FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER

PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS
GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR
TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT

Lowell, MA, May 19, 2014 In the 3+ year ongoing pro se legal effort by
wrongfully foreclosed homeowner Mohan A. Harihar, serious concerns
questioning the Integrity of the Judicial System within the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts is in preparation to next be addressed with both the MA
and US Inspectors General, pending the outcome of the current Appeal
being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No: 2013-P-1829, Mohan
A. Harihar (Appellant) vs. US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law
Offices PC, et al.

The collective concerns supporting a Too Big to Fail mentality throughout
three (3) years of litigation in multiple Courts include (but are not limited
to): Infringement of Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, non-
disclosure of critical evidence/information by the Lender/Mortgage
Servicer, lack of response regarding criminal complaints,* Abuse of
Judicial Discretion (multiple counts), and concerns regarding the resulting
infringement to intellectual property belonging to the Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar.

While the origination of this matter involves wrongful foreclosure directly
tied to the US Foreclosure Crisis, it has significantly evolved to now
include concerns regarding the Constitutional Rights of an individual, and
its impact threatens a project designed to assist this Nation with economic
recovery from damages suffered by the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.**

Its important to additionally note that one of the Appellees Harmon Law
Offices PC, who has been involved with the vast majority of 50,000
foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, and who was the originally
retained counsel by US Bank NA in this matter, withdrew from this matter
as the MA Attorney General had begun an investigation against them for
wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices. In July 2013, the MA
Appeals Court granted the MA Attorney General permission to continue
2
the investigation, which is still ongoing. Harmon has also been directly
linked to disbarred Florida Foreclosure Kingpin David Stern.

For additional information articulating these concerns, the filed
Appellant Brief is attached for publication purposes, as is a recently
filed Motion in response to Opposition by retained Counsel for US
Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA Nelson Mullins LLP.


* Criminal complaints against referenced parties are filed with the MA Office of the
Attorney General and additionally with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI.

** Intellectual Property of Mohan A. Harihar includes the FCS model (Copyright, Patent-
pending), designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery stemming from the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.





For Further Media Information Contact :

Mohan A. Harihar
Email: mcharihar@comcast.net
Phone: 617.921.2526

Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar

3
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX APPEALS COURT OF THE
COMMONWEALTH
DOCKET NO: 2013P1829



MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Appellant

vs.

WELLS FARGO, NA
US BANK, NA
HARMON LAW OFFICES, PC

Appellees




APPELLANTS OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES MOTION TO STRIKE
BRIEF AND APPEAL DISMISSAL.

Opposition to the Appellees Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the
Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, and hereby moves for this court to deny the
Appellees motion, in which much of its content is considered factually false,
inaccurate, and unsupported. The amount of documented information and
evidence supplied to this Court(s) against these Appellees, and their retained
counsel is overwhelming. Additional evidence supporting this Appellants
consistent claims is still forthcoming.

This latest attempt to avoid accountability by two (2) of the three (3) Appellees,
further underlines the initial requests by the Appellant, in seeking protection
against such false defamatory and unsupported attacks by these Appellees and
their retained counsel.








4
INTRODUCTION

The Court is respectfully reminded of the following:

1. There are three (3) Appellees involved in this matter: US Bank NA,
Wells Fargo NA, and Harmon Law Offices PC.
2. This matter coincides with the ongoing investigation of Harmon
Law Offices PC by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and is
documented in Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs.
Attorney General, filed with this Appeals Court. A recent unanimous
ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior
Court decision allowing the MA Attorney Generals office to
continue examining Harmon Law Offices for alleged unfair and
deceptive acts related to the firms foreclosure and eviction work.
3. Harmon Law Offices PC was the originally retained counsel for US
Bank NA in this matter, which originated in the Lowell District Court,
and where Counsel is on record as stating: Mr. Harihars complaints
and concerns are valid.
4. Harmon Law Offices has been associated with the vast majority of
50,000 plus foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, however chose to withdraw as counsel from this case
against Mohan A. Harihar. Timing of Harmons withdrawal ironically
coincides with the beginning of the MA Attorney Generals
investigation.
5. Harmon Law Offices PC has been definitively linked to disbarred
Florida Foreclosure Kingpin, David Stern.
6. Since this ongoing investigation and link to the disbarred
Foreclosure Kingpin has been brought to the Publics attention,
Harmon Law Offices PC has made no effort to file any opposition
in this matter.
7. Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA have throughout all
related proceedings avoided any discussion of these facts, and have
refused to provide the Appellant and the Court(s) with the
consistently requested Discovery evidence specifically, the
recorded conversations between Mr. Harihar and the mortgage
servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification
process.



Counsel is correct in stating that this is not the Appellants first Appeal. There are
four (4), all of which are related. In two (2) of these Appeals, including this
Appeal, decisions in the lower Court(s), both the Northeast Housing Court and the
Middlesex Superior Court, were denied without cause, and motions requesting
clarification of these decisions were also denied.
5
With regard to the Northeast Housing Court Appeal involving a decision by Judge
David Kerman, followed by a refusal to clarify the decision, the Notice of Appeal
filed by Mr. Harihar was never processed or delivered to this Court by the
Clerk Magistrate, Susan Trippi, despite multiple follow-ups by Mr. Harihar over
the course of one year, by phone, in-person, and additionally in the Emergency
STAY request to avoid wrongful displacement. All this is clearly documented
with the Court, and a negligence complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi
was filed with the Supreme Judicial Court Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. On May12, 2014 this Committee of the
SJC dismissed the complaint without cause, stating no violation.
1
This further
exemplifies the serious concerns of this Appellant, which further supports the
Too Big to Fail mentality believed to exist in this Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, as articulated in the associated Appellant brief on file.
To date, since April of 2013, the Notice of Appeal is still yet to be filed,
therefore no Docket number is associated, which has led to the WRONGFUL
DISPLACEMENT of the Appellant.

This Docket is similar in that yet another decision is rendered without cause, and
requests for clarification and reconsideration are also denied. Appellees and their
retained counsel were given notice to cease and desist from making false,
defamatory and unsupported statements against Mr. Harihar, and have repeatedly
ignored this Notice, as is exemplified yet again in the Appellees Motion.

Concerns regarding the decisions of Docket Nos: 2012-P-1515 and 2013-P-
0671 exist as well for similar reasons of decisions lacking cause, despite
overwhelming evidence provided by the Appellant, and will be addressed
accordingly, moving forward.

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has made it very clear, that this matter far
exceeds a singular wrongful foreclosure. It has been directly linked to this
Nations Foreclosure Crisis, and the summation of serious concerns regarding
ALL related court decisions, articulated in the Appellants filed brief, question
the integrity of the judicial system in this Commonwealth and the Too Big to
Fail mentality being echoed throughout this Nation.

If fair judgment and accountability appears unattainable in this matter, Mr.
Harihar is prepared to address the entire matter with the MA and US
Inspectors General, as articulated in the Appellant brief, and additionally
petition to move this entire matter to Federal Court for infractions
pertaining to Due process and Equal Protection Rights, under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 5: Enforcement.
2


1
See Exhibit A - filed Complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi in its entirety, along with
May 12, 2014 decision by SJC Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts.
2
In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state
denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being
denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts, and to provide
6

ARGUMENT

I. Based on the amount of documented evidence and information which
continues to come forward in support of this Appellants consistent
claims, and because this matter has been directly tied to this Nations
Foreclosure Crisis, decisions rendered without cause are called into
question. When further clarification of said decisions are requested
and additionally denied, red flags are raised regarding the integrity of
the system. This has consistently occurred throughout 3+ years of
litigation.

