FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’ GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT Lowell, MA, May 19, 2014 – In the 3+ year ongoing pro se legal effort by wrongfully foreclosed homeowner – Mohan A. Harihar, serious concerns questioning the “Integrity of the Judicial System within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” is in preparation to next be addressed with both the MA and US Inspectors’ General, pending the outcome of the current Appeal being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No: 2013-P-1829, Mohan A. Harihar (Appellant) vs. US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, et al. The collective concerns supporting a “Too Big to Fail mentality” throughout three (3) years of litigation in multiple Courts include (but are not limited to): Infringement of Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, non- disclosure of critical evidence/information by the Lender/Mortgage Servicer, lack of response regarding criminal complaints,* Abuse of Judicial Discretion (multiple counts), and concerns regarding the resulting infringement to intellectual property belonging to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. While the origination of this matter involves wrongful foreclosure directly tied to the US Foreclosure Crisis, it has significantly evolved to now include concerns regarding the Constitutional Rights of an individual, and its impact threatens a project designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery from damages suffered by the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.** It’s important to additionally note that one of the Appellees – Harmon Law Offices PC, who has been involved with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, and who was the originally retained counsel by US Bank NA in this matter, withdrew from this matter as the MA Attorney General had begun an investigation against them for “wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.” In July 2013, the MA Appeals Court granted the MA Attorney General permission to continue
WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’ GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER PLANS TO ADDRESS MA/US INSPECTORS’ GENERAL, AND ADDITIONALLY PETITION FOR TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT Lowell, MA, May 19, 2014 – In the 3+ year ongoing pro se legal effort by wrongfully foreclosed homeowner – Mohan A. Harihar, serious concerns questioning the “Integrity of the Judicial System within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts” is in preparation to next be addressed with both the MA and US Inspectors’ General, pending the outcome of the current Appeal being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No: 2013-P-1829, Mohan A. Harihar (Appellant) vs. US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, et al. The collective concerns supporting a “Too Big to Fail mentality” throughout three (3) years of litigation in multiple Courts include (but are not limited to): Infringement of Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, non-disclosure of critical evidence/information by the Lender/Mortgage Servicer, lack of response regarding criminal complaints,* Abuse of Judicial Discretion (multiple counts), and concerns regarding the resulting infringement to intellectual property belonging to the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. While the origination of this matter involves wrongful foreclosure directly tied to the US Foreclosure Crisis, it has significantly evolved to now include concerns regarding the Constitutional Rights of an individual, and its impact threatens a project designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery from damages suffered by the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.** It’s important to additionally note that one of the Appellees – Harmon Law Offices PC, who has been involved with the vast majority of 50,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, and who was the originally retained counsel by US Bank NA in this matter, withdrew from this matter as the MA Attorney General had begun an investigation against them for “wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.” In July 2013, the MA Appeals Court granted the MA Attorney General permission to continue
2
the investigation, which is still ongoing. Harmon has also been directly linked to disbarred Florida Foreclosure Kingpin – David Stern. For additional information articulating these concerns, the filed Appellant Brief is attached for publication purposes, as is a recently filed Motion in response to Opposition by retained Counsel for US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA – Nelson Mullins LLP. * Criminal complaints against referenced parties are filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General and additionally with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. ** Intellectual Property of Mohan A. Harihar includes the FCS model (Copyright, Patent-pending), designed to assist this Nation with economic recovery stemming from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.
For Further Media Information Contact : Mohan A. Harihar Email: [email protected] Phone: 617.921.2526 Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar
APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES’ MOTION TO STRIKE
BRIEF AND APPEAL DISMISSAL.
Opposition to the Appellees Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the
Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, and hereby moves for this court to deny the
Appellees motion, in which much of its content is considered factually false,
inaccurate, and unsupported. The amount of documented information and
evidence supplied to this Court(s) against these Appellees, and their retained
counsel is overwhelming. Additional evidence supporting this Appellant’s
consistent claims is still forthcoming.
This latest attempt to avoid accountability by two (2) of the three (3) Appellees,
further underlines the initial requests by the Appellant, in seeking protection
against such false defamatory and unsupported attacks by these Appellees and
their retained counsel.
4
INTRODUCTION
The Court is respectfully reminded of the following:
1. There are three (3) Appellees involved in this matter: US Bank NA,
Wells Fargo NA, and Harmon Law Offices PC.
2. This matter coincides with the ongoing investigation of Harmon
Law Offices PC by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and is
documented in Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs.
Attorney General, filed with this Appeals Court. A recent unanimous
ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior
Court decision allowing the MA Attorney General’s office to
continue examining Harmon Law Offices for alleged “unfair and
deceptive acts” related to the firm’s foreclosure and eviction work.
3. Harmon Law Offices PC was the originally retained counsel for US
Bank NA in this matter, which originated in the Lowell District Court,
and where Counsel is on record as stating: “Mr. Harihar’s complaints
and concerns are valid.”
4. Harmon Law Offices has been associated with the vast majority of
50,000 plus foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, however chose to withdraw as counsel from this case
against Mohan A. Harihar. Timing of Harmon’s withdrawal ironically
coincides with the beginning of the MA Attorney General’s
investigation.
