Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully prefaces this complaint with the
following Disclosure(s):
1. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Complaint against the Defendants is
directly related to ongoing Federal litigation in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.1 This
related Federal litigation includes (but is not limited to): a.) Evidenced allegations of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and b.) Economic
Security. Therefore, copies of this related COMPLAINT are sent via email, social
media and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US
(FBI). Copies are similarly delivered to Massachusetts State Legislators, to the direct
Healey. A copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL
1
The related Federal litigation references: 1.) HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
cv-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880) and 2.) HARIHAR v. THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for
documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for personal
safety/security.
2. The TREASON claims referenced above pertain to evidenced judicial misconduct claims
now alleged against SIX (6) Federal (District and Circuit) judges – INCLUDING Chief
Justice – Jeffrey R. Howard, for ruling WITHOUT jurisdiction. The Plaintiff has
necessarily brought judicial misconduct complaints against TEN (10) Officers of the
(Federal) Court,2 for their collective failures to uphold Federal Law(s) and the judicial
machinery of the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand upon by amendment, the
list of Defendants that allegedly bear some responsibility and have contributed (at least in
part) to the damages and increased hardships of the Plaintiff. Additional Defendants may
include (but would not be limited to) related officers of the Court (State and Federal) who
have failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, as evidenced by the record(s).
judicial misconduct claims of record brought against the initial presiding US District
Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs eventually led to her RECUSAL from
HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. This recusal: 1.) re-affirms ALL judicial
claims – including (but not limited to) six (6) counts of TREASON for ruling
WITHOUT Jurisdiction; 2.) shows cause for the Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders;
2
The referenced TEN (10) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judge’s - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr.,
David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard and District Court
Judge Denise J. Casper.
3.) mandates that the District Court VOID ALL related orders, including the dismissal
order.
Coakley are Appellees in the related federal litigation, with evidenced allegations that
include (but are not limited to): 1.) RICO (Civil/Criminal), 2.) Fraud on the Court, 3.)
Due Process, 4.) Color of Law, 5.) Misprision 6.) Conspiracy 7.) Perjury and other
violations. The nearly SEVEN (7) year historical record(s) of this litigation shows an
obvious cause for concern and questions whether this referenced pattern of corrupt
conduct will continue here. While there certainly is concern, the Plaintiff has not yet
appeared before this Massachusetts Land Court. Therefore, there is FULL expectation
for this Court to uphold the law and correct any erred judgments of record by the
and will (at minimum) warrant filing incremental Judicial misconduct complaints.
5. Although Federal litigation is ongoing, the evidenced record3 shows cause to correct the
erred judgments of the Commonwealth and seek damages including (but not limited to)
Quiet Title. The Plaintiff makes clear that with this complaint, it is not intended to
3
The evidenced record includes (but is not limited to) the argument and sworn testimony by
Fraud Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, representing The United States in the related case:
0:2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL. The Fraud Expert’s testimony
conclusively shows that the referenced Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS) Trust –
CMLTI 2006-AR1 is considered VOID, and therefore has NO LEGAL STANDING to the
Plaintiff’s property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
duplicate damages sought in the related Federal litigation. At the conclusion of this
litigation, any relief awarded to the Plaintiff here will be appropriately deducted from
warranted) against ALL Defendants (and ALL responsible parties) for the criminal
components associated with this litigation including (but not limited to) FRAUD. Along
with this civil complaint, the Plaintiff necessarily files incremental criminal complaints
with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.4 Copies of both his civil
complaint and the referenced criminal complaint will also be delivered to the direct
MA), and the FBI via e-mail communication. ANY continued failures by State and/or
Federal Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against referenced parties be in full public
view and will (at minimum) show cause to expand upon (or bring new) claims against the
7. A review of the historical record shows that EVERY State and Federal Court associated
with this litigation has been made aware that the referenced property in question has been
(DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators, and 3.) The Massachusetts Office of the
4See Attachment A – UPDATED FBI AND MA AGO criminal complaints were filed
separately against each Defendant. To avoid excessive repetition, a condensed version is attached
with this complaint.
8. Plaintiff has also filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, to provide
I. THE PARTIES
the parent company to CMLTI 2006 AR-1 - a Residential Mortgage Backed Security
11. Defendant - US BANK NA (hereafter “US Bank”), as Trustee for securitized Trust
2006-AR1 Trust”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant
State of Massachusetts, and is the purported Master Servicer for Securitized Trust and/or
a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the
believes, and thereon alleges, that Leader Bank is the Originator of the loan.