In this specific situation, the Appellant has requested for Court protection against
constant defamatory, false, and unsupported attacks by the Appellees, and in
defiance to the Cease and Desist - Demand Notice issued by the Appellant. Mr.
Harihar respectfully reminds this Court, that while counsel continues to attach
labels such as: improper, frivolous, meritless and baseless claims, they have
refused to:

A. Provide critical Discovery evidence consistently requested by Mr.
Harihar.
B. Validate Chain of Title.
C. Validate Signatures on File.
D. Provide supporting documentation after speaking on behalf of
government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to
have committed similar misconduct, and the media.
E. Disclose Critical evidence, such as the April 2011 Report by Federal
Bank Regulators.
F. Complete the validation of statements questionnaire (see appellant
brief Appendix)

These Appellees and their retained counsel, who continue to state that there is
ZERO MISCONDUCT associated with this matter, have spent over three years
in an effort to prevent ALL FACTS from being presented to the Court(s).

II. The continued characterization of frivolous, baseless, and meritless
claims warrants the request for subpoenaed testimony from
additional parties.

Since it is the continued insistence by the Appellees and their retained counsel to
incorrectly characterize Mr. Harihars documented and supported claims, perhaps
sworn testimony by appropriate parties, such as the MA Attorney General, should
be requested/ordered by the court to assist with proper validation of the numerous

criminal and civil liability for state officials and agents or persons associated with them who
violate protected rights. These statutory measures designed to eliminate discrimination "under
color of law" present no problems of constitutional foundation.
7
areas in question, particularly since there is already a 3+ year ongoing
investigation involving one of these Appellees an investigation recently
allowed by this Court to continue.

To be clear, this Appellant has made no threat of intimidation, or any effort to
prevent an appellate brief from being filed. HOWEVER, the continued false
characterizations and unsupported statements by these parties, which have caused
harm and accruing damages to this Appellant, will no longer be tolerated.

Misconduct by these Appellees and their retained counsel is both criminal as well
as civil. It is documented, and this Appellant will continue to pursue the criminal
charges for complaints already on file with both the MA Attorney Generals
Office as well as the Fraud investigations Unit of the FBI.

III. Relationship to the US Foreclosure Crisis

Appellees and their retained counsel have gone to great lengths in an attempt to
avoid associating this matter with the US Foreclosure Crisis, which has irrefutably
caused harm to millions of Americans and this Nations economy. This Appellant
has provided the Court(s) with an overwhelming amount of evidence which show
that in fact this matter is directly related to the Crisis. This Appellant has also
been completely clear and up-front with ALL parties and the Court(s), of the
intention to share FACT-BASED information related to this matter with multiple
parties including: Government Officials, other Lenders and Mortgage servicers
found by Federal Bank Regulators to have committed unsafe and unsound
mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, the media, and the public.

The continued insistence by counsel to suggest that these parties have nothing to
do with this matter, or are disinterested with the FACT-BASED information and
evidence related to this matter are also unsupported. Mr. Harihar requests that the
Court order the Appellees to supply sworn testimony by these parties in an effort
to validate these claims.

IV. Relationship to Intellectual Property

Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has informed the Appellees and the Court, of
intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which has been created for
the purpose of assisting with US and overall Global economic recovery from
damages incurred by the US Foreclosure Crisis. The Court has been made aware
that this project has been thus far successfully presented to multiple parties
including:

A. The Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee
B. The Office of the MA Attorney General
C. The NH Attorney General, NH Sec of State, NH Governors Chief of
Staff, and members of the Governors Council.
8
D. A Congressional Office
E. Two State Senators
F. A Senior Lender VP of Risk Compliance
G. The Chairman of a nationally-ranked Strategic Communications firm.

This project has additionally been reviewed by the Senior Economic advisor of a
sitting US Senator, and this Appellant has been invited back to Washington to
present to a US Senate Office. Finally, this project has been sent to the
Executive Offices of the President of the United States, at the specific request
of Vice President Biden, for the specific purpose of presentation and review
by the EOP.

For this reason, multiple government officials will continue to be copied on
communications pertaining to this litigation, and any decisions which may
unnecessarily bring risk to a project designed to help this Nations and
overall Global economy.

Appellees and their retained counsel are well aware of these facts and have
avoided their discussion entirely. The Court may deem necessary to additionally
subpoena testimony from these government officials to confirm this information
as well. This Appellant is happy to have further discussion upon request to
provide additional clarification if necessary.







CONCLUSION



The Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to deny Appellees Motion, for
the numerous reasons stated within, and requests that this Court order these
Appellees to properly validate information prior to submitting unsupported
documents. If such unsupported information is found to be false, or if parties
refuse to provide validation, the Appellant respectfully requests that there is
accountability for the harm caused. The Appellant additionally reminds the
Court that the Appellee Harmon law Offices PC, who is under investigation
by the MA Attorney General, has filed NO OPPOSITION or related motion.

This Appellant has been open and honest with this Court, exemplifying complete
disclosure, while the Appellees and their retained counsel have not. Appellees
have been afforded numerous opportunities to seek agreement for harm caused
and repeatedly chosen to ignore or deny these opportunities. The collective
9
circumstances surrounding this matter has now escalated which now questions the
integrity of the judicial system within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
necessitating the collective concerns associated with this Nations Foreclosure
Crisis, as stated in the Appellants filed Brief, and the potential need to
collectively raise this matter with the MA and US Inspectors General, and
petition the transfer of this matter to Federal Court, pending the outcome of this
Appeal.

This Appellant re-states that it is my sincere hope that this Court will assist with a
constructive path in reaching an agreement regarding this matter.





Thank you for your attention to this matter.









Respectfully Submitted,



Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
10









Exhibit A
11

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 Clerks 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 Courtin
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.
Mohan A. Harihar
14 Circle Rd.
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
12

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
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 Generals 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 Attorneys Office.






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
























13













Exhibit A

























14





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
Courts Order denying Defendants Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013,
followed by the denied Motion requesting Clarification of the Order, received
May 14, 2013.





Respectfully Submitted,




Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mcharihar@comcast.net

15

16


May 19, 2014

VIA HAND DELIVERY
Clerk of the Appeals Court
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square
Boston, MA 02108

RE: Docket No. 2013-P-1829


Dear Sir/Madam Clerk:
Attached is the Appellants Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and
Appeal Dismissal.


Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: David Fialkow, Kurt R. McHugh








17



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I, Mohan A. Harihar, do hereby certify that I have served all parties in this action, listed below,
with signed copies of the documents herein below specified by first-class mail, postage pre-
paid, to the following addresses:


Document(s):

1. Appellants Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and Appeal
Dismissal.



Parties Served:

Attorney David Fialkow
Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP
One Post Office Square, 30
th
Floor
Boston, MA 02109


Attorney Kurt R McHugh
Harmon Law Offices PC
P.O. Box 610389
150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458-0389





May 19, 2014
___________________

Mohan A. Harihar











18

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Appeals Court




Docket No. 2013-P-1829

_________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant

vs.

US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A.,
Harmon Law Offices PC et al
Appellees
__________________________________________

On Appeal From A Judgment Of The
Middlesex Superior Court

__________________________________________

Brief For The Appellant

____________________________________________



Mohan A. Harihar
Pro Se
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Phone)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com







19

Table of Contents


Table of Authorities............................3

A. Cases

B. Other Authorities

Issues Presented................................4

Statement of the Case...........................6

Statement of Facts..............................10

Summary of the Argument.........................17

Argument........................................18
Conclusion......................................26
Judgment Order on Appeal........................31
Certificate of Compliance.......................32
Addendum........................................33
Record Appendix.................................37












20


Table of Authorities

Cases:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Bank of America NA,
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, BAC GP LLC, JP Morgan
Chase Bank NA, Citibank NA, Citimortgage Inc,
GMAC Mortgage LLC, Wells Fargo Bank NA,Mortgage
Electronic Registration System Inc, and MERSCORP Inc.
Civ. A. No.11-4363.............................20
United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island.
Master Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA).................20
Bradburn vs. ReconTrust, et al., Superior Court of the
State of Washington for Snohomish County.
Docket No.11-2-08345-2.........................20
Department of Justice vs. Ocwen Financial
Settlement..........................................20

