FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wells Fargo, US Bank’s desperation effort to dismiss, as Harihar unveils evidence of mass scheme. Boston, MA, February 20, 2016 – The Office of the Inspector General has now informed the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar, that the Executive Offices of the Department of Justice is now investigating the allegations detailed in the civil/criminal complaint, Docket No: 2015-cv-11880, Harihar vs. US Bank et al. (US District Court, Boston, MA). In the meantime, before the alignment with Federal Prosecutors, counsel and prior to the completed service of Summons to ALL Defendants (via US Marshall), it appears that the Defendant Lenders and their retained counsel (co-Defendants in this complaint) are making a desperate effort to have the complaint dismissed. However – referenced Lenders and their attorneys stand alone in their opinion.

1Their views apparently

are not shared by the ten (10) other listed Defendants; nor are they supported by the Department of Justice, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Federal Bank Regulators, or a Nationally recognized Fraud expert. Harihar’s complaint, which continues to gain national and worldwide attention, provides details of evidenced misconduct which connects: identified Lenders associated with the US Foreclosure/ Financial Crisis; Violations of the RICO Act including evidenced Collusion between the Defendant Attorney(s)/ retained law firms, the MA Attorney General’s office, the US Attorney’s Office and the Boston BAR Association; multiple abuses of judicial discretion; failures by the Commonwealth to prosecute criminal complaints; and the alignment of Defendant Real Estate Brokers/homebuyers who have made the decision to sell/purchase an identified illegal foreclosure. Harihar has maintained that the objective is to reach a mutual agreement with ALL parties, while paving the way for an economic framework which will realistically lead to historic economic growth in the US.

2 However, Defendant decisions to decline or ignore these opportunities will continue to expose

the depth of related misconduct as the legal process moves forward. Scroll down to view a copy of Harihar’s filed Opposition, in its entirety. For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile) Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1

1 Defendant Lenders – Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA; Defendant Attorneys – David E.

Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson of K&L Gates, LLP. 2 The economic framework is reference to Harihar’s Intellectual Property, known as the Harihar FCS

Model©

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

11880

Plaintiff

v.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS – US BANK NA and WELLS FARGO NA’s

MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P 12(b)(6) AND

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

For reasons synonymous with opposition filed against the

Defendant’s additional two (2) filed Motions to Dismiss, the

Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, currently acting pro se,

respectfully prefaces this opposition with the following:

1. The Plaintiff is expected to accurately address ALL of the

supported allegations, against ALL Defendants at trial, in

full detail, and with the assistance of retained counsel

and Federal Prosecutors. The Plaintiff has made clear,

that it will likely be necessary to file a third amended

3

complaint, once the alignment with counsel and Federal

Prosecutors has taken place.

2. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has informed the

Plaintiff that this matter is now under investigation by

the Executive Offices of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

3. A Motion to appoint counsel is still pending in this

Court. The Plaintiff’s efforts continue still, to

aggressively seek and retain counsel while this motion is

still pending.

4. The Plaintiff is not an attorney, has acted pro se for

nearly five (5) years in this matter out of financial

necessity, has made every effort to comply with the rules

of the Court, and will continue to do so, as the process

of aligning with Federal prosecutors and counsel

continues.

5. The supported allegations made in the referenced complaint

against fourteen (14) Defendants are all related by one

common thread – an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE confirmed by the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

6. At some point, there must be limitations and boundaries

set, for these Lenders identified with the US Foreclosure

Crisis. They are not, and should not be considered ABOVE

THE LAW. The failures by the Commonwealth to hold these

4

Bank Defendants accountable for their actions contribute

to the harm and damages of this Plaintiff and irreparably

damage an economic framework designed to assist the United

States.

After reviewing Defendants Motion(s) to Dismiss, The Plaintiff,

Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully files this Opposition with the

Court, based on the following:

7. The Plaintiff’s Complaint brings well supported

claims/allegations which reveal a mass scheme – which if

allowed to continue, threatens not only this Plaintiff,

but ALL ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNERS, in this

Commonwealth and Nation, and their legal efforts to recoup

damages suffered from the US Foreclosure Crisis.

This is a very well-planned scheme that ultimately impacts

trillions of dollars in mortgages throughout the United

States. Each of the Defendants play a specific role in

this scheme:

a. Beginning with the Defendants – Wells Fargo NA, US Bank

NA, and CMLTI 2006-AR1 violations of Federal and State

Law, confirmed by the DOJ, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and Federal Bank Regulators.