5. Harmon Law Offices PC has been definitively linked to disbarred
Florida Foreclosure Kingpin, David Stern.
6. Since this ongoing investigation and link to the disbarred
Foreclosure Kingpin has been brought to the Public’s attention,
Harmon Law Offices PC has made no effort to file any opposition
in this matter.
7. Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA have throughout all
related proceedings avoided any discussion of these facts, and have
refused to provide the Appellant and the Court(s) with the
consistently requested Discovery evidence – specifically, the
recorded conversations between Mr. Harihar and the mortgage
servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification
process.
Counsel is correct in stating that this is not the Appellant’s first Appeal. There are
four (4), all of which are related. In two (2) of these Appeals, including this
Appeal, decisions in the lower Court(s), both the Northeast Housing Court and the
Middlesex Superior Court, were denied without cause, and motions requesting
clarification of these decisions were also denied.
5
With regard to the Northeast Housing Court Appeal involving a decision by Judge
David Kerman, followed by a refusal to clarify the decision, the Notice of Appeal
filed by Mr. Harihar was never processed or delivered to this Court by the
Clerk Magistrate, Susan Trippi, despite multiple follow-ups by Mr. Harihar over
the course of one year, by phone, in-person, and additionally in the Emergency
STAY request to avoid wrongful displacement. All this is clearly documented
with the Court, and a negligence complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi
was filed with the Supreme Judicial Court – Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. On May12, 2014 this Committee of the
SJC dismissed the complaint without cause, stating no violation.1 This further
exemplifies the serious concerns of this Appellant, which further supports the
“Too Big to Fail” mentality believed to exist in this Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, as articulated in the associated Appellant brief on file.
To date, since April of 2013, the Notice of Appeal is still yet to be filed,
therefore no Docket number is associated, which has led to the WRONGFUL
DISPLACEMENT of the Appellant.
This Docket is similar in that yet another decision is rendered without cause, and
requests for clarification and reconsideration are also denied. Appellees and their
retained counsel were given notice to cease and desist from making false,
defamatory and unsupported statements against Mr. Harihar, and have repeatedly
ignored this Notice, as is exemplified yet again in the Appellee’s Motion.
Concerns regarding the decisions of Docket No’s: 2012-P-1515 and 2013-P-
0671 exist as well for similar reasons of decisions lacking cause, despite
overwhelming evidence provided by the Appellant, and will be addressed
accordingly, moving forward.
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has made it very clear, that this matter far
exceeds a singular wrongful foreclosure. It has been directly linked to this
Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis, and the summation of serious concerns regarding
ALL related court decisions, articulated in the Appellant’s filed brief, question
the integrity of the judicial system in this Commonwealth and the “Too Big to
Fail” mentality being echoed throughout this Nation.
If fair judgment and accountability appears unattainable in this matter, Mr.
Harihar is prepared to address the entire matter with the MA and US
Inspectors’ General, as articulated in the Appellant brief, and additionally
petition to move this entire matter to Federal Court for infractions
pertaining to Due process and Equal Protection Rights, under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section 5: Enforcement.2
1 See Exhibit A - filed Complaint against Clerk Magistrate Susan Trippi in its entirety, along with
May 12, 2014 decision by SJC Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Courts. 2 In enforcing by appropriate legislation the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees against state
denials, Congress has the discretion to adopt remedial measures, such as authorizing persons being
denied their civil rights in state courts to remove their cases to federal courts, and to provide
6
ARGUMENT
I. Based on the amount of documented evidence and information which
continues to come forward in support of this Appellant’s consistent
claims, and because this matter has been directly tied to this Nation’s
Foreclosure Crisis, decisions rendered without cause are called into
question. When further clarification of said decisions are requested
and additionally denied, red flags are raised regarding the integrity of
the system. This has consistently occurred throughout 3+ years of
litigation.
In this specific situation, the Appellant has requested for Court protection against
constant defamatory, false, and unsupported attacks by the Appellees, and in
defiance to the Cease and Desist - Demand Notice issued by the Appellant. Mr.
Harihar respectfully reminds this Court, that while counsel continues to attach
labels such as: improper, frivolous, meritless and baseless claims, they have
refused to:
A. Provide critical Discovery evidence consistently requested by Mr.
Harihar.
B. Validate Chain of Title.
C. Validate Signatures on File.
D. Provide supporting documentation after speaking on behalf of
government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to
have committed similar misconduct, and the media.
E. Disclose Critical evidence, such as the April 2011 Report by Federal
Bank Regulators.
F. Complete the validation of statements questionnaire (see appellant
brief Appendix)
These Appellees and their retained counsel, who continue to state that there is
ZERO MISCONDUCT associated with this matter, have spent over three years
in an effort to prevent ALL FACTS from being presented to the Court(s).
II. The continued characterization of frivolous, baseless, and meritless
claims warrants the request for subpoenaed testimony from
additional parties.
Since it is the continued insistence by the Appellees and their retained counsel to
incorrectly characterize Mr. Harihar’s documented and supported claims, perhaps
sworn testimony by appropriate parties, such as the MA Attorney General, should
be requested/ordered by the court to assist with proper validation of the numerous
criminal and civil liability for state officials and agents or persons associated with them who
violate protected rights. These statutory measures designed to eliminate discrimination "under
color of law" present no problems of constitutional foundation.
