful

conduct resulting in void/illegal foreclosures. The

Attorney General states, “Wells Fargo Bank violated

Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts

Consumer Protection Act by illegally foreclosing upon

Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal

authority to do so.” This declaration by the Massachusetts

Attorney General reaffirms the consistent claims by this

Plaintiff, over four (4) years of litigation.

19. The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for

the record, the Defendant US Bank NA’s prior counsel -

Harmon Law Offices PC, a law firm with a principal office

in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel

by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew from this case

shortly after the MA Attorney General’s Office began its

investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful

foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the “Foreclosure

Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly

25

See Attachment J, Docket No: 11-4363, filed in Suffolk County

Superior Court, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and

includes Defendant – Wells Fargo NA

28

linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin – David

Stern.

20. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the list of

Defendants, either here or by separate legal action, as

the depth of related misconduct is revealed. This includes

any party, agency, employer, etc… who so chooses to

support any portion of the referenced misconduct.

Defendant’s newly retained counsel - K & L Gates, LLP, has

been given notice, that any alignment or show of support

to any portion of the referenced misconduct will show

cause to include them is this, or separate legal action.

This includes (but is not limited to) the recent decisions

to newly employ Attorney David E. Fialkow and Attorney

Jeffrey S. Patterson. Both Fialkow and Patterson have

recently separated from the Prior retained law firm –

Defendant, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP for

reasons unknown.26

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26

K & L Gates, LLP is the 3rd law firm to appear as retained

counsel to Defendant’s US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, and CMLTI

2006-AR1 (Replacing Defendant - Nelson Mullins Riley and

Scarborough LLP, and Defendant - Harmon Law Offices PC). See

Notice, Attachment O.

29

21. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

this action pursuant to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968).

22. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

this action pursuant to the Deprivation of Rights

violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242.

23. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the

counts related to the False Claims Act pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the

Defendants pursuant to subject matter jurisdiction over

this action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because

Defendants transact the business that is the subject of

this lawsuit in this Commonwealth of Massachusetts and

numerous acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. 3729 occurred in

this Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

25. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 31

U.S.C. § 3732(a) because Defendants transact the business

that is the subject matter of this lawsuit in this

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and numerous acts proscribed

by 31 U.S.C. 3729 occurred in this Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

30

26. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

pursuant to G.L.c. 93A § 2, G.L.c. 12 § 10, and G.L.c.223

§ 3.

27. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to

G.L.c.223 § 8 and G.L.c. 93A § 2

28. The parties are joined in a single lawsuit pursuant

to (at minimum) Mass R. Civ. P.20, due to a significant

number of common issues of fact and law raised by the

claims detailed within and because these claims originate

out of the same series of transactions or occurrences,

namely, foreclosures that failed to comply with

Massachusetts and Federal Law.

29. Trial by jury is hereby respectfully demanded under

Civil Procedure Rule 38 § (a), taking into consideration

the historical abuses of judicial discretion throughout

multiple state courts, irrefutable negligence by the

Northeast Housing Court, 14th Amendment infractions to Due

Process and Equal Protection Rights, and the

Commonwealth’s failure/refusal to address and prosecute

Defendants’ (and counsel’s) evidenced criminal misconduct,

or to take ANY corrective action.

III. THE PARTIES

31

30. The Plaintiff is Mohan A. Harihar, a wrongfully

foreclosed and wrongfully displaced homeowner, who brings

this action to recover damages suffered, and also in the

public interest. Mr. Harihar is also the originator/owner

of three (3) separate projects specifically designed to

assist this Nation’s and overall Global economic recovery

from damages suffered from the US Foreclosure/Financial

Crisis. These projects include the FCS model27.

31. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo") is a

national bank with a principal place of business in Sioux

Falls, South Dakota. As described below, Wells Fargo

either directly and/or indirectly through its agents,

employees, subsidiaries and/or related companies,

including without limitation Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,

Inc., held, serviced and/or engaged in transactions

related to, mortgages of real property within the

Commonwealth, including the Plaintiff’s foreclosed

property.28

32. Defendant US Bank, N.A. (“US Bank”), is a national

bank with a principal place of business in Saint Paul, MN.

As described below, US Bank either directly and/or

27 The FCS Model ©, is the Intellectual Property belonging to

the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar. See Attachment U for

completed form AO 121. 28 The referenced illegal foreclosure is located at 168

Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

32

indirectly through its agents, employees, subsidiaries

and/or related companies, including without limitation

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., held, serviced and/or

engaged in transactions related to, mortgages of real

property within the Commonwealth, including the

Plaintiff’s foreclosed property.

33. Defendant CMLTI 2006-AR1 is the Residential Mortgage-

Backed Security (RMBS) Trust associated with the Plaintiff’s

illegal foreclosure.

34. Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC is a law firm with a

principal office in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally

retained counsel by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew

from this case shortly after the MA Attorney General’s

Office began its investigation of Harmon’s involvement with

unlawful foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the

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

foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also

been directly linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure

kingpin – David Stern.

35. Defendant Nelson Mullins LLP is a law firm with multiple

locations primarily along the east coast of the United

States, including a Boston Office located at One Post Office

Square, 30th floor, Boston, MA 02109. Nelson Mullins is the

33

current counsel to both Defendants - Wells Fargo and US Bank

(Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP).

36. Defendant David E. Fialkow is recently an attorney for K &

L Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins

Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).

37. Defendant Jeffrey Patterson is recently an attorney for K

& L Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins

Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).

38. Defendant Peter Haley is the Managing Partner for Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston, MA.

39. Defendants Mary and Ken Daher are Real Estate Brokers are

associated with Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies located

in Methuen, MA.

40. Defendants Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins, who are believed

to have moved to the Commonwealth from the state of New

Jersey, are parties who have moved forward in purchasing the

referenced wrongful foreclosure, located at 168 Parkview

Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

41. Defendant Martha Coakley is the former Attorney General of

Massachusetts, and is believed to reside in Medfield, MA.

42. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts now becomes a Defendant

in this matter.

34

IV. BACKGROUND

A. Real Estate Sale, Mortgage Finance and Foreclosure

Procedures

43. This case began with the Plaintiffs’ purchase of a

home (December, 2005) in Lowell, Massachusetts financed

with a mortgage followed by a subsequent foreclosure case

based on deceptive practices and forged documents.

Plaintiffs’ investigations revealed that Defendants’

practices in this specific case occurred in numerous other

cases, and tainted foreclosures nationwide.

44. Generally, to finance the purchase and sale of real

estate, the buyer borrows money from a mortgage company.

The borrower signs a promissory note, secured by a

mortgage on the property, which is recorded as a lien

against the home. The note and mortgage are signed by the

borrower and by an officer of the bank or mortgage company

which originates the loan, i.e., the lender.

45. The lender records the mortgage as a lien against the

property by filing a copy with the county recorder’s

office in the county in which the property is located. Any

assignment of a note and mortgage from the lender to a

35

purchaser is accomplished by a writing signed by the

parties involved, which are often notarized or witnessed.

46. A subsequent purchaser traditionally records its

ownership of the note and mortgage by filing the

assignment with the county recorder’s office. But in the

case of mortgage-backed securities trusts, recording of

the assignments rarely occurred.

47. If the borrower defaults on the payments, the lender,

or a new owner of the note and mortgage, can bring a

foreclosure action in state court, to obtain a court order

for the auction of the property, and in this manner can

receive payment on the loan by sale of the asset. In a

foreclosure lawsuit, the Plaintiff must prove that a

property is subject to a note and mortgage, the Plaintiff

is the entity that lawfully owns the note and mortgage,

and a default by non-payment occurred.

B. Plaintiff’s Mortgage

48. On or about December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff (then a

married man) acquired a home on real property located at

the address of 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. The

lender and loan servicer was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

49. In accordance with the terms of the note, Plaintiff

made monthly mortgage payments of approximately Two

36

Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight dollars to Wells Fargo

NA from December 2005 through August 2009 (Approximate).

50. Plaintiff’s mortgage was an adjustable rate mortgage.

Pursuant to its terms, the rate could only adjust on the

first day of January, 2011(5/1 ARM), and on the first day

of the month every six months thereafter (confirm),

provided the mortgage company gave written notice of the

adjustment.

C. Deceptive Practices During Plaintiff’s 22-Month Loan

Modification Effort

51. On or around November, 2008, the Plaintiff was

experiencing a financial hardship, and a substantial

effort was made to seek a loan modification with the

lender. The Plaintiff completed and submitted the required

financial paperwork as required, while continuing to make

scheduled monthly mortgage payments. Several months after

submitting the required documents for approval, the

Plaintiff received a decline notice for the requested loan

modification. The Plaintiff then followed-up with a phone

conversation to the mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo NA,

requesting an articulated explanation for the decline

notice. After a review of the Plaintiff’s application, the

mortgage servicer revealed that there had been a

37

“calculation error” made by the mortgage servicer, Wells

Fargo NA, which resulted in the declined loan modification

attempt. The Plaintiff then asked if this “error” could be

corrected, so that the loan modification could

successfully move forward. The Plaintiff was informed that

the error could not, or would not be corrected. The

Plaintiff was additionally informed that if he still

wished to receive a loan modification, he would have to

start the process again from the beginning. The Plaintiff

then started the loan modification again, for a second

time, and again, with the SAME result, and the same

“calculation error” made by the servicer, Wells Fargo NA.

