COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

LAND COURT DIVISION

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)

PLAINTIFF CLARIFICATION RE: EMERGENCY INJUNCTION AND

BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, who after reviewing the Court’s Order on August 24, 2018,

provides additional clarification to support his request for an EMERGENCY INJUNCTION to

address the BALANCE of HARDSHIPS; specifically – with respect to housing and

transportation. Please be advised, the Plaintiff still intends to file a separate, renewed motion to

amend his complaint. However, a forthcoming escalation of hardships is: (1) fast approaching,

(2) considered imminent and (3) warrants this EMERGENCY filing.

I. NEW DISCOVERIES

As a respectful reminder from the original Motion, the Court has acknowledged the

Plaintiff’s recent Discovery of the following (Summarized):

1
 A. An ADMISSION of GUILT by DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO – references the

August 3, 2018 regulatory report submitted by Wells Fargo which revealed a

“technical error” that kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan

modification. Court records reveal that the Plaintiff identified the same technical

error(s) – SIX (6) TIMES during his 22-month loan modification efforts. In EACH

of the SIX (6) instances, WELLS FARGO admitted to making the error yet

REFUSED to initiate corrective action;

B. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications -

References related decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals involving the

Defendant – WELLS FARGO (See Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234);

C. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – References the DOJ Press

Release from Wednesday, August 1, 2018, where the Department of Justice reached

a $2.1B settlement agreement with the Defendant – WELLS FARGO over

evidenced allegations of mortgage abuses.

II. PERCENTAGE of LIABILITY between DEFENDANTS

The Plaintiff wishes to clarify that additional Defendants, aside from WELLS FARGO,

bear a percentage of liability when it comes to addressing the balance of hardships.

A. Lender Defendants, WELLS FARGO and US BANK – for reasons clearly

described by the historical record.1 The Mortgage Servicer (Defendant – Wells Fargo)

1
The HISTORICAL RECORD – references records from: (1) ALL related litigation in both
MA State and Federal Courts, dating back to 2011; and (2) ALL other related Documents
(including RECORDED CONVERSATIONS) that support the Plaintiff’s consistent claims.
2
 AND the Trustee (Defendant – US BANK) to the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006 AR-

1, are believed to bear the majority of liability.

B. Defendants, JEFFREY and ISABELLE PERKINS – The Plaintiff respectfully

reminds the Court that Mr. and Mrs. Perkins CLEARLY KNEW THE LEGAL

RISKS associated with the Plaintiff’s Property – WELL BEFORE THEY

BECAME DEFENDANTS in this (and the related) litigation. On March 23, 2014,

during the infancy stages of this litigation in MA State Courts, the Plaintiff provided

the Perkins and their Real Estate Brokers2 (associated with the Plaintiff’s Illegal

Foreclosure) with a DISCLOSURE NOTICE, informing them of potential LEGAL

RISKS associated with the Plaintiff’s IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL

FORECLOSURE.3 The conscious decision by the Defendants to: (1) IGNORE this

disclosure; and instead (2) move forward with the purchase of Mr. Harihar’s

Property, shows cause for this Court to (at minimum) assess a percentage of liability

here, with regard to the balance of hardships.

Please be advised, (at minimum) from this disclosure(s) Mr. and Mrs. Perkins also

knew, or should have known the following legal issues (through their attorney):

1. The Plaintiff’s DOCUMENTED 22-month effort to secure a loan

modification;

2. The ADMITTED ERRORS by Defendant – WELLS FARGO, who

refused to grant the Plaintiff a loan modification documented as a matter of

2
References Real Estate Brokers – KEN and MARY DAHER, of WEICHERT
REALTORS/DAHER PROPERTIES Inc, located in Methuen, MA. The Dahers are litigants
(Appellees) in the related Federal litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
1381.
3 See Exhibit 1 to reference the Plaintiff’s Disclosure, dated March 23, 2014.

3
 record YEARS BEFORE their referenced ADMISSION of GUILT on

August 3, 2018;

3. National Headline News involving the 2008 US Foreclosure Crisis –

especially considering that the Defendant – ISABELLE PERKINS is a

LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT.

For these (and other) reasons of record, the Plaintiff respectfully defers to the Court for

determining a fair percentage of liability between parties.

