FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Harihar Files Request for Special Prosecutor in Federal

Foreclosure/RICO Complaint.
Boston, MA, November 6, 2015 A second amended complaint was filed on Friday in the US District
nd
Court (Boston, MA) by Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar (Scroll down to view 2 amended complaint in its
entirety).
1

14 Defendants include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the RMBS - CMLTI 2006-AR1, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Attorney General of Massachusetts (former) Martha Coakley,
Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, David E. Fialkow (Esq.), Jeffrey S.
Patterson (Esq.), Peter Haley (Esq.), Real Estate Brokers Mary & Ken Daher (Daher Companies
located in Methuen, MA), and homeowners Jeffrey & Isabelle Perkins who apparently disregarded
2
disclosures and moved forward with purchasing an illegal foreclosure.
The 173-page civil/criminal complaint adds 1600 additional pages of supporting documentation,
dozens of email communications over nearly five (5) years to numerous government officials and
agencies, Certified SEC documents, and 22-months of recorded conversations detailing deceptive
practices during the attempted loan-modification process.
In the meantime Attorney General Maura Healey has officially BLOCKED Mr. Harihar on the
Massachusetts AGO social media TWITTER page (for reasons unknown), and Massachusetts
legislators are aggressively attempting to pass proposed Bill - S 1981, CLEARING OF TITLE TO
CERTAIN FORECLOSED PROPERTIES. On September 17, 2015, the Massachusetts State Senate,
in a vote of 31 7, passed a proposed bill that would restrict homeowners to 3 years (down from 20
years) to sue the responsible lender in order to regain their home after illegal foreclosure. This
significant effort by Massachusetts State legislators to push through this legislation raises a number of
immediate RED FLAGS.
The growing list of Federal and State allegations includes (but is not limited to): RICO violations, Color
th
of Law violations, 14 Amendment infractions to Due Process & Equal Protection Rights, False
Claims, Fraud (including Deceptive Practices), Fraudulent Concealment/Misrepresentation, Perjury,
and Fraudulent Assignments. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has publicly stated that the
referenced foreclosure is ILLEGAL, VOID, and does not possess CLEAR TITLE.
Per the direction of the US District Court, Harihar has filed through the Executive Branch of
Government (DOJ/US Inspector General) requests to appoint a special prosecutor, and additionally
for Whistleblower protection.

1
2

RMBS - residential mortgage-backed security.

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

For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar

Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com
Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Follow on Twitter:
Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
11880

CIVIL ACTION NO: 2015-cv-

Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA,
RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
MARTHA COAKLEY
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP,
DAVID E. FIALKOW ESQ,
JEFFREY PATTERSON ESQ,
PETER HALEY ESQ,
MARY AND KEN DAHER - DAHER COMPANIES,
JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS
Defendants
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 38(B) SECOND AMENDED

PREFACE
The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully
submits this second amended complaint to address a substantial
amount of both Federal and State violations some of which
have been already confirmed by the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ), and others.

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

well-supported and historically evidenced misconduct outlined
in this complaint is part of a greater scheme which continues
to evolve, now adding (at minimum) clear violations of the RICO
Act, as well as Color of Law violations. Therefore, the
Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this civil action by bringing
to the Courts attention the following:
1. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the
Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office, have ALREADY
concluded that violations to both Federal and State law
have been identified with the Plaintiffs foreclosure, and
as indicated through the $25B National Mortgage
Settlement.3 Moving forward, the proper articulation of
these violations will require (at minimum) the cooperation
and subpoenaed testimony from the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office.
2. Federal Bank Regulators have separately identified and
concluded similar findings of misconduct associated with
the Plaintiffs foreclosure, through an independent
foreclosure review specific to the Plaintiffs
foreclosure.4

See Attachment A
See Attachment B, Letter of Eligibility for Independent
Foreclosure Review, followed by a letter from the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve and the OCC, identifying the
3
4

3. Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC 1961 1968) revealing clearly improper relationships between the
Defendants retained counsel (current and prior)5, the
Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office, the US Attorneys
Office, and the Boston BAR Association. In related
proceedings, the Plaintiff has already brought this
concern to the attention of the following Massachusetts
Courts and Authorities:
a. The Northeast Housing Court (Middlesex County)
b. The Middlesex Superior Court
c. The Massachusetts Appeals Court
d. The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
e. The Office of the Massachusetts Inspector General
f. The US Attorneys Office (MA)
g. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
These clearly evidenced improper relationships have thus
far

been completely ignored by the referenced

Plaintiffs foreclosure. The 18-page, April 2011 Interagency

Review of Foreclosure Practices and Policies Report is
additionally filed separately for reference See Attachment C.
5
Defendants current counsel is K&L Gates, LLP; prior counsel
is Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.
5

Massachusetts Courts, adding Deprivation of Rights

violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, 242.6
4. The US Foreclosure Crisis is considered by many to be the
Largest CASE of FRAUD in the History of these United
States. The following documents are submitted as
reference to assist with articulating and clarifying the
magnitude of related misconduct, and the resulting
harm/damages to this Nations Economy, and to millions of
Americans:
a. Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and
Practices -

Federal Reserve System/ Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift

Supervision, Washington D.C., 20117
b. WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS:Anatomy of a
Financial Collapse Majority and Minority Staff
Report, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
United States Senate.8
c. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the
Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States.9

Plaintiff will further articulate RICO allegations, and

additional Color of Law allegations within this complaint.
7
See Attachment C.
8
See Attachment D.
9
See Attachment E.
6

d. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney

Procedure Manual, Version 1.10
e. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John
OBrien, 1/18/12 Press Release.11
f. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General
Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12).12
5. This civil complaint draws from synonymous civil/criminal
lawsuits filed by numerous parties across the nation.
Three(3) of the supporting complaints referenced include:
a. The US DOJ complaint associated with the $25B
National Mortgage Settlement.
b. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ACE CORPORATION, et
al, Docket No:13-cv-00464-JFA (US District Court,
Western District of North Carolina) which includes
the sworn testimony of FRAUD EXPERT, LYNN SYZMONIAK.
c. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. WELLS FARGO, et al,
filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Docket No:
11-4363-BLS.
Substantial subpoenaed testimony and Discovery from
multiple parties, including (but not limited to)
FRAUD EXPERT LYNN SYZMONIAK will be necessary to
assist with articulating the ALREADY IDENTIFIED
See Attachment F.
See Attachment G.
12
See Attachment H.
10
11

violations to Federal and State law, related to the

Plaintiffs foreclosure.
6. As directed by this Court, the Plaintiff has filed
complaints through the Executive Branch of Government,
with the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) and
the Office of the Inspector General, to address referenced
alleged RICO violations, Color of Law violations,
protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and
related complaints filed with the Fraud Investigations
Unit of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). As
previously stated, alignment with Federal and State
Prosecutors is crucial moving forward in this matter.
The Plaintiff is currently awaiting an update from the US
DOJ/Office of the Inspector General, along with the
assignment of a Special Prosecutor.

The Plaintiff respectfully now seeks additional

protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act
(Requests for protection have been submitted to the US
DOJ/Inspector General), where the ALREADY IDENTIFIED
misconduct of these Defendants (including False Claims)
damages the ability to implement the Plaintiffs
Intellectual Property known as the FCS Model, thereby
cheating Federal and State governments, and the Public out

of economic benefit estimated in the trillions of

dollars.13
7. The announcement released by former Massachusetts Attorney
General Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015, and just days
before leaving office, addresses the consent judgment from
the amended 2011 complaint filed by the Commonwealth
against four banks including Defendant - Wells Fargo N.A.
The complaint details the Defendants unlawful conduct
resulting in void/illegal foreclosures14. In her January
2015 announcement, Attorney General Coakley re-states,
Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts foreclosure law
and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by illegally
foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks
lacked the legal authority to do so.
8. The letter and payment sent by a Senior Vice-President of
Defendant - Wells Fargo, and received by the Plaintiff on
January 20, 2015, irrefutably re-affirms (at minimum)
consistent claims of deceptive practices.15
9. Certified SEC Documents associated with Defendant CMLTI
2006-AR1, have been secured by the Plaintiff, and will be
See Attachment I, FCS (Foreclosure Crisis Solution) Model
presentation, delivered to multiple high-ranking government
officials, including the Executive Offices of the President, at
the specific request of Vice President, Joe Biden.
14
See Attachment J, Complaint filed by the Commonwealth in
Suffolk Superior Court, Docket No: 11-4363.
15
See Attachment K
13

provided at trial, illustrating (at Minimum) the

FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS supporting FALSE CLAIMS associated
with the Plaintiffs Foreclosure.
10.

The Plaintiff will be providing at trial, dozens of

supporting letter/email correspondences sent over the last

several years, delivered to the following
parties/offices/agencies: The Executive Office of the
President of the United States (EOP) to the specific
attention of Vice President Joe Biden, US Attorney Carmen
Ortiz (MA), MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, MA
Attorney General Maura Healey, US Senator Elizabeth Warren
(MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen Donoghue(MA), Governor
Deval Patrick (MA), Governor Charles Baker (MA), Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe (FBI Washington), Inspector
General Glen Cunha (MA), Timothy Sheehan (Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau CFPB), Susan Herman
(President, American Civil Liberties Union ACLU), the MA
Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, the Defendants
retained counsel (current and prior), and others.
11.

The Plaintiff, who has historically acted as a pro se

litigant (out of financial necessity), continues to

aggressively seek and retain qualified counsel with regard
to this matter. There is considerable concern whether a

10

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

considering magnitude of complex issues being addressed.
With the filing of this second amended complaint, the
Plaintiff respectfully re-files with the Court a separate
Motion to Renew the Appointment of Counsel per Title 28
U.S.C. 1915.
12.

The vast majority of impacted homeowners who have

been identified in this foreclosure crisis, lack the

finances, legal expertise, time, etc., to pursue legal
action for the already identified crimes committed against
them. This Plaintiff has dedicated the last five (5) years
of his life in this legal effort, primarily out of
principle, and with the clear intention of ultimately
providing a solution to a crisis that continues to plague
this nation. The results thus far have uncovered not only
a greater level of misconduct on multiple levels, but a
system set up for failure with virtually no realistic
chance for the average American to succeed in this effort.
It is my sincere hope, that this Court will take the time
to understand and validate - what exactly has transpired
historically in this matter; as this matter proceeds to
trial; and prior to making its final decision(s).
13.

It remains the clear objective of this Plaintiff to

gain agreement with ALL parties, and to succeed in the

11

implementation of a framework that proves beneficial to

ALL parties, and this Nation. Should a successful
agreement between parties be reached, the Plaintiff MAY
consider the withdrawal of filed criminal complaints.
14.

With the filing of this second amended complaint, it

is the Plaintiffs hope that this version provides

additional clarification for the serious and sensitive
concerns stated within, and which also complies with the
rules of the Court. Still, unless a mutual agreement is
reached beforehand, it is expected, that upon successfully
retaining legal counsel, a third amended complaint will
likely be necessary.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.
II.
III.

INTRODUCTION
JURIDICTION AND VENUE
PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
B. Defendants

IV.

BACKGROUND
A. Real Estate Sale, Mortgage Finance, and Foreclosure
Procedures.
B. Plaintiffs Mortgage.

12

C. Deceptive Practices During Plaintiffs 22-Month Loan

Modification Effort.
D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff.
E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments.
F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure
Policies and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift
Supervision).
G. Wall Street and the Financial Collapse; Majority and
Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, United States Senate.
H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual.
I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement.
J. Federal Bank Regulators Independent Foreclosure
Review.
K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion.
L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law
offices PC.
M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion throughout Multiple
Massachusetts State Courts.
N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights.
O. Evidenced Tampering Violations.

13

P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to

State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.
Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiffs Foreclosure
Identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General; also by an Independent Foreclosure Review
Conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.
R. Secondary Defendants.
S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff.
V.

THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET

A. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, and the Trustees
Role
B. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, Controlled by the
Trustee Bank Defendants Allegedly Purchased Notes and
Mortgages on Homes in Massachusetts and Across the
United States.
C. The Foreclosure Problem in Massachusetts and the United
States

VI.
VII.

DEFENDANTS ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

CAUSES OF ACTION

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

Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.

14

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

Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(D),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(G),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT V FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(C),
Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a
Violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C.
3729
U.S.C.

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

3729 (a)(1)(G)

COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act

Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder
of the Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation
of
Holder
Bank

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

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

COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

15

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

Holder

of Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)

COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

G. L. c. 93A, 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and
Servicing Practices (as to the Bank Defendants
COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G. L. c. 93A, 2: Failure to Register Assignment of
Mortgages (as to the Bank Defendants)
COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of
Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation
of
G. L. c. 185, 67 (as to All Defendants)
COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due
Process

and Equal Protection Rights.

COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC 1961 1968)
COUNT XV

Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,

Title 18, USC, 242

COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C.

501 (copyright infringement)

COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, 17

U.S.C.
copyright

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

infringement for profit)

COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants

16

VIII.
IX.

I.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

INTRODUCTION

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

this

enforcement

action

to

hold

multiple

parties

accountable from their violations of both Federal and

Massachusetts law, stemming from the US Foreclosure Crisis
that has gripped Massachusetts and this Nation since 2007.
These referenced violations have already been confirmed by
the United States Department of Justice, the Massachusetts
Attorney Generals Office, and Federal Bank Regulators.
The resulting damages to this Plaintiff are considerable.
Accordingly, pursuant to (at minimum) the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A, 4, and G. L. c. 12,
10, the Plaintiff seeks to require Defendants Wells Faro
NA,

US

Bank

NA,

and

the

Residential

Mortgage

Backed

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

penalties, restitution, and other compensation for harms
caused by their unfair and deceptive conduct (at minimum),
in Massachusetts.
2. This action is additionally brought to recover damages and
penalties

arising

from

conduct

by

the

defendants

in

17

creating,

selling,

and

servicing

securities

allegedly

backed by notes and mortgages respecting residential real

estate when in fact, the trusts that issued the securities
did

not

possess

mortgages.
actions

When

they

the

notes

Defendants

used

and

assignments

needed

fraudulent

to

bring

mortgage

of

the

foreclosure

assignments

to

conceal that over 1400 mortgage backed securities16 trusts

(MBS

Trusts),

each

with

mortgages

valued

over

$1

billion, are missing these critical mortgage assignments

and notes. Without the notes and mortgage assignments,
which should have been delivered at the inception of the
trust, the trusts do not hold good title to the loans and
mortgages that investors and the Plaintiff have been told
secure the notes.17
3. The Primary Defendants names herein include (i) Trustees
which controlled the MBS Trusts whose assets consisted of
pools

of

residential

mortgages

in

Massachusetts

and

throughout the United States, (ii) the mortgage servicing

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

processing

and

foreclosure

proceedings

at

the

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

16

Including MBS associated with Plaintiffs foreclosure,

Defendant - CMLTI 2006-AR1.
17
Subpoenaed Testimony will be required by (at minimum) Fraud
Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak.
18

that

failed

to

convey

to

the

trusts

their

rights

and

interests in each mortgage loan.

4. Defendants concealed that the notes and assignments were
never delivered to the MBS Trusts and disseminated false
and misleading statements to the investors, including the
United

States

California,

Government,

Delaware,

Massachusetts,
Jersey,

(U.S)

New

Florida,

Minnesota,

Mexico,

New

Montana,
York,

the

states

Hawaii,
New

Rhode

of

Illinois,

Hampshire,

Island,

New

Virginia,

North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of

Chicago and the City of New York.
5. The

U.S.

government

Delaware,

Florida,

and

the

Hawaii,

States

of

Illinois,

California,

Massachusetts,

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

New

York,

Rhode

Island,

Virginia,

North

Carolina,

the

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

New York purchased securities issued by the MBS Trusts
that

used

the

Defendants

servicers,

and

are

as

missing

depositors,

notes

and

trustees

or

assignments,

or

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

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

New

Minnesota,

Mexico,

New

Montana,
York,

New

Rhode

Hampshire,

Island,

New

Virginia,

North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of

19

Chicago and the City of New York are harmed by: (i) the
resulting impaired value of the purchased securities, (ii)
overcharges for fraudulent services and for services not
provided, imposed by the trustees and the mortgage service
companies, and (iii) the increased cost to prove good
title to the mortgages purportedly in their MBS asset
pools, since the supporting documents are either missing
or

forged.

The

U.S.

Government

was

further

harmed

by

payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking

valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not
entitled to demand or receive said payments.
6. The Plaintiff, Pursuant to (at minimum) the Federal False
Claims

Act,

references

31

U.S.C.

the

3729

investigations

et

seq.18

made

by

(the

FCA),

Nationally

recognized Fraud Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak, in furtherance of

a False Claims Act qui tam action and found that the
Defendants

pursued

and

continue

to

pursue

foreclosure

actions using false and fabricated mortgage assignments.

Those fabricated documents were filed in Courts throughout
the United States. In many instances, the Fraud Expert
also found that the notes, representing the title to the

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

stood prior to the enactment of the Fraud Enforcement and
Recovery Act of 2009 (the FERA) and (ii) the FCA as amended
by the FERA.
18

20

mortgage,

were

never

transferred

to

the

Trusts,

which

never held good title to the mortgages.

7. When the depositors and the trustee banks discovered that
the mortgage assignments were missing, the trustee banks,
together

with

associated

servicing

Management

Company

and/or

companies,

devised

and

missing

assignments,

mortgage

operated
with

companies,
loan

documentation

scheme

fraudulent,

default

to

replace

fabricated

assignments. Likewise, to conceal that the Trusts were

never assigned the notes, the trustee banks in concert
with

the

mortgage

servicing

companies,

which

needed

possession of the note in order to foreclose, prepared

affidavits

falsely

representing

that

the

Trusts

had

possession of the note.

8. The purpose of the scheme was to meet the evidentiary
requirements imposed by courts in the foreclosure cases,
and to conceal from trust certificate holders the true,
and impaired value of the assets of each of the trusts,
crippled by the missing documents.
9. Furthermore, the MBS Trusts and their trustees, depositors
and

their

servicing

companies

misrepresented

to

the

investing public the assets of the Trusts and issued false

statements

in

their

prospectuses

and

certifications

of

compliance.

21

10.

As similarly stated by the Massachusetts Office of

the Attorney General, the conduct alleged has affected

thousands

of

homeowners

(MA)

through

their

residential

mortgage loans, and includes, without limitation:

a) Engaging in unfair and deceptive foreclosure practices
by conducting foreclosures when the defendants lacked
the right to do so and misrepresenting to homeowners
their roles as mortgagees or as the holders of the
mortgages;
b) Engaging in false documentation practices to facilitate
their foreclosure practices;
c) Deceiving

homeowners

mortgage

loans

regarding

its

deceptively

in

by
loan

in

the

course

misrepresenting
modification

implementing

loan

of

servicing

to

borrowers

programs,

acting

modifications

and

deceiving borrowers regarding foreclosure proceedings;

and
d) Failing

to

comply

with

Massachusetts'

registration

statute.
11.

As stated by the Department of Justice, Federal bank

Regulators and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney

General,

the

Defendants,

and

their

subsidiaries

and

related entities, are responsible for the vast majority of

unlawful foreclosures that occurred in the Commonwealth in

22

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

misconduct
facts,

alleged

will

(at

is

significant,

minimum)

require

involves
voluminous

discovery, subpoenaed testimony by multiple parties, and

the

likely

need

for

substantial

case

management.

It

additionally calls for alignment with federal and/or state

prosecutors

regarding

associated

criminal

complaints19,

and the continued pursuit of criminal charges (at minimum)

against these Defendants.
12.

Since much of the referenced misconduct has already

been confirmed20, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that

the Court allow for the re-filing of injunctive relief in
order to remedy, address, and prevent additional harm
arising out of the defendants' conduct, while legal
matters proceed.
13.
the

Relief is sought for the infringement and damage to

Plaintiffs

related

Intellectual

property,

which

includes the project known as the FCS Model.

14.
State

The

historical

Courts

in

record

this

on

matter

file

with

collectively

Massachusetts
reflects

an

See Attachment L, which includes a criminal complaint filed

with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
20
Confirmation of referenced misconduct has been made by the
Department of Justice, Massachusetts Attorney General, and
Federal Bank Regulators.
19

23

overwhelming (and still growing) amount of evidence and

information which has steadily come forth, in full support
of

this

Plaintiffs

consistent

claims

thus

clearly

warranting new trial and this move to Federal Court.21

15.

thorough

REVIEW

AND

VALIDATION

of

ALL

related

Dockets22, transcripts, decisions, etc will be necessary,

to confirm this Plaintiffs consistent claims through over
four (4) years of litigation, as well as to expose/reveal
the serious concerns experienced in Massachusetts State
Courts including (but not limited to):
a) Clearly

evidenced

PERJURY

allegations

of

the

Defendants (specifically, Defendants Wells Fargo NA, US

Bank NA, CMLTI 2006-AR1, and their retained counsel),
who have maintained that ZERO misconduct is related to
this matter.
b) The

historical

refusal

by

Defendants

to

provide

critical Discovery, and the failure of Massachusetts

State Courts to enforce and compel their production.
This is best exemplified by the repeated refusal to

21

Massachusetts State Courts include: Lowell District Court,

Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
22
Related Dockets throughout Massachusetts State Courts include:
2013-P-1829,
2013-P-0671,
2011-P-1515,
11-04499,
11-SP3032,1311AC001497,
1311AC001498,
1311AC001499,
1311AC001500,
1311AC001501, 1311AC001502

24

compel

the

production

of

the

recorded

conversations

during the 22-month loan modification process, which

clearly demonstrates (at minimum) deceptive practices
in violation of G.L. c. 93A, 2, by the Defendant
Wells Fargo NA, mortgage servicer.
c) Multiple abuses of Judicial discretion;
d) Irrefutable negligence and 14th Amendment infractions to
Due Process and Equal Protection Rights experienced in
the Northeast Housing Court.
16.

The

Plaintiff

attention,

the

RELATIONSHIPS
CONFLICT24,

23

respectfully

clearly

evidenced

including

involving

brings

the

to

this

Courts

of

IMPROPER

discovery

DOCUMENTED
Defendants

COLLUSION
prior

and

counsel

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney

Generals Office, the US Attorneys Office, and the Boston
Bar Association.

It has necessitated the involvement of

the US DOJ/Inspector Generals Office, the requested call

for

(at

minimum)

multiple

internal

investigations,

and

restates to necessity to involve Federal prosecutors to

address the numerous criminal allegations associated with
23

See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal never

received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, preceded by the
complaint filed with the Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Court.
24
See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center
course entitled, After the Bubble Bursts Mortgage and
Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.
25

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

to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO)(18 USC 1961 1968), and Deprivation of Rights
violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, 242. These
collective

actions

Defendants,
prosecute

and

the

and/or

the

referenced

failures

take

of

misconduct

the

corrective

of

the

Commonwealth

(to

action),

further

threatens the Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff. This

Intellectual

Property

consists

of

projects,

created

by

this Plaintiff, designed to assist these United States

with economic recovery and growth, from damages suffered
by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.
17.

There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,

the US Attorneys Office, the Boston BAR Association, or

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,
or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of
COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.
18.

Re-stating, the announcement released by the former

Attorney General - Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015

addresses

the

consent

judgment

from

the

amended

2011

complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks

26

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

(which

includes

alleged

misconduct

synonymous

to

that

stated in this Docket), details the Defendants unlawful

conduct

resulting

Attorney

General

Massachusetts
Consumer

in

void/illegal

states,

Wells

foreclosure

Protection

Act

law
by

foreclosures.

Fargo

and

Bank

the

illegally

The

violated

Massachusetts

foreclosing

upon

Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal

authority to do so. This declaration by the Massachusetts
Attorney General reaffirms the consistent claims by this
Plaintiff, over four (4) years of litigation.
19.

The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for

the record, the Defendant US Bank NAs prior counsel Harmon Law Offices PC, a law firm with a principal office
in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel
by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew from this case
shortly after the MA Attorney Generals Office began its
investigation
foreclosures.

of

Harmons

Harmon

has

involvement

been

labeled

with
the

unlawful

Foreclosure

Mill of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly

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

Superior Court, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
includes Defendant Wells Fargo NA
25

27

linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin David

Stern.
20.

Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the list of

Defendants, either here or by separate legal action, as

the depth of related misconduct is revealed. This includes
any

party,

support

agency,

any

employer,

portion

of

the

etc

who

so

referenced

chooses

to

misconduct.

Defendants newly retained counsel - K & L Gates, LLP, has

been given notice, that any alignment or show of support
to any portion of the referenced misconduct will show
cause to include them is this, or separate legal action.
This includes (but is not limited to) the recent decisions
to newly employ Attorney David E. Fialkow and Attorney
Jeffrey

S.

Patterson.

Both

Fialkow

and

Patterson

have

recently separated from the Prior retained law firm

Defendant, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP for
reasons unknown.26

II.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

counsel to Defendants US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, and CMLTI
2006-AR1 (Replacing Defendant - Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough LLP, and Defendant - Harmon Law Offices PC). See
Notice, Attachment O.
26

28

21.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

this action pursuant to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC 1961 1968).
22.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of

this

action

pursuant

to

the

Deprivation

of

Rights

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

23.