Statutes and Rules:
Massachusetts General Laws
G.L. c. 93A, 2....................7, 11, 19, 27
G.L. c. 223A, 3..............................27
SJC Court Rule 3:13........................13, 21


21


Issues Presented

1. Abuse of Judicial Discretion Stare Decisis.
2. Abuse of Judicial Discretion Pro se litigant.
3. Abuse of Judicial Discretion refusal to clarify
Decision(s).
4. Similar Abuses of Judicial Discretion with regard
to Decisions in the Northeast Housing Court and
documented Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate.
5. Abuse of Judicial Discretion refusal/failure to
validate requested information prior to making
Decision.
6. Abuse of Judicial Discretion repeated failure
to enforce production of critical Discovery
evidence.
7. Abuse of Judicial Discretion failure to address
and grant protection regarding Plaintiffs/
Appellants concerns of slander, defamation of
character, etc documented in remarks by opposing
counsel; Counsels refusal to abide by Notice to
Cease and Desist.
22
8. State and Federal Prosecutors lack of response to
address documented criminal misconduct by
Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel
(current and prior).
9. Lack of response by MA Office of the Attorney
General to provide the Court(s) with communication
supporting that the referenced foreclosure and
eviction of Mr. Harihar directly coincides with the
Attorney Generals 3+ year ongoing investigation of
Harmon Law Offices PC.
10. Overall Impact to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights.
11. Wrongful Displacement
12. Abuse of Judicial Discretion refusal to grant
STAY of Eviction Order, and refusal to clarify
decision.
13. FAIR decision(s) and accountability pertaining to
the documented misconduct, accruing harm and
damages, caused by these Defendants/Appellees, their
retained counsel, which now includes Negligence by
the Northeast Housing Court and impact to due
process (on multiple levels) and equal protection
rights, is no longer believed to be possible.
23
Preparations are being made to address the entire
matter with the MA/US Inspectors General.
14. These collective concerns directly bring
increased risk to the Intellectual Property of the
Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, which includes the
project known as the FCS model, designed to assist
and repair this Nations, and overall Global
economy. In addition to collective Appellee/Counsel
misconduct, related Court decisions in question are
adding to that increased risk. This further
exemplifies the likely need to bring this entire
matter to a higher authority if corrective action is
not taken by the Court(s).

Statement of the Case
Appellant respectfully states to this Court that while
acting pro se (out of financial necessity) for over
three (3) years, to address the documented civil and
criminal misconduct associated with this matter, every
effort has, and continues to be taken to respectfully
comply with the Rules of the Court.
24
Since initial decisions were rendered in the lower
Courts, an overwhelming amount of information and new
evidence supporting this Appellants consistent claims,
and in-line with the documented misconduct associated
with the United States Foreclosure/Financial Crisis, has
been made available to the Court(s). Additionally,
critical Discovery evidence that this Appellant has
requested in every Court proceeding for the past three
(3) years, has not been provided, and the Court(s) have
failed to enforce their production. Referenced Discovery
requests include, but are not limited to:

1. Recorded conversations during the 22-month
loan modification process which irrefutably
support the Appellees misconduct including
deceptive practices (G.L. c. 93A, 2).
2. Validation of the securitized mortgage trust
associated with the foreclosure.
3. Validation of Chain of Title.
4. Validation of signatures on file.

This Appellants concerns are now significantly
compounded by:
25
1. The collective abuses of Judicial
discretion.
2. Documented negligence, caused by the Clerk
Magistrate, Susan Trippi of the Northeast
Housing Court
3
, resulting in harm,
accruing damages, and the Wrongful
Displacement of the Appellant, causing
impact to DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION
RIGHTS.
3. The lack of response by both state and
federal authorities to address criminal
complaints on file. Documented criminal
misconduct includes:
a. Fraud
b. Deceptive Practices
c. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
d. Fraudulent Concealment
e. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
f. Perjury.
This Appellant sadly believes that the Too Big to Fail
mentality which has been echoed throughout this Nation,
exists in this Commonwealth and has specifically

3
See Appendix - pages 42-45, Negligence complaint
filed with the Committee on Professional
responsibility for Clerks of the Court.
26
impacted this matter. While the Appellant maintains a
firm belief in the judicial system as a whole, the
documented facts as it relates to over 3 years of these
collective proceedings and events clearly questions the
integrity of that system. Pending the decision of this
Appeal, and due to the increased risk pertaining to
Intellectual Property designed to assist this nations
and overall global economic recovery, preparations are
now being made to address this entire matter with the MA
and US Offices of the Inspector General.

This Appellant maintains the intention to legally hold
accountable, the Appellees, their retained counsel, and
ALL responsible parties for documented civil and
criminal misconduct, which has caused irreparable harm
and accruing damages to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar,
impacting family, marriage, career, future retirement,
credit, and everyday living.




27
Statement of Facts
A. Appellants/Plaintiffs Evidence
The following are the relevant and undisputable facts
pertaining to this matter:
1. Since the initial decisions rendered by the
Northeast Housing Court and the Middlesex
Superior Court, an overwhelming amount of
information and evidence has been provided to
the Court(s) to irrefutably support civil and
criminal misconduct by the Appellees and their
retained counsel which, at minimum has clearly
warranted a new trial in the lower court(s).
New evidence and information includes (but is
not limited to):
a. The NON-DISCLOSED April 2011 Report by
Federal Bank Regulators. The report
identifies related misconduct by the
Appellees Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA.
b. Misconduct associated with the referenced
foreclosure, identified by the MA Office
of the Attorney General and the National
Mortgage Settlement. Settlement payment
28
received by the Appellant for related
misconduct.
c. Misconduct associated with the referenced
foreclosure, additionally identified by
Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement
payment received by the Appellant for
related misconduct.
2. It is a fact, that the recorded conversations
during the 22-month loan modification process,
which irrefutably support deceptive practices
(at minimum), and which by law must still be
made available, have been requested in every
court hearing through Discovery, have never
been provided by the Appellees, and the
Court(s) have never enforced their production
(G.L. c. 93A, 2).
3. It is a fact, that Criminal misconduct against
the Appellees and their retained counsel is
documented with the Court(s) and in criminal
complaints filed with the MA Office of the
Attorney General and the Fraud Investigation
Unit of the FBI. Infractions include: Fraud,
Deceptive Practices, Aiding and Abetting Fraud,
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent
29
Concealment, and Perjury. Despite multiple
communications sent directly to both Attorney
General Coakley as well as the US Attorneys
Office, charges are yet to be filed for this
documented misconduct.
4. It is a fact, that despite the collective
information and evidence supporting the
Appellants consistent claims, decisions of
denial have been rendered without cause in the
Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior
Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme
Judicial Court. In these instances, requests to
clarify the Courts decision(s) have also been
denied.
5. It is a fact, that the Appellees and their
retained counsel have, and continue to make
slanderous and defamatory remarks against the
Appellant, despite receiving notice to Cease
and Desist.
4
Appellant has additionally
addressed this matter with the Middlesex
Superior Court, requesting the protection of a

4
See Appendix - page 46-47, Appellee Demand Letter to
Cease and Desist.
30
Court order against such attacks.
5
The request
was denied by the Court, showing no cause for
the denial, and stating that the request was
improper. Appellants REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION WAS ADDITIONALLY DENIED.
6. It is a fact that a complaint has now been
filed with the Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Court, under
SJC Court Rule 3:13 against the Clerk
Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court
Susan Trippi, citing negligence. This
misconduct has led to the wrongful displacement
of the Appellant, incurring additional harm and
damages, and impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION RIGHTS.
7. It is a fact that numerous requests for
validation have been either ignored or
disregarded by the Appellees and the Court(s).
6

Validation requests include:
1) Chain of Title
2) Signatures on file

5
See Appendix page 50-51, Motion Requesting Cease
and Desist Court Order
6
See Appendix pages 52-61, Requested Clarification
of Statements
31
3) SEC and IRS concerns related to
the associated Securitized Mortgage
Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1
4) The April 2011 Report by Federal
Bank Regulators.
8. It is a fact that the Appellant has filed for a
subpoena with the Commonwealth, requesting that
the MA Attorney Generals office provide a
communication which supports that the
referenced foreclosure and eviction directly
coincides with the Attorney Generals 3+ year
ongoing investigation of Harmon Law Offices
PC.
7

9. It is a fact, that it has been clearly
communicated to the Appellees and their

7
Since the recent filing of both state and federal
criminal complaints, information has been uncovered by
Mr. Harihar which reveals that Harmon Law Offices PC
is directly tied to disbarred FL foreclosure kingpin
David Stern. Mark Harmon, founder & President of
Harmon Law Offices PC, served as Director of DJSP
Enterprises, a company created by Stern, and
considered one of America's largest foreclosure
servicers. Harmon Law Offices has been under
investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General
since 2010, for infractions related to foreclosure and
eviction practices. The timeline of the Attorney
Generals investigation also coincides with Harmons
withdrawal as counsel from the foreclosure case
involving Mr. Harihar.