13. Defendant - LEADER BANK NA. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that Defendant Leader Bank NA, is a corporation, doing business in the County
of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts, and is the purported Sponsor for Securitized Trust
and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of
MERS (“MERS”), Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MERS is
a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of MIDDLESEX, whose last
known address is 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia, 20190; website:
of Massachusetts. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
Defendant MERS is the purported beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and/or a purported
participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the Trust as more
15. Defendants - ISABELLE AND JEFFREY PERKINS are the BORROWERS to the
mortgage associated with the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA
01852. The Defendants also reside at the referenced property. Isabelle Perkins is the
Education, 3.) NAR Certification and Designations and 4.) MCNE Designation
http://isabelleperkins.com.
16. Defendant – WELLS FARGO NA, (hereafter "Wells Fargo") is a national bank with a
principal place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. As described below, Wells
Fargo either directly and/or indirectly through its agents, employees, subsidiaries and/or
related companies, including without limitation Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., held,
serviced and/or engaged in transactions related to, mortgages of real property within the
18. Defendant – MARTHA COAKLEY, ESQ. is a Partner at Foley Hoag, LLP and is the
19. Defendant – NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH 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 Riley and Scarborough LLP served as prior counsel to both Defendants - Wells
Fargo and US Bank (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP). Following their
20. 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 General’s Office began its
throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly linked to disbarred
LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, located
in Boston). Following the withdrawal of Hamon Law Offices, Mr. Fialkow first became
the representing attorney for Bank Defendants while employed by Nelson Mullins. Mr.
Fialkow is currently the retained counsel for Bank Defendants in the related Federal
litigation on Appeal.
Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP,
located in Boston). Mr. Patterson has served as co-counsel with Attorney Fialkow in the
related litigation, and has also appeared as a Guest Speaker in the referenced West
LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and
23. Defendant – PETER HALEY, ESQ., is the Managing Partner for Nelson Mullins Riley
Offices PC, and was the original representing attorney who initiated the referenced illegal
25. Defendant - KEN and MARY DAHER are Real Estate Brokers associated with
Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies located in Methuen, MA. Mr. and Mrs. Daher
were the representing Real Estate Brokers associated with the referenced illegal
26. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff has owned the property located at 168
27. Aside from Defendants – Isabelle and Jeffrey Perkins, and the other parties identified in
the related federal litigation, Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities of basis
for liability of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, each as
fictitiously named Defendant is some manner liable to the Plaintiff, or claims some right,
title or interest in the Property. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true
names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore
alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned in this complaint, each of the Defendants are
responsible in some manner for injuries and damages to Plaintiff so alleged and that such
injuries and damages were proximately caused by such Defendants, and each of them.
28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned,
each of the defendants were the agents, employees, servants, and/or joint-venturers of the
remaining Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein below,
were acting within the scope of such agency, employment and/or joint venture.
II. JURISDICTION
29. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this complaint all occurred
30. The Property is located within the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts with an
III. INTRODUCTION
31. This is an action involving the foreclosure of the residential Property belonging to the
Plaintiff. As a matter of record, this foreclosure was declared ILLEGAL by: 1.) The
Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators and 3.) The
32. Litigation pertaining to this referenced illegal foreclosure has been ongoing for nearly
seven (7) years – four (4) in Massachusetts State Court(s) and nearly three (3) years in
Federal Court(s). There are two (2) Appeals which are ongoing: 1.) Appeal No. 17-1381,
HARIHAR v. US BANK et al5 and 2.) Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v. THE
UNITED STATES.6
33. In the related Federal litigation, the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the
Court claims brought against ALL related Defendants named here shows cause (at least
in part) to: 1.) file this new complaint with the Land Court and 2.) address and correct
34. As described within the referenced federal record(s), Sovereign (and any other form) of
immunity is waived when there exists an evidenced Fraud on the Court claim(s) – as
35. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and
equitable relief, and for compensatory, special, general and punitive damages. The
Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for legal (and associated costs). While Plaintiff is
initially proceeding as a pro se litigant (out of financial necessity) his time is considered
36. The evidenced allegations brought by the Plaintiff here, and throughout the history of this
Defendants. Plaintiff retains the right to expand upon by amendment, additional related
claims and/or parties, should it become necessary; also, in the event Plaintiff is successful
in retaining counsel.