The

Court

has

supplemental

jurisdiction

over

the

counts related to the False Claims Act pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1367.
24.

This

Court

has

personal

jurisdiction

over

the

Defendants pursuant to subject matter jurisdiction over

this

action

pursuant

to

31

U.S.C.

3732(a)

because

Defendants transact the business that is the subject of

this lawsuit in this Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
numerous acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. 3729 occurred in
this Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
25.

Venue

is

proper

in

this

District

pursuant

to

31

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

that

is

the

subject

matter

of

this

lawsuit

in

this

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and numerous acts proscribed

by

31

U.S.C.

3729

occurred

in

this

Commonwealth

of

Massachusetts.

29

26.

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter

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

3.
27.

Venue

is

proper

in

this

District

pursuant

to

G.L.c.223 8 and G.L.c. 93A 2

28.

The parties are joined in a single lawsuit pursuant

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

number of common issues of fact and law raised by the
claims detailed within and because these claims originate
out of the same series of transactions or occurrences,
namely,

foreclosures

that

failed

to

comply

with

Massachusetts and Federal Law.

29.

Trial by jury is hereby respectfully demanded under

Civil Procedure Rule 38 (a), taking into consideration

the historical abuses of judicial discretion throughout
multiple

state

courts,

irrefutable

negligence

by

the

Northeast Housing Court, 14th Amendment infractions to Due

Process

and

Equal

Protection

Rights,

and

the

Commonwealths failure/refusal to address and prosecute

Defendants (and counsels) evidenced criminal misconduct,
or to take ANY corrective action.

III.

THE PARTIES

30

30.

The

Plaintiff

is

Mohan

A.

Harihar,

wrongfully

foreclosed and wrongfully displaced homeowner, who brings

this action to recover damages suffered, and also in the
public interest. Mr. Harihar is also the originator/owner
of three (3) separate projects specifically designed to
assist this Nations and overall Global economic recovery
from damages suffered from the US Foreclosure/Financial
Crisis. These projects include the FCS model27.
31.

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

national bank with a principal place of business in Sioux

Falls,

South

either

directly

employees,

Dakota.

As

and/or

described

indirectly

subsidiaries

and/or

below,
through
related

Wells
its

Fargo

agents,

companies,

including without limitation Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,

Inc.,

held,

related

to,

Commonwealth,

serviced

and/or

mortgages
including

of

engaged

real
the

in

property

Plaintiffs

transactions
within

the

foreclosed

property.28
32.

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

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

As

described

below,

US

Bank

either

directly

and/or

27

The FCS Model , is the Intellectual Property belonging to

the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar. See Attachment U for
completed form AO 121.
28
The referenced illegal foreclosure is located at 168
Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
31

indirectly
and/or

through

related

its

agents,

companies,

employees,

including

subsidiaries

without

limitation

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

engaged

in

property

transactions
within

the

related

to,

mortgages

Commonwealth,

of

real

including

the

Plaintiffs foreclosed property.

33.

Defendant

CMLTI

2006-AR1

is

the

Residential

Mortgage-

Backed Security (RMBS) Trust associated with the Plaintiffs

illegal foreclosure.
34.

Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC is a law firm with a

principal office in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally

retained counsel by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew
from

this

case

shortly

after

the

MA

Attorney

Generals

Office began its investigation of Harmons involvement with

unlawful

foreclosures.

Harmon

has

been

labeled

the

Foreclosure Mill of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000

foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also
been

directly

linked

to

disbarred

Florida

foreclosure

kingpin David Stern.

35.

Defendant Nelson Mullins LLP is a law firm with multiple

locations

primarily

along

the

east

coast

of

the

United

States, including a Boston Office located at One Post Office

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

32

current counsel to both Defendants - Wells Fargo and US Bank

(Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP).
36.

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

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

Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).
37.

Defendant Jeffrey Patterson is recently an attorney for K

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

Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).
38.

Defendant Peter Haley is the Managing Partner for Nelson

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

39.

Defendants Mary and Ken Daher are Real Estate Brokers are

associated with Weichert Realtors Daher Companies located

in Methuen, MA.
40.

Defendants Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins, who are believed

to have moved to the Commonwealth from the state of New

Jersey, are parties who have moved forward in purchasing the
referenced

wrongful

foreclosure,

located

at

168

Parkview

Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

41.

Defendant Martha Coakley is the former Attorney General of

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

42.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts now becomes a Defendant

in this matter.

33

IV.

BACKGROUND
A. Real

Estate

Sale,

Mortgage

Finance

and

Foreclosure

Procedures
43.

This case began with the Plaintiffs purchase of a

home (December, 2005) in Lowell, Massachusetts financed

with a mortgage followed by a subsequent foreclosure case
based

on

deceptive

Plaintiffs

practices

investigations

and

revealed

forged

documents.

that

Defendants

practices in this specific case occurred in numerous other

cases, and tainted foreclosures nationwide.
44.

Generally, to finance the purchase and sale of real

estate, the buyer borrows money from a mortgage company.

The

borrower

signs

promissory

note,

secured

by

mortgage on the property, which is recorded as a lien

against the home. The note and mortgage are signed by the
borrower and by an officer of the bank or mortgage company
which originates the loan, i.e., the lender.
45.

The lender records the mortgage as a lien against the

property

by

filing

copy

with

the

county

recorders

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

assignment of a note and mortgage from the lender to a

34

purchaser

is

accomplished

by

writing

signed

by

the

parties involved, which are often notarized or witnessed.

46.

subsequent

ownership

of

the

purchaser
note

traditionally

and

mortgage

by

records

its

filing

the

assignment with the county recorders office. But in the

case of mortgage-backed securities trusts, recording of
the assignments rarely occurred.
47.

If the borrower defaults on the payments, the lender,

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

foreclosure action in state court, to obtain a court order
for the auction of the property, and in this manner can
receive payment on the loan by sale of the asset. In a
foreclosure

lawsuit,

the

Plaintiff

must

prove

that

property is subject to a note and mortgage, the Plaintiff

is the entity that lawfully owns the note and mortgage,
and a default by non-payment occurred.

B. Plaintiffs Mortgage
48.

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

married man) acquired a home on real property located at

the address of 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. The
lender and loan servicer was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
49.
made

In accordance with the terms of the note, Plaintiff

monthly

mortgage

payments

of

approximately

Two

35

Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight dollars to Wells Fargo

NA from December 2005 through August 2009 (Approximate).
50.

Plaintiffs mortgage was an adjustable rate mortgage.

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

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

the

month

every

six

months

thereafter

(confirm),

provided the mortgage company gave written notice of the

adjustment.

C. Deceptive

Practices

During

Plaintiffs

22-Month

Loan

Modification Effort
51.

On

or

around

experiencing
effort

was

November,

financial

made

to

seek

2008,

the

Plaintiff

hardship,

and

loan

was

substantial

modification

with

the

lender. The Plaintiff completed and submitted the required

financial paperwork as required, while continuing to make
scheduled monthly mortgage payments. Several months after
submitting

the

required

documents

for

approval,

the

Plaintiff received a decline notice for the requested loan

modification. The Plaintiff then followed-up with a phone
conversation to the mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo NA,
requesting

an

articulated

explanation

for

the

decline

notice. After a review of the Plaintiffs application, the

mortgage

servicer

revealed

that

there

had

been

36

calculation error made by the mortgage servicer, Wells

Fargo NA, which resulted in the declined loan modification
attempt. The Plaintiff then asked if this error could be
corrected,

so

that

the

loan

modification

could

successfully move forward. The Plaintiff was informed that

the

error

Plaintiff

could
was

not,

or

would

additionally

not

informed

be

corrected.

that

if

he

The

still

wished to receive a loan modification, he would have to

start the process again from the beginning. The Plaintiff
then started the loan modification again, for a second
time,

and

again,

with

the

SAME

result,

and

the

same

calculation error made by the servicer, Wells Fargo NA.

The

Plaintiff,

payments,

began

while
to

still

make

making
third

scheduled
attempt

at

mortgage
a

loan

modification, now eight to ten months into the effort to

modify his mortgage. The Plaintiff was then informed by
the mortgage servicer that a loan modification would not
be granted UNLESS there was a DEFAULT on the mortgage for
a

period

of

at

least

ninety

days.

The

Plaintiff

was

additionally informed that a DEFAULT was a pre-requisite

to receiving an approved loan modification program. It was
only until this instruction was given by the Defendant,
that monthly mortgage payments ceased. On the Plaintiffs
third attempt at a loan modification, now in default, the

37

Plaintiff was instructed to make a good faith payment

equivalent to one months mortgage payment in order to
qualify for the loan modification program. The Plaintiff
provided the payment as requested. Again, several months
passed,

resulting

calculation

in

error.

the

same

This

decline,

loan

with

the

modification

same

effort

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

months, never resulting in a successful modification. A
foreclosure auction of the Plaintiffs property took place
in September, 2010. Plaintiff was informed by the mortgage
servicer that the good faith payment made would not be
returned. All conversations during the twenty-two month
loan modification effort, between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant were said to be recorded. The production of
these

recorded

conversations

has

been

consistently

requested during the Discovery phases and throughout ALL

proceedings in Massachusetts State Courts. The Defendants
have

consistently

refused

to

provide

this

requested

Discovery, and the Massachusetts State Courts have refused

to

compel

insists

their

that

production

production.

this

of

these

Court

The
issue

recordings

Plaintiff
an

order

prior

to,

respectfully
to
or

compel
by

the

Discovery phase.

38

52.

New evidence has now been received by the Plaintiff,

from Defendant Wells Fargo NA, in a correspondence dated

January 20, 2015, and includes a check addressed to the
Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.34.29
i) This

admission,

as

stated

by

Wells

Fargo

Home

Mortgage Senior Vice President Leesa Whitt-Potter,

reaffirms

this

misconduct

by

Plaintiffs
the

consistent

Defendant(s)

claims

of

including

the

deceptive solicitation of funds as an apparent prerequisite to approving the Plaintiffs 22-month loan
modification effort. This deceptive solicitation of
funds by the Defendant is additionally supported in
recorded

conversations

modification

effort

during
by

the

this

22-month

Plaintiff.

loan
These

documented actions confirm (at minimum) violations of

Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A.
ii)
comes

The

timing

only

after

of

this
the

admission

filing

of

coincidentally

complaints

with

multiple agencies,30 and only after leave was granted

See Attachment K
Criminal complaints against the Defendants are filed with
the Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office (See Attachment Q),
the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI (See Attachment L),
and the MA Inspector Generals Office (See Attachment P)
Additional complaints are filed with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Massachusetts
29

30

39

to this Plaintiff by the Massachusetts Appeals Court

to file for new trial.
53.

The deceptive practices and related misconduct align

with the 2011 Complaint filed by the Massachusetts Office

of the Attorney General, 2011-4363-BLS, filed in Suffolk
County Superior Court. A settlement was recently reached
in

January

2015

between

parties

in

the

amount

of

approximately $3M. The announcement released by the former

Attorney General - Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015
addresses

the

consent

judgment

from

the

amended

2011

complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks

including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A. The complaint
(which

includes

alleged

misconduct

synonymous

to

that

stated within), details the Defendants unlawful conduct

resulting

in

void/illegal

foreclosures.

The

Attorney

General states, Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts

foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act by illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents
when the banks lacked the legal authority to do so. This
declaration

by

the

Massachusetts

Attorney

General

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

Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR)(See Attachment S).
40

reaffirms the consistent claims by this Plaintiff, over

four (4) years of litigation.31
54.

This matter originates from direct and irrefutable

association

with

the

US

Foreclosure/Financial

Crisis

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

history of these United States.
about

it

ex.

Too

Big

to

Movies have been made

Fail

(2011)

as

well

as

Documentaries ex. Inside Job (2010). This misconduct

has

caused

harm

to

millions

of

American

families

and

considerable damage to this Nations and Global economy.

This

SAME

Misconduct

associated

with

the

Plaintiffs

foreclosure has been identified by both the Massachusetts

Attorney Generals Office, and separately by Federal Bank
Regulators.32
55.

historical

review

of

the

complete

record

will

reveal related complaints against referenced Defendants filed

with

multiple

agencies,

organizations,

etc,

including:

31

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

filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and includes
Defendant Wells Fargo NA
32
Misconduct associated with the Plaintiffs foreclosure has
been identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General, in conjunction with the $25B National Mortgage
settlement. Misconduct has additionally been identified with
the Plaintiffs foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure
Review, conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.
41

a) The

Federal

Bureau

of

Investigation

(Fraud

Investigations Unit).
b) The

Massachusetts

Office

of

the

Attorney

General

(Criminal Complaints).
c) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).33
d) The Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel.
e) The Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR).
f) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).34
g) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC).35
h) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
56.