The Plaintiff, while still making scheduled mortgage

payments, began to make a third attempt at a loan

modification, now eight to ten months into the effort to

modify his mortgage. The Plaintiff was then informed by

the mortgage servicer that a loan modification would not

be granted UNLESS there was a DEFAULT on the mortgage for

a period of at least ninety days. The Plaintiff was

additionally informed that a DEFAULT was a pre-requisite

to receiving an approved loan modification program. It was

only until this instruction was given by the Defendant,

that monthly mortgage payments ceased. On the Plaintiff’s

third attempt at a loan modification, now in default, the

38

Plaintiff was instructed to make a “good faith payment”

equivalent to one month’s mortgage payment in order to

qualify for the loan modification program. The Plaintiff

provided the payment as requested. Again, several months

passed, resulting in the same decline, with the same

“calculation error.” This loan modification effort

continued for a period of approximately twenty-two (22)

months, never resulting in a successful modification. A

foreclosure auction of the Plaintiff’s property took place

in September, 2010. Plaintiff was informed by the mortgage

servicer that the good faith payment made would not be

returned. All conversations during the twenty-two month

loan modification effort, between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant were said to be recorded. The production of

these recorded conversations has been consistently

requested during the Discovery phases and throughout ALL

proceedings in Massachusetts State Courts. The Defendants

have consistently refused to provide this requested

Discovery, and the Massachusetts State Courts have refused

to compel their production. The Plaintiff respectfully

insists that this Court issue an order to compel

production of these recordings prior to, or by the

Discovery phase.

39

52. New evidence has now been received by the Plaintiff,

from Defendant – Wells Fargo NA, in a correspondence dated

January 20, 2015, and includes a check addressed to the

Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.34.29

i) This admission, as stated by Wells Fargo Home

Mortgage Senior Vice President – Leesa Whitt-Potter,

reaffirms this Plaintiffs’ consistent claims of

misconduct by the Defendant(s) - including the

deceptive solicitation of funds as an apparent pre-

requisite to approving the Plaintiff’s 22-month loan

modification effort. This deceptive solicitation of

funds by the Defendant is additionally supported in

recorded conversations during the 22-month loan

modification effort by this Plaintiff. These

documented actions confirm (at minimum) violations of

Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A.

ii) The timing of this admission coincidentally

comes only after the filing of complaints with

multiple agencies,30 and only after leave was granted

29

See Attachment K 30 Criminal complaints against the Defendants are filed with

the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (See Attachment Q),

the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI (See Attachment L),

and the MA Inspector General’s Office (See Attachment P)

Additional complaints are filed with the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB), Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Massachusetts

40

to this Plaintiff by the Massachusetts Appeals Court

to file for new trial.

53. The deceptive practices and related misconduct align

with the 2011 Complaint filed by the Massachusetts Office

of the Attorney General, 2011-4363-BLS, filed in Suffolk

County Superior Court. A settlement was recently reached

in January 2015 between parties in the amount of

approximately $3M. The announcement released by the former

Attorney General - Martha 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

(which includes alleged misconduct synonymous to that

stated within), details the Defendant’s unlawful conduct

resulting in void/illegal foreclosures. The Attorney

General states, “Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts

foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection

Act by illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents

when the banks lacked the legal authority to do so.” This

declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General

Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel (See Attachment R), and the

Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR)(See Attachment S).

41

reaffirms the consistent claims by this Plaintiff, over

four (4) years of litigation.31

54. This matter originates from direct and irrefutable

association with the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis –

considered by many to be the largest case of FRAUD in the

history of these United States. Movies have been made

about it – ex. “Too Big to Fail” (2011) as well as

Documentaries – ex. “Inside Job” (2010). This misconduct

has caused harm to millions of American families and

considerable damage to this Nation’s and Global economy.

This SAME Misconduct associated with the Plaintiffs’

foreclosure has been identified by both the Massachusetts

Attorney General’s Office, and separately by Federal Bank

Regulators.32

55. A historical review of the complete record will

reveal related complaints against referenced Defendants -

filed with multiple agencies, organizations, etc…,

including:

31 Reference Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No: 11-4363,

filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and includes

Defendant – Wells Fargo NA 32 Misconduct associated with the Plaintiff’s foreclosure has

been identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney

General, in conjunction with the $25B National Mortgage

settlement. Misconduct has additionally been identified with

the Plaintiff’s foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure

Review, conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.

42

a) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (Fraud

Investigations Unit).

b) The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General

(Criminal Complaints).

c) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).33

d) The Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel.

e) The Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR).

f) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).34

g) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC).35

h) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

56. Defendant misconduct associated with the Plaintiff’s

referenced foreclosure is supported by the sworn testimony

of Fraud expert – Lynn Syzmoniak.36

57. Defendant misconduct including (but not limited to)

deceptive practices is supported in the recorded

conversations during the attempted 22-month loan

modification process, between Plaintiff and Defendant

(Mortgage servicer), Wells Fargo NA. The Plaintiff

respectfully insists that this Court issue an order to

compel the production of these recordings prior to, or

33Reference CFPB Case No’s: 130924-000286, 130926-001435, and

130926-001452, 34The Plaintiff will provide Certified documents at Trial

obtained through the Securities and Exchange Commission which

support (at minimum) Fraudulent Assignments. 35See Attachment T 36

Reference Docket No: C.A. No. 10-cv-01465-JFA

43

during the Discovery phase. The historical record will

show that Defendants – Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA have

repeatedly refused to produce this evidence, and

Massachusetts State Courts have repeatedly failed to order

Defendants to provide this critical Discovery.

D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff

58. In April/May 2009 (approximately), a real property

foreclosure action was filed against the Plaintiff,

titled, U.S. Bank NA as Trustee to CMLTI 2006-AR1 vs.

Mohan A. Harihar, Lowell District Court, Middlesex County,

Massachusetts), to foreclose on the referenced property.

59. The action was commenced by U.S. Bank NA. U.S. Bank

alleged that Defendant, MBS CMLTI 2006-AR1 owned the note

originally made to Wells Fargo on December 30 2005, for

$370,000, that it was entitled to enforce the original

note, and that the Plaintiff was in default. A foreclosure

auction of the referenced property proceeded in September,

2010.

E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments

60. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAS ALREADY

DETERMINED THAT CLEAR TITLE DOES NOT EXIST WITH THE

PLAINTIFFS’ FORECLOSURE. The Plaintiff has consistently

brought this fact to the Court’s attention, and it has

been ignored. Certified documents provided by the

44

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been secured

by the Plaintiff to support Defendant misconduct including

(at minimum) fraudulent assignments.37

61. As indicated in the sworn testimony of Fraud Expert,

Lynn Syzmoniak, the Department of Justice and the

Massachusetts Attorney General, forgery (also known as

robo-signing) has been identified on mass-scale with

millions of foreclosures across the nation, including

foreclosures associated with Defendant CMLTI 2006-AR1.

Defendants have consistently failed to validate signatures

on file to suggest otherwise.

F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies

and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision).38

G. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and

Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations, United States Senate.39

H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual40

I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement

J. Federal Bank Regulators – Independent Foreclosure Review

K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion

37 Supporting SEC documents will be provided at trial, or

sooner, if requested by the Court. 38 See Attachment C 39 See Attachment D 40 See Attachment F

45

62. The Plaintiff respectfully brings to this Court’s

attention, the clearly evidenced discovery of IMPROPER

RELATIONSHIPS including DOCUMENTED COLLUSION and

CONFLICT41, involving the Defendant’s prior counsel -

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney

General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston

Bar Association. It has necessitated the involvement of

the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office, the

requested call for (at minimum) multiple internal

investigations, and restates to necessity to involve

State/Federal prosecutors to address the numerous criminal

allegations associated with this complaint, including (but

not limited to) Corruption. These collective actions –

referenced misconduct of the Defendants (alleged), and the

failures of the Commonwealth (to prosecute and/or take

corrective action) threaten the Intellectual Property of

the Plaintiff. This Intellectual Property consists of

projects, created by this Plaintiff, designed to assist

these United States with economic recovery and growth,

from damages suffered by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure

41 See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center

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

Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.

46

Crisis. For this reason multiple parties are copied on

these communications to the Inspector General including42:

a) Vice President Joe Biden

b) Governor Charles Baker (MA)

c) Governor Deval Patrick (MA)

d) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)

e) US Senator Ed Markey (MA)

f) Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)

g) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)

h) Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)

i) Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)

j) Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

63. There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,

the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,

or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of

COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.

L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law offices PC

64. The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for

the record, the Defendant US Bank NA’s prior counsel -

Harmon Law Offices PC, a law firm with a principal office

in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel

42

See Attachment P - Communications delivered to the Office of

the Massachusetts Inspector General.

47

by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew from this case

shortly after the MA Attorney General’s Office began its

investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful

foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the “Foreclosure

Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly

linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin – David

Stern. It is unclear, where this investigation of Harmon

currently stands.