32
retained counsel that multiple parties would be
included in future communications, to bring
awareness to the civil and criminal misconduct
believed to be associated with this matter.
Parties include (but are not limited to):
government officials, media sources, other
lenders found to be associated with unsafe and
unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure
practices, the public and additional employees
of Nelson Mullins LLP, for the purpose of
forwarding to senior management and Human
Resources of the associated Law Firm.
10. It is a fact, that the FCS model is the
Intellectual property belonging to the
Appellant Mohan A. Harihar. Properly
implemented, the FCS model is designed to
assist this Nations and overall Global economy
with recovery from damages caused by the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.
11. It is a fact, that over the past 2+ years,
the FCS model has been successfully presented
to multiple parties including: The Deputy Chief
Counsel of the House Finance Committee, The
Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General,
33
The New Hampshire Attorney General, NH
Secretary of State, NH Governors Chief of
Staff, several members of the NH Governors
Council, a MA Congressional Office, two (2) MA
State Senators, A Lender-Senior VP of Risk
Compliance, A Chairman of a Nationally ranked
Strategic Communications firm. The FCS model
has additionally been reviewed by the Senior
Economic advisor of a sitting US Senator, who
is a member of the US Senate Banking Committee,
and has invited the Appellant back to
Washington to present the FCS model.
12. The FCS model has additionally been sent to
the Executive Offices of the President of the
United States specifically, AT THE REQUEST OF
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, and for the specific
purpose of presenting the FCS model to the
Executive Offices of the President of the
United States.

B. The Defendants/Appellees Evidence
1. Appellees and their retained counsel simply
maintain that there is no misconduct associated
34
with this matter, while refusing to validate,
acknowledge, and simply ignore the overwhelming
amount of documented information and evidence
that confirm civil and criminal misconduct, as
stated by the Appellant and on file with the
Court(s).
2. Appellees have additionally chosen to ignore
the facts and potential legal consequences
related to the intellectual property belonging
to Appellant, which includes the FCS model.

Summary of the Argument
I. Collective Abuse of Judicial Discretion
II. Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate of the
Northeast Housing Court
III. Lack of Response by State and Federal Prosecutors
IV. Too Big to Fail Mentality is Believed as
Driving Factor, Prohibiting Fairness and
Accountability
V. Necessity to Involve MA/US Inspectors General.

35
Argument
I. Collective Abuse of Judicial Discretion
Appellant firmly believes that the Abuse of
Judicial Discretion has existed historically
throughout all related proceedings 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. Documented
examples on file with the respective Court(s)
include:
a. Failure to show cause for a denial(s).
b. Refusal to Clarify a Decision(s)
c. Repeated failure to enforce production of
critical Discovery evidence. This is best
exemplified by the refusal to enforce the
production of the recorded conversations
during the 22-month loan modification
36
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 validate requested
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 Plaintiffs/Appellants concerns
of slander, defamation of character, etc
found in remarks documented by opposing
37
counsel; Counsels refusal to abide by
Notice to Cease and Desist.
8

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.
9

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

8
See Appendix, Pages 46-47
9
See Table of Authorities, Page 3, for list of
referenced cases which bear impact to this matter.
38
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.
II. Negligence by the Clerk Magistrate of the
Northeast Housing Court

An official complaint has been filed with the
Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of
the Court, 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.
10

III. State and Federal Prosecutors Lack of Response
Criminal complaints are filed with the MA Office
of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations
Unit of the FBI, however, there has yet to be any
action taken from either office, despite numerous

10
See Appendix - Pages 42-45, for filed complaint
against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi in its entirety.
39
email communications sent directly to, and received by
Attorney General Martha Coakley, and also by Christina
Sterling at the US Attorneys Office (MA).
A request was also made, and seemingly ignored by the
Attorney Generals Office, to assist with providing
communication to the Court(s), supporting that the
referenced foreclosure and eviction directly coincides
with the AGs 3+ year ongoing investigation of Harmon
Law Offices PC. This request was made in effort to
secure a STAY of Eviction Order pertaining to the
referenced property. This request was ignored. A
subpoena has now been filed with the Commonwealth in
effort to secure this information & overturn this
Wrongful Displacement.
IV. Too Big to Fail Mentality
The referenced foreclosure has been definitively
associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis, considered
by many to be the largest case of FRAUD in the History
of the 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
40
harm to millions of American families and considerable
damage to this Nations and Global economy.
This Appellant has provided the Court(s) with an
overwhelming amount of evidence and information to
irrefutably support his consistent claims over the
past 3 years, and it has been seemingly disregarded,
without cause. Combined with negligence exemplified by
a Clerk Magistrate and Prosecutors who are seemingly
ignoring criminal complaints, it has become
increasingly clear to this Appellant, that the Too
Big to Fail mentality exists here in this
Commonwealth, and that a Fair Decision and
accountability for the related misconduct appears
unattainable, despite the overwhelming evidence and
information provided to the Court(s) to support this
Appellants consistent claims.
V. Necessity to Involve MA/US Inspectors General
The decision to address this entire matter with a higher
authority will become necessary should the following
occur:
41
a. If Fair judgment and accountability
for collective reasons stated within
continue to appear unattainable in the
Massachusetts Judicial Court system.
b. If collective infractions to due
process and equal protection rights of
the Appellant are not addressed and
corrected. This includes negligence by
the Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast
Housing Court.
c. Decisions in favor of the Appellees,
which are unfairly allowed to stand, and
additionally cause increased risk to
intellectual property of the Appellant,
Mohan A. Harihar, which has been
specifically designed to assist the
United States of America with economic
recovery from damages caused by the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.

42
In hindsight, it should be noted that if the
Appellees had taken the time to understand the
objectives of Mr. Harihar, and specifically
the benefits of a successfully implemented FCS
model, which by design create substantial
benefit to ALL parties including the
Appellees, these years of ongoing litigation
and accruing damages to Mr. Harihar might have
been avoided entirely.
It should be noted to ALL parties, that a
successfully implemented FCS model by design,
will deliver significant benefit to ALL
parties involved the wrongfully foreclosed
homeowner, state and federal government, the
overall US and Global economy, and even the
lenders/mortgage servicers responsible for
creating this crisis. And while the
Foreclosure Crisis is anticipated to tie up
the Judicial Court system for another decade,
successful implementation of the FCS model is
designed to significantly reduce or eliminate
that timeline entirely.
43
Efforts by any party to negatively impact or
cause increased risk to the FCS model will
necessitate additional legal action.