Defendant misconduct associated with the Plaintiffs

referenced foreclosure is supported by the sworn testimony

of Fraud expert Lynn Syzmoniak.36
57.

Defendant misconduct including (but not limited to)

deceptive

practices

conversations
modification
(Mortgage

during
process,

servicer),

is

supported

the
between
Wells

in

attempted
Plaintiff
Fargo

NA.

the

recorded

22-month

loan

and

Defendant

The

Plaintiff

respectfully insists that this Court issue an order to

compel the production of these recordings prior to, or
33

Reference CFPB Case Nos: 130924-000286, 130926-001435, and

130926-001452,
34
The Plaintiff will provide Certified documents at Trial
obtained through the Securities and Exchange Commission which
support (at minimum) Fraudulent Assignments.
35
See Attachment T
36
Reference Docket No: C.A. No. 10-cv-01465-JFA
42

during the Discovery phase. The historical record will

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

refused

to

produce

this

evidence,

and

Massachusetts State Courts have repeatedly failed to order

Defendants to provide this critical Discovery.
D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff
58.

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

foreclosure

action

was

filed

against

the

Plaintiff,

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

Mohan A. Harihar, Lowell District Court, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts), to foreclose on the referenced property.
59.

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

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

originally made to Wells Fargo on December 30 2005, for
$370,000, that it was entitled to enforce the original
note, and that the Plaintiff was in default. A foreclosure
auction of the referenced property proceeded in September,
2010.
E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments
60.

THE

DETERMINED

COMMONWEALTH
THAT

CLEAR

OF

MASSACHUSETTS

TITLE

DOES

NOT

HAS

EXIST

ALREADY
WITH

THE

PLAINTIFFS FORECLOSURE. The Plaintiff has consistently

brought this fact to the Courts attention, and it has
been

ignored.

Certified

documents

provided

by

the

43

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been secured

by the Plaintiff to support Defendant misconduct including
(at minimum) fraudulent assignments.37
61.
Lynn

As indicated in the sworn testimony of Fraud Expert,

Syzmoniak,

the

Massachusetts

Attorney

robo-signing)

has

millions

of

foreclosures

Department
General,

been

across

with

Justice

forgery

identified

foreclosures
associated

of

on

the

(also

and
known

mass-scale
nation,

Defendant

CMLTI

the
as

with

including
2006-AR1.

Defendants have consistently failed to validate signatures

on file to suggest otherwise.
F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies
and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision).38
G. Wall Street and the Financial Collapse; Majority and
Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, United States Senate.39
H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual40
I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement
J. Federal Bank Regulators Independent Foreclosure Review
K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion
37

Supporting SEC documents will be provided at trial, or

sooner, if requested by the Court.
38
See Attachment C
39
See Attachment D
40
See Attachment F
44

62.

The

Plaintiff

attention,

the

RELATIONSHIPS
CONFLICT41,

respectfully

clearly

evidenced

including

involving

brings

the

to

this

discovery

DOCUMENTED
Defendants

of

Courts
IMPROPER

COLLUSION
prior

and

counsel

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney

Generals Office, the US Attorneys Office, and the Boston
Bar Association.
the

It has necessitated the involvement of

Massachusetts

requested

call

investigations,

for
and

Inspector
(at

Generals

minimum)

restates

to

Office,

multiple

necessity

to

the

internal
involve

State/Federal prosecutors to address the numerous criminal

allegations associated with this complaint, including (but
not limited to) Corruption. These collective actions
referenced misconduct of the Defendants (alleged), and the
failures of the Commonwealth (to prosecute and/or take
corrective action) threaten the Intellectual Property of
the

Plaintiff.

This

Intellectual

Property

consists

of

projects, created by this Plaintiff, designed to assist

these United States with economic recovery and growth,
from damages suffered by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure

41

See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center

course entitled, After the Bubble Bursts Mortgage and
Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.
45

Crisis. For this reason multiple parties are copied on

these communications to the Inspector General including42:
a) Vice President Joe Biden
b) Governor Charles Baker (MA)
c) Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
d) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
e) US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
f) Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
g) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)
h) Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
i) Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
j) Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
63.

There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,

the US Attorneys Office, the Boston BAR Association, or

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,
or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of
COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.
L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law offices PC
64.

The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for

the record, the Defendant US Bank NAs prior counsel Harmon Law Offices PC, a law firm with a principal office
in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel

See Attachment P - Communications delivered to the Office of

the Massachusetts Inspector General.
42

46

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

shortly after the MA Attorney Generals Office began its
investigation
foreclosures.

of

Harmons

Harmon

has

involvement

been

labeled

with
the

unlawful

Foreclosure

Mill of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures

throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly
linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin David
Stern. It is unclear, where this investigation of Harmon
currently stands.
M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion Throughout Multiple
Massachusetts State Courts
65.

Plaintiff firmly believes that the Abuse of Judicial

Discretion has existed historically throughout all related

proceedings (MA State Courts) where judges and court
personnel systematically discriminate against litigants
who appear pro se, often dismissing their petitions or
motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. This has
been exemplified and documented in related proceedings
from the Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior
Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Judicial
Court. A thorough REVIEW AND VALIDATION of the referenced
dockets

will reveal:

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

b) Refusal to Clarify a Decision(s)

47

c) Repeated failure to compel the production of critical

Discovery evidence. This is best exemplified by the
repeated refusal to enforce the production of the
recorded conversations during the 22-month loan
modification process, which clearly demonstrates (at
minimum) deceptive practices in violation of G.L. c.
93A, 2, by the Appellee Wells Fargo NA, mortgage
servicer.
d) Refusal/failure to compel the requested validation of
information prior to rendering Decision (ex. Chain of
Title, Signatures on file, etc).
e) Failure to acknowledge submitted evidence of misconduct
by reputable sources (MA Office of the Attorney General
and Federal Bank Regulators), aligned with the US
Foreclosure Crisis.
f) Failure to address and hold Appellees and their
retained counsel accountable for documented infractions
including: Fraudulent Concealment/ Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and
Perjury.
g) Failure to address and grant protection regarding
Plaintiffs/Appellants concerns of slander, defamation
of character, etc found in remarks documented by

48

opposing counsel; Counsels refusal to abide by

Notice(s) to Cease and Desist.
h) Failure to acknowledge referenced cases as listed in
the Table of Authorities, particularly, United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Master
Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA), which references the same
issues, same Lender US Bank NA, same Mortgage
Servicer Wells Fargo NA, and same retained Counsel
BOTH Harmon Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP,
specifically David E. Fialkow.
66.

Abuse of Judicial Discretion Stare Decisis is

additionally considered to have historically played a

significant role, with Justices in a current case treating
decisions in past similar cases as authoritative
precedents, and as seemingly directed by opposing counsel,
refusing to make the decision in a way that departs from
such precedents, regarding all of them as correctly
decided Particularly since initial decisions rendered by
the lower Courts were made prior to the public release of
information regarding misconduct surrounding the US
Foreclosure Crisis, and additionally taking into account
CRITICAL NON-DISCLOSED information by counsel, which
includes the APRIL 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators.

49

67.

Recent decisions announced by the Middlesex Superior

Court and the Northeast Housing Court.

a) Middlesex Superior Court - The Plaintiff first wishes
to recognize the Courts decision to correctly DENY the
Defendants
Plaintiff.

attempt

to

bar

Additionally

future

recognized

filings
is

of

the

NO-DECISION

pertaining to attempts by Defendants to collect related

Appellate
enormity
supporting
concerns

(Brief)
of
the

costs.

DOCUMENTED
Plaintiffs

pertain

to

the

However,
evidence

considering
and

consistent
Courts

the

information

claims,

decisions

clear

DENYING

Injunctive Relief, the Return of Escrowed Funds, and

Notifying the Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR
Counsel. Consistent with historical decisions related
to

this

matter,

the

Court

fails

to

provide

ANY

clarification or rationale supporting its decisions.43

Furthermore, the denial of injunctive relief, and the
proper release of escrowed funds back to the Plaintiff
impacts state of indigence.
b) Northeast Housing Court Similarly with regard to the
decision releasing $249 in Bond funds (and decisions
prior), the Court has seemingly ignored ALL supporting

43

A Motion requesting clarification and reconsideration has

been filed with the Middlesex Superior Court.
50

evidence and information provided by this pro se

litigant.
c) These recent decisions by both Massachusetts Courts,
further exemplify the Commonwealths clear refusal to
take corrective action, thus allowing harm and accruing
damages to unnecessarily continue towards this
Plaintiff. These disturbing concerns provide additional
support, questioning (at minimum) the integrity of the
Judicial system within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
d) The Plaintiff respectfully re-states the necessity to
involve Federal Prosecutors, the initiation of multiple
internal investigations, and the alignment of
referenced criminal complaint(s), in conjunction with
this filed Civil Docket.
e) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior
Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in
accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local
Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion
requesting Injunctive Relief to the Plaintiff (Motion
filed separately).
f) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior
Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in
accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local

51

Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion

requesting a Temporary Restraining Order - TRO (Motion
filed separately).
g) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex
Superior Court (MA), the Plaintiff will temporarily
postpone filing a Motion to inform the Massachusetts
Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, as the details of
attorney misconduct (alleged) is planned to be
addressed in the forthcoming trial.
N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights
68.

See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal

never received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court,

preceded by the complaint filed with the Committee on
Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court.
O. Evidenced Tampering Violations
69.

The Plaintiff brings to this Courts attention,

evidenced allegations of tampering with a Middlesex

Superior Court File. The Plaintiffs efforts to address
clearly evidenced tampering violations with the Court were
completely ignored.44

Reference transcripts for Middlesex Superior Court Docket No:

11-04499.
44

52

P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to

State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.
70.

The Plaintiff has filed fully supported criminal

complaints against these Defendants with the Massachusetts

Attorney Generals Office, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. No action taken. Numerous email
communications sent directly to MA Attorney Generals
Martha Coakley and Maura Healey have been blatantly
ignored. In each their respective campaigns to run for
public office, both Coakley and Healey are on record,
boasting of their efforts to combat foreclose fraud, to
achieve political gain. As previously evidenced and
reported to this Court, Attorney General Healey has gone
so far as to BLOCK the Plaintiff from viewing the MA
Attorney Generals Office - social media page on TWITTER.
71.

The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the MA Office

of the Inspector General. No Action Taken.

72.

The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) No Action Taken.

73.

The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the

Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel against

Defendants David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson and
Peter Haley. The BAR Counsel is said to be monitoring this
matter, and awaits the Courts decision.

53

74.

The Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the

Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR) against Real

Estate Brokers Ken and Mary Daher, Daher Companies Inc.,
Methuen, MA. The initial hearing has recessed pending
final decisions by the Court.
Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiffs Foreclosure Identified by
the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General; also by an
Independent Foreclosure Review Conducted by Federal Bank
Regulators.
75.

Restating that violations of both State and Federal

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

Attorney Generals Office, as it relates to the
Plaintiffs foreclosure. Similarly, Federal Bank
Regulators have determined misconduct associated with the
Plaintiffs foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure
Review.
R. Secondary Defendants
The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud Expert
Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed to
assist with accurately articulating the degrees of
misconduct associated with who the Plaintiff considers
Secondary Defendants. A thorough review of the
historical record and ALL transcripts will be necessary to

54

understand the roles each of these Defendants played with

respect to the illegal foreclosure:
76.

Harmon Law Offices PC identified and under

investigation by the MA Attorney Generals Office for

their roles in thousands of illegal foreclosures
throughout the Commonwealth. Plaintiff allegations include
(but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and
Abetting Fraud.
77.

Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP considered

the second tier foreclosure mill law firm. Plaintiff

allegations include (but are not limited to): RICO
violations, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.
78.

Peter Haley, Esq. managing partner of Nelson

Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Boston Office. On

record as supporting the misconduct of representing
counsel, David E. Fialkow.
79.

David E. Fialkow, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations

include (but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,

Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and
Abetting Fraud.
80.

Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations

include (but are not limited to: RICO violations,

55

Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation,

Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.
81.

Mary and Ken Daher, Daher Companies (Weichert

Realtors) Real Estate Brokers who disregarded

disclosures indicating an illegal foreclosure, choosing
instead to move forward unethically, with selling the
illegal foreclosure to the current homeowners, Jeffrey and
Isabelle Perkins. Plaintiff allegations include aiding and
abetting fraud.
82.

Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins current homeowners to

the referenced illegal foreclosure, having disregarded the

Plaintiffs disclosure warning against misconduct
associated with the property, and legal action forthcoming
against ALL parties aligning with the misconduct,
including Real Estate Brokers and homebuyers. Isabelle
Perkins is believed to also be a licensed Real Estate
Agent for Weichert Realtors also.

S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff

83.

Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, known as the FCS

Model - involves a project created by the Plaintiff to

assist this Nations and overall economic recovery from
damages suffered during the US Foreclosure/Financial

56

Crisis. The documented MERITS of this project are

significant, having successfully reached the Executive
Offices of the President of these United States (EOP) at
the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden, the
Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee,
Senior Economic adviser to US Senator Elizabeth Warren
(MA), Congresswoman Niki Tsongas Office (MA), the
Chairman of a nationally ranked Strategic Communications
firm, the Attorney General Offices of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire, and two (2) Massachusetts State Senators.
Effectively implemented, this project is expected to have
a positive economic impact estimated in the trillions of
dollars. The collective actions of the Defendants are
considered to have negatively impacted and caused damage
to this project. Economic experts will be called at trial
to articulate the measure of all variables, in a
successfully implemented FCS model. The value of the FCS
model is equated to the (estimated) total positive
economic impact of a successfully implemented model
(measured in US dollars).
84.

Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property involving

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

FORECLOSED parties, identified in the US Foreclosure
Crisis, with filing a civil action against the responsible

57

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

whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any
portion of this project are expected to be included as
Defendants in this civil/criminal action(s).
An

expanded

overview

of

this

Project

is

described

as

follows:
a. As a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff has clearly
demonstrated

the

ability

to

properly

construct

(and argue) a civil complaint as it relates to

this matter.
b. The final product of the proposed template can be
described

as

cleaned

up

version

of

what

already exists on record. This version will be

simplified in a step by step manual, modified by
state, as needed.
c. Accessibility to this template is expected to come
(at

minimum)

with

incorporating

website.

Numerous media sources including social media will

be used to communicate, educate, and inform the
public,

and

ALL

affected

parties

of

this

new

template,

the

available tool.

To

put

into

context

value

for

this

following formula is used:

58

(a)

A baseline of 4.2M affected parties with similar

damages averaging an estimated $1M each.

(b)

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

damages per) to estimate total damages; equating

the value of this template at 100% to an estimated
$4.2T.
85.

Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property involving

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

parties, identified in the US Foreclosure Crisis, with
filing a criminal action against the responsible
Lender/party. Any party, agency, court, employer, etc
whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any
portion of this project are expected to be included as
Defendants in this civil action. Accessibility and
communication of this template, once complete, will be
released in conjunction with the civil complaint model.
The Plaintiff elects to refrain at this time, from
assigning an estimated value to this criminal complaint
template, until counsel has been retained, and/or a
Federal prosecutor has been assigned.
V.

THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET

86.

Although relatively unknown and unused prior to 2004,

MBS trusts held approximately one-third of all residential

mortgages in the United States by the end of 2009.

59

87.

Most trusts comprise between 2,000 and 5,000

residential mortgages, with notes, with an aggregate value

between $500 million and $2 billion.
88.

These trusts are each governed by Pooling and Service

Agreement (PSAs) and other documents. The PSA

establishes most of the duties of various entities
involved in the creation and operation of the trust.
89.

Each trust has a Master Servicer and most trusts also

have several subservicers. The servicing of the loans in

the trust includes billing for and collecting the monthly
mortgage payments, and managing defaults in the loan pool
when they occur. These duties were very lucrative, thus
many of the loan originators also had a mortgage servicing
division or subsidiary.
90.

Because trusts are often comprised of loans from

several different mortgage company/originators, they can

have several sub-servicers.
91.

Every mortgage servicing company included as a

defendant herein, utilized fraudulent mortgage assignments

to trusts that included homes in Massachusetts in their
loan pools.
92.

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

trustees are usually among the largest banks in the world,

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

60

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

of the
most significant duties of the trustee is to ensure the
conveyance of the mortgages and notes from the depositor
to the trust. This conveyance is done via mortgage
assignments.
93.

The trusts represent to purchasers of their

securities that the notes and mortgages (bundled to form

the asset pool of the trust) will be delivered with
assignments to the trust in recordable form, so that they
will be able to foreclose on the assets in the event of
default.
94.

Despite the trusts representations, many of the

mortgage documents were not delivered at all to the

trustee or, if delivered, were allegedly lost or
misplaced.
95.

Nevertheless, the trustees, custodians, depositors,

and servicers of the MBS Trusts routinely provided

certifications of compliance, falsely asserting that they
had fulfilled their obligations as mandated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation AB
as well as the prospectuses and PSAs.

61

96.

Without the valid mortgage assignments and properly

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

severely diminished because the trustee is unable to
establish clear chain-of-title to pursue a foreclosure
action, and establishing entitlement to foreclose becomes
more complex and, therefore, more costly. Rather than
disclosing the missing loan documentation problem to
homeowners and courts, the Defendants filed fraudulent
mortgage notes and assignments in court to support their
foreclosure cases.

VI.

DEFENDANTS ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

97.

Defendants created mortgage-backed securities that

lacked lawful assignments and other documents of the

mortgages underlying. Defendants then created or had
created fraudulent mortgage assignments and note
endorsements to use in foreclosures.
98.

By 2008, at the latest, the Defendants knew that

documents were often not delivered to the trusts as

promised by the originators. This occurred so commonly
that the industry coined a term, exception reports, to
describe documents missing from loan pools. These
exception reports were simply a listing, by trust, of all
of the documents

62

missing from each trust.

99.

Defendants manufactured, caused to be manufactured,

or purchased and used fraudulent mortgage assignments,

notes, and note endorsements in hundreds of thousands of
foreclosure and bankruptcy cases throughout the country.
100.

Defendants used the fraudulent documents to conceal

from the MBS Trust investors, including the Government,

courts, homeowners, and HUD the enormity of the problem of
missing loan documents.
101.

The trustees of the MBS Trusts, which claim ownership

of each of these mortgages, will incur significantly

higher costs of foreclosure in proving lawful title to the
subject property, or will never be able to prove
ownership, based on forged signatures on assignments to
their respective MBS Trusts. The resulting financial harm
to the investors of the MBS Trusts, including the
Plaintiff, is substantial.
102.

SEC regulations also required most of the Defendants

to file certificates attesting that they have fulfilled

their duties with respect to the MBS Trusts. In
particular, 17 C.F.R. 229.1122(d)(4) required the
trustee, custodian, and servicing Defendants to file a
report indicating (i) whether [c]ollateral or security
on pool assets is maintained as required by the

63

transaction agreements or related pool asset documents

and (ii) whether [p]ool assets and related documents are
safeguarded as required by the transaction agreements.
Similarly, 17 C.F.R. 229.1123 requires filing a
statement that the servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
respect, specifying each such failure known to such
officer and the nature and status thereof.
103.

According to the FRAUD EXPERT, the certificates filed

by Defendants pursuant to these provisions were false,

because they failed to state that the notes and mortgage
assignments were not safeguarded and, in fact, had not
been transferred to the MBS Trusts. In some instances, the
Defendants noted non-compliance, but only with reference
to minor issues and never disclosed that the mortgage
assignments and the notes and the related documents were
missing or that forgeries were being submitted in their
place.
104.

In any foreclosures on assets in the MBS Trusts, the

trustee bank Defendants will be unable, or will have to

expend significant funds, to prove their allegations that
the MBS Trust is the lawful owner of the subject mortgage,

64

in addition to expenses due to the preparation and filing

of forged assignments. The amount the trustee bank
Defendants will expend to prove their ownership is
materially more than they would have spent if they had
complied with the procedures described in the respective
prospectus and PSA. In addition, the value of the security
must be discounted to account for the risk that a court
may not recognize the MBS Trust as the legal owner of the
security, and thus deny foreclosure on the collateral. The
cost for the trustee bank Defendants to establish the MBS
Trust as the owner of each mortgage included in the MBS
is, of course, passed on to the MBS Trust itself when the
trustee, custodian, and servicer(s) deduct their expenses
from the trust corpus.
105.

This harm is not only economic, however. The

prevalence of the forged assignments and absence of the

original mortgage notes resulting in lost note affidavits
shook consumer confidence in investing and in government
regulation. The ease with which Defendants were able to
cash in on their fraudulent behavior encouraged others in
similar situations to attempt similar schemes, multiplying
the potential harm and loss of confidence exponentially.
As one of the FBI Special Agents involved in the
conviction of an LPS executive observed, Our country is

65

increasingly faced with more pervasive and sophisticated

fraud schemes that have the potential to disrupt entire
markets and the economy as a whole.45
106.

Substantial subpoenaed testimony will additionally be

required by the referenced Fraud expert, Lynn Syzmoniak,

Federal and State Prosecutors, to assist with accurate
articulation and extent of ALL variables of associated
misconduct, relationships to referenced case examples, and
subsequent CAUSES OF ACTION.

VII.

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

Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the

Depositor
107.

Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by

reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1

through 106 of this Complaint.
108.

This is a claim for civil penalties and treble

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

seq., as amended.
109.

As alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the Defendants

created, serviced, or participated in the MBS Trusts.

45

DOJ Press Release, Former Executive At Florida-Based Lender

Processing Services, Inc. Admits Role In Mortgage-Related
Document Fraud Scheme, Nov. 20, 2012.
66

110.

Defendants submitted claims to government entities,

including HUD, for the payment of mortgage guarantees

based on fraudulent documents in order to falsely assert
entitlement to the mortgage guarantees. Defendants
received millions of dollars in payments on federal
government guarantees of mortgages based on foreclosure
proceedings utilizing false assignments of notes and
mortgages. In addition, they improperly charged HUD for
the cost of filing with the courts the false documents.
Accordingly, the Defendants and their agents and employees
knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or
fraudulent claim for payment or approval from the
government entity that paid the mortgage guarantee claim.
111.

As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the MBS

Trusts lacked the requisites necessary for the mortgages

to be transferred to the MBS Trusts issuing MBS,
namely:(1) the legally binding assignments from the
originating bank to the MBS Trusts and, finally, to the
foreclosure agent; (2) the recording of title in the
county recorders office;and (3) the original note and
mortgage, signed by both borrower and lender. The
prospectus for the referenced MBS Trust, in other public
statements, falsely represented that the trust had
possession of these documents and held good title to the

67

mortgages and notes underlying the securities.

112.

As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the

Defendants created false mortgage documents and charged

the MBS Trusts for their unlawful services. Likewise, the
Defendants charged the MBS Trusts for services that were
never provided, including, but not limited to, trustee and
custodial services relating to the notes and mortgage
assignments.
113.

By virtue of the wrongful conduct alleged here, the

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

U.S. government or government-funded entity was impaired.
114.

Defendants received millions of dollars in U.S.

government funds to provide services for MBS Trusts held

by the Treasury or other government-funded entity.
Defendants falsely represented that they had performed the
services paid for. Accordingly, the Defendants and their
agents and employees knowingly presented or caused to be
presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or
approval to the government entity that purchased MBS
Trusts.
115.

Ultimately, by reason of these false and fraudulent

claims, the Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to

be damaged, in an amount yet to be determined.

68

116.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT I.
COUNT II FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(B),
Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
117.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT II.
COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(D),
Against ALL Defendants
118.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT III.
COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(G),
Against ALL Defendants
119.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT IV.

69

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

Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a
Violation of 31 U.S.C. 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C.
3729

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

U.S.C.
120.

3729 (a)(1)(G)
The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT V.

COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act

Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),
Against ALL Defendants
121.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VI.
COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder of the
Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
122.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VII.

70

COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation

of G.L.c. 93A, 2: Failing to identify the Present Holder of
the Mortgage in Notice of Sale (as to the Bank Defendants)
123.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VIII.
COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, 2: Falsely Representing Status as Holder of
Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
124.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT IX.
COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G. L. c. 93A, 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and Servicing
Practices (as to the Bank Defendants)
125.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT X.
COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of

71

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

(as to Bank Defendants)
126.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XI.
COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of
Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation of
G. L. c. 185, 67 (as to Bank Defendants)
127.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XII.
COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights.
128.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XIII.(Includes Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC 1961 1968)
129.

The assistance of Federal Prosecutors is needed to

assist with accurately articulating the misconduct

72

associated with COUNT XIV. (Includes at minimum Defendants

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Jeffrey S. Patterson,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP)
COUNT XV Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,
Title 18, USC, 242
130.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XV.
131.

Includes multiple Abuses of Judicial Discretion

within Massachusetts State Courts.

132.

Includes the Commonwealths Failure to Prosecute and

Protect clearly evidenced crimes against this Plaintiff.

COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. 501 (copyright infringement)
133.

The assistance of retained legal counsel and Federal

Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately

articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVI.
COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. 2319(b) (criminal
copyright infringement for profit)
134.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, and Federal

Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately

articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVII.

73

COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants

135.

The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud

Expert Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed

to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNTS XVII+.

VIII.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgement be entered
against Defendants, ordering that:
A. Defendants pay an amount equal to three times the amount
of damages sustained because of Defendants actions, plus
civil penalties.
i. Injunctive Relief
ii. Personal damages to marriage, family, career,
credit, future retirement and everyday living.
Personal

damages

include

loss

of

Plaintiffs

home, to which the Plaintiff was HOMELESS for

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

will

additionally

reveal

Slander/Defamation of the Plaintiffs character

for the past four (4) years. Collective damages
easily meet the Federal minimum requirement of
$75,000 and are considered greater than $1M.

74

iii. Plaintiffs Intellectual Property - While the

Plaintiff has every right to seek 100% of the
damages/infringement

as

described

within,

the

Plaintiff will initially set the total relief

sought equivalent to 1 percent (1%) of the
template defined in 64(b), or $42B. Should an
agreement between parties be reached based on
this fraction of damages, Plaintiff MAY consider
various options of payment to lessen the burden
of

payment.

However,

if

it

is

instead

the

Defendants decision not to seek agreement based

on this very minimal percentage, the Plaintiff
reserves the right to adjust damages up to and
including
sections
without

100
of

percent

damages

consideration

(100%)

as

of

ALL

described

for

various

six

(6)

within,

and

options

of

payment.
iv. The Plaintiff will be awarded all costs of this
action, including attorneys fees, expenses, and
costs

reimbursement

of

ALL

associated

legal

fees/costs affecting this Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff will look to the recommendations of counsel

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

75

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

along with their ability to pay.
B. The Plaintiff makes very clear before this Court; the
formula used to calculate damages here, ONLY takes into
consideration the measured timeline of the US Foreclosure/
Financial

crisis

(estimated

2006

affected

parties

identified

are

2010).

similarly

The

4.2M

from

this

estimated timeline only. It is NOT to say that similar

misconduct
since.

has

not

Additionally,

occurred
the

before

formula

this

is

ONLY

timeline,

or

applied

to

impacted FORECLOSURES within this estimated timeline.

THE PLAINTIFF MAKES VERY CLEAR, THAT ASSOCIATED MISCONDUCT

IS NOT LIMITED TO FORECLOSURES ALONE.

Should an agreement here between parties be unsuccessful,

the

plaintiff

will

reserve

the

right

to

address

this

expanded misconduct in a separate action(s).

IX.

REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

76

CLOSING STATEMENT
It is through sheer arrogance and the apparent belief of
being

ABOVE

THE

LAW

that

these

Defendants

now

find

themselves in this position of increased legal risk. This

Plaintiff has followed the rules of the Court; has clearly
conducted himself in an ethical manner; exemplified complete
transparency,

and

shown

beyond

ANY

doubt,

evidenced

misconduct by Defendants and their retained counsel. It is

understandable to suspect, that a degree of embarrassment
exists knowing that this pro se litigant has historically
exemplified the ability to successfully argue this matter in
a Court of law. Regardless, their position now comes by
their own hand.
rules

of

the

As this pro se Plaintiff has abided by the

Court,

so

too,

must

these

Defendants

and

counsel be held accountable when they violate and abuse the

law.

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

above,

perhaps

more

so

than

any

individual

in

this

Commonwealth or Country, not only to irrefutably prove this

case, but to also provide a solution which aids in this
Nations economic recovery, and ALL parties affected.

77

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

reached here, while paving the way for an economic framework
that brings historic economic growth to these United States.

Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar

Attachment A

78

79

80

81

82

83

Attachment B

84

Eligibility for Independent Foreclosure Review

Borrowers were eligible for an independent foreclosure review if they met the following criteria:
the property securing the loan was the borrower's primary residence;
the mortgage was in the foreclosure process (initiated, pending, or completed) at any time between
January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010; and
the mortgage was serviced by one of the following mortgage servicers:

America's Servicing Company*

Aurora Loan Services*
BAC Home Loans Servicing*
Bank of America*
Beneficial*
Chase*
Citibank*
CitiFinancial*
CitiMortgage*

Countrywide*
EMC Mortgage Corporation*
EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company
Financial Freedom (OneWest)
GMAC Mortgage
HFC*
HSBC*
IndyMac Mortgage Services (OneWest)
MetLife Bank*

National City Mortgage*

PNC Mortgage*
Sovereign Bank*
SunTrust Mortgage*
U.S. Bank*
Wachovia Mortgage*
Washington Mutual (WaMu)*
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.*
Wilshire Credit Corporation*

*These companies are participating in the Payment Agreement.

Eligible borrowers were sent a Request for Review form by mail starting in November of 2011 when the program
launched.
If a borrower previously filed a complaint with these servicers about foreclosures pending during the review
period, they were still eligible to file for an independent review of their foreclosure.
There were no costs associated with being included in the review; the review was a free program. Borrowers
should beware of anyone requiring payments for assistance in connection with the Independent Foreclosure
Review or any other foreclosure assistance program.

Federal Reserve's Role

The Federal Reserve's role is to ensure compliance with the enforcement actions issued in April 2011, including
the payment process under the agreement in principle announced in January of 2013.
OCC and Federal Reserve examiners are continuing to closely monitor the servicers' implementation of plans
required by the enforcement actions issued in April 2011 to correct the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and
foreclosure practices.

85

86

Attachment C
(Insert Report - Federal Reserve System/ Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift Supervision,
Washington D.C., 2011)

87

Attachment D
(Insert - WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Anatomy of a
Financial Collapse Majority and Minority Staff Report,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States
Senate.)

88

Attachment E
(Insert - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and
Economic Crisis in the United States)

89

Attachment F
(Insert - Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney
Procedure Manual, Version 1)

90

Attachment G

91

92

93

94

Attachment H
(Insert - Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report, Attorney General
Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12)

95

Attachment I

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

Attachment J
(Insert Commonwealths Complaint
Court, Docket No: 11-4363)

filed

in

Suffolk

Superior

117

Attachment K

118

119

120

Attachment L

121

Complaint Referral Form

Internet Crime Complaint Center

Please review your complaint for accuracy, prior to submitting it

to the IC3.
The following information was provided by the victim and may be
forwarded to the
appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agencies.
Your Personal Information * First Name:Mohan
Middle Name:A
* Last Name:Harihar
Business Name:
* Age:40 - 49
* Gender:M
* Address:168 Parkview Avenue
Address (continued):
Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:
* City:Lowell
Do you live within the city limits?: Yes No
County:Middlesex County
State:Massachusetts
* Country:United States
* Zip Code / Route:01852
* Phone Number:6179212526
* E-mail Address:mcharihar@comcast.net
Name of your local police or sheriff's office:
Lowell Police Department
Is the complaint you are filing related to the Internet or an online service?
Yes No

122

Do you have pertinent documents in paper form?

Yes No
Information about the Individual/Business that victimized you Business
Name:Nelson Mullins Riley Scarboropugh LLP
First Name:Peter
Middle Name:
Last Name:Haley
Gender:M
Address:One Post Office Square
Address (continued):30th Floor
Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:
City:Boston
State:Massachusetts
Country:United States
Zip Code / Route:02109
Phone Number:6175734714
E-mail Address:peter.haley@nelsonmullins.com
Other Identifiers Web Site:
IP Address:
IRC Server:
Chat Room Name:
Usenet Newsgroup:
Other:
Monetary Loss
* Please specify the total dollar amount of your loss from this
incident:
$ 999999999 (US Dollars)
Please indicate the means of payment (select all that apply)
Cash
Cashier's Check
Check/Debit Card

123

Credit Card
Money Order
Wire Transfer
Other (Specify Other)
Did you use a third party online payment service such as PayPal, BidPay,
Escrow?
Yes No
Description of the Incident * Describe in your own words how you
have been victimized.
Be specific. Include date(s) of transaction(s), a description of any items
that were not delivered or were counterfeited, any transaction numbers
(from Ebay, Western Union, PayPal, etc.), and any other pertinent
information that helps to explain how you were victimized. Also if you
received anything by U.S. Mail, FedEx, or UPS, specifically describe the
envelope, by the date, time, city and zip code shown on the stamp
cancellation postmark.
During an initial call to file a complaint with the Boston Office of the FBI
(Fraud Investigations), it was additionally suggested to file an online
complaint on this site, as a received email includes an admission
associated with fraudulent misconduct which extends beyond the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This matter involves documented
misconduct, both criminal and civil, involving multiple parties in active
litigation for nearly 3 years against Mohan A. Harihar, and the associated
foreclosed property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell MA 01852.
Parties include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage
Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP - specifically, associate David
E. Fialkow and managing partner Peter Haley, Nelson Mullins LLP as a
whole, as the documented admission by Mr. Peter Haley includes the
support of the entire firm, and finally Harmon Law Offices PC. Active
litigation is currently in both the MA Appeals Court and the MA Supreme
Court. Criminal complaints against referenced parties have recently been
filed in Lowell District Court. Documented fraudulent misconduct includes
(but is not limited to) deceptive practices during the 22-month loan

124

modification process, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent

concealment, perjury, and aiding and abetting fraud. Prior retained
counsel representing US Bank NA was Harmon Law Offices PC (Newton,
MA), who has been under investigation by the MA Attorney General for
foreclosure related practices, and who immediately withdrew as counsel
from this case once informed by Mohan Harihar that they would be held
criminally and civilly accountable if they continued as counsel. Nelson
Mullins LLP and their associated clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA
have been afforded multiple opportunities to cease and desist, but have
chosen instead to continue this misconduct, and accruing harm and
damages against Mohan A. Harihar. As this matter has been definitively
associated with FRAUD on a NATIONWIDE MASS-SCALE by two(2)
reputable sources (Federal bank Regulators and The MA Attorney
General), the associated misconduct has been brought to the attention of
multiple parties including: MA Attorney Generals Office, Middlesex County
District Attorney, members of the US and State Senate, members of
Congress, the media and the public. Complaints are filed with numerous
agencies (see below). Aside from the documented admission included in
the email by Peter Haley, documented misconduct is included in nearly all
related court documents and transcripts from the following Courts: Lowell
District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex County Superior Court,
MA Appeals Court, and MA Supreme Court (Docket numbers provided
upon request). Following the recent criminal complaint filed in Lowell
District Court, the DOJ has announced the JP Morgan settlement, the
recent Ocwen Financial settlement, and the forthcoming 2014 fraud cases
against associated lenders/mortgage servicers. It is been clearly
articulated by Mohan A. Harihar in numerous communications, that aside
from pursuing criminal and civil accountability against referenced parties,
Mr. Harihars intention is to aid the DOJ in these next chapters of the US
Foreclosure Crisis, and what is arguably the largest case of Fraud in United
States history. This matter additionally involves intellectual property
considered to be the property of Mohan A. Harihar, specifically designed to
aid foreclosed homeowners negatively impacted by this associated
misconduct, as well as aiding in the nations economic recovery. To date,
presentations pertaining to the referenced intellectual property have been
successfully made to multiple parties including: 1. A Senior member of the
125

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

Offices. 3. Two (2) State Senators. 4. A Congressional Office. 5. A Lender
Senior VP of Risk Compliance. 6. A Chairman of a Nationally ranked
Strategic Communications firm. A presentation is currently being prepared
for a member of the US Senate. This is an overall summary of events
related to this matter.

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

of the incident.
Bulletin board
Chat room
Email
Fax
In person
Internet messaging
Mail
Newsgroup
Telephone
Web site
Wire
Other
Please indicate the initial means of contact with the individual/business
that victimized you.
Other
Was this initial means of contact unsolicited/uninvited?
Yes No
What was your relationship with the individual/business you are
complaining about prior to the incident you are reporting?
no prior relationship

126

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

incident?
Yes No
How much time has passed since you determined you were victimized?
6 months or more
Contact Information
Are there witnesses or other victims to this crime?
Parties identified by both Federal Bank Regulators as well as the National
Mortgage Settlement and all 50 Attorneys General. Victim count
associated with this matter is at minimum considered to be 4.2M parties.
Have you reported this crime to any law enforcement or government
agencies?
Better Business Bureau
Consumer protection agency
Individual/business that victimized you
Police/other law enforcement
Private attorney
Provide the specific name of each organization, contact name, contact
phone number, email address, date reported, and report number (if
known).
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General Middlesex County District
Attorney MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel US Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Internal Revenue Service - In process
Digital Signature
Read the following statement below, and confirm your agreement by
typing your full name below in the box provided:
By digitally signing this document, I affirm that the information I provided
is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read the IC3's

127

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

law enforcement and regulatory agencies. If available, I will provide
additional documentation not included in this complaint, such as email
correspondence, payment receipts, or electronic logs, upon request to the
best of my ability. I authorize the dissemination of the complaint, or
information in the complaint, to appropriate federal, state, local, tribal or
international Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) for purposes of
investigating the complaint.
Digital Signature:
To confirm the submission of your complaint, please enter the following
letters below.