III. FOUR-FACTOR TEST is CLEARLY SATISFIED

A. A Reasonable Likelihood of Success on the Merits – Generally, the court will only

need to find that there is a reasonable probability that your case will win. It is the

Plaintiff’s interpretation that if a reasonable jury could decide in your favor, this prong

will be met.

HERE (and historically throughout the record), the Plaintiff has provided a list of

successful arguments which NOW INCLUDE: (but are not limited to) the following

(summarized)4:

1. AN ADMISSION OF GUILT BY THE DEFENDANT – WELLS FARGO;

2. Referenced DISCLOSURES received by ALL referenced Defendants;

3. Arguments that show the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1 is VOID, which

ultimately contribute to the Plaintiff’s (a) LACK of STANDING, (b) Quiet

Title, (c) Declaratory Relief and (d) Rescission arguments;

4
If it becomes necessary, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting documentation
upon request, which MAY require additional Discovery.
4
 4. (UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court Arguments, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(3);

B. Irreparable Harm if an Injunction is not Granted

1. The most pressing issue right now pertains to the Plaintiff’s only available source

of TRANSPORTATION. This Court is well-aware that the ILLEGAL

FORECLOSURE associated with this litigation NOT ONLY caused: (1) an

extreme financial hardship; but also (2) severe damage to the Plaintiff’s

credit, making it impossible to purchase/lease a vehicle on his own. For over

five (5) years, the Plaintiff has necessarily had to burden family members and

BORROW their vehicles in order to have transportation to/from his place of

employment and for other everyday needs. The Plaintiff is now using a vehicle

that is borrowed from a family member which must be returned in less than

one (1) month. The Plaintiff will then be faced with the reality of being

WITHOUT transportation, creating the following issues:

a) The Plaintiff is still indigent, as recognized by this Court, and does not have

the financial means to: (1) purchase a vehicle; (2) lease a vehicle; or even (3)

put a down payment on a vehicle;

b) The Plaintiff has worked very hard to begin rebuilding his credit, after it was

destroyed by the referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE. However, his

current credit standing – while improving, has not yet been fully restored to

excellent status. Even if the Plaintiff were able to qualify for an auto loan (or

lease) on his own: (1) the interest rate; (2) lack of down payment; and (3)

5
 overall monthly payment will not be affordable, based on his limited income

and less-than-perfect credit score.

c) If the Appellant is unable to secure a vehicle moving forward, there is certain

risk to current employment, and ultimately the ability to provide basic

everyday needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.);

d) The Plaintiff should NO LONGER be forced to BURDEN family members

in order to satisfy basic transportation needs.

2. HOUSING – Since his WRONGFUL EVICTION AND DISPLACEMENT

nearly FIVE (5) years ago, Plaintiff was HOMELESS for TWO (2) years and

has been limited to affordable housing for nearly three (3) years. He is now

approaching the end of his third affordable housing lease, for which there is NO

GUARANTEE of renewal. Similar to his transportation scenario, there is the

reality of potentially being without housing in approximately EIGHT (8)

WEEKS.

C. A Balance of Hardships Tipping in the Plaintiff’s Favor - The plaintiff goes no further

than to preserve the status quo ante, or in layman’s terms, to preserve the status of the

parties which existed immediately prior to the allegedly wrongful conduct of the

defendant(s). The immediate relief sought pertains to the Plaintiff’s means of

Transportation and Housing ONLY.

The Plaintiff references - Hulbert v. California Portland Cement Co., 161 Cal., 239.,

where the Court reviews the authorities and decides that the temporary injunction should

be suffered to remain effective, pending final hearing. The court characterizes as an

6
 excellent statement of the rule the following paragraph quoted from the dissenting

opinion of Judge Hawley in Mountain Copper Co. v. United States, 142 Fed., 625.:

"The pith, point and substance of this whole matter is that, where the acts of a party,
whether individuals or corporation, wealthy or poor destroy the substance of
complainant's estate, whether it be of great or of but little value, an injunction should
be 'Issued. This is the underlying principle, the essence, and effect of all the decisions
upon the subjects which distinguish this character of cases from those where the injury
is slight and trivial, and the damage not irreparable, and not absolutely destructive of
complainant's estate."