Conclusion
It is now the firm belief of the Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar that a Fair Judgment, as it pertains to the
documented civil and criminal misconduct associated
with the referenced Wrongful Foreclosure and now
Wrongful Displacement, does not appear attainable. The
overall impact of these decisions moving forward,
threatens not only the rights of an individual, but
additionally stands to hinder or threaten a project
designed to help this Nations and Global economy
recover from damages caused by the US Foreclosure
/Financial Crisis.
Collectively, the combination of the following has
impacted DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS:
1. Abuse of Judicial Discretion (Multiple counts).
2. Negligent misconduct by the Clerk Magistrate of
the Northeast Housing Court.
44
3. Lack of response by state and federal
prosecutors regarding documented criminal
misconduct stated in criminal complaints on
file.
Even if New Trial were to be granted to Mr. Harihar,
the collective history surrounding this matter has
raised too many questions and concerns regarding the
integrity of the system, on multiple levels,
supporting a Too Big to Fail mentality.
Should ANY question remain to clarify misconduct by
these Appellees, this Appellant again requests that
the Court issue an order requiring the Appellees to
finally provide the REQUESTED DISCOVERY, the 22-months
of recorded conversation between the Appellant Mohan
A. Harihar and the Appellee/Mortgage servicer Wells
Fargo NA, during the loan modification process, as has
been consistently requested for the past 3+ years,
which at minimum supports deceptive practices
enforceable under Consumer Protection Laws, which by
law, these recordings must still be made available.
The Appellant believes that the only potential
corrective path left for consideration (prior to
45
escalating this matter to a higher authority) is for
the Court to order both parties to mediation in effort
to reach an appropriate settlement agreement as is
the order referenced in the synonymous case from the
United States District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, Master Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA). It should be
noted that the Appellant has made multiple efforts, to
reach a settlement agreement with the Appellees. These
efforts have either been ignored or declined.
11
Since
this has been the continued stance of these Appellees,
the pursuit of criminal charges is expected to
continue, against ALL parties, as well as
accountability for counsel misconduct associated with
this matter and documented in complaints filed with
the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel.
The Appellant additionally and separately requests
that the decision pertaining to the Wrongful Eviction
of the Appellant:
1. Be overturned immediately, allowing Mr. Harihar
to rightfully return to his home,

11
See Appendix Pages 46-49, Demand Letters 2013 and
2014.
46
2. And that related damages, and accruing costs,
including cost to move all belongings back to the
property, are immediately paid for by the
Appellees.
Pending the decision and outcome of this Appeal, and
from the historical concerns stated within, the
Appellant believes it will likely be necessary to next
address this entire matter with the MA/US Inspectors
General, and preparation has already begun regarding
next steps. Upon the filing of this Appellant Brief,
and because of the heightened concerns stated within,
communication including a copy of this Appellant Brief
has additionally been sent to President Obama, Vice
President Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim Sheehan
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), The American
Civil Liberties Union, US Senator Elizabeth Warren
(MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval
Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), US
Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen
Donoghue (MA), Christina Sterling (US Attorneys
Office, and the managing partners of Nelson Mullins
LLP.
47
Above all, this is a matter of principle, and the
basic difference between right and wrong. I have spent
the last 5 years addressing the misconduct associated
with this matter, 3+ years as a pro se litigant (out
of financial necessity), while continuing my efforts
to re-enter the workforce, creating an economic
solution which helps this country, and now, addressing
the challenge of having a roof over my head. I
respectfully ask, and it is my hope, that this Court
will assist with providing a constructive path to
repair the damage that has been done by these parties.
Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Pro Se
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526
mcharihar@comcast.n









48




49
50















ADDENDUM
























51


Addendum Table of Contents


G.L. c. 93A, 2....................................35

G.L. c. 223A, 3...................................35

MA SJC Rule 3:13....................................36





































52


G.L. c. 93A, 2

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and
unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct
of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

G.L. c. 223A, 3


Section 3. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction
over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to
a cause of action in law or equity arising from the
persons
(a) transacting any business in this commonwealth;
(b) contracting to supply services or things in this
commonwealth;
(c) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in
this commonwealth;
(d) causing tortious injury in this commonwealth by an
act or omission outside this commonwealth if he
regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any
other persistent course of conduct, or derives
substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or
services rendered, in this commonwealth;
(e) having an interest in, using or possessing real
property in this commonwealth;
(f) contracting to insure any person, property or risk
located within this commonwealth at the time of
contracting;
(g) maintaining a domicile in this commonwealth while
a party to a personal or marital relationship out of
which arises a claim for divorce, alimony, property
settlement, parentage of a child, child support or
child custody; or the commission of any act giving
rise to such a claim; or
(h) having been subject to the exercise of personal
jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth which has
resulted in an order of alimony, custody, child
support or property settlement, notwithstanding the
subsequent departure of one of the original parties
from the commonwealth, if the action involves
modification of such order or orders and the moving
party resides in the commonwealth, or if the action
involves enforcement of such order notwithstanding the
domicile of the moving party.
53
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:13:
Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of
the Courts

[Disclaimer]

The Supreme Judicial Court may establish a committee
on professional responsibility to investigate any
action of a Clerk Magistrate, as defined in Rule 3:12,
including (a) conviction of a crime, (b) wilful
misconduct in office, (c) wilful misconduct which,
although not related to duties as a Clerk Magistrate,
brings the office of Clerk Magistrate into disrepute,
(d) conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice or conduct unbecoming a Clerk Magistrate,
whether conduct in office or outside of duties as a
Clerk Magistrate, that brings the office of Clerk
Magistrate into disrepute, or (e) any conduct that
constitutes a violation of Rule 3:12. The committee
may receive information, investigate, and make
recommendations relative to any mental or physical
disability, including habitual intemperance, of a
Clerk Magistrate. The committee shall consist of at
least five persons, none of whom shall be a Justice of
the Supreme Judicial Court, at least one of whom shall
be a currently elected Clerk Magistrate and at least
one of whom shall be an appointed Clerk Magistrate.
The composition and rules of the committee shall be as
established by the Supreme Judicial Court. This rule
shall not be interpreted to abrogate the authority of
the Supreme Judicial Court, the Appeals Court, the
Chief Administrative Justice, or an Administrative
Justice of a Department of the Trial Court in any of
these areas.













54



Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Appeals Court




Docket No. 2013-P-1829

_________________________________________

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant

vs.

US Bank N.A., Wells Fargo N.A.,
Harmon Law offices PC, et al
Appellees
__________________________________________

On Appeal From A Judgment Of The
Middlesex Superior Court

__________________________________________

Appendix For The Appellant

____________________________________________



Mohan A. Harihar
Pro Se
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Phone)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com






55

Appendix Table of Contents


Civil Docket Case Summary from
Middlesex Superior Court.........................39-41

Negligence Complaint against Clerk Magistrate
Of the Northeast Housing Court...................42-45

Demand Letter 3/15/2013..........................46-47

Demand Letter 4/23/2014..........................48-49

Motion Request for Court Order...................50-51

Motion Requesting Clarification..................52-61






























56








57






58











59


May 19, 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 Clerks 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.



Mohan A. Harihar
14 Circle Rd.
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
60
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
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 Generals 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 Attorneys Office.






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



















61
















Exhibit A























62




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 Courts Order denying
Defendants Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013, followed by the denied Motion
requesting Clarification of the Order, received May 14, 2013.





