Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)
After reviewing the Order issued by Judge Vhay on September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff disagrees
in part, and requests further clarification for the record. The Plaintiff files two (2) separate
responses – the first here to address the requested injunction; and the second to be filed shortly
hereafter to address issues and clarification regarding the renewed motion to amend the original
complaint.
“His request for an injunction thus does not preserve the status quo, but instead alters it in
his favor”
First, the Plaintiff requests clarification for the record – exactly how the judge has
defined the status quo, as it pertains to housing and transportation of the Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff has requested the exact relief that would restore this specific balance of hardships;
1
and disagrees with any suggestion that he is attempting to alter it. Furthermore, the
interpretation that the requested injunction is the same as ultimate damages sought is
incorrect. Mr. Harihar has made clear that he seeks to restore balance to housing and
Plaintiff IS NOT stating that he should be paid monetary damages as part of the injunction;
but does believe there can be multiple solutions to restoring that balance without
compromising the intended legal purpose of the injunction. For example, restoring balance
as it pertains to housing and transportation (while litigation proceeds only) might include
B. Providing Mr. Harihar with comparable rental housing while litigation is ongoing;
C. Providing Mr. Harihar with a comparable lease or rental vehicle while litigation is
ongoing.
Keep in mind, that ANY reference to past orders denying this relief are considered VOID,
either by: (1) the judge’s recusal; (2) Mr. Harihar’s evidenced supporting argument(s) of
Here, there is considerable concern as to how Judge Vhay could possibly have arrived at
this conclusion. On its surface, there appears to be a similar pattern of corrupt conduct,
2
Federal/ State litigation; and which has now resulted in SIX (6) RECUSALS. It
APPEARS that Judge Vhay has IGNORED the Plaintiff’s articulated arguments of record
a corrupt and predetermined outcome. Left uncorrected, the Plaintiff shows cause (at
minimum) for recusal here and fears that the INTEGRITY of this MA Land Court has too,
been compromised.
for the record, with regard to the following questions (partial list):
1. Are you stating for the record that you have thoroughly reviewed the seven (7) plus
year historical record and have found NO evidenced argument to suggest the
2. Are you stating for the record that the evidenced findings OF RECORD by: (a) The
(MA AGO); and (c) Federal Bank Regulators IDENTIFYING the Plaintiff’s
identified misconduct identified with the Plaintiff’s Foreclosure, would it not make
3
4. Are you stating for the record that the Plaintiff’s August submissions: (a) Motion to
Amend, filed 8/22/18; or (b) Plaintiff Clarification RE: Balance of Hardships, filed
8/28/18 DOES NOT contain a SINGLE argument that contributes to the likelihood
5. Are you stating for the record that the ADMISSION OF GUILT BY THE
6. Are you stating for the record that the referenced March 23, 2014 - HOMEOWNER
contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.
7. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED arguments that
NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please
clarify.
8. Are you stating for the record that (UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court
9. Are you stating for the record that the 8/2/18 Ruling by the 9th Circuit – indicating
the Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage
4
Modifications, DOES NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on
10. Are you stating for the record that the 8/1/18 Settlement between DEFENDANT –
WELLS FARGO and the DOJ for $2.1B Over Mortgage Abuses - DOES NOT
contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.
11. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED IMPROPER
AGO; and (c) The US Attorney’s Office (MA) - DOES NOT contribute to the
12. Are you stating that there is NO supported argument of record - showing the
13. Are you stating for the record that the 8/6/18 Settlement between HSBC and the DOJ
and securitization activities from 2005 to 2007 DOES NOT contribute to the
14. Are you stating for the record that the APOLOGY LETTER and $3000 check
contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.
15. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED WELLS FARGO
5
16. Are you stating for the record that the 22-MONTHS OF RECORDED
17. Are you suggesting that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court records, Mr.
Harihar HAS NOT put forth IRREFUTABLE arguments supporting the FOUR-
FACTOR TEST that certainly would contribute to the likelihood of his success on
18. Are you stating that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court records, Mr. Harihar
HAS NOT evidenced case law, case references, citations, etc. to support EACH
AND EVERY ONE of his claims; and that certainly would contribute to the
19. Are you stating for the record that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court
records and the Plaintiff’s EVIDENCED ARGUMENTS - that there DOES NOT
20. Are you stating for the record that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court
21. Are you stating for the record that the Plaintiff WILL NOT incur Irreparable
22. Are you stating for the record that granting the requested injunction WILL NOT
6
Please be advised – after providing the requested clarification for the record, the Plaintiff
respectfully requests that Judge Vhay RECONSIDER his decision pertaining (first) to the
Injunction. Mr. Harihar – who is NOT a legal expert is certainly willing to provide additional
clarification for ANY of the supported arguments (stated within) upon request. HOWEVER, IF:
(1) there is a failure to provide clarification for the record; and (2) if the decision, pertaining to
the injunction remains UNCORRECTED, the Plaintiff believes he will have evidenced a
(at minimum) for immediate RECUSAL here. Such failures will also show cause to update the
Federal Court with regard to Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, including
also re-states his continued concerns for his safety and well-being; as this order issued on
While there is sharp criticism delivered here, the Appellant’s clear intention is to be respectful to
Judge Vhay, to this Court; and to express gratitude for granting the timeline extension to file his
Opposition to the Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion. 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
7
Respectfully submitted under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 12th Day of September, 2018
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 12, 2018 I electronically filed and via US Mail 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