M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion Throughout Multiple

Massachusetts State Courts

65. Plaintiff firmly believes that the Abuse of Judicial

Discretion has existed historically throughout all related

proceedings (MA State Courts) where judges and court

personnel systematically discriminate against litigants

who appear pro se, often dismissing their petitions or

motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. This has

been exemplified and documented in related proceedings

from the Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior

Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Judicial

Court. A thorough REVIEW AND VALIDATION of the referenced

dockets will reveal:

a) Failure to show cause for a denial(s).

b) Refusal to Clarify a Decision(s)

48

c) Repeated failure to compel the production of critical

Discovery evidence. This is best exemplified by the

repeated refusal to enforce the production of the

recorded conversations during the 22-month loan

modification process, which clearly demonstrates (at

minimum) deceptive practices in violation of G.L. c.

93A, § 2, by the Appellee – Wells Fargo NA, mortgage

servicer.

d) Refusal/failure to compel the requested validation of

information prior to rendering Decision (ex. Chain of

Title, Signatures on file, etc…).

e) Failure to acknowledge submitted evidence of misconduct

by reputable sources (MA Office of the Attorney General

and Federal Bank Regulators), aligned with the US

Foreclosure Crisis.

f) Failure to address and hold Appellees and their

retained counsel accountable for documented infractions

including: Fraudulent Concealment/ Fraudulent

Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and

Perjury.

g) Failure to address and grant protection regarding

Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s concerns of slander, defamation

of character, etc… found in remarks documented by

49

opposing counsel; Counsel’s refusal to abide by

Notice(s) to Cease and Desist.

h) Failure to acknowledge referenced cases as listed in

the Table of Authorities, particularly, United States

District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Master

Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA), which references the same

issues, same Lender – US Bank NA, same Mortgage

Servicer – Wells Fargo NA, and same retained Counsel –

BOTH Harmon Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP,

specifically David E. Fialkow.

66. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – Stare Decisis is

additionally considered to have historically played a

significant role, with Justices in a current case treating

decisions in past similar cases as authoritative

precedents, and as seemingly directed by opposing counsel,

refusing to make the decision in a way that departs from

such precedents, regarding all of them as correctly

decided – Particularly since initial decisions rendered by

the lower Courts were made prior to the public release of

information regarding misconduct surrounding the US

Foreclosure Crisis, and additionally taking into account

CRITICAL NON-DISCLOSED information by counsel, which

includes the APRIL 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators.

50

67. Recent decisions announced by the Middlesex Superior

Court and the Northeast Housing Court.

a) Middlesex Superior Court - The Plaintiff first wishes

to recognize the Courts’ decision to correctly DENY the

Defendants’ attempt to bar future filings of the

Plaintiff. Additionally recognized is a NO-DECISION

pertaining to attempts by Defendants to collect related

Appellate (Brief) costs. However, considering the

enormity of DOCUMENTED evidence and information

supporting the Plaintiff’s consistent claims, clear

concerns pertain to the Court’s decisions DENYING

Injunctive Relief, the Return of Escrowed Funds, and

Notifying the Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR

Counsel. Consistent with historical decisions related

to this matter, the Court fails to provide ANY

clarification or rationale supporting its decisions.43

Furthermore, the denial of injunctive relief, and the

proper release of escrowed funds back to the Plaintiff

impacts state of indigence.

b) Northeast Housing Court – Similarly with regard to the

decision releasing $249 in Bond funds (and decisions

prior), the Court has seemingly ignored ALL supporting

43 A Motion requesting clarification and reconsideration has

been filed with the Middlesex Superior Court.

51

evidence and information provided by this pro se

litigant.

c) These recent decisions by both Massachusetts Courts,

further exemplify the Commonwealth’s clear refusal to

take corrective action, thus allowing harm and accruing

damages to unnecessarily continue towards this

Plaintiff. These disturbing concerns provide additional

support, questioning (at minimum) the integrity of the

Judicial system within the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

d) The Plaintiff respectfully re-states the necessity to

involve Federal Prosecutors, the initiation of multiple

internal investigations, and the alignment of

referenced criminal complaint(s), in conjunction with

this filed Civil Docket.

e) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior

Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in

accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local

Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion

requesting Injunctive Relief to the Plaintiff (Motion

filed separately).

f) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior

Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in

accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local

52

Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion

requesting a Temporary Restraining Order - TRO (Motion

filed separately).

g) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex

Superior Court (MA), the Plaintiff will temporarily

postpone filing a Motion to inform the Massachusetts

Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, as the details of

attorney misconduct (alleged) is planned to be

addressed in the forthcoming trial.

N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal

Protection Rights

68. See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal

never received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court,

preceded by the complaint filed with the Committee on

Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court.

O. Evidenced Tampering Violations

69. The Plaintiff brings to this Court’s attention,

evidenced allegations of tampering with a Middlesex

Superior Court File. The Plaintiff’s efforts to address

clearly evidenced tampering violations with the Court were

completely ignored.44

44

Reference transcripts for Middlesex Superior Court Docket No:

11-04499.

53

P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to

State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.

70. The Plaintiff has filed fully supported criminal

complaints against these Defendants with the Massachusetts

Attorney General’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation. No action taken. Numerous email

communications sent directly to MA Attorney Generals –

Martha Coakley and Maura Healey have been blatantly

ignored. In each their respective campaigns to run for

public office, both Coakley and Healey are on record,

boasting of their efforts to combat foreclose fraud, to

achieve political gain. As previously evidenced and

reported to this Court, Attorney General Healey has gone

so far as to BLOCK the Plaintiff from viewing the MA

Attorney General’s Office - social media page on TWITTER.

71. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the MA Office

of the Inspector General. No Action Taken.

72. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – No Action Taken.

73. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the

Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel against

Defendants – David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson and

Peter Haley. The BAR Counsel is said to be monitoring this

matter, and awaits the Courts’ decision.

54

74. The Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the

Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR) against Real

Estate Brokers – Ken and Mary Daher, Daher Companies Inc.,

Methuen, MA. The initial hearing has recessed pending

final decisions by the Court.

Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Identified by

the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General; also by an

Independent Foreclosure Review Conducted by Federal Bank

Regulators.

75. Restating that violations of both State and Federal

Law have already been determined by the US DOJ and the MA

Attorney General’s Office, as it relates to the

Plaintiff’s foreclosure. Similarly, Federal Bank

Regulators have determined misconduct associated with the

Plaintiff’s foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure

Review.

R. Secondary Defendants

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud Expert –

Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed to

assist with accurately articulating the degrees of

misconduct associated with who the Plaintiff considers

“Secondary Defendants.” A thorough review of the

historical record and ALL transcripts will be necessary to

55

understand the roles each of these Defendants played with

respect to the illegal foreclosure:

76. Harmon Law Offices PC – identified and under

investigation by the MA Attorney General’s Office for

their roles in thousands of illegal foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Plaintiff allegations include

(but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,

Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and

Abetting Fraud.

77. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP – considered

the “second tier foreclosure mill law firm.” Plaintiff

allegations include (but are not limited to): RICO

violations, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent

Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.

78. Peter Haley, Esq. – managing partner of Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Boston Office. On

record as supporting the misconduct of representing

counsel, David E. Fialkow.

79. David E. Fialkow, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations

include (but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,

Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and

Abetting Fraud.

80. Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations

include (but are not limited to: RICO violations,

56

Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation,

Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.

81. Mary and Ken Daher, Daher Companies (Weichert

Realtors) – Real Estate Brokers who disregarded

disclosures indicating an illegal foreclosure, choosing

instead to move forward unethically, with selling the

illegal foreclosure to the current homeowners, Jeffrey and

Isabelle Perkins. Plaintiff allegations include aiding and

abetting fraud.

82. Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins – current homeowners to

the referenced illegal foreclosure, having disregarded the

Plaintiff’s disclosure warning against misconduct

associated with the property, and legal action forthcoming

against ALL parties aligning with the misconduct,

including Real Estate Brokers and homebuyers. Isabelle

Perkins is believed to also be a licensed Real Estate

Agent for Weichert Realtors also.

S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff

83. Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, known as the FCS

Model© - involves a project created by the Plaintiff to

assist this Nation’s and overall economic recovery from

damages suffered during the US Foreclosure/Financial

57

Crisis. The documented MERITS of this project are

significant, having successfully reached the Executive

Offices of the President of these United States (EOP) – at

the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden, the

Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee,

Senior Economic adviser 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. The collective actions of the Defendants are

considered to have negatively impacted and caused damage

to this project. Economic experts will be called at trial

to articulate the measure of all variables, in a

successfully implemented FCS model. The “value” of the FCS

model is equated to the (estimated) total positive

economic impact of a successfully implemented model

(measured in US dollars).

84. Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving

a template designed to assist (at minimum) the 4.2 million

FORECLOSED parties, identified in the US Foreclosure

Crisis, with filing a civil action against the responsible

58

Lender/party. Any party, agency, court, employer, etc…

whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any

portion of this project are expected to be included as

Defendants in this civil/criminal action(s).

An expanded overview of this Project is described as

follows:

a. As a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff has clearly

demonstrated the ability to properly construct

(and argue) a civil complaint as it relates to

this matter.

b. The final product of the proposed template can be

described as a “cleaned up” version of what

already exists on record. This version will be

simplified in a “step by step” manual, modified by

state, as needed.

c. Accessibility to this template is expected to come

(at minimum) with incorporating a website.