-->

-->

Captcha Response

128

Attachment M

129

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 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

130

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)

131

Exhibit A

132

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

133

Attachment N

134

135

Attachment O

136

November 10, 2015

VIA EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE

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

Mr. Olson:
It is my understanding that K&L Gates LLP has made the decision to recently employ, as
Partners in the Boston Office, Attorneys David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson
(Previously with Nelson Mullins Reilly & Scarborough, LLP). It is also my understanding that
K&L Gates has made the decision to replace Nelson Mullins as retained counsel to both US
Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, in litigation against Mohan A. Harihar.
Please be advised of the following:
1. The evidenced civil and criminal misconduct associated with the historical record of
this matter is included as part of a new complaint being filed in Federal Court. The
evidenced misconduct includes (at minimum):
a. Fraud
b. Deceptive Practices
c. Anti-trust Violations
d. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
e. Fraudulent Assignments
f. Perjury
g. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
h. 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights.
i. Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion involving the MA
Attorney Generals Office, the MA US Attorneys Office, the Boston BAR
137

association, and Defendants counsel (prior) Nelson Mullins Riley &

Scarborough LLP.
j. Abuses of Judicial discretion
k. Infractions/Infringement to the Intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.
Harihar, including projects designed to assist with this Nations (and Global)
economic recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.
2. David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson, and their former employer Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough LLP will now be included Defendants in this Federal
complaint(s). Nelson Mullins is on record as supporting the documented misconduct
of retained counsel. Senior management has remained silent for nearly two (2) years
since having been implicated by the managing partner of the Boston Office, Peter
Haley.
3. Clear evidence of improper relationships including Collusion is on record.
Furthermore, there has been no denial by ANY party the Massachusetts Attorney
Generals Office, the US Attorneys Office, the Boston BAR Association, or Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, of these very serious, and clearly evidenced
allegations.
4. Any party, agency, employer, etc who so chooses to align themselves in support of
this referenced misconduct, is expected to be added as a Defendant in the forthcoming
Federal action(s).
5. A copy of this correspondence will be included in the referenced Federal complaint.
6. While K&L Gates has yet to been listed as a Defendant, Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar
has reserved the right to expand the list of Defendants as the depth of misconduct
continues to be revealed/exposed.
You are now respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions as they pertain
to this matter. Please note, a failure to do so will be interpreted as a decision to support the
evidenced misconduct of referenced clients and new employees/partners of K&L Gates, LLP.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

138

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar

Attachment P

139

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

August 15, 2014

VIA HAND DELIVERY

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

Dear Inspector General Cunha:

My name is Mohan A. Harihar I am a Massachusetts wrongfully foreclosed homeowner, in
active litigation now for over 3 years, currently being heard in the MA Appeals Court
Docket No: 2013-P-1829 (Also reference 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671). Since the initial
rulings in the Lower Courts, an overwhelming amount of information has come forward in
support of my consistent claims of civil and criminal misconduct against the referenced
lenders and their retained counsel. In addition, this matter now includes irrefutable 14th
Amendment infractions to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, concerns of Collusion
and Clear Conflict with ongoing litigation, and multiple abuses of Judicial discretion. The
collective concerns related to this matter are many, and sadly question the integrity of the
judicial system within this Commonwealth.
It has unfortunately become necessary to request the assistance of your office, to review and
monitor what has occurred here from inception to present day. I have included several
documents filed with the Court to assist with your review:

140

1. Docket

2013-P-1829

Appellant

Motion

Requesting

Clarification

and

Reconsideration.
2. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Motion Requesting Validation.
3. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply to Appellees Opposition to initiate a
validation process, and request for Special Prosecutor.
4. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Brief.
5. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply Brief.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar

Cc: Vice President Joe Biden

Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

141

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

August 21, 2014

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY

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

Dear Inspector General Cunha:

As follow-up to the letter hand delivered to your office last Friday, August 15, 2014, an
additional concern has now emerged, re-affirming the necessity to inform the Office of the
Inspector General in this matter.
On Monday, August 18, 2014, and in response to the Motion filed last Friday, August 15,
2014 with the Massachusetts Appeals Court requesting the Clarification of a Decision, the
Court has DENIED this request to clarify their decision. This represents a common theme
throughout the history of this matter, as detailed in the Appellant Brief/Reply Brief to the
associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Decisions made without cause, and requests to clarify
these decisions are subsequently denied. It re-affirms the clear concerns of a Too Big to Fail
mentality, thus questioning the Integrity of the Judicial system in this Commonwealth.
Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent to this Appellant, as well as 65,000
wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears clear no matter
how much evidence or information there is supporting your claim, you will not be allowed to
142

succeed in recouping compensation for the damage caused or in holding responsible parties
accountable for their misconduct.
Understanding this matter is still in active litigation, the request made to the Inspector
Generals Office is to monitor and review the details of this matter, as a corrective path
continues to be sought within the MA Court system.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar

Cc: Vice President Joe Biden

Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

143

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

December 22, 2014

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY

Office of the Inspector General
John W. McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 1311
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Request for Internal Investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, et al.

Dear Inspector General Cunha:

After filing the August 2014 request to review & monitor the civil/criminal matters
pertaining to the Wrongful Foreclosure of Mohan A. Harihar, this email communication is
respectfully sent to your attention on this Monday, December 22, 2014 with regard to the
following:
1. Concerns involving the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, who has
exemplified no effort to prosecute or any attempt to even mediate definitive criminal
misconduct associated with the Wrongful Foreclosure/Displacement of Mohan A.
Harihar - all of which is well documented, fully supported and on file with the
Court(s).46
2. Clear and irrefutable evidence of Collusion and conflict has been revealed47, as it
pertains to the referenced matter, involving the following parties:
a. The Office of the MA Attorney General.
b. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.
46

Reference MA Appeals Court Docket(s) 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671, 2013-P-1829, and also Criminal
Complaints filed directly with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations Unit of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
47
See attached, Exhibit A

144

c. The US Attorneys Office.

d. The Boston BAR Association.
This evidence has been brought to the attention of the MA Appeals Court, and
apparently ignored.
3. Additional evidence on file with the Court(s), support (at minimum) the following
criminal misconduct:
a. Fraud (including, but not limited to Deceptive Practices).
b. Fraudulent Concealment.
c. Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
d. Fraudulent Assignments.
e. Perjury.
f. Confirmation of Fraud by nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT Lynn
Syzmoniak.
4. Attorney General - Martha Coakley has been regularly updated directly via email for
over two (2) years, apparently choosing to ignore/disregard this matter. Associated
criminal complaints are additionally on file with the MA Office of the Attorney
General.
5. The clear, and evidenced relationship between the MA Attorney Generals Office and
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP (retained counsel for Wells Fargo NA and
US bank NA in litigation vs. Mohan A. Harihar), supports clear collusion, conflict,
and shows cause to question the integrity of the MA Attorney Generals Office, their
failure to prosecute, or attempt to even mediate this matter.
6. The Attorney Generals ongoing investigation of Appellee/Defendant Harmon
Law Offices PC for related misconduct, raises additional questions and concerns for
their lack of action here as well. These concerns which include Nelson Mullins Riley
and Scarborough LLP, also identify what is considered to be a second tier to the
foreclosure mill law firm.
7. It has been made clear, that this matter is not a singular issue. It has been irrefutably
identified and connected to civil and criminal misconduct associated with the US
Foreclosure Crisis, which has definitively caused irreparable harm to approximately

145

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

minimum, 4.2 million throughout this Nation.
Since the August 2014 request to monitor & review this matter, your office has been
regularly included in related communications. These stated concerns pertaining to the
criminal misconduct associated with this matter respectfully should, and may already
be realized.
An email communication has been sent this morning to the direct attention of Attorney
General Martha Coakley48. It is a third and final follow-up requesting an update to
mediation efforts regarding this matter. A requested timeline for response ending
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 @ 5pm EST has been given to provide an officially
documented and detailed update.
The US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis is arguably considered by many, to be the largest
case of FRAUD in the history of these United States. As anticipated, the decisions
made by referenced parties choosing to ignore these documented facts and concerns,
continue to expose the depth of associated misconduct - and still more evidence is
forthcoming, including (but not limited to) certified documents provided by the
SEC.49
Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent by this Attorney General, to
65,000 wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears
clear no matter how much evidence or information there is supporting your
claim/criminal complaint, you will not be allowed to succeed in holding
responsible parties accountable for their criminal misconduct. They are
considered ABOVE THE LAW. These serious concerns clearly question the
integrity of the Attorney Generals Office, and of Attorney General Coakley.

48

The Office of the MA Inspector General has been copied on this email correspondence to Attorney General
Coakley.
49
SEC Securities and Exchange Commission.

146

You have been made aware, that these concerns are additionally related to a separate,
private economic project(s), created by Mohan A. Harihar - designed to assist with this
Nations and overall global recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial crisis50. All
parties, actions, etcthat bring increased risk to these projects, will be included in
forthcoming litigation for civil damages associated with the infringement to
Intellectual Property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar. Parties thus far currently include
(but are not limited to): Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, the Securitized Mortgage
Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP, and Harmon Law Offices PC.
You are aware, that the MA Appeals Court has recently granted Mohan A. Harihar
permission to file for new trial for civil damages related to the referenced wrongful
foreclosure, and referenced Intellectual property. Leave has been granted, due to the
overwhelming amount of documented evidence and information which continues to
come forth in full support of Mr. Harihars consistent claims. Failure to take corrective
action by the Attorney General will show cause to include the Commonwealth as a
Defendant in the referenced, forthcoming civil action.
ALL responsible parties that have been identified have been given ample opportunity,
to seek and reach agreement regarding these matters. These opportunities have been
repeatedly either denied or ignored. Therefore, I respectfully call for the following
action(s):
1. A full internal investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, Nelson Mullins
LLP, Harmon Law Offices PC and ALL parties who have been associated with
this matter.
2. Securing a Special Prosecutor to forthcoming litigation, and determining the
appropriate Court venue.

50

The FCS model is one of three projects considered to be the intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.
Harihar (Copyright, Patent-pending).

147

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

from ALL Courts.51
Please be advised, the following parties have been copied on this email communication: Vice
President Joe Biden, Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA), US
Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Attorney General-Elect Maura
Healey (MA), Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)52, Christina Sterling
(Spokesperson, US Attorneys Office - MA)53, and Susan Herman (President, ACLU).

Separate Media communication has also been made available for the specific purpose of
informing the People of this Commonwealth, and this Nation of these concerns (Attached for
reference)54. ALL communications (email, etcinvolving ALL responsible parties and
related Court documents) are additionally being prepared for publication as reference and to
provide public awareness.