7
areas in question, particularly since there is already a 3+ year ongoing
investigation involving one of these Appellees – an investigation recently
allowed by this Court to continue.
To be clear, this Appellant has made no threat of intimidation, or any effort to
prevent an appellate brief from being filed. HOWEVER, the continued false
characterizations and unsupported statements by these parties, which have caused
harm and accruing damages to this Appellant, will no longer be tolerated.
Misconduct by these Appellees and their retained counsel is both criminal as well
as civil. It is documented, and this Appellant will continue to pursue the criminal
charges for complaints already on file with both the MA Attorney General’s
Office as well as the Fraud investigations Unit of the FBI.
III. Relationship to the US Foreclosure Crisis
Appellees and their retained counsel have gone to great lengths in an attempt to
avoid associating this matter with the US Foreclosure Crisis, which has irrefutably
caused harm to millions of Americans and this Nation’s economy. This Appellant
has provided the Court(s) with an overwhelming amount of evidence which show
that in fact this matter is directly related to the Crisis. This Appellant has also
been completely clear and up-front with ALL parties and the Court(s), of the
intention to share FACT-BASED information related to this matter with multiple
parties including: Government Officials, other Lenders and Mortgage servicers
found by Federal Bank Regulators to have committed unsafe and unsound
mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, the media, and the public.
The continued insistence by counsel to suggest that these parties have nothing to
do with this matter, or are disinterested with the FACT-BASED information and
evidence related to this matter are also unsupported. Mr. Harihar requests that the
Court order the Appellees to supply sworn testimony by these parties in an effort
to validate these claims.
IV. Relationship to Intellectual Property
Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar has informed the Appellees and the Court, of
intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which has been created for
the purpose of assisting with US and overall Global economic recovery from
damages incurred by the US Foreclosure Crisis. The Court has been made aware
that this project has been thus far successfully presented to multiple parties
including:
A. The Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee
B. The Office of the MA Attorney General
C. The NH Attorney General, NH Sec of State, NH Governor’s Chief of
Staff, and members of the Governor’s Council.
8
D. A Congressional Office
E. Two State Senators
F. A Senior Lender VP of Risk Compliance
G. The Chairman of a nationally-ranked Strategic Communications firm.
This project has additionally been reviewed by the Senior Economic advisor of a
sitting US Senator, and this Appellant has been invited back to Washington to
present to a US Senate Office. Finally, this project has been sent to the
Executive Offices of the President of the United States, at the specific request
of Vice President Biden, for the specific purpose of presentation and review
by the EOP.
For this reason, multiple government officials will continue to be copied on
communications pertaining to this litigation, and any decisions which may
unnecessarily bring risk to a project designed to help this Nation’s and
overall Global economy.
Appellees and their retained counsel are well aware of these facts and have
avoided their discussion entirely. The Court may deem necessary to additionally
subpoena testimony from these government officials to confirm this information
as well. This Appellant is happy to have further discussion upon request to
provide additional clarification if necessary.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to deny Appellees’ Motion, for
the numerous reasons stated within, and requests that this Court order these
Appellees to properly validate information prior to submitting unsupported
documents. If such unsupported information is found to be false, or if parties
refuse to provide validation, the Appellant respectfully requests that there is
accountability for the harm caused. The Appellant additionally reminds the
Court that the Appellee – Harmon law Offices PC, who is under investigation
by the MA Attorney General, has filed NO OPPOSITION or related motion.
This Appellant has been open and honest with this Court, exemplifying complete
disclosure, while the Appellees and their retained counsel have not. Appellees
have been afforded numerous opportunities to seek agreement for harm caused
and repeatedly chosen to ignore or deny these opportunities. The collective
9
circumstances surrounding this matter has now escalated which now questions the
integrity of the judicial system within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
necessitating the collective concerns associated with this Nation’s Foreclosure
Crisis, as stated in the Appellant’s filed Brief, and the potential need to
collectively raise this matter with the MA and US Inspectors’ General, and
petition the transfer of this matter to Federal Court, pending the outcome of this
Appeal.
This Appellant re-states that it is my sincere hope that this Court will assist with a
constructive path in reaching an agreement regarding this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
10
Exhibit A
11
April 10, 2014
Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court Attn: Thomas Ambrosino John Adams Courthouse, Room 2500 1 Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Official Complaint filed against Susan Trippi, Northeast Housing Court
VIA US MAIL
Mr. Ambrosino:
My name is Mohan A. Harihar, and I wish to file an official complaint under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar, additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. This matter is related to my 3+ year ongoing, pro se effort against a wrongful foreclosure, involving the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. Since the initial ruling by the Northeast Housing Court, an overwhelming amount of information and evidence has come forth over the past 3 years, supporting my consistent claims of misconduct against referenced parties, along with the MA Appeals Court granting leave to file for New Trial in the lower Court(s). On April 29, 2013, following a hearing before Judge David Kerman, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail informing me that my request for new trial had been DENIED, despite the new evidence/information presented, showing no cause or reason supporting the decision. A Motion was then immediately filed with the Court, requesting CLARIFICATION of the decision. On May 14, 2013, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail DENYING MY REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE DECISION.