Numerous media sources including social media will

be used to communicate, educate, and inform the

public, and ALL affected parties of this new

available tool.

To put into context a value for this template, the

following formula is used:

59

(a) A baseline of 4.2M affected parties with similar

damages averaging an estimated $1M each.

(b) Multiply 4.2M (affected parties) by $1M (average

damages per) to estimate total damages; equating

the value of this template at 100% to an estimated

$4.2T.

85. 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, employer, etc…

whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any

portion of this project are expected to be included as

Defendants in this civil action. Accessibility and

communication of this template, once complete, will be

released in conjunction with the civil complaint model.

The Plaintiff elects to refrain at this time, from

assigning an estimated value to this criminal complaint

template, until counsel has been retained, and/or a

Federal prosecutor has been assigned.

V. THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET

86. Although relatively unknown and unused prior to 2004,

MBS trusts held approximately one-third of all residential

mortgages in the United States by the end of 2009.

60

87. Most trusts comprise between 2,000 and 5,000

residential mortgages, with notes, with an aggregate value

between $500 million and $2 billion.

88. These trusts are each governed by Pooling and Service

Agreement (“PSAs”) and other documents. The PSA

establishes most of the duties of various entities

involved in the creation and operation of the trust.

89. Each trust has a Master Servicer and most trusts also

have several subservicers. The servicing of the loans in

the trust includes billing for and collecting the monthly

mortgage payments, and managing defaults in the loan pool

when they occur. These duties were very lucrative, thus

many of the loan originators also had a mortgage servicing

division or subsidiary.

90. Because trusts are often comprised of loans from

several different mortgage company/originators, they can

have several sub-servicers.

91. Every mortgage servicing company included as a

defendant herein, utilized fraudulent mortgage assignments

to trusts that included homes in Massachusetts in their

loan pools.

92. Every trust, of course, has a trustee as well. These

trustees are usually among the largest banks in the world,

such as BANK OF AMERICA, BONY, CHASE, CITIBANK, HSBC,

61

DBNTC, DBTCA, and Defendants US BANK, and WELLS FARGO. One

of the

most significant duties of the trustee is to ensure the

conveyance of the mortgages and notes from the depositor

to the trust. This conveyance is done via mortgage

assignments.

93. The trusts represent to purchasers of their

securities that the notes and mortgages (bundled to form

the asset pool of the trust) will be delivered with

assignments to the trust in recordable form, so that they

will be able to foreclose on the assets in the event of

default.

94. Despite the trusts’ representations, many of the

mortgage documents were not delivered at all to the

trustee or, if delivered, were allegedly lost or

misplaced.

95. Nevertheless, the trustees, custodians, depositors,

and servicers of the MBS Trusts routinely provided

certifications of compliance, falsely asserting that they

had fulfilled their obligations as mandated by the

Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Regulation AB

as well as the prospectuses and PSAs.

62

96. Without the valid mortgage assignments and properly

endorsed notes, the value of the assets in the trust are

severely diminished because the trustee is unable to

establish clear chain-of-title to pursue a foreclosure

action, and establishing entitlement to foreclose becomes

more complex and, therefore, more costly. Rather than

disclosing the missing loan documentation problem to

homeowners and courts, the Defendants filed fraudulent

mortgage notes and assignments in court to support their

foreclosure cases.

VI. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

97. Defendants created mortgage-backed securities that

lacked lawful assignments and other documents of the

mortgages underlying. Defendants then created – or had

created – fraudulent mortgage assignments and note

endorsements to use in foreclosures.

98. By 2008, at the latest, the Defendants knew that

documents were often not delivered to the trusts as

promised by the originators. This occurred so commonly

that the industry coined a term, exception reports, to

describe documents missing from loan pools. These

exception reports were simply a listing, by trust, of all

of the documents

63

missing from each trust.

99. Defendants manufactured, caused to be manufactured,

or purchased and used fraudulent mortgage assignments,

notes, and note endorsements in hundreds of thousands of

foreclosure and bankruptcy cases throughout the country.

100. Defendants used the fraudulent documents to conceal

from the MBS Trust investors, including the Government,

courts, homeowners, and HUD the enormity of the problem of

missing loan documents.

101. The trustees of the MBS Trusts, which claim ownership

of each of these mortgages, will incur significantly

higher costs of foreclosure in proving lawful title to the

subject property, or will never be able to prove

ownership, based on forged signatures on assignments to

their respective MBS Trusts. The resulting financial harm

to the investors of the MBS Trusts, including the

Plaintiff, is substantial.

102. SEC regulations also required most of the Defendants

to file certificates attesting that they have fulfilled

their duties with respect to the MBS Trusts. In

particular, 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d)(4) required the

trustee, custodian, and servicing Defendants to file a

report indicating (i) whether “ [c]ollateral or security

on pool assets is maintained as required by the

64

transaction agreements or related pool asset documents”

and (ii) whether “[p]ool assets and related documents are

safeguarded as required by the transaction agreements.”

Similarly, 17 C.F.R. § 229.1123 requires filing a

statement that “the servicer has fulfilled all of its

obligations under the agreement in all material respects

throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a

failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material

respect, specifying each such failure known to such

officer and the nature and status thereof.”

103. According to the FRAUD EXPERT, the certificates filed

by Defendants pursuant to these provisions were false,

because they failed to state that the notes and mortgage

assignments were not safeguarded and, in fact, had not

been transferred to the MBS Trusts. In some instances, the

Defendants noted non-compliance, but only with reference

to minor issues and never disclosed that the mortgage

assignments and the notes and the related documents were

missing or that forgeries were being submitted in their

place.

104. In any foreclosures on assets in the MBS Trusts, the

trustee bank Defendants will be unable, or will have to

expend significant funds, to prove their allegations that

the MBS Trust is the lawful owner of the subject mortgage,

65

in addition to expenses due to the preparation and filing

of forged assignments. The amount the trustee bank

Defendants will expend to prove their ownership is

materially more than they would have spent if they had

complied with the procedures described in the respective

prospectus and PSA. In addition, the value of the security

must be discounted to account for the risk that a court

may not recognize the MBS Trust as the legal owner of the

security, and thus deny foreclosure on the collateral. The

cost for the trustee bank Defendants to establish the MBS

Trust as the owner of each mortgage included in the MBS

is, of course, passed on to the MBS Trust itself when the

trustee, custodian, and servicer(s) deduct their expenses

from the trust corpus.

105. This harm is not only economic, however. The

prevalence of the forged assignments and absence of the

original mortgage notes resulting in lost note affidavits

shook consumer confidence in investing and in government

regulation. The ease with which Defendants were able to

cash in on their fraudulent behavior encouraged others in

similar situations to attempt similar schemes, multiplying

the potential harm and loss of confidence exponentially.

As one of the FBI Special Agents involved in the

conviction of an LPS executive observed, “Our country is

66

increasingly faced with more pervasive and sophisticated

fraud schemes that have the potential to disrupt entire

markets and the economy as a whole.”45

106. Substantial subpoenaed testimony will additionally be

required by the referenced Fraud expert, Lynn Syzmoniak,

Federal and State Prosecutors, to assist with accurate

articulation and extent of ALL variables of associated

misconduct, relationships to referenced case examples, and

subsequent CAUSES OF ACTION.

VII. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729

(a)(1)(A), Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the

Depositor Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.

107. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by

reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 106 of this Complaint.

108. This is a claim for civil penalties and treble

damages under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et

seq., as amended.

109. As alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the Defendants

created, serviced, or participated in the MBS Trusts.

45 DOJ Press Release, “Former Executive At Florida-Based Lender

Processing Services, Inc. Admits Role In Mortgage-Related

Document Fraud Scheme,” Nov. 20, 2012.

67

110. Defendants submitted claims to government entities,

including HUD, for the payment of mortgage guarantees

based on fraudulent documents in order to falsely assert

entitlement to the mortgage guarantees. Defendants

received millions of dollars in payments on federal

government guarantees of mortgages based on foreclosure

proceedings utilizing false assignments of notes and

mortgages. In addition, they improperly charged HUD for

the cost of filing with the courts the false documents.

Accordingly, the Defendants and their agents and employees

knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or

fraudulent claim for payment or approval from the

government entity that paid the mortgage guarantee claim.

111. As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the MBS

Trusts lacked the requisites necessary for the mortgages

to be transferred to the MBS Trusts issuing MBS,

namely:(1) the legally binding assignments from the

originating bank to the MBS Trusts and, finally, to the

foreclosure agent; (2) the recording of title in the

county recorder’s office;and (3) the original note and

mortgage, signed by both borrower and lender. The

prospectus for the referenced MBS Trust, in other public

statements, falsely represented that the trust had

possession of these documents and held good title to the

68

mortgages and notes underlying the securities.

112. As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the

Defendants created false mortgage documents and charged

the MBS Trusts for their unlawful services. Likewise, the

Defendants charged the MBS Trusts for services that were

never provided, including, but not limited to, trustee and

custodial services relating to the notes and mortgage

assignments.

113. By virtue of the wrongful conduct alleged here, the

value of each of the MBS Trusts that was purchased by the

U.S. government or government-funded entity was impaired.