5

b. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts – For the allegations

illustrating numerous abuses of judicial discretion

throughout multiple state courts; for its failures to

take corrective action regarding the referenced illegal

foreclosure; for its refusal to prosecute criminal

complaints filed by the Plaintiff; and resulting

damages to the Plaintiff and the referenced

Intellectual Property.3

The Plaintiff has uncovered what is clearly considered as

evidenced violations of the RICO ACT including (but not

limited to) COLLUSION and IMPROPER RELATIONSHIPS that

exist between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of

the Attorney General), Defendants – Nelson Mullins Riley

and Scarborough LLP, Defendant Jeffrey S. Patterson, the

US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston BAR Association. The

West LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the Bubble

Bursts” – Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and

Civil Litigation. The description of the course states,

“Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of

leading prosecution officials, including the Attorney

General and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud

3 Referenced Intellectual Property includes the Harihar FCS

model©.

6

and foreclosure cases. Learn about valuable strategies for

criminal defense attorneys in this area...”

These improper relationships at minimum show clear cause,

as to why criminal complaints have been thus far

completely ignored by state prosecutors. Efforts made by

the Plaintiff to address these improper relationships in

every related Massachusetts State Court have been

completely ignored, as evidenced in ALL related

transcripts. These FACTS have been very troubling.

With the evidenced improper relationships and referenced

failures by the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff has lost faith

in the state’s willingness to protect those who have been

irreparably harmed by this crisis – at minimum,

approximately 50,000 – 60,000 illegally foreclosed parties

in the Commonwealth alone.

Every related decision made in Massachusetts State Courts

has subsequently been called into question. The Plaintiff

has clearly articulated these allegations within the filed

second amended complaint, with additional supporting

documentation, transcripts, and subpoenaed testimony still

to be presented at trial – and with the assistance of

counsel and Federal Prosecutors. Relying solely on related

7

historical decisions to dismiss here, prior to addressing

allegations against the Commonwealth at trial and

VALIDATING the FACTS, would be considered premature and

unjust.

c. Harmon Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP – These

firms represent a tiered structure of legal defense,

beginning with Harmon, who has been directly linked to

thousands of illegal foreclosures throughout the

Commonwealth and under investigation by the

Massachusetts Attorney General (for wrongful

foreclosure and eviction practices), and who WITHDREW

from this case; the second tier is Nelson Mullin Riley

and Scarborough LLP, who also WITHDREW from this case

just days after being informed of becoming a Defendant,

subsequently parting ways with Defendants Fialkow and

Patterson. K & L Gates LLP now represents the third

tier.

d. Real Estate Brokers and Homebuyers who have ignored

Plaintiff Disclosures, and have aligned with the

misconduct of the Defendant Lenders.

8. Failure to State a Claim – consistent with the historical

path taken by these Bank Defendants in related

Massachusetts State Court proceedings, the “Failure to

State a Claim” defense is incorrect, and simply false.

8

US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA are listed as Defendants in

the referenced complaint for (at minimum) the following

(supported) reasons:

a. Bank Defendants lied/perjured themselves before the

Court(s) – at minimum, related court documents and

transcripts from Massachusetts State Courts which

reveal the Defendants consistently stating that zero

misconduct is related to the referenced foreclosure.

This directly conflicts with the findings by the DOJ,

Massachusetts Attorney General, Federal Bank

Regulators, and a Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT.

b. Evidence supporting Fraudulent Misrepresentation –

There are multiple instances which support Fraudulent

Misrepresentation by –

1. At minimum, includes the inaccurate account of

events during the Plaintiff’s 22-month loan

modification attempt(s). Discovery4 will

ultimately assist with validating the

Plaintiff’s accurate account of events;

4 Discovery – Includes 22-months of recorded conversations

during the Plaintiff’s attempted loan modification efforts with

the servicer, Defendant Wells Fargo NA. Defendants have

historically refused to produce this requested Discovery, and

Massachusetts State Courts have refused to compel their

production. Recordings will reveal at minimum, Deceptive

Practices, in line with the mass violations encountered

nationwide by the DOJ and Massachusetts Attorney General.

9

2. Declaring the referenced foreclosure as legal,

when the DOJ, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

Federal Bank Regulators and a recognized FRAUD

expert have tied the referenced foreclosure to

MASS VIOLATIONS of Federal and State Law

associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis.

Continuing to characterize the Plaintiff’s

allegations as “baseless”, etc... conflicts

directly with public statements (and complaints)

made/filed by Federal and State Prosecutors, and

the Federal Reserve.

c. Evidence supporting Fraudulent Concealment – As the

Defendants Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA have

intentionally kept numerous critical pieces of

evidence/information from being revealed in

Massachusetts State Courts. This is, at minimum

exemplified by the historical refusal of Discovery

evidence, and Plaintiff’s Exhibits attached in the

second amended complaint, including: the April 2011

Report by the Federal Reserve/Office of the Comptroller

of the Currency; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure

Attorney Procedure Manual, Version 1; WALL STREET AND

THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse -

Majority and Minority Staff Report, Permanent

10

Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate;

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of

the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial

and Economic Crisis in the United States.

While the Bank Defendants criticize the amount of

Exhibits provided in the Plaintiff’s second amended

complaint, the Plaintiff has provided multiple examples

where these Defendants have concealed evidence in order

to deceive the Court.

d. Evidence supporting Improper Relationships – as

previously described in No. 7.