Respectfully Submitted,




Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mcharihar@comcast.net


63




64










65



May 19, 2014
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP FOR DOCUMENTATION, NEGOTIATION
Attn: David Fialkow & SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
One Post Office Square, 30
th
Floor
Boston, MA 02109
RE: Demand Letter Mohan A. Harihar,
168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852

VIA US MAIL

Mr. Fialkow:
As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a
copy of this Demand Letter to your respective clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
Please be advised of the following:
1. As expected, new information and evidence supporting misconduct by your client (s) continues to
come forward, and in support of the consistent claims of Mohan A. Harihar. The latest information
pertains to the Wells Fargo Foreclosure manual, also referred to as the Wells Fargo Foreclosure
Fraud manual, and multiple cases are proceeding in both State and Federal court(s) for related
misconduct associated with this manual.
2. Motions are again being prepared for filing with the Court(s) to address the still growing amount of
new information and evidence against your clients, in addition to the collective concerns as outlined in
the April 17
th
and 21
st
2014 email communications, sent to you, and the managing partners of Nelson
Mullins LLP.
3. Since it appears necessary to address this entire matter with the Massachusetts and/or the United
States Inspector(s) General, for the collective reasons previously stated, clear communication will be
made to inform the public, and to ALL OTHER parties including Lenders and Mortgage Servicers
identified with similar misconduct, who MAY be subject to increased legal risk as a result of these
actions, and to clearly identify ALL parties responsible for this increased risk.
4. It has been communicated to you, that the referenced misconduct may bring increased risk to the
intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which includes the FCS model, designed to
assist this Nations and overall Global economy with recovery from the Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.
Despite these concerns communicated to you, the actions (by your clients and your firm) to cause
harm and increased risk continue. It has therefore become necessary to inform and include in
communications government officials and associated agencies, familiar with the FCS model, of these
increased risks, and the parties responsible. Government officials and agencies include :
a. The Vice President of the United States
b. Members of the US Senate
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
66
c. Members of Congress
d. The US Attorneys Office
e. The Governor of Massachusetts
f. The Massachusetts Attorney General
g. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
h. The American Civil Liberties Union
i. Members of the Massachusetts State Senate
A final opportunity is being afforded to your referenced clients (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA), and to
Nelson Mullins LLP in effort to reach a settlement agreement, for the associated harm and accruing damages
incurred by Mohan A. Harihar, and to potentially avoid the necessity of additional legal action. Please note, your
response, or lack thereof, will be shared at minimum, with the parties listed above.
This is a very serious matter that requires your immediate attention. It is strongly recommended that you contact
Mr. Harihar immediately to address and resolve this situation. Failure to do so by 5pm (EST), this Friday, April
25, 2014, will be noted to ALL parties, and the legal process and exposure of related misconduct will move
forward, as scheduled. This letter is your final opportunity to resolve this matter amicably.



Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar






















67
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499



MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Plaintiff/Appellant

vs.

WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.

Defendants/Appellees







MOTION FILED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A, REQUESTING COURT ORDER
AGAINST DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES AND RETAINED COUNSEL TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
MAKING FALSE, UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

In accordance of Superior Court Rule 9A, Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A.
HARIHAR, requesting a Court Order to cease and desist be issued against the Defendants/Appellees (US Bank NA, Wells
Fargo, NA, and their retained counsel, Attorney David E. Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP), from
making false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant.

In the recent documents submitted by the Appellees (on file with the Appeals Court) regarding the Appellants timeline
extension request, and again in recently filed opposition, allegations of harassment are made against the Appellant. These
allegations completely unfounded, unsupported and utterly false.

Mr. Harihar has made it abundantly clear to counsel that the facts and documented misconduct associated with the
referenced foreclosure and throughout this litigation will be brought to the Publics attention, for the specific purpose of
creating public awareness, and in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct resulting
from this Nations Foreclosure Crisis. If anything, Mr. Harihar has made it a point to over-communicate and include
counsel in most, if not all communications which have been sent to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
Criminal Bureau, select government officials, select media personnel, additional employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, and
other lenders and mortgage servicers also found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure
practices, even though there was no requirement to do so.
Of the multiple communications sent to the previously mentioned parties, there has been no response from any party,
including the senior management of Nelson Mullins LLP, to suggest harassment, disinterest, etcas is stated and
suggested by Attorney Fialkow.

The Appellees/Defendants and their retained counsel were previously put on notice in March 2013 to cease and desist from
misconduct including (but not limited to), slanderous and defamatory statements against Mohan A. Harihar (see Exhibit
A). Prior concern with regard to bullying-style tactics and unethical conduct of the Appellees retained counsel, David E.
Fialkow, has existed since being retained by the Appellees, and historically includes his conscious decisions to file
documents with the Court(s) containing false, slanderous, and defamatory statements. Misconduct is further supported in
Court transcripts. Mr. Harihar respectfully reminds the Court that the associated Appeal Docket No. 2013-P-0671
pertains to documented false statements (on file with the Court) made by Attorney David E. Fialkow which ultimately
influenced a Superior Court decision.

Despite being put on notice, misconduct is continued in the associated Appeal (Docket No. 2013-P-0671) with unfounded
allegations of harassment. Counsel goes further to make unsupported statements and suggestions on behalf of other parties
including the Office of the Attorney General. This ongoing misconduct by counsel to discredit Mr. Harihar additionally
raises concerns regarding the security Mr. Harihars intellectual property, which has now been disclosed by counsel.

To assist ALL parties including the Court with clarification, a questionnaire has been created to address the growing
number of unsupported/unanswered documented statements in question (see Exhibit B). Mr. Harihar has mailed a copy of
the questionnaire to counsel and has requested its completion to assist the legal process moving forward. Once completed
and received by Mr. Harihar, copies will be filed with this Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Office of the
Attorney General (to assist with the Criminal Complaint on file), and additionally communicated with ALL affected
parties.

68
Notice is additionally given to the Court - With the collective evidence and new information supporting Mr. Harihars
consistent claims now in possession, a significant portion of this matter is still being assembled and is forthcoming,
involving the process and facts associated with the securitization of mortgages and the securitized mortgage trust
referenced in litigation against Mr. Harihar, CMLTI 2006-AR1. Since numerous questions and concerns continue
surround this securitized trust, a report is being filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assist with validation.

The Appellant/Plaintiff respectfully requests that, the Appellees and their retained counsel be held accountable for this
continued blatant misconduct and bullying-style tactics, and additionally requests that the Court issue an Order to protect
and prohibit similar conduct by the Appellee and their retained counsel moving forward.



















Respectfully Submitted,




Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852























69
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499



MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Plaintiff/Appellant

vs.

WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.

Defendants/Appellees








MOTION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULES 9 AND 60B; REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION


Plaintiff/Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully requests clarification with regard to the recently denied request for a
Court order against Appellees US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow (from making
false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant) in the above referenced matter.

After a review of the Courts decision, clarification regarding classification of the Motion as Improper is requested.

In addition, Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully states the following to the Court:

1. The Court order was requested to prevent false, damaging statements (made by the Appellees) against the
Plaintiff/Appellant from continuing and potentially impacting on-going litigation currently in the MA
Appeals Court, and also the related intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant Mohan A. Harihar.
2. Plaintiff/Appellant communications to ALL parties (including government officials, the media, other
lenders/mortgage servicers and senior members of Nelson Mullins LLP) are FACT-BASED, and
supporting documentation has consistently been provided to the Court. Mr. Harihar is happy to have
further discussion regarding any of these communications, and the now overwhelming and body of
evidence/information which irrefutably shows definitive misconduct by the Defendants/Appellees and
their retained counsel.
3. The Plaintiff/Appellant fully intends to continue ALL fact-based communications related to this
misconduct and the associated projects. Government officials, the media, and other lenders/mortgage
servicers associated with similar misconduct will continue to be included unless otherwise specified. If the
Appellees and their retained counsel no longer wish to be included in future communications, it is
suggested that a written request be submitted to the Plaintiff/Appellant for removal from the associated
distribution list.
4. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully re-states to the Court that, in addition to seeking accountability for the
Defendants/Appellees misconduct associated with this foreclosure, the associated projects (which are
considered the intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant Mohan A. Harihar), have been designed
to:

a. Assist the other 4.2 million parties who have suffered significant damages by similar misconduct
associated with this US Foreclosure Crisis.
b. Provide a plan which assists the Nation with economic recovery.
c. Assist the Justice Department with a pathway for future prosecution related to this ongoing crisis.
d. Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel are additionally hereby put on notice that any
actions or misconduct which influences, impacts, or causes damages in any way to the Appellants
intellectual property/projects will be met with additional legal action.