114. Defendants received millions of dollars in U.S.

government funds to provide services for MBS Trusts held

by the Treasury or other government-funded entity.

Defendants falsely represented that they had performed the

services paid for. Accordingly, the Defendants and their

agents and employees knowingly presented or caused to be

presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or

approval to the government entity that purchased MBS

Trusts.

115. Ultimately, by reason of these false and fraudulent

claims, the Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to

be damaged, in an amount yet to be determined.

69

116. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct

associated with COUNT I.

COUNT II FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(B),






associated with COUNT II.

COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D),





associated with COUNT III.

COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G),





associated with COUNT IV.

70

COUNT V FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(C),

Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a

Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C. §

3729 (a)(1)(B), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D), and 31

U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G)




associated with COUNT V.

COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act

Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 §§ 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),





associated with COUNT VI.

COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder of the

Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT VII.

71

COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation

of G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Failing to identify the Present Holder of

the Mortgage in Notice of Sale (as to the Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT VIII.

COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Falsely Representing Status as Holder of

Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT IX.

COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and Servicing

Practices (as to the Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT X.

COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

72

G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Failure to Register Assignment of Mortgages

(as to Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT XI.

COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of

Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation of

G. L. c. 185, § 67 (as to Bank Defendants)




associated with COUNT XII.

COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due

Process and Equal Protection Rights.




associated with COUNT XIII.(Includes Defendant -

Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968)

129. The assistance of Federal Prosecutors is needed to

assist with accurately articulating the misconduct

73

associated with COUNT XIV. (Includes at minimum Defendants

– Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Jeffrey S. Patterson,

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP)

COUNT XV Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,

Title 18, USC, § 242




associated with COUNT XV.

131. Includes multiple Abuses of Judicial Discretion

within Massachusetts State Courts.

132. Includes the Commonwealth’s Failure to Prosecute and

Protect clearly evidenced crimes against this Plaintiff.

COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C. § 501 (copyright infringement)

133. The assistance of retained legal counsel and Federal

Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately

articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVI.

COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) (criminal

copyright infringement for profit)

134. The assistance of retained legal counsel, and Federal

Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately

articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVII.

74

COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants




associated with COUNTS XVII+.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgement be entered

against Defendants, ordering that:

A. Defendants pay an amount equal to three times the amount

of damages sustained because of Defendant’s actions, plus

civil penalties…….

i. Injunctive Relief

ii. Personal damages to marriage, family, career,

credit, future retirement and everyday living.

Personal damages include loss of Plaintiff’s

home, to which the Plaintiff was HOMELESS for

nearly two (2) years. A review of the historical

record will additionally reveal

Slander/Defamation of the Plaintiffs’ character

for the past four (4) years. Collective damages

easily meet the Federal minimum requirement of

$75,000 and are considered greater than $1M.

75

iii. Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property - While the

Plaintiff has every right to seek 100% of the

damages/infringement as described within, the

Plaintiff will initially set the total relief

sought – equivalent to 1 percent (1%) of the

template defined in 64(b), or $42B. Should an

agreement between parties be reached based on

this fraction of damages, Plaintiff MAY consider

various options of payment to lessen the burden

of payment. However, if it is instead the

Defendant’s decision not to seek agreement based

on this very minimal percentage, the Plaintiff

reserves the right to adjust damages up to and

including 100 percent (100%) of ALL six (6)

sections of damages as described within, and

without consideration for various options of

payment.

iv. The Plaintiff will be awarded all costs of this

action, including attorneys’ fees, expenses, and

costs reimbursement of ALL associated legal

fees/costs affecting this Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff will look to the recommendations of counsel

(once retained) and the Court to assist with a breakdown

76

of relief due to the Plaintiff by each of the Defendants,

along with their ability to pay.

B. The Plaintiff makes very clear before this Court; the

formula used to calculate damages here, ONLY takes into

consideration the measured timeline of the US Foreclosure/

Financial crisis (estimated 2006 – 2010). The 4.2M

affected parties identified are similarly from this

estimated timeline only. It is NOT to say that similar

misconduct has not occurred before this timeline, or

since. Additionally, the formula is ONLY applied to

impacted FORECLOSURES within this estimated timeline.

THE PLAINTIFF MAKES VERY CLEAR, THAT ASSOCIATED MISCONDUCT

IS NOT LIMITED TO FORECLOSURES ALONE.

Should an agreement here between parties be unsuccessful,

the plaintiff will reserve the right to address this

expanded misconduct in a separate action(s).

IX. REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

the Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

77

CLOSING STATEMENT

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. 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 Defendants and their retained counsel. It is

understandable to suspect, that a degree of embarrassment

exists – knowing that this pro se litigant has historically

exemplified the ability to successfully argue this matter in

a Court of law. Regardless, their position now comes 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.

The Plaintiff - Mohan A. Harihar, has clearly gone over and

above, perhaps more so than any individual in this

Commonwealth or Country, not only to irrefutably prove this

case, but to also provide a solution which aids in this

Nation’s economic recovery, and ALL parties affected.

78

It remains my sincere hope, that a mutual agreement will be

reached here, while paving the way for an economic framework

that brings historic economic growth to these United States.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

Attachment A

84

Attachment B

85

Eligibility for Independent Foreclosure Review

Borrowers were eligible for an independent foreclosure review if they met the following criteria:

the property securing the loan was the borrower's primary residence;

the mortgage was in the foreclosure process (initiated, pending, or completed) at any time between

January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010; and

the mortgage was serviced by one of the following mortgage servicers:

America's Servicing Company* Countrywide* National City Mortgage*

Aurora Loan Services* EMC Mortgage Corporation* PNC Mortgage*

BAC Home Loans Servicing* EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company Sovereign Bank*

Bank of America* Financial Freedom (OneWest) SunTrust Mortgage*

Beneficial* GMAC Mortgage U.S. Bank*

Chase* HFC* Wachovia Mortgage*

Citibank* HSBC* Washington Mutual (WaMu)*

CitiFinancial* IndyMac Mortgage Services (OneWest) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.*

CitiMortgage* MetLife Bank* Wilshire Credit Corporation*

*These companies are participating in the Payment Agreement.

Eligible borrowers were sent a Request for Review form by mail starting in November of 2011 when the program launched.

If a borrower previously filed a complaint with these servicers about foreclosures pending during the review period, they were still eligible to file for an independent review of their foreclosure.

There were no costs associated with being included in the review; the review was a free program. Borrowers should beware of anyone requiring payments for assistance in connection with the Independent Foreclosure Review or any other foreclosure assistance program.

Federal Reserve's Role

The Federal Reserve's role is to ensure compliance with the enforcement actions issued in April 2011, including the payment process under the agreement in principle announced in January of 2013.

OCC and Federal Reserve examiners are continuing to closely monitor the servicers' implementation of plans required by the enforcement actions issued in April 2011 to correct the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and

foreclosure practices.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/independent-foreclosure-review-payment-agreement.htm

87

Attachment C

(Insert Report - Federal Reserve System/ Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift Supervision,

Washington D.C., 2011)

88

Attachment D

(Insert - WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Anatomy of a

Financial Collapse – Majority and Minority Staff Report,

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States

Senate.)

89

Attachment E

(Insert - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of

the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and

Economic Crisis in the United States)

90

Attachment F

(Insert - Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney

Procedure Manual, Version 1)

91

Attachment G

95

Attachment H

(Insert - Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report, Attorney General

Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12)

96

Attachment I

117

Attachment J

(Insert Commonwealth’s Complaint filed in Suffolk Superior

Court, Docket No: 11-4363)

118

Attachment K

121

Attachment L

122

Complaint Referral Form

Internet Crime Complaint Center

Please review your complaint for accuracy, prior to submitting it

to the IC3.

The following information was provided by the victim and may be

forwarded to the

appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agencies.

Your Personal Information * First Name:Mohan

Middle Name:A

* Last Name:Harihar

Business Name:

* Age:40 - 49

* Gender:M

* Address:168 Parkview Avenue

Address (continued):

Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:

* City:Lowell

Do you live within the city limits?: Yes No

County:Middlesex County

State:Massachusetts

* Country:United States

* Zip Code / Route:01852

* Phone Number:6179212526

* E-mail Address:[email protected]

Name of your local police or sheriff's office:

Lowell Police Department

Is the complaint you are filing related to the Internet or an online service?

Yes No

123

Do you have pertinent documents in paper form?

Yes No

Information about the Individual/Business that victimized you Business

Name:Nelson Mullins Riley Scarboropugh LLP

First Name:Peter

Middle Name:

Last Name:Haley

Gender:M

Address:One Post Office Square

Address (continued):30th Floor

Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:

City:Boston

State:Massachusetts

Country:United States

Zip Code / Route:02109

Phone Number:6175734714

E-mail Address:[email protected]

Other Identifiers Web Site:

IP Address:

IRC Server:

Chat Room Name:

Usenet Newsgroup:

Other:

Monetary Loss

* Please specify the total dollar amount of your loss from this

incident:

$ 999999999 (US Dollars)

Please indicate the means of payment (select all that apply)

Cash

Cashier's Check

Check/Debit Card

124

Credit Card

Money Order

Wire Transfer

Other (Specify Other)

Did you use a third party online payment service such as PayPal, BidPay,

Escrow?