A Notice of Appeal was immediately filed in person with the Northeast Housing Court (See Exhibit A). While filing the Notice of Appeal, I was approached by Ms. Trippi, requesting for me to be patient with regard to the Assembly of the Record, and that it might take a “couple of weeks” for the assembled record to be received by the MA Appeals Court. Nearly a year later, and after multiple follow-ups with the Northeast Housing Court Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer. I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Courtin Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result.
Mohan A. Harihar 14 Circle Rd. Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
12
The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.
*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple Parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s 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 Attorney’s Office.
Respectfully,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
13
Exhibit A
14
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice
of Appeal with this court in the above referenced matter, after first receiving the
Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013,
followed by the denied Motion requesting Clarification of the Order, received
VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk of the Appeals Court John Adams Courthouse One Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Docket No. 2013-P-1829
Dear Sir/Madam Clerk:
Attached is the Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and
Appeal Dismissal.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: David Fialkow, Kurt R. McHugh
17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mohan A. Harihar, do hereby certify that I have served all parties in this action, listed below, with signed copies of the documents herein below specified by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, to the following addresses: Document(s):
1. Appellant’s Opposition to Appellees Motion to Strike Brief and Appeal
Dismissal.
Parties Served: Attorney David Fialkow Nelson, Mullins, Riley, & Scarborough, LLP One Post Office Square, 30
th Floor
Boston, MA 02109 Attorney Kurt R McHugh Harmon Law Offices PC P.O. Box 610389 150 California Street Newton, MA 02458-0389 May 19, 2014
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 Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer.
Mohan A. Harihar 14 Circle Rd. Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
60
I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Court in Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result. The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.
*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued
against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s 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 Attorney’s Office.
Respectfully,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
61
Exhibit A
62
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice of Appeal with
this court in the above referenced matter, after first receiving the Court’s Order denying
Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, dated April 29, 2013, followed by the denied Motion
requesting Clarification of the Order, received May 14, 2013.
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP FOR DOCUMENTATION, NEGOTIATION
Attn: David Fialkow & SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
RE: Demand Letter – Mohan A. Harihar,
168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852
VIA US MAIL
Mr. Fialkow:
As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a
copy of this Demand Letter to your respective clients – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
Please be advised of the following:
1. As expected, new information and evidence supporting misconduct by your client (s) continues to
come forward, and in support of the consistent claims of Mohan A. Harihar. The latest information
pertains to the Wells Fargo Foreclosure manual, also referred to as the Wells Fargo Foreclosure
“Fraud” manual, and multiple cases are proceeding in both State and Federal court(s) for related
misconduct associated with this manual.
2. Motions are again being prepared for filing with the Court(s) to address the still growing amount of
new information and evidence against your clients, in addition to the collective concerns as outlined in
the April 17th and 21
st 2014 email communications, sent to you, and the managing partners of Nelson
Mullins LLP.
3. Since it appears necessary to address this entire matter with the Massachusetts and/or the United
States Inspector(s) General, for the collective reasons previously stated, clear communication will be
made to inform the public, and to ALL OTHER parties including Lenders and Mortgage Servicers
identified with similar misconduct, who MAY be subject to increased legal risk as a result of these
actions, and to clearly identify ALL parties responsible for this increased risk.
4. It has been communicated to you, that the referenced misconduct may bring increased risk to the
intellectual property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar, which includes the FCS model, designed to
assist this Nation’s and overall Global economy with recovery from the Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.
Despite these concerns communicated to you, the actions (by your clients and your firm) to cause
harm and increased risk continue. It has therefore become necessary to inform and include in
communications government officials and associated agencies, familiar with the FCS model, of these
increased risks, and the parties responsible. Government officials and agencies include :
a. The Vice President of the United States
b. Members of the US Senate
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
66
c. Members of Congress
d. The US Attorney’s Office
e. The Governor of Massachusetts
f. The Massachusetts Attorney General
g. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
h. The American Civil Liberties Union
i. Members of the Massachusetts State Senate
A final opportunity is being afforded to your referenced clients (Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA), and to
Nelson Mullins LLP in effort to reach a settlement agreement, for the associated harm and accruing damages
incurred by Mohan A. Harihar, and to potentially avoid the necessity of additional legal action. Please note, your
response, or lack thereof, will be shared at minimum, with the parties listed above.
This is a very serious matter that requires your immediate attention. It is strongly recommended that you contact
Mr. Harihar immediately to address and resolve this situation. Failure to do so by 5pm (EST), this Friday, April
25, 2014, will be noted to ALL parties, and the legal process and exposure of related misconduct will move
forward, as scheduled. This letter is your final opportunity to resolve this matter amicably.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
67
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff/Appellant
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.
Defendants/Appellees
MOTION FILED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULE 9A, REQUESTING COURT ORDER
AGAINST DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES AND RETAINED COUNSEL TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM
MAKING FALSE, UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
In accordance of Superior Court Rule 9A, Motion is hereby respectfully submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, requesting a Court Order to cease and desist be issued against the Defendants/Appellees (US Bank NA, Wells
Fargo, NA, and their retained counsel, Attorney David E. Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP), from
making false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant.