5. Since the last request to this Court requesting new trial, a separate investigation of the referenced
foreclosure by Federal Bank Regulators has resulted with the following new evidence now in
possession:

a. Appellant Mohan A Harihar has received financial compensation, issued through Federal
Bank Regulators, on behalf of the Defendants/Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
70
This compensation is a result of the April 2011 Report and separate investigation by Federal
Bank Regulators which found both Defendants/Appellees US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA
guilty of committing unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.

It has become increasingly apparent in associated correspondences, Court documents, and the Defendants/Appellees recent
refusal to clarify for the record (19) statements, that the Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel intend to avoid
addressing ALL new information/evidence, with the expectation that by doing so, they will avoid accountability. Despite a 2
year effort by the Appellees to suppress evidence and avoid accountability, documented misconduct by the
Defendants/Appellees is now in possession, and continues to come forward, as anticipated.

The April 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators, separate investigation and received payment(s), irrefutably
confirms that the Defendants/Appellees have purposefully chosen to mislead this Court, and all related proceedings for the
past 2 years. Additional supporting evidence includes separate compensation associated with the National Foreclosure
Settlement, received by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and the Court is also aware of documented false statements
made by the retained counsel. The Appellant is happy to discuss any of these matters in further detail if requested.

Those familiar with the details of this countrys foreclosure crisis consider this to be the largest case of fraud in US history.
Documentaries have been produced (ex. Inside Job 2010) as well as movies (ex. Too Big to Fail 2011) articulating the
level and depth of misconduct. Anyone with access to the internet who begins a search entitled US Foreclosure Crisis will
find over 5 million related links. The continued insistence by the Defendants/Appellees, stating that there is no misconduct
associated with this foreclosure is insulting and is a blatant lie to this Court(s).

At this time, Appellant Mohan A. Harihar wishes to file criminal charges with this Court, against the Appellees US Bank
NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow, as documented infractions are believed to include (but are
not limited to):

1. Negligent Misrepresentation
2. Fraud
3. Aiding and Abetting Fraud

As the legal process continues to move forward, additional counts of misconduct (including but not limited to deceptive
practices) are anticipated to be addressed with regard to:

1. The validation of the associated securitized mortgage trust CMLTI 2006-AR1
2. The recorded conversations (during the 22-month loan modification process) which the Appellees refused
to provide during the Discovery process.


The Plaintiff/Appellant additionally requests that this Court inform/update the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel of the
misconduct associated with the Appellees retained counsel. A complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow is already on
file. It is unclear at this time if the documented misconduct extends beyond this attorney (which restates the necessity of
including Senior Management of the retained law Firm Nelson Mullins LLP in communications).

Under Superior Court Rule 60b reconsideration is respectfully requested as this misconduct has been definitively
associated with fraud on mass scale.





Respectfully Submitted,




Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852










71




July 16, 2013
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
Attn: David Fialkow FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES
One Post Office Square, 30
th
Floor
Boston, MA 02109
RE: CLARIFICATION REQUESTED

VIA US MAIL

Attorney Fialkow:
As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a
copy of this Communication to your respective clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
After reviewing the collective documents submitted to the Court(s) by you (David E. Fialkow) on behalf of your
clients Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, there are numerous statements contained within that I wish to
clarify, so that there are no misunderstandings as we move forward with the Legal process.
For simplicity, a separate questionnaire has been prepared which lists the areas requiring clarification (see
attached). After each question, space has been provided for your response. Once completed, please mail back
a signed hardcopy to my attention.
Please be advised, other parties are included in this communication including: The Massachusetts Attorney
Generals Office (Criminal Bureau), other government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers
associated with unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and numerous members of
the media. In addition, a copy of this communication and your subsequent reply will be filed with both the
Massachusetts Appeals Court as well as the Middlesex Superior Court, to assist with the Legal process as it
moves forward.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

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

Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
72

REQUESTED CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENTS REGARDING HARIHAR vs.
WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA, et al.
The following questions are raised by Mohan A. Harihar following a review of statements contained within
Court documents, made by US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, on behalf of their retained counsel David E.
Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar. These
documented statements require further clarification for the record, as they are either unsupported, or where
evidence/information supporting Mr. Harihars consistent claims are ignored and/or unanswered. Mr.
Harihar requests clarification for the record to assist the legal process moving forward. Please be advised, as
with prior communications, additional parties will receive this communication. Parties include (but are not
limited to): The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (Criminal Bureau), select government officials,
select members of the media, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to have committed unsafe and
unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, for the
purpose of forwarding to senior management.

Please provide clarification in the spaces provided (highlighted in RED). Upon completion, please sign, date,
and return by mail three (3) hardcopies to Mr. Harihars attention. Two (2) copies will be filed with the
Courts (MA Appeals Court and Middlesex Superior Court), and Mr. Harihar will retain one copy on file.

1. Are both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA maintaining the position that there is NO misconduct
associated with the referenced foreclosure, or with any circumstances leading up to/or
following the foreclosure, including the 22-month Loan modification process?


[Click to type your response]


2. Is counsel maintaining that there is NO misconduct or deceptive practices associated with the
conversations that took place between the servicer Wells Fargo NA and Mr. Harihar during the
22-month loan modification attempts? If so, please provide a detailed explanation why
Discovery requests by Mr. Harihar throughout this litigation, to produce these recorded
conversations (in order to validate) has been repeatedly refused for over two (2) years?


[Click to type your response]



3. Please explain counsels reason(s) for refusing to validate Chain of Title with regard to the
referenced property.



[Click to type your response]




73
4. Is counsel stating that the Court(s) should uphold decisions made in the infancy stages of this
Nations Foreclosure crisis, when evidence/information now in possession was not yet available,
or where counsel repeatedly refused to provide critical evidence through the Discovery
process? If yes, please provide documentation to support this position.



[Click to type your response]

The following questions pertain to documented statements made by retained counsel David E. Fialkow, stating that
Mr. Harihars consistent claims are meritless and baseless.

5. With regard to the April 2011 investigation/report conducted by Federal Bank Regulators where
both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA were among the numerous Lenders and Mortgage
Servicers found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure
practices, is counsel stating that this report is considered meritless and baseless?



[Click to type your response]



6. Please clarify for the record why counsel did not disclose the findings of the 2011 Investigation
by Federal Bank Regulators prior to pursuing legal action against Mr. Harihar, in any Court
(Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, and the
Massachusetts Appeals Court)?


[Click to type your response]



7. Is counsel stating that the 2011 investigation by Federal Bank Regulators is incorrect, or that
somehow, this referenced foreclosure has different circumstances than the other 4.2 million
affected foreclosures?


[Click to type your response]



8. Is counsel stating that the Federal Bank Regulators separate investigation of Mr. Harihars
Foreclosure (which stemmed from the 2011 investigation findings, and which resulted in a
settlement payment to Mr. Harihar) is baseless and meritless? It is also noted that the payment
issued was an amount greater than the minimum payment issued to 4.2 million affected
recipients, indicating a greater degree of misconduct. Is this fact considered to be baseless and
meritless?



[Click to type your response]



74
9. Is counsel stating that the separate class-action litigation involving all fifty (50) Attorneys
General, against lenders including Wells Fargo NA, and which resulted in the National
Mortgage Settlement and additional separate payment to Mr. Harihar, is considered baseless
and meritless?



[Click to type your response]



10. Counsels statements characterizing claims as baseless and meritless conflict with statements
made by prior counsel retained by US Bank NA - Harmon Law Offices PC, known to be
associated with the vast majority of 58,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, who
stated on multiple occasions before the Lowell District Court, that Mr. Harihar has valid
complaints/concerns. Court transcripts will support. Please explain counsels change in position
and provide documents to support this abrupt change. Also, please explain what necessitated
the withdrawal of Harmon Law Offices PC from this litigation?