Yes No

Description of the Incident * Describe in your own words how you

have been victimized.

Be specific. Include date(s) of transaction(s), a description of any items

that were not delivered or were counterfeited, any transaction numbers

(from Ebay, Western Union, PayPal, etc.), and any other pertinent

information that helps to explain how you were victimized. Also if you

received anything by U.S. Mail, FedEx, or UPS, specifically describe the

envelope, by the date, time, city and zip code shown on the stamp

cancellation postmark.

During an initial call to file a complaint with the Boston Office of the FBI

(Fraud Investigations), it was additionally suggested to file an online

complaint on this site, as a received email includes an admission

associated with fraudulent misconduct which extends beyond the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This matter involves documented

misconduct, both criminal and civil, involving multiple parties in active

litigation for nearly 3 years against Mohan A. Harihar, and the associated

foreclosed property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell MA 01852.

Parties include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage

Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP - specifically, associate David

E. Fialkow and managing partner Peter Haley, Nelson Mullins LLP as a

whole, as the documented admission by Mr. Peter Haley includes the

support of the entire firm, and finally Harmon Law Offices PC. Active

litigation is currently in both the MA Appeals Court and the MA Supreme

Court. Criminal complaints against referenced parties have recently been

filed in Lowell District Court. Documented fraudulent misconduct includes

(but is not limited to) deceptive practices during the 22-month loan

125

modification process, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent

concealment, perjury, and aiding and abetting fraud. Prior retained

counsel representing US Bank NA was Harmon Law Offices PC (Newton,

MA), who has been under investigation by the MA Attorney General for

foreclosure related practices, and who immediately withdrew as counsel

from this case once informed by Mohan Harihar that they would be held

criminally and civilly accountable if they continued as counsel. Nelson

Mullins LLP and their associated clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA

have been afforded multiple opportunities to cease and desist, but have

chosen instead to continue this misconduct, and accruing harm and

damages against Mohan A. Harihar. As this matter has been definitively

associated with FRAUD on a NATIONWIDE MASS-SCALE by two(2)

reputable sources (Federal bank Regulators and The MA Attorney

General), the associated misconduct has been brought to the attention of

multiple parties including: MA Attorney Generals Office, Middlesex County

District Attorney, members of the US and State Senate, members of

Congress, the media and the public. Complaints are filed with numerous

agencies (see below). Aside from the documented admission included in

the email by Peter Haley, documented misconduct is included in nearly all

related court documents and transcripts from the following Courts: Lowell

District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex County Superior Court,

MA Appeals Court, and MA Supreme Court (Docket numbers provided

upon request). Following the recent criminal complaint filed in Lowell

District Court, the DOJ has announced the JP Morgan settlement, the

recent Ocwen Financial settlement, and the forthcoming 2014 fraud cases

against associated lenders/mortgage servicers. It is been clearly

articulated by Mohan A. Harihar in numerous communications, that aside

from pursuing criminal and civil accountability against referenced parties,

Mr. Harihars intention is to aid the DOJ in these next chapters of the US

Foreclosure Crisis, and what is arguably the largest case of Fraud in United

States history. This matter additionally involves intellectual property

considered to be the property of Mohan A. Harihar, specifically designed to

aid foreclosed homeowners negatively impacted by this associated

misconduct, as well as aiding in the nations economic recovery. To date,

presentations pertaining to the referenced intellectual property have been

successfully made to multiple parties including: 1. A Senior member of the

126

House Finance Committee (Washington, DC). 2. Two (2) Attorney General

Offices. 3. Two (2) State Senators. 4. A Congressional Office. 5. A Lender

Senior VP of Risk Compliance. 6. A Chairman of a Nationally ranked

Strategic Communications firm. A presentation is currently being prepared

for a member of the US Senate. This is an overall summary of events

related to this matter.

Please indicate any medium used by the individual/business in the course

of the incident.

Bulletin board

Chat room

Email

Fax

In person

Internet messaging

Mail

Newsgroup

Telephone

Web site

Wire

Other

Please indicate the initial means of contact with the individual/business

that victimized you.

Other

Was this initial means of contact unsolicited/uninvited?

Yes No

What was your relationship with the individual/business you are

complaining about prior to the incident you are reporting?

no prior relationship

127

Did you conduct any research on the individual/business prior to the

incident?

Yes No

How much time has passed since you determined you were victimized?

6 months or more

Contact Information

Are there witnesses or other victims to this crime?

Parties identified by both Federal Bank Regulators as well as the National

Mortgage Settlement and all 50 Attorneys General. Victim count

associated with this matter is at minimum considered to be 4.2M parties.

Have you reported this crime to any law enforcement or government

agencies?

Better Business Bureau

Consumer protection agency

Individual/business that victimized you

Police/other law enforcement

Private attorney

Provide the specific name of each organization, contact name, contact

phone number, email address, date reported, and report number (if

known).

Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General Middlesex County District

Attorney MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel US Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC) Internal Revenue Service - In process

Digital Signature

Read the following statement below, and confirm your agreement by

typing your full name below in the box provided:

By digitally signing this document, I affirm that the information I provided

is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read the IC3's

128

Privacy Policy, and understand that this information may be provided to

law enforcement and regulatory agencies. If available, I will provide

additional documentation not included in this complaint, such as email

correspondence, payment receipts, or electronic logs, upon request to the

best of my ability. I authorize the dissemination of the complaint, or

information in the complaint, to appropriate federal, state, local, tribal or

international Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) for purposes of

investigating the complaint.

Digital Signature:

To confirm the submission of your complaint, please enter the following

letters below.

--> -->

Captcha Response

https://complaint.ic3.gov/ahc.aspx?d=172a7e03f03a4753b08bb761914ad795

129

Attachment M

130

April 10, 2014

Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court Attn: Thomas Ambrosino John Adams Courthouse, Room 2500 1 Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Official Complaint filed against Susan Trippi, Northeast Housing Court

VIA US MAIL

Mr. Ambrosino:

My name is Mohan A. Harihar, and I wish to file an official complaint under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar, additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. This matter is related to my 3+ year ongoing, pro se effort against a wrongful foreclosure, involving the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. Since the initial ruling by the Northeast Housing Court, an overwhelming amount of information and evidence has come forth over the past 3 years, supporting my consistent claims of misconduct against referenced parties, along with the MA Appeals Court granting leave to file for New Trial in the lower Court(s). On April 29, 2013, following a hearing before Judge David Kerman, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail informing me that my request for new trial had been DENIED, despite the new evidence/information presented, showing no cause or reason supporting the decision. A Motion was then immediately filed with the Court, requesting CLARIFICATION of the decision. On May 14, 2013, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail DENYING MY REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE DECISION.

A Notice of Appeal was immediately filed in person with the Northeast Housing Court (See Exhibit A). While filing the Notice of Appeal, I was approached by Ms. Trippi, requesting for me to be patient with regard to the Assembly of the Record, and that it might take a “couple of weeks” for the assembled record to be received by the MA Appeals Court. Nearly a year later, and after multiple follow-ups with the Northeast Housing Court Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer. I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Court in Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous Red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result. The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.

*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple

131

parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued

against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s Office as well as the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. For this reason, please be advised - multiple parties are copied on this communication including, but not limited to: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senator Ed Markey, MA Governor Deval Patrick, MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas, MA State Senator Eileen Donoghue, and the US Attorney’s Office.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

132

Exhibit A

133

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice of Appeal with this court in

the above referenced matter, after first receiving the Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial,

dated April 29, 2013, followed by the denied Motion requesting Clarification of the Order, received May 14,

2013.


Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

134

Attachment N

136

Attachment O

137

November 10, 2015

VIA EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE K&L Gates, LLP Attn: Brian L. Olson, Chief Human Resources Officer State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2950 RE: Attorneys David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson.

Mr. Olson:

It is my understanding that K&L Gates LLP has made the decision to recently employ, as

Partner’s in the Boston Office, Attorneys – David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson

(Previously with Nelson Mullins Reilly & Scarborough, LLP). It is also my understanding that

K&L Gates has made the decision to replace Nelson Mullins as retained counsel to both US

Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, in litigation against Mohan A. Harihar.

Please be advised of the following:

1. The evidenced civil and criminal misconduct associated with the historical record of

this matter is included as part of a new complaint being filed in Federal Court. The

evidenced misconduct includes (at minimum):

a. Fraud

b. Deceptive Practices

c. Anti-trust Violations

d. Fraudulent Misrepresentation

e. Fraudulent Assignments

f. Perjury

g. Aiding and Abetting Fraud

h. 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due Process and Equal

Protection Rights.

i. Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion – involving the MA

Attorney General’s Office, the MA US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR

138

association, and Defendant’s counsel (prior) – Nelson Mullins Riley &

Scarborough LLP.

j. Abuses of Judicial discretion

k. Infractions/Infringement 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.

2. David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson, and their former employer – Nelson Mullins

Riley and Scarborough LLP will now be included Defendants in this Federal

complaint(s). Nelson Mullins is on record as supporting the documented misconduct

of retained counsel. Senior management has remained silent for nearly two (2) years

since having been implicated by the managing partner of the Boston Office, Peter

Haley.