In the recent documents submitted by the Appellees (on file with the Appeals Court) regarding the Appellant’s timeline
extension request, and again in recently filed opposition, allegations of harassment are made against the Appellant. These
allegations completely unfounded, unsupported and utterly false.
Mr. Harihar has made it abundantly clear to counsel that the facts and documented misconduct associated with the referenced foreclosure and throughout this litigation will be brought to the Public’s attention, for the specific purpose of
creating public awareness, and in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct resulting
from this Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis. If anything, Mr. Harihar has made it a point to over-communicate and include counsel in most, if not all communications which have been sent to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
Criminal Bureau, select government officials, select media personnel, additional employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, and
other lenders and mortgage servicers also found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, even though there was no requirement to do so.
Of the multiple communications sent to the previously mentioned parties, there has been no response from any party,
including the senior management of Nelson Mullins LLP, to suggest harassment, disinterest, etc…as is stated and suggested by Attorney Fialkow.
The Appellees/Defendants and their retained counsel were previously put on notice in March 2013 to cease and desist from misconduct including (but not limited to), slanderous and defamatory statements against Mohan A. Harihar (see Exhibit
A). Prior concern with regard to bullying-style tactics and unethical conduct of the Appellees’ retained counsel, David E.
Fialkow, has existed since being retained by the Appellees, and historically includes his conscious decisions to file documents with the Court(s) containing false, slanderous, and defamatory statements. Misconduct is further supported in
Court transcripts. Mr. Harihar respectfully reminds the Court that the associated Appeal – Docket No. 2013-P-0671
pertains to documented false statements (on file with the Court) made by Attorney David E. Fialkow which ultimately influenced a Superior Court decision.
Despite being put on notice, misconduct is continued in the associated Appeal (Docket No. 2013-P-0671) with unfounded allegations of harassment. Counsel goes further to make unsupported statements and suggestions on behalf of other parties
including the Office of the Attorney General. This ongoing misconduct by counsel to discredit Mr. Harihar additionally
raises concerns regarding the security Mr. Harihar’s intellectual property, which has now been disclosed by counsel.
To assist ALL parties including the Court with clarification, a questionnaire has been created to address the growing
number of unsupported/unanswered documented statements in question (see Exhibit B). Mr. Harihar has mailed a copy of the questionnaire to counsel and has requested its completion to assist the legal process moving forward. Once completed
and received by Mr. Harihar, copies will be filed with this Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Office of the
Attorney General (to assist with the Criminal Complaint on file), and additionally communicated with ALL affected parties.
68
Notice is additionally given to the Court - With the collective evidence and new information supporting Mr. Harihar’s
consistent claims now in possession, a significant portion of this matter is still being assembled and is forthcoming, involving the process and facts associated with the securitization of mortgages and the securitized mortgage trust
referenced in litigation against Mr. Harihar, CMLTI 2006-AR1. Since numerous questions and concerns continue
surround this securitized trust, a report is being filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assist with validation.
The Appellant/Plaintiff respectfully requests that, the Appellee’s and their retained counsel be held accountable for this
continued blatant misconduct and bullying-style tactics, and additionally requests that the Court issue an Order to protect and prohibit similar conduct by the Appellee and their retained counsel moving forward.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
69
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, SS SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-04499
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff/Appellant
vs.
WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA as Trustee, et al.
Defendants/Appellees
MOTION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE OF SUPERIOR COURT RULES 9 AND 60B; REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff/Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully requests clarification with regard to the recently denied request for a
Court order against Appellees – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow (from making
false, unsupported and unfounded allegations towards the Plaintiff/Appellant) in the above referenced matter.
After a review of the Court’s decision, clarification regarding classification of the Motion as “Improper” is requested.
In addition, Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully states the following to the Court:
1. The Court order was requested to prevent false, damaging statements (made by the Appellees) against the Plaintiff/Appellant from continuing and potentially impacting on-going litigation currently in the MA
Appeals Court, and also the related intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar.
2. Plaintiff/Appellant communications to ALL parties (including government officials, the media, other lenders/mortgage servicers and senior members of Nelson Mullins LLP) are FACT-BASED, and
supporting documentation has consistently been provided to the Court. Mr. Harihar is happy to have
further discussion regarding any of these communications, and the now overwhelming and body of evidence/information which irrefutably shows definitive misconduct by the Defendants/Appellees and
their retained counsel.
3. The Plaintiff/Appellant fully intends to continue ALL fact-based communications related to this misconduct and the associated projects. Government officials, the media, and other lenders/mortgage
servicers associated with similar misconduct will continue to be included unless otherwise specified. If the
Appellees and their retained counsel no longer wish to be included in future communications, it is suggested that a written request be submitted to the Plaintiff/Appellant for removal from the associated
distribution list.
4. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully re-states to the Court that, in addition to seeking accountability for the Defendants/Appellees misconduct associated with this foreclosure, the associated projects (which are
considered the intellectual property of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar), have been designed
to:
a. Assist the other 4.2 million parties who have suffered significant damages by similar misconduct
associated with this US Foreclosure Crisis. b. Provide a plan which assists the Nation with economic recovery.
c. Assist the Justice Department with a pathway for future prosecution related to this ongoing crisis.
d. Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel are additionally hereby put on notice that any actions or misconduct which influences, impacts, or causes damages in any way to the Appellant’s
intellectual property/projects will be met with additional legal action.
5. Since the last request to this Court requesting new trial, a separate investigation of the referenced
foreclosure by Federal Bank Regulators has resulted with the following new evidence now in
possession:
a. Appellant Mohan A Harihar has received financial compensation, issued through Federal
Bank Regulators, on behalf of the Defendants/Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
70
This compensation is a result of the April 2011 Report and separate investigation by Federal
Bank Regulators which found both Defendants/Appellees – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA
guilty of “committing unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.”
It has become increasingly apparent in associated correspondences, Court documents, and the Defendants/Appellees recent
refusal to clarify for the record (19) statements, that the Defendants/Appellees and their retained counsel intend to avoid
addressing ALL new information/evidence, with the expectation that by doing so, they will avoid accountability. Despite a 2
½ year effort by the Appellees to suppress evidence and avoid accountability, documented misconduct by the Defendants/Appellees is now in possession, and continues to come forward, as anticipated.
The April 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators, separate investigation and received payment(s), irrefutably confirms that the Defendants/Appellees have purposefully chosen to mislead this Court, and all related proceedings for the
past 2 ½ years. Additional supporting evidence includes separate compensation associated with the National Foreclosure
Settlement, received by the MA Office of the Attorney General, and the Court is also aware of documented false statements made by the retained counsel. The Appellant is happy to discuss any of these matters in further detail if requested.
Those familiar with the details of this country’s foreclosure crisis consider this to be the largest case of fraud in US history. Documentaries have been produced (ex. “Inside Job” 2010) as well as movies (ex. “Too Big to Fail” 2011) articulating the
level and depth of misconduct. Anyone with access to the internet who begins a search entitled “US Foreclosure Crisis” will
find over 5 million related links. The continued insistence by the Defendants/Appellees, stating that there is no misconduct
associated with this foreclosure is insulting and is a blatant lie to this Court(s).
At this time, Appellant Mohan A. Harihar wishes to file criminal charges with this Court, against the Appellees – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA and their retained counsel David E. Fialkow, as documented infractions are believed to include (but are
not limited to):
1. Negligent Misrepresentation
2. Fraud 3. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
As the legal process continues to move forward, additional counts of misconduct (including but not limited to deceptive practices) are anticipated to be addressed with regard to:
1. The validation of the associated securitized mortgage trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1 2. The recorded conversations (during the 22-month loan modification process) which the Appellees refused
to provide during the Discovery process.
The Plaintiff/Appellant additionally requests that this Court inform/update the MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel of the
misconduct associated with the Appellees retained counsel. A complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow is already on file. It is unclear at this time if the documented misconduct extends beyond this attorney (which restates the necessity of
including Senior Management of the retained law Firm – Nelson Mullins LLP in communications).
Under Superior Court Rule 60b reconsideration is respectfully requested as this misconduct has been definitively
associated with fraud on mass scale.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
71
July 16, 2013
Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP
Attn: David Fialkow FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
RE: CLARIFICATION REQUESTED
VIA US MAIL
Attorney Fialkow:
As representing counsel in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar, you are instructed to forward a
copy of this Communication to your respective clients – US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA.
After reviewing the collective documents submitted to the Court(s) by you (David E. Fialkow) on behalf of your
clients – Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, there are numerous statements contained within that I wish to
clarify, so that there are no misunderstandings as we move forward with the Legal process.
For simplicity, a separate questionnaire has been prepared which lists the areas requiring clarification (see
attached). After each question, space has been provided for your response. Once completed, please mail back
a signed hardcopy to my attention.
Please be advised, other parties are included in this communication including: The Massachusetts Attorney
General’s Office (Criminal Bureau), other government officials, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers
associated with unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and numerous members of
the media. In addition, a copy of this communication and your subsequent reply will be filed with both the
Massachusetts Appeals Court as well as the Middlesex Superior Court, to assist with the Legal process as it
moves forward.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
72
REQUESTED CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENTS REGARDING HARIHAR vs.
WELLS FARGO NA, US BANK NA, et al.
The following questions are raised by Mohan A. Harihar following a review of statements contained within
Court documents, made by US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, on behalf of their retained counsel – David E.
Fialkow of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, in active litigation against Mohan A. Harihar. These
documented statements require further clarification for the record, as they are either unsupported, or where
evidence/information supporting Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims are ignored and/or unanswered. Mr.
Harihar requests clarification for the record to assist the legal process moving forward. Please be advised, as
with prior communications, additional parties will receive this communication. Parties include (but are not
limited to): The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (Criminal Bureau), select government officials,
select members of the media, other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers found to have committed unsafe and
unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, and other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, for the
purpose of forwarding to senior management.