It brings me no pleasure to move in this legal direction. However, any system which
allows this level of criminal misconduct to continue without any accountability, will not,
nor should ever be tolerated.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

51

MA Civil proceedings have included: Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior
Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Court.
52
CFPB Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
53
DOJ - Department of Justice.
54
Click on the following link to view the 12/22/14/Media Alert:

148

Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Attorney General-Elect Maura Healey (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, US Attorneys Office (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

EXHIBIT A
149

150

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

March 20, 2015

VIA EMAIL DELIVERY

Office of the Inspector General
John W. McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 1311
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Update to Harihar Litigation and Move to Federal Court

Dear Inspector General Cunha:

This email correspondence is sent to your direct attention as follow-up to
prior communications (last delivered, August 22, 2014). The depth of
documented misconduct surrounding the Harihar Foreclosure continues to come
forth. While the Massachusetts Appeals Court has already granted - Mohan A.
Harihar leave to file for new trial, the collective facts surrounding this
matter satisfy (at minimum) the Federal requirements of diversity; damages
exceeding a threshold of $75,000; violations to Federal Antitrust laws;
Constitutional Violations of the 14th Amendment to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights; Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion and
Conflict involving the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, the US
Attorneys Office, the Boston BAR Association, and Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP; and numerous abuses of Judicial discretion on multiple
levels - in which the Commonwealth thus far has failed to address and take
corrective action.
ALL parties are additionally aware of the related infringement/damages to
Mr. Harihars Intellectual Property. This includes projects designed to
assist with this Nations and overall Global economic recovery from the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. New civil and criminal complaints are now
being prepared for filing in Federal Court.
Original Defendants include:

151

1. Wells Fargo NA
2. US Bank NA
3. RMBS CMLTI 2006-AR1
4. Harmon Law Offices PC
Additional Defendants in the forthcoming Federal civil/criminal actions
will include:
5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
6. Nelson Mullins LLP
7. Attorney David E. Fialkow
8. Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson
9. Attorney Peter Haley
10. Real Estate Brokers Kenneth and Mary Daher
11. Purchasers of the referenced illegal foreclosure Jeffrey and
Isabelle Perkins.
Please be advised, as a prelude to filing new Federal actions, injunctive
relief is now being sought in the Middlesex Superior Court providing an
opportunity for the Commonwealth to take corrective action. Any corrective
action taken by the Court (or failure to do so) will be recognized as this
matter moves to Federal Court.
This is a very serious and sensitive matter. The overwhelming amount of
evidenced misconduct directly ties to what many consider the largest case
of FRAUD in the history of these United States. Respectfully, you are aware
that the evidenced allegations, including clear concerns of CORRUPTION,
have made it necessary to involve your office, and a call for (at minimum)
multiple internal investigations.
Please be advised - this correspondence (and those prior) are considered
part of the record as this matter moves to Federal Court. Your office is
respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions for
initiating next steps as it relates to these serious allegations.
Additionally, please advise whether the involvement of additional Offices
and/or agencies (please be specific) is now required. A copy of this
correspondence is being filed with the Middlesex Superior Court, in
addition to the Government officials and agencies copied in the list below.

152

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

please advise.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Charles Baker (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)

153

Attachment Q

154

155

156

Attachment R

157

158

Attachment S

159

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

June 20, 2014

Northeast Association of Realtors
6 Liberty Way, Suite 204
Westford, MA 01886
RE: Ethics Complaint Daher Companies

FOR DOCUMENTATION, DISCLOSURE & LEGAL

PURPOSES

VIA US MAIL

Dear Northeast Association of Realtors,

55

It has unfortunately become necessary to file an Ethics Complaint

Northeast Association of Realtors:

against two (2) members of the

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

2. Kenneth Daher, Daher Companies (Principal).

In late February 2014, and following the Wrongful Displacement of Mohan A. Harihar, Weichert Realtors
Daher Companies (located at 25 East Street, Methuen, MA 01844), elected to list the foreclosed
residential property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. This property has been in ongoing
litigation pertaining to Wrongful Foreclosure for over three (3) years, and is currently being heard in the MA
Appeals Court, Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Associated misconduct is considered both civil and criminal,
and is fully supported against multiple parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA,
Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins LLP and the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.
On March 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Daher, Principals of Weichert
Realtors Daher Companies, to notify all parties of the serious circumstances associated with this matter,
and the potential legal risk to ANY, and ALL parties, choosing to align themselves with the associated
56
misconduct. This Notice of Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability has apparently been ignored.

55
56

See Appendix, Completed Form E-1, as required, p. 5

See Appendix, March 23, 2014 Email Communication RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability, p. 6 - 9

160

On May 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Daher Companies, with an update to ongoing
litigation, outlined in the 5/19/14 Media Alert, and a second NOTICE was issued to parties choosing to align
57
themselves with any associated misconduct.
On June 7, 2014, after receiving feedback from local Realtors of potential disclosure non-compliance, an
email communication was sent to Daher Companies, informing them that a formal complaint was now being
prepared against them, for concerns surrounding non-disclosure to multiple parties including (but not limited
to): other Real Estate Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc Shortly thereafter, I received an
email communication response from Mary Koontz-Daher, a response considered inappropriate,
58
unprofessional, and falsely stated.
After receiving the email, I received a missed phone call on my mobile phone. A voicemail was left by a
woman identifying herself as Mary Koontz-Daher, in an erratic voice, stating that I should be a man and
identify myself and that I should return the call. I then returned the phone call, stated my name and that I
was returning a missed call from this number. The same erratic voice identified herself as Mary KoontzDaher, who claimed to not know who I was, claimed to not know why I was sending her company the
previously stated communications, and stated that she was sending the information to her attorney, and
notifying the Methuen Police Department.
Despite multiple interruptions, I notified Mrs. Daher that as explained in the email communication, notice was
formerly given regarding the related concerns, and a formal complaint was now being filed against the
appropriate parties. I additionally stated that I too, would be notifying the Methuen Police Department, which I
did, immediately after ending the phone conversation with Mrs. Daher.
As documented in this complaint and in supporting documents, I have consistently made clear my name,
associated address, email address and contact phone number. To be clear, until the June 7, 2014 email and
phone call from Mrs. Daher, there had been no communications received by the references parties. The
th
references by Mrs. Daher on June 7 , 2014 stating that she does not know who I am, or why legal notice has
been sent to Daher Companies conflicts with supporting documents on file.
This is a very serious matter. It appears that Weichert Realtors Daher Companies has specifically
chosen to ignore the email communications/Broker Disclosure Notice sent to them, choosing
instead to knowingly list and market a foreclosed property which is still in active and ongoing
litigation, and without notifying other Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc of the
potential & considerable legal risk(s).
Feedback has come forth from both local area Real Estate Agents, Brokers, and attendees of a
recently held Open House, stating no mention of any Disclosures. Instead, emphasis was given to
an incentive Enter to Win $250,000 from WELLS FARGO.
I am certain, that the conduct exemplified by the referenced Broker(s) does not meet with the standards of
NARs Code of Ethics, and have highlighted several areas within the Preamble, as well as Articles 1, 2, 3,
59
11, 12 & 14. I am calling for this association to further investigate this matter, including the already
concluded open houses from 6/1, 6/8, 6/14, independent showings, broker open houses, etcto further
determine how many misinformed parties may unnecessarily become subject to increased legal risk.
Additionally, please be advised, and as stated in the 5/19/14 media Alert, pending the outcome of litigation in
MA Appeals Court, this matter is being prepared for transfer to Federal Court, and to additionally be
addressed with the MA and US Inspectors General. A copy of this complaint is being filed with the MA
Appeals Court to articulate the concerning tactics exemplified by the Appellees - Wells Fargo NA, US Bank
NA, and associated Broker. Complaints already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General, Fraud
Investigations Unit of the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Trade Commission

57

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

161

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

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

162

APPENDIX

163

164

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

165

March 23, 2014

Weichert Realtors, Daher Companies
Attn: Kenneth Daher, Mary E. Koontz-Daher
235 East Street
Methuen, MA 01844
RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability

FOR DOCUMENTATION AND

DISCLOSURE PURPOSES

VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION

Mr. and Mrs. Daher,

It is my understanding that your company, Weichert Realtors Daher Companies, located in Methuen, MA,
has elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA
01852.
Please be advised of the following:
1. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with misconduct by
both the MA Office of the Attorney General and the National Mortgage Settlement. Settlement
payment received.
2. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with misconduct by
Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement payment received.
3. Civil and criminal misconduct is documented, and constitutes (at minimum): Fraud, Deceptive
Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting
Fraud, and Perjury. Additional SEC and IRS infractions pertaining to the referenced securitized
mortgage trust are believed to exist, requiring further validation.
4. Criminal charges for documented misconduct are aggressively being pursued at both state and
federal levels against the following parties: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized
Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP.
Complaints are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations Unit of
the FBI.
5. This matter directly coincides with the MA Attorney Generals 3+ ongoing investigation of Harmon
Law Offices PC*, for misconduct related to unlawful foreclosure and eviction practices. Harmon has
been definitively tied to disbarred FL Foreclosure Kingpin David Stern.
6. Complaints are additionally filed with the following parties: The Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), and the MA Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel**.
7. Civil litigation regarding this matter and related misconduct is still proceeding in the MA Appeals
Court.
8. Referenced parties have refused to validate Chain of Title, have refused to validate signatures
on file related to the foreclosed property, and have refused to provide requested Discovery
which further supports deceptive practices, specifically the recorded conversations
between homeowner Mohan A. Harihar and the Mortgage Servicer Wells Fargo NA, during
the 22-month loan modification attempt.

166

9. Any Real Estate Broker or Real Estate Agent, having been made aware of the associated
documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure for the
purpose of resale, will be considered as aiding and abetting fraud, and may be subject to
forthcoming litigation against them (Civil and Criminal).
10. Any party, having been made aware of the associated documented misconduct, who chooses to
align themselves with this referenced foreclosure for the purpose of purchase, may be subject to
forthcoming litigation against them (Civil and Criminal).
11. The recent eviction of Mohan A. Harihar from the referenced foreclosure property is being
considered an act of Wrongful Displacement, and is being addressed with the Court, as well as
state and federal prosecutors.
12. It is my understanding that by law, you will be required to disclose all information related to the
referenced foreclosure, including this communication.
13. Due to the serious nature of this matter, additional parties will be copied on this communication
including: Vice President Joe Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim Sheehan (CFPB), the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed
Markey (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA),
State Senator Eileen Donoghue (MA), the Massachusetts Association of Realtors (MAR, via
twitter), the National Association of Realtors (NAR, via Twitter), and Nelson Mullins LLP including the individual managing partners of the firm, since documented misconduct extends
beyond the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
14. This communication is additionally being published for the purpose of exposing this misconduct to
the nation, as it is arguably considered the largest case of FRAUD in the history of the United
States, and in effort to assist the millions of wrongfully foreclosed homeowners identified by the US
Foreclosure Crisis, all fifty (50) Attorneys General, and Federal Bank Regulators.

*Harmon Law Offices PC, originally retained by US Bank NA in the case against Mohan A. Harihar, has
been associated with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, withdrew as counsel from this case, in the same timeframe as the MA Attorney General was
beginning their investigation against them.
**Complaints are on file with the MA Board of Bar Overseers against Attorney David E. Fialkow and
Managing Partner Peter Haley (both of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP) and also Harmon Law
Offices PC.

Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar

167

WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION

TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527

168

169

170

171

172

NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS

173

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Complainant
vs.
MARY AND KEN DAHER,
WEICHERT REALTORS DAHER COMPANIES
Respondent

ETHICS VIOLATIONS HEARING

I.

OPENING STATEMENT

Before proceeding, I Mohan A. Harihar (Complainant) wish to make this panel aware of the
following:
a. This matter is directly associated with ongoing litigation involving the related
Summary Judgment, forthcoming civil action involving (but not limited to) the
Respondents, and the pursuit of criminal charges against (but not limited to) the
Respondents.
b. The panel may deem necessary to postpone this hearing to a more appropriate
future date, as evidence/information continues to come forth in full support of the
Complainants consistent claims, also exposing the depth of related misconduct.
c. The attached Motion, recently submitted to the MA Appeals Court will assist in
articulating an overview of this matter.
d. The Complainant requests the recording of these proceedings, and for transcripts to
be made available for ongoing (and future litigation).
e. The Respondents are being given a single opportunity to retract ANY false
statements made against the Complainant Mohan A. Harihar. Consideration will
be given as civil and criminal matters proceed. Failure to retract ALL false
statements against Mohan A. Harihar will be addressed in forthcoming civil and
criminal actions.

II.

CLOSING STATEMENT

174

After reviewing the facts related to this complaint, the panel is asked to consider the
following:
a. Does the conduct exemplified by these Respondents meet the Standard of NARs
Code of Ethics? If the answer to that question is NO, then appropriate action and
or penalties should be assessed.
b. If you are a potential buyer, would you want to be informed of these details prior
to purchase? Similarly, if the answer to that question is YES and you were NOT
properly informed, appropriate action and/or penalties are again warranted.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
14 Circle Rd. (Mail Only)
Lowell, MA 01852

175

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

Attachment T

Freedom of Information Act Request

Office of General Counsel
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

176

Dear Sir/Madam:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I request that a copy of the following document(s) be
provided to me: All investigative records concerning the following companies US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA,
CMLTI 2006-AR1, and Nelson Mullins LLP. These parties are directly associated with documented misconduct
pertaining to foreclosed property of Mohan A. Harihar. Documented misconduct includes (but is not limited to)
fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Please also include the three (3) complaints
which have been forwarded to your agency from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (Originally filed by
Mohan A. Harihar).
I request a waiver of all fees for this request as I am an individual with limited financial means, acting pro se, with
on-going litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Disclosure of the requested information to me is
additionally in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of these institutions, the collective misconduct which has impacted over 4.2 million US
households (associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis), and to assist the Justice Department in providing a
pathway for further prosecution.
If you need to discuss this request, I can be reached at 617.921.2526 (Mobile). Thank you for your consideration
of my request.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

177

Attachment U

178

179