3. Clear evidence of improper relationships including Collusion is on record.

Furthermore, there has been no denial by ANY party – the Massachusetts Attorney

General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, of these very serious, and clearly evidenced

allegations.

4. Any party, agency, employer, etc… who so chooses to align themselves in support of

this referenced misconduct, is expected to be added as a Defendant in the forthcoming

Federal action(s).

5. A copy of this correspondence will be included in the referenced Federal complaint.

6. While K&L Gates has yet to been listed as a Defendant, Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar

has reserved the right to expand the list of Defendants as the depth of misconduct

continues to be revealed/exposed.

You are now respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions as they pertain

to this matter. Please note, a failure to do so will be interpreted as a decision to support the

evidenced misconduct of referenced clients and new employees/partners of K&L Gates, LLP.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

139

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

Attachment P

140

Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

August 15, 2014

VIA HAND DELIVERY Office of the Inspector General John W. McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 RE: Growing Concerns Related to MA Foreclosure & Ongoing Litigation

Dear Inspector General Cunha:

My name is Mohan A. Harihar – I am a Massachusetts wrongfully foreclosed homeowner, in

active litigation now for over 3 ½ years, currently being heard in the MA Appeals Court –

Docket No: 2013-P-1829 (Also reference 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671). Since the initial

rulings in the Lower Courts, an overwhelming amount of information has come forward in

support of my consistent claims of civil and criminal misconduct against the referenced

lenders and their retained counsel. In addition, this matter now includes irrefutable 14th

Amendment infractions to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, concerns of Collusion

and Clear Conflict with ongoing litigation, and multiple abuses of Judicial discretion. The

collective concerns related to this matter are many, and sadly question the integrity of the

judicial system within this Commonwealth.

It has unfortunately become necessary to request the assistance of your office, to review and

monitor what has occurred here from inception to present day. I have included several

documents filed with the Court to assist with your review:

141

1. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Motion Requesting Clarification and

Reconsideration.

2. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Motion Requesting Validation.

3. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply to Appellee’s Opposition to initiate a

validation process, and request for Special Prosecutor.

4. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Brief.

5. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply Brief.

For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone –

617.921.2526.


Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

Cc: Vice President Joe Biden

Governor Deval Patrick (MA)

US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)

US Senator Ed Markey (MA)

Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA)

Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)

Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)

Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)

Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

142

August 21, 2014

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY Office of the Inspector General John W. McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 RE: New Concerns Related to MA Foreclosure & Ongoing Litigation


As follow-up to the letter hand delivered to your office last Friday, August 15, 2014, an

additional concern has now emerged, re-affirming the necessity to inform the Office of the

Inspector General in this matter.

On Monday, August 18, 2014, and in response to the Motion filed last Friday, August 15,

2014 with the Massachusetts Appeals Court requesting the Clarification of a Decision, the

Court has DENIED this request to clarify their decision. This represents a common theme

throughout the history of this matter, as detailed in the Appellant Brief/Reply Brief to the

associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Decisions made without cause, and requests to clarify

these decisions are subsequently denied. It re-affirms the clear concerns of a “Too Big to Fail”

mentality, thus questioning the Integrity of the Judicial system in this Commonwealth.

Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent to this Appellant, as well as 65,000

wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears clear – no matter

how much evidence or information there is supporting your claim, you will not be allowed to


143

succeed in recouping compensation for the damage caused or in holding responsible parties

accountable for their misconduct.

Understanding this matter is still in active litigation, the request made to the Inspector

General’s Office is to monitor and review the details of this matter, as a corrective path

continues to be sought within the MA Court system.


617.921.2526.


Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar





Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)





144

December 22, 2014

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY

Office of the Inspector General

John W. McCormack State Office Building

One Ashburton Place, Room 1311

Boston, MA 02108 RE: Request for Internal Investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, et al.


After filing the August 2014 request to review & monitor – the civil/criminal matters

pertaining to the Wrongful Foreclosure of Mohan A. Harihar, this email communication is

respectfully sent to your attention on this Monday, December 22, 2014 with regard to the

following:

1. Concerns involving the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, who has

exemplified no effort to prosecute or any attempt to even mediate definitive criminal

misconduct associated with the Wrongful Foreclosure/Displacement of Mohan A.

Harihar - all of which is well documented, fully supported and on file with the

Court(s).46

2. Clear and irrefutable evidence of Collusion and conflict has been revealed47

, as it

pertains to the referenced matter, involving the following parties:

a. The Office of the MA Attorney General.

b. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.

46

Reference MA Appeals Court Docket(s) 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671, 2013-P-1829, and also Criminal

Complaints filed directly with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations Unit of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 47

See attached, Exhibit A

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

145

c. The US Attorney’s Office.

d. The Boston BAR Association.

This evidence has been brought to the attention of the MA Appeals Court, and

apparently ignored.

3. Additional evidence on file with the Court(s), support (at minimum) the following

criminal misconduct:

a. Fraud (including, but not limited to Deceptive Practices).

b. Fraudulent Concealment.

c. Fraudulent Misrepresentation.

d. Fraudulent Assignments.

e. Perjury.

f. Confirmation of Fraud by nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT – Lynn

Syzmoniak.

4. Attorney General - Martha Coakley has been regularly updated directly via email for

over two (2) years, apparently choosing to ignore/disregard this matter. Associated

criminal complaints are additionally on file with the MA Office of the Attorney

General.

5. The clear, and evidenced relationship between the MA Attorney General’s Office and

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP (retained counsel for Wells Fargo NA and

US bank NA in litigation vs. Mohan A. Harihar), supports clear collusion, conflict,

and shows cause to question the integrity of the MA Attorney General’s Office, their

failure to prosecute, or attempt to even mediate this matter.

6. The Attorney General’s “ongoing investigation” of Appellee/Defendant – Harmon

Law Offices PC for related misconduct, raises additional questions and concerns for

their lack of action here as well. These concerns which include Nelson Mullins Riley

and Scarborough LLP, also identify what is considered to be a “second tier to the

foreclosure mill law firm.”

7. It has been made clear, that this matter is not a singular issue. It has been irrefutably

identified and connected to civil and criminal misconduct associated with the US

Foreclosure Crisis, which has definitively caused irreparable harm to approximately

146

65,000 wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth, and at

minimum, 4.2 million throughout this Nation.

Since the August 2014 request to monitor & review this matter, your office has been

regularly included in related communications. These stated concerns pertaining to the

criminal misconduct associated with this matter respectfully should, and may already

be realized.

An email communication has been sent this morning to the direct attention of Attorney

General Martha Coakley48

. It is a third and final follow-up requesting an update to

mediation efforts regarding this matter. A requested timeline for response ending

Tuesday, December 30, 2014 @ 5pm EST has been given to provide an officially

documented and detailed update.

The US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis is arguably considered by many, to be the largest

case of FRAUD in the history of these United States. As anticipated, the decisions

made by referenced parties choosing to ignore these documented facts and concerns,

continue to expose the depth of associated misconduct - and still more evidence is

forthcoming, including (but not limited to) certified documents provided by the

SEC.49

Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent by this Attorney General, to

65,000 wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears

clear – no matter how much evidence or information there is supporting your

claim/criminal complaint, you will not be allowed to succeed in holding

responsible parties accountable for their criminal misconduct. They are

considered “ABOVE THE LAW.” These serious concerns clearly question the

integrity of the Attorney General’s Office, and of Attorney General Coakley.

48

The Office of the MA Inspector General has been copied on this email correspondence to Attorney General

Coakley. 49

SEC – Securities and Exchange Commission.

147

You have been made aware, that these concerns are additionally related to a separate,

private economic project(s), created by Mohan A. Harihar - designed to assist with this

Nation’s and overall global recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial crisis50

. All

parties, actions, etc…that bring increased risk to these projects, will be included in

forthcoming litigation for civil damages associated with the infringement to

Intellectual Property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar. Parties thus far currently include

(but are not limited to): Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, the Securitized Mortgage

Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP, and Harmon Law Offices PC.

You are aware, that the MA Appeals Court has recently granted Mohan A. Harihar

permission to file for new trial for civil damages related to the referenced wrongful

foreclosure, and referenced Intellectual property. Leave has been granted, due to the

overwhelming amount of documented evidence and information which continues to

come forth in full support of Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims. Failure to take corrective

action by the Attorney General will show cause to include the Commonwealth as a

Defendant in the referenced, forthcoming civil action.

ALL responsible parties that have been identified have been given ample opportunity,

to seek and reach agreement regarding these matters. These opportunities have been

repeatedly either denied or ignored. Therefore, I respectfully call for the following

action(s):

1. A full internal investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, Nelson Mullins

LLP, Harmon Law Offices PC and ALL parties who have been associated with

this matter.

2. Securing a Special Prosecutor to forthcoming litigation, and determining the

appropriate Court venue.

50

The FCS model is one of three projects considered to be the intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.

Harihar (Copyright, Patent-pending).

148

3. Continued monitoring of all civil Court proceedings, including historical decisions

from ALL Courts.51

Please be advised, the following parties have been copied on this email communication: Vice

President Joe Biden, Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA), US

Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki

Tsongas (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Attorney General-Elect Maura

Healey (MA), Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)52

, Christina Sterling

(Spokesperson, US Attorney’s Office - MA)53

, and Susan Herman (President, ACLU).