Please provide clarification in the spaces provided (highlighted in RED). Upon completion, please sign, date,
and return by mail three (3) hardcopies to Mr. Harihar’s attention. Two (2) copies will be filed with the
Courts (MA Appeals Court and Middlesex Superior Court), and Mr. Harihar will retain one copy on file.
1. Are both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA maintaining the position that there is NO misconduct
associated with the referenced foreclosure, or with any circumstances leading up to/or
following the foreclosure, including the 22-month Loan modification process?
[Click to type your response]
2. Is counsel maintaining that there is NO misconduct or deceptive practices associated with the
conversations that took place between the servicer Wells Fargo NA and Mr. Harihar during the
22-month loan modification attempts? If so, please provide a detailed explanation why
Discovery requests by Mr. Harihar throughout this litigation, to produce these recorded
conversations (in order to validate) has been repeatedly refused for over two (2) years?
[Click to type your response]
3. Please explain counsel’s reason(s) for refusing to validate Chain of Title with regard to the
referenced property.
[Click to type your response]
73
4. Is counsel stating that the Court(s) should uphold decisions made in the infancy stages of this
Nation’s Foreclosure crisis, when evidence/information now in possession was not yet available,
or where counsel repeatedly refused to provide critical evidence through the Discovery
process? If yes, please provide documentation to support this position.
[Click to type your response]
The following questions pertain to documented statements made by retained counsel – David E. Fialkow, stating that
Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims are meritless and baseless.
5. With regard to the April 2011 investigation/report conducted by Federal Bank Regulators where
both US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA were among the numerous Lenders and Mortgage
Servicers found to have committed “unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure
practices”, is counsel stating that this report is considered meritless and baseless?
[Click to type your response]
6. Please clarify for the record why counsel did not disclose the findings of the 2011 Investigation
by Federal Bank Regulators prior to pursuing legal action against Mr. Harihar, in any Court
(Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, and the
Massachusetts Appeals Court)?
[Click to type your response]
7. Is counsel stating that the 2011 investigation by Federal Bank Regulators is incorrect, or that
somehow, this referenced foreclosure has different circumstances than the other 4.2 million
affected foreclosures?
[Click to type your response]
8. Is counsel stating that the Federal Bank Regulator’s separate investigation of Mr. Harihar’s
Foreclosure (which stemmed from the 2011 investigation findings, and which resulted in a
settlement payment to Mr. Harihar) is baseless and meritless? It is also noted that the payment
issued was an amount greater than the minimum payment issued to 4.2 million affected
recipients, indicating a greater degree of misconduct. Is this fact considered to be baseless and
meritless?
[Click to type your response]
74
9. Is counsel stating that the separate class-action litigation involving all fifty (50) Attorneys’
General, against lenders including Wells Fargo NA, and which resulted in the National
Mortgage Settlement and additional separate payment to Mr. Harihar, is considered baseless
and meritless?
[Click to type your response]
10. Counsel’s statements characterizing claims as baseless and meritless conflict with statements
made by prior counsel retained by US Bank NA - Harmon Law Offices PC, known to be
associated with the vast majority of 58,000 foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth, who
stated on multiple occasions before the Lowell District Court, that Mr. Harihar has valid
complaints/concerns. Court transcripts will support. Please explain counsel’s change in position
and provide documents to support this abrupt change. Also, please explain what necessitated
the withdrawal of Harmon Law Offices PC from this litigation?
[Click to type your response]
The following questions are in response to allegations of threats and harassment, made by US Bank NA, Wells Fargo
NA and their retained counsel against Mr. Harihar. These allegations are completely unfounded, unsupported, and
utterly false, and have continued despite being previously put on notice by Mr. Harihar to cease and desist.
Mr. Harihar has made it abundantly clear to counsel that the facts and documented misconduct associated with the
referenced foreclosure and throughout this litigation will be brought to the Public’s attention, for the specific purpose
of creating public awareness, & in effort to assist the 4.2 million other parties impacted by similar misconduct. If
anything, Mr. Harihar has made it a point to over-communicate and include counsel in most, if not all communications
which have been sent to the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, select government officials,
select media personnel, additional employees of Nelson Mullins LLP, and other lenders and mortgage servicers also
found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, even though there was no
requirement to do so.
Of the multiple communications sent to the previously mentioned parties, there has been no response from any party,
including the senior management of Nelson Mullins LLP, to suggest harassment, disinterest, etc…as is stated and
suggested by Attorney Fialkow.
11. Has counsel received communication from the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
stating that Mr. Harihar’s communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in
learning more about the misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide
documentation to support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
12. Has counsel received communication from any of the media sources stating that Mr. Harihar’s
communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more about the
misconduct associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these
statements.
[Click to type your response]
75
13. Has counsel received communication, from the other Lenders and Mortgage Servicers (Listed
on the Federal Reserve Website), found to have committed unsafe and unsound mortgage
serving and foreclosure practices, stating that Mr. Harihar’s communications are harassing, or
that they are disinterested in learning more about the misconduct and increased Lender risk
associated with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
14. Has counsel received communication from any of the other government officials stating that
Mr. Harihar’s communications are harassing, or that they are disinterested in learning more
about the misconduct associate with this litigation? If so, please provide documentation to
support these statements.