[Click to type your response]



The following questions are in response to allegations of threats and harassment, made by US Bank NA, Wells Fargo
NA and their retained counsel against Mr. Harihar. These allegations are completely unfounded, unsupported, and
utterly false, and have continued despite being previously put on notice by Mr. Harihar to cease and desist.
Mr. Harihar has made it abundantly clear to counsel that the facts and documented misconduct associated with the
referenced foreclosure and throughout this litigation will be brought to the Publics attention, for the specific purpose
of creating public awareness, & in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct. I f
anything, Mr. Harihar has made it a point to over-communicate and include counsel in most, if not all communications
which have been sent to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, select government officials,
select media personnel, additional employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, and other lenders and mortgage servicers also
found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, even though there was no
requirement to do so.
Of the multiple communications sent to the previously mentioned parties, there has been no response from any party,
including the senior management of Nelson Mullins LLP, to suggest harassment, disinterest, etcas is stated and
suggested by Attorney Fialkow.


11. Has counsel received communication from the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in
learning more about the misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide
documentation to support these statements.



[Click to type your response]




12. Has counsel received communication from any of the media sources stating that Mr. Harihars
communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the
misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these
statements.


[Click to type your response]

75


13. Has counsel received communication, from the other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers (Listed
on the Federal Reserve Website), found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage
serving and foreclosure practices, stating that Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or
that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct and increased Lender risk
associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.

[Click to type your response]

14. Has counsel received communication from any of the other government officials stating that
Mr. Harihars communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more
about the misconduct associate with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to
support these statements.



[Click to type your response]




I t has been specifically communicated to attorney David E. Fialkow on numerous occasions that the documented
misconduct associated with this ongoing litigation is believed to exist not only with US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA,
but also their retained counsel. It is unclear at this time, whether the documented misconduct is limited to Attorney
David E. Fialkow or if misconduct extends beyond to include additional members of Nelson Mullins LLP. For this
reason, and as previously communicated to counsel, other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP are copied on
communications for the specific purpose of forwarding to senior management. Ongoing investigations which include
the Office of the Attorney General Criminal Bureau are expected to assist in determining the depth of misconduct.

15. Is counsel stating that communications intended for Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP
are harassing, or that Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP is disinterested in learning more
about the misconduct and increased legal risk associated with this litigation? If so, please
provide documentation to support these statements. Additionally, if there are alternative email
addresses for specific Senior Managers of Nelson Mullins LLP, including Human Resources, which
are preferred for future communications, please provide that information as well.



[Click to type your response]
The following questions pertain to documented statements made by Attorney David E. Fialkow, stating that Mr. Harihar
has made all sorts of baseless claims about criminal, civil, and bar complaints and investigations.
To be clear, Mr. Harihar understands this is a very serious matter, and documented complaints were not filed until
documents supporting definitive misconduct were in possession.
I t is a fact, that Mr. Harihar has filed a detailed criminal complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal
Bureau, and has in possession documentation believed to irrefutably support criminal and civil misconduct against US
Bank NA as trustee, the associated securitized mortgage trust, Wells Fargo NA, and their retained counsel. I f any party
chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General directly
617.727.2200 (Phone), and their Boston office is located at One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1518.


16. Is counsel stating or suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not filed a criminal complaint with the
Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, and that there is no documented evidence
of criminal misconduct to support this complaint?


[Click to type your response]



76
I t is a fact that, Mr. Harihar has filed a complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow, of Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough LLP, with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel, for documented misconduct, has had
multiple conversations with the Bar Counsel regarding this matter, and has informed the Bar Counsel that additional
complaints regarding incremental counts of both civil and criminal misconduct against David E. Fialkow are expected
and are likely to follow. I f any party chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Board of Bar
Overseers/Bar Counsel directly 617.728.8700 (Phone), and their office is located at 99 High Street, Boston, MA
02110.

17. Is counsel stating or suggesting that a complaint has not been filed with the Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel against David E. Fialkow, and that there is no documented
evidence already provided to the Counsel to support misconduct?



[Click to type your response]




I t is a fact that counsel has been made aware by Mr. Harihar that, with documented misconduct now in possession, a
review of all related court documents/transcripts submitted over the past two (2) years is under review, and is believed to
now constitute numerous counts of misconduct including (but not limited to) slander and defamation against Mr.
Harihar. Court documents include ongoing active litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the recently
filed Appeal Brief/Appendix filed by counsel associated with Appeal 1 of 3. Since this is the first of three Appeals on file
with the Court, counsel is expected to file two (2) additional Briefs as required. Once all Court documents are submitted
and reviewed, misconduct associated with (but not limited to) slander and defamation is expected to be addressed
collectively either by New Trial (if granted by the Court) or in a separate civil complaint.



18. If there is any confusion regarding forthcoming litigation against all related parties, please
advise.


[Click to type your response]



I t is a fact, that the misconduct associated with the referenced parties and subsequent damages to Mr. Harihar initiated
what has now been nearly five (5) years of research into this Nations Foreclosure Crisis, and has resulted in the
development of two (2) separate projects, for the specific purpose(s) of assisting those individuals impacted by this
Foreclosure Crisis (for reference, entitled Project 1), as well as providing an economic plan designed to assist with the
nations recovery (for reference, entitled Project 2). Both projects are considered the intellectual property of Mohan A.
Harihar (Founder HFA llc, Copyright, All Rights Reserved, Patent pending).
Over the past two (2) years, Mr. Harihar has presented this economic plan to multiple parties including:

1. A Senior member of the House Finance Committee (Washington, DC)
2. Two (2) Attorneys General
3. Two (2) State Senators
4. A Secretary of State
5. A Congressional Office
6. A Lender Senior VP of Risk Compliance
7. The Chairman of a nationally ranked Strategic Communications firm.

This economic project has also reached a select office of the current Presidential administration, and a presentation is
now being prepared for a member of the US Senate. All meetings are documented, and ALL parties have responded
favorably.
While it was not initially intended or considered necessary to inform the Court(s) of Mr. Harihars related projects, the
ongoing attempts by counsel to discredit Mr. Harihar have now made it necessary to provide this overview, restating
that both projects are considered the intellectual property of Mohan A. Harihar.
This matter now extends far beyond a singular wrongful foreclosure.
77
19. Is counsel stating that Mr. Harihar should not be allowed to assist those parties affected and
harmed by this Nations Foreclosure Crisis? Or, is counsel suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not
been involved with two (2) separate projects stemming from this Nations Foreclosure Crisis?
Please explain.



[Click to type your response]




A significant portion of this matter is still being assembled and is forthcoming, involving the process and facts
associated with the securitization of mortgages and the securitized mortgage trust referenced in litigation against Mr.
Harihar CMLTI 2006-AR1 .Since numerous questions and concerns continue surround this securitized trust, a report
is being filed with the I nternal Revenue Service (I RS) to assist with clarification.





Thank you for your assistance with this clarification. Please sign and date upon completion (below).




_______________________________________ _________________
Signature Date
































78

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499



MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Plaintiff/Appellant

vs.

WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.

Defendants/Appellees








NOTICE REGARDING CLARIFICATION REFUSAL BY APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS

After a review of the Defendants/Appellees opposition to the associated Motion being filed with this Court, Notice is
hereby respectfully submitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, notifying the Court of the following:

1. Refusal to Clarify Statements - With regard to the associated Motion requesting a Court order against
Defendants/Appellees (submitted in accordance Superior Court Rule 9A), the request made by Mr.
Harihar, for the clarification of multiple statements, as articulated in the Motion and additionally
communicated in separate Notices filed with both this Court, as well as the Appeals Court this
clarification for the record has been clearly ignored by the Defendants/Appellees, and is viewed by Mr.
Harihar as a refusal to clarify information critical to facts pertaining to this Motion and the overall
case.


This further exemplifies the tactics used by the Defendants/Appellees in effort to suppress the validation of facts
associated with this case(s). A review of the Defendants filed opposition reveals the absolute necessity for clarification.

Mr. Harihar respectfully requests that the Court take this latest action by the Defendants into account when considering this
Motion and Court Order.
















Respectfully Submitted,




Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852