Separate Media communication has also been made available for the specific purpose of

informing the People of this Commonwealth, and this Nation of these concerns (Attached for

reference)54

. ALL communications (email, etc…involving ALL responsible parties and

related Court documents) are additionally being prepared for publication as reference and to

provide public awareness.

It brings me no pleasure to move in this legal direction. However, any system which

allows this level of criminal misconduct to continue without any accountability, will not,

nor should ever be tolerated.


617.921.2526.


Respectfully,

51

MA Civil proceedings have included: Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior

Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Court. 52

CFPB – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 53

DOJ - Department of Justice. 54

Click on the following link to view the 12/22/14/Media Alert:

149

Mohan A. Harihar



Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA)





Attorney General-Elect Maura Healey (MA)


Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, US Attorney’s Office (MA)


EXHIBIT A

151

March 20, 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


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.

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:

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

152

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.

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.

153

If your office has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional information,

please advise.


Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar


Governor Charles Baker (MA)




Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)




154

Attachment Q

157

Attachment R

159

Attachment S

160

June 20, 2014

Northeast Association of Realtors FOR DOCUMENTATION, DISCLOSURE & LEGAL

6 Liberty Way, Suite 204 PURPOSES Westford, MA 01886 RE: Ethics Complaint – Daher Companies

VIA US MAIL

Dear Northeast Association of Realtors,

It has unfortunately become necessary to file an Ethics Complaint55

against two (2) members of the Northeast Association of Realtors:

1. Mary E. Koontz-Daher, Daher Companies (Principal).

2. Kenneth Daher, Daher Companies (Principal).

In late February 2014, and following the Wrongful Displacement of Mohan A. Harihar, Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies (located at 25 East Street, Methuen, MA 01844), elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. This property has been in ongoing litigation pertaining to Wrongful Foreclosure for over three (3) years, and is currently being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Associated misconduct is considered both civil and criminal, and is fully supported against multiple parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins LLP and the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.

On March 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Daher, Principals of Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies, to notify all parties of the serious circumstances associated with this matter, and the potential legal risk to ANY, and ALL parties, choosing to align themselves with the associated misconduct. This Notice of Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability has apparently been ignored.

56

55

See Appendix, Completed Form E-1, as required, p. 5 56 See Appendix, March 23, 2014 Email Communication RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability, p. 6 - 9


161

On May 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Daher Companies, with an update to ongoing litigation, outlined in the 5/19/14 Media Alert, and a second NOTICE was issued to parties choosing to align themselves with any associated misconduct.

57

On June 7, 2014, after receiving feedback from local Realtors of potential disclosure non-compliance, an email communication was sent to Daher Companies, informing them that a formal complaint was now being prepared against them, for concerns surrounding non-disclosure to multiple parties including (but not limited to): other Real Estate Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc… Shortly thereafter, I received an email communication response from Mary Koontz-Daher, a response considered inappropriate, unprofessional, and falsely stated.

58

After receiving the email, I received a missed phone call on my mobile phone. A voicemail was left by a woman identifying herself as Mary Koontz-Daher, in an erratic voice, stating that I should “be a man and identify myself” and that I should return the call. I then returned the phone call, stated my name and that I was returning a missed call from this number. The same erratic voice identified herself as Mary Koontz-Daher, who claimed to not know who I was, claimed to not know why I was sending her company the previously stated communications, and stated that she was sending the information to her attorney, and notifying the Methuen Police Department.

Despite multiple interruptions, I notified Mrs. Daher that as explained in the email communication, notice was formerly given regarding the related concerns, and a formal complaint was now being filed against the appropriate parties. I additionally stated that I too, would be notifying the Methuen Police Department, which I did, immediately after ending the phone conversation with Mrs. Daher.

As documented in this complaint and in supporting documents, I have consistently made clear my name, associated address, email address and contact phone number. To be clear, until the June 7, 2014 email and phone call from Mrs. Daher, there had been no communications received by the references parties. The references by Mrs. Daher on June 7

th, 2014 stating that she does not know who I am, or why legal notice has

been sent to Daher Companies conflicts with supporting documents on file.

This is a very serious matter. It appears that Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies has specifically chosen to ignore the email communications/Broker Disclosure Notice sent to them, choosing instead to knowingly list and market a foreclosed property which is still in active and ongoing litigation, and without notifying other Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc… of the potential & considerable legal risk(s).

Feedback has come forth from both local area Real Estate Agents, Brokers, and attendees of a recently held Open House, stating no mention of any Disclosures. Instead, emphasis was given to an incentive – “Enter to Win $250,000 from WELLS FARGO”.

I am certain, that the conduct exemplified by the referenced Broker(s) does not meet with the standards of NAR’s Code of Ethics, and have highlighted several areas within the Preamble, as well as Articles 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 & 14.

59 I am calling for this association to further investigate this matter, including the already

concluded open houses from 6/1, 6/8, 6/14, independent showings, broker open houses, etc…to further determine how many misinformed parties may unnecessarily become subject to increased legal risk.

Additionally, please be advised, and as stated in the 5/19/14 media Alert, pending the outcome of litigation in MA Appeals Court, this matter is being prepared for transfer to Federal Court, and to additionally be addressed with the MA and US Inspectors’ General. A copy of this complaint is being filed with the MA Appeals Court to articulate the concerning tactics exemplified by the Appellees - Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, and associated Broker. Complaints already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General, Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Trade Commission

57 See Appendix, May 23, 2014 Email Communication and 5/19/14 Media Alert (Click on Link to access), p. 9 58 See Appendix, June 7, 2014 Email response by Mary Koontz-Daher, and attached original communication(s), p.9 59 See Appendix, Highlighted sections within NAR - Code Of Ethics and Standards of Practice, p. 10 - 14

162

(FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) will also be updated with a copy of this complaint.



Mohan A. Harihar

163

APPENDIX

165


166

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

VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION

Mr. and Mrs. Daher,

It is my understanding that your company, Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies, located in Methuen, MA, has elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

Please be advised of the following:

1. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with misconduct by both the MA Office of the Attorney General and the National Mortgage Settlement. Settlement payment received.

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.

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.

167

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 against them (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), 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.

*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

168

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527

http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527

173

NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

174

MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Complainant

vs.

MARY AND KEN DAHER,

WEICHERT REALTORS – DAHER COMPANIES

Respondent

ETHICS VIOLATIONS HEARING

I. OPENING STATEMENT

Before proceeding, I – Mohan A. Harihar (Complainant) wish to make this panel aware of the

following:

a. This matter is directly associated with ongoing litigation involving the related

Summary Judgment, forthcoming civil action involving (but not limited to) the

Respondents, and the pursuit of criminal charges against (but not limited to) the

Respondents.

b. The panel may deem necessary to postpone this hearing to a more appropriate

future date, as evidence/information continues to come forth in full support of the

Complainant’s consistent claims, also exposing the depth of related misconduct.

c. The attached Motion, recently submitted to the MA Appeals Court will assist in

articulating an overview of this matter.

d. The Complainant requests the recording of these proceedings, and for transcripts to

be made available for ongoing (and future litigation).

e. The Respondents are being given a single opportunity to retract ANY false

statements made against the Complainant – Mohan A. Harihar. Consideration will

be given as civil and criminal matters proceed. Failure to retract ALL false

statements against Mohan A. Harihar will be addressed in forthcoming civil and

criminal actions.

II. CLOSING STATEMENT

175

After reviewing the facts related to this complaint, the panel is asked to consider the

following:

a. Does the conduct exemplified by these Respondents meet the Standard of NAR’s

Code of Ethics? If the answer to that question is “NO”, then appropriate action and

or penalties should be assessed.

b. If you are a potential buyer, would you want to be informed of these details prior

to purchase? Similarly, if the answer to that question is “YES” and you were NOT

properly informed, appropriate action and/or penalties are again warranted.



Mohan A. Harihar

14 Circle Rd. (Mail Only)

Lowell, MA 01852

176

Attachment T

Freedom of Information Act Request

Office of General Counsel

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580


177

Dear Sir/Madam:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I request that a copy of the following document(s) be

provided to me: All investigative records concerning the following companies – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA,

CMLTI 2006-AR1, and Nelson Mullins LLP. These parties are directly associated with documented misconduct

pertaining to foreclosed property of Mohan A. Harihar. Documented misconduct includes (but is not limited to)

fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Please also include the three (3) complaints

which have been forwarded to your agency from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (Originally filed by

Mohan A. Harihar).

I request a waiver of all fees for this request as I am an individual with limited financial means, acting pro se, with

on-going litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Disclosure of the requested information to me is

additionally in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the

operations or activities of these institutions, the collective misconduct which has impacted over 4.2 million US

households (associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis), and to assist the Justice Department in providing a

pathway for further prosecution.

If you need to discuss this request, I can be reached at 617.921.2526 (Mobile). Thank you for your consideration

of my request.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar

168 Parkview Avenue

Lowell, MA 01852

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

178

Attachment U

harihar files request for special prosecutor in federal foreclosure/rico complaint

Documents

commonwealth of massachusetts

mohan harihar

massachusetts legislators

harihar email

massachusetts state

illegal foreclosure

us bank na

us district court boston