[Click to type your response]
It has been specifically communicated to attorney David E. Fialkow on numerous occasions that the documented
misconduct associated with this ongoing litigation is believed to exist not only with US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA,
but also their retained counsel. It is unclear at this time, whether the documented misconduct is limited to Attorney
David E. Fialkow or if misconduct extends beyond to include additional members of Nelson Mullins LLP. For this
reason, and as previously communicated to counsel, other employees of Nelson Mullins LLP are copied on
communications for the specific purpose of forwarding to senior management. Ongoing investigations which include
the Office of the Attorney General Criminal Bureau are expected to assist in determining the depth of misconduct.
15. Is counsel stating that communications intended for Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP
are harassing, or that Senior Management of Nelson Mullins LLP is disinterested in learning more
about the misconduct and increased legal risk associated with this litigation? If so, please
provide documentation to support these statements. Additionally, if there are alternative email
addresses for specific Senior Managers of Nelson Mullins LLP, including Human Resources, which
are preferred for future communications, please provide that information as well.
[Click to type your response]
The following questions pertain to documented statements made by Attorney David E. Fialkow, stating that Mr. Harihar
has made “all sorts of baseless claims about criminal, civil, and bar complaints and investigations.”
To be clear, Mr. Harihar understands this is a very serious matter, and documented complaints were not filed until
documents supporting definitive misconduct were in possession.
It is a fact, that Mr. Harihar has filed a detailed criminal complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal
Bureau, and has in possession documentation believed to irrefutably support criminal and civil misconduct against US
Bank NA as trustee, the associated securitized mortgage trust, Wells Fargo NA, and their retained counsel. If any party
chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General directly –
617.727.2200 (Phone), and their Boston office is located at One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108-1518.
16. Is counsel stating or suggesting that Mr. Harihar has not filed a criminal complaint with the
Massachusetts Attorney General Criminal Bureau, and that there is no documented evidence
of criminal misconduct to support this complaint?
[Click to type your response]
76
It is a fact that, Mr. Harihar has filed a complaint against Attorney David E. Fialkow, of Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough LLP, with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel, for documented misconduct, has had
multiple conversations with the Bar Counsel regarding this matter, and has informed the Bar Counsel that additional
complaints regarding incremental counts of both civil and criminal misconduct against David E. Fialkow are expected
and are likely to follow. If any party chooses to validate this fact, they may wish to call the Massachusetts Board of Bar
Overseers/Bar Counsel directly – 617.728.8700 (Phone), and their office is located at 99 High Street, Boston, MA
02110.
17. Is counsel stating or suggesting that a complaint has not been filed with the Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers/Bar Counsel against David E. Fialkow, and that there is no documented
evidence already provided to the Counsel to support misconduct?
[Click to type your response]
It is a fact that counsel has been made aware by Mr. Harihar that, with documented misconduct now in possession, a
review of all related court documents/transcripts submitted over the past two (2) years is under review, and is believed to
now constitute numerous counts of misconduct including (but not limited to) slander and defamation against Mr.
Harihar. Court documents include ongoing active litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court and the recently
filed Appeal Brief/Appendix filed by counsel associated with Appeal 1 of 3. Since this is the first of three Appeals on file
with the Court, counsel is expected to file two (2) additional Briefs as required. Once all Court documents are submitted
and reviewed, misconduct associated with (but not limited to) slander and defamation is expected to be addressed
collectively either by New Trial (if granted by the Court) or in a separate civil complaint.
18. If there is any confusion regarding forthcoming litigation against all related parties, please
advise.
[Click to type your response]
It is a fact, that the misconduct associated with the referenced parties and subsequent damages to Mr. Harihar initiated
what has now been nearly five (5) years of research into this Nation’s Foreclosure Crisis, and has resulted in the
development of two (2) separate projects, for the specific purpose(s) of assisting those individuals impacted by this
Foreclosure Crisis (for reference, entitled Project 1), as well as providing an economic plan designed to assist with the
nation’s recovery (for reference, entitled Project 2). Both projects are considered the intellectual property of Mohan A.
NOTICE REGARDING CLARIFICATION REFUSAL BY APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS
After a review of the Defendants/Appellees opposition to the associated Motion being filed with this Court, Notice is hereby respectfully submitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, notifying the Court of the following:
1. Refusal to Clarify Statements - With regard to the associated Motion requesting a Court order against Defendants/Appellees (submitted in accordance Superior Court Rule 9A), the request made by Mr.
Harihar, for the clarification of multiple statements, as articulated in the Motion and additionally
communicated in separate Notices filed with both this Court, as well as the Appeals Court – this clarification for the record has been clearly ignored by the Defendants/Appellees, and is viewed by Mr.
Harihar as a refusal to clarify information critical to facts pertaining to this Motion and the overall
case.
This further exemplifies the tactics used by the Defendants/Appellees in effort to suppress the validation of facts
associated with this case(s). A review of the Defendants filed opposition reveals the absolute necessity for clarification.
Mr. Harihar respectfully requests that the Court take this latest action by the Defendants into account when considering this