9. US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA stand alone in their

opinions – The views expressed here in this Motion (and

historically) differ with the views of:

a. The Department of Justice (DOJ)

b. The Massachusetts Attorney General (Former and current)

c. The Federal Reserve

d. Former retained counsel – Nelson Mullins, LLP. – Has

shown no support for the direction taken by the

departed attorneys, Fialkow and Patterson. In fact, it

is speculated that Fialkow/Patterson’s exit from Nelson

Mullins LLP was influenced by the resulting legal risk

brought to their firm, in association with this matter.

11

e. Defendant/Former Manager - Peter Haley – has remained

completely silent, and has shown no support to this

matter, since the referenced 2013 email communication.

f. Defendant Harmon Law Offices, PC – has exemplified no

alignment with the views of these Bank Defendants since

their withdrawal as counsel.

g. With the exception of their retained Counsel - The

remaining ten (10) Defendants have exemplified no

alignment with the views of these Bank Defendants.

10. Compliance with Federal Rule 8 – As previously

stated, it will likely be necessary for a third amended

complaint to be filed with the Court, once the Plaintiff

has aligned with counsel and Federal prosecutors. In the

meantime, the Plaintiff is happy to provide the Court with

a shortened statement to justify relief, either here or by

separate filing to remain compliant with the Rules of the

Court:

“Each of the named Defendants share a portion of

responsibility and accountability for the evidenced

misconduct outlined in this civil/criminal complaint(s) –

which has resulted in irreparable harm and damages to the

Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar, and to the Plaintiff’s

intellectual property which includes an economic framework

12

designed to assist the United States with economic

recovery and growth, estimated in the trillions of

dollars5. The Plaintiff therefore deserves to be awarded

justifiable relief, as it relates to these collective

damages.”

11. Defendant’s Case Examples - The Plaintiff

respectfully brings to this Court’s attention, that upon

review of the supporting cases submitted by the Defendants

– US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, there does not appear to

be one (1) case example provided, which reflects

circumstances equivalent to this matter. Specifically, no

case example has been provided to the Court which includes

the magnitude of documented civil and criminal misconduct

as does this matter. In fact, the Plaintiff does not

believe there to be a single case decision, in this

Commonwealth, or any state in the Nation, which

articulates and provides justification in lieu of

documented civil and criminal misconduct provided.

Therefore, all such related arguments by these Defendants,

and their impact to ALL related decisions, respectfully,

must be considered VOID.

5 The economic framework refers to the Plaintiff’s intellectual

property, known as Harihar’s FCS Model.

13

12. This case represents matters of National importance –

Defendants - Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA both here and

historically have avoided ANY and ALL discussion of the

Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, and its merits. They

are well aware that this economic framework – the HARIHAR

FCS Model, once implemented represents a realistic path of

historic economic growth for this country, while

correcting the mass injustice(s) caused by the US

Foreclosure Crisis – and irreparable harm to millions of

Americans.

A premature dismissal would have negative implications

nationwide, and would show cause to question whether

corruptive elements extend beyond the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

13. The Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to

recognize, the many opportunities historically extended to

these Defendants to reach agreement, ALL of which have

either been ignored or declined – the latest of which has

been filed along with this Opposition (See attached

Notice, and 1/26/16 Demand letter). These ignored and/or

failed opportunities have historically only led to the

Plaintiff uncovering more supporting evidence, further

exposing the depth of misconduct.

14

14. There is a lot of relative information still to

review and understand prior to making a just decision in

this matter. The Bank Defendants motion fails to provide

the Court with an accurate or complete account of events.

The Plaintiff is confident, that once ALL relative

Discovery evidence, testimony, etc... has been accurately

presented with the assistance of counsel/Federal

prosecutors - only then will the Court be in the best

position to make a well-informed decision.

CONCLUSION

The efforts made here by Defendants US Bank NA and Wells Fargo

NA to dismiss, are viewed as clear acts of desperation to avoid

accountability. Their gross mischaracterizations of historical

events have been made abundantly clear and should no longer be

tolerated by this Court. Furthermore, with the exception of

their retained counsel, their views are supported by NO ONE.

These Defendants will have their opportunity to argue their

position before a jury trial, and only after the Plaintiff has

aligned with counsel and Federal prosecutors. A premature

decision to dismiss here would irreparably harm not only this

Plaintiff as an individual, but this Nation as a whole. For the

reasons stated within, and in the Plaintiff’s second amended

15

complaint, the Court should DENY the Defendant’s Motion(s) to

Dismiss, until the alignment with federal prosecutors and

counsel has taken place, and should reserve any final decisions

until ALL relative information has been accurately presented

and validated at trial.

If the Court has ANY questions or requests any additional

information to clarify this position, the Plaintiff if happy to

provide if needed.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

Plaintiff