The reasons ordinarily given by the courts that refuse to balance hardships are (1) That

to do so would deprive the poor of their property for the benefit of the rich; (2) That

remitting the complainant to his common law remedy compels him to accept

damages in exchange for his property, thereby creating a sort of private eminent

domain in violation of the spirit if not of the letter of the Constitution. See Hennessy

v. Carmony, et ux, 50 N. J. Eq., 616; and

D. A Favorable Impact on the Public Interest - The general public interest will be best

served by requiring all persons to respect the property rights of others. Mobile & 0. R. R.

Co. v. Zimmern, 201 Ala., 37. Here, the totality of damages resulting from alleged

Defendant misconduct, tips the balance of hardship heavily on the side of the Plaintiff.

Granting the Plaintiff preliminary injunctive relief would serve best to both restore

balance, as well as to serve the general public interest.

IV. UNCLEAN HANDS of the DEFENDANTS – Here, the 'unclean hands' claim is used

offensively by the Plaintiff showing that for these reasons (referenced above), the referenced

Bank Defendants and the Perkins have acted unethically or in bad faith with respect to the

7
 subject of the complaint. Any OBJECTIVE OBSERVER and certainly a JURY TRIAL

would agree.

V. SPECIFIC RELIEF REQUESTED

A. Transportation – The Plaintiff requests that the Court order the referenced

Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with a new, replacement vehicle equivalent to that

which was repossessed following his Illegal Foreclosure. Defendants should also be

responsible for the initial fees including (but not limited to) Tax, Title, Insurance

etc.5

B. Housing – Ideally, the Plaintiff SHOULD be allowed to return to his home, effective

immediately, considering the evidenced circumstances warranting this injunction.

However, as a CONTINUED SIGN OF HIS GOOD FAITH, the Plaintiff MAY be

willing to consider an alternative, comparable arrangement while litigation is ongoing

(and POSSIBLY beyond). Such consideration here would depend upon whether or

not the Defendants – particularly Defendant – JEFFREY PERKINS and

Defendant – ISABELLE PERKINS are willing to enter into a mutual agreement

discussion.6 IF, however these Defendants are unwilling to do so, the Plaintiff

requests that the Court issue an ORDER allowing Mr. Harihar to return to HIS

PROPERTY located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. A forty-eight

5
The Plaintiff’s prior vehicle of record which was repossessed following foreclosure was a
BMW X5.
6
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Plaintiff has, IN GOOD FAITH, extended an
opportunity to ALL Defendants – to enter into discussions for the purpose of reaching a mutual
agreement. A TIMELY answer from all Defendants is expected on or before this Friday, August
31, 2018.
8
 (48) hour allowance should be given for Mr. and Mrs. Perkins to vacate the premises,

under the supervision of the Middlesex County Sheriff’s Department.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s consideration. If there is a question regarding ANY

portion of this motion, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting information upon

request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 28nd Day of August, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

9
Exhibit 1

10
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

March 23, 2014

Weichert Realtors, Daher Companies FOR DOCUMENTATION AND

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

VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION

Mr. and Mrs. Daher,

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

Please be advised of the following:

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

2. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with misconduct by
Federal Bank Regulators. Settlement payment received.

3. Civil and criminal misconduct is documented, and constitutes (at minimum): Fraud, Deceptive
Practices, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting
Fraud, and Perjury. Additional SEC and IRS infractions pertaining to the referenced securitized
mortgage trust are believed to exist, requiring further validation.

4. Criminal charges for documented misconduct are aggressively being pursued at both state and
federal levels against the following parties: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized
Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP.
Complaints are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations Unit
of the FBI.

5. This matter directly coincides with the MA Attorney General’s 3+ ongoing investigation of Harmon
Law Offices PC*, for misconduct related to unlawful foreclosure and eviction practices. Harmon
has been definitively tied to disbarred FL Foreclosure Kingpin – David Stern.

6. Complaints are additionally filed with the following parties: The Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), and the MA Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel**.

7. Civil litigation regarding this matter and related misconduct is still proceeding in the MA Appeals
Court.

11
⚫ Page 2 March 23, 2014

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.

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 (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), Governor Deval Patrick (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

12
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 28, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

13