5
Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880
6
Lower Docket No. 17-cv-11109
37. Based on the evidenced PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified
historically by both Federal and State Judiciaries, the Plaintiff here respectfully demands
a TRIAL BY JURY.
38. A thorough review of the record(s) in the related Federal proceedings reveal evidenced
arguments which conclusively show that the referenced CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust has
NO LEGAL STANDING to the Plaintiff’s Property and that the trust itself is considered
VOID. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to address with this Land Court, these
39. Plaintiff, homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in question
(the “Home”), which is the subject of this action, in that the originating mortgage lender,
and others alleged to have ownership of Plaintiff’s mortgage note and/or Deed of Trust,
have unlawfully sold and/or transferred their ownership and security interest in a
Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the Property, and, thus, do not have lawful
ownership or security interest in Plaintiff’s Home which is described in detail herein. For
REALTY CORP, 2.) LEADER BANK NA and 3.) MERS are being given a single
7
See Attachment B
41. As evidenced by the historical record(s), ALL OTHER listed Defendants have been
given MULTIPLE opportunities to seek mutual agreement, and have either denied or
42. The Plaintiff makes clear, that aside from maximum civil damages, criminal
accountability and professional licensure penalties (including but not limited to)
failure(s) by State AND Federal Prosecutors to bring charges for evidenced criminal
claims brought by this Plaintiff will show cause to (at minimum) expand upon
and/or file NEW RICO (Civil and Criminal), Due Process, Color of Law (and other)
violations.
43. In the related federal litigation, the other major component of the Plaintiff’s Appeals
a Trade Secret, protected under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Evidenced
claims of Economic Espionage are issues of record. Therefore, any failure to take correct
action here will show cause to expand upon existing, or to bring NEW claims against
44. Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in
her lawsuit (along with The United States)8 that, “Defendants used fraudulent
mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages
8
Docket No: 2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL
valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning that at least $1.4
Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of securitizations, there’s no way to
make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name for this: “securitization
FAIL.” The Department of Justice is well aware of this FACT, as is the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts.
45. Every securitization — requires the creation and funding of a securitization trust that
must take physical possession and control of the trust property on or before the closing
date of the trust. The securitization trustee is the sole and exclusive legal title holder of
the thousands of promissory notes, original mortgages and assignments of mortgage. This
transfer of the trust property, the legal res, to the trust at or around the loan origination is
reasons:
a. First, someone must be the “legal” owner of the mortgage loan. Only the legal
owner of the loan has the legal right to sell mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”)
to investors.
b. Second, actual physical transfer of ownership is necessary because the cash flows
that go from the homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS
purchasers are tax exempt. If the trust does not perfect legal title by taking
physical possession of the notes and mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code,
because bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back and seize assets from
bankrupt entities, the transfer to the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee
in the securitization chain of title can have any cognizable interest in the loans.
For this reason, all securitization trusts are “special purpose vehicles”
(“SPVs”) created for the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans and
all securitization trustees represent and certify to the MBS purchasers that the
purchase is a “true sale” in accordance with FASB 140.9 But it never happened.
2001 to 2008 ever obtained legal title or FASB 140 “control” of any
securitized loan.
46. THEREFORE – a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can make NO LEGAL
Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust cannot make a legal claim to the property, it
had no right to collect any monies from the Plaintiff or to foreclose on the Plaintiff;
c.) If the Trust had no right to foreclose, it also had no right to re-sell the property,
thereby making the foreclosure sale VOID. This evidenced argument of record stands
47. Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our
48. The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set
forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the
court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has
sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the
the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or
defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . .
49. Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,
misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL DEFENDANTS were
aware, or should have been aware that clear title did not exist with the Plaintiff’s property
The Court is well aware that this is not an isolated incident. The Plaintiff is able to
conservatively provide 4.2 million other examples of this scheme, as described by the
50. A summary overview of the scheme begins with the RMBS Trust which, as detailed in
the Plaintiff’s preceding paragraphs, has no legal standing to the Plaintiff’s property.
Every action thereafter is impacted; has no legal standing and therefore is moot/void;
11
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
ranging from collecting monthly mortgage payments, to foreclosure, resale, etc... As
previously detailed, ALL Defendants have benefited from the alleged scheme against
the Plaintiff, either personally or financially; Litigation privilege should not apply
when there is no legal standing, nor should sovereign immunity. The Defendant
Trust, Bank Defendants, attorney and law firm Defendants, Defendant Real Estate
Brokers and Defendant Homebuyers have benefitted financially from the alleged scheme
– when they had no legal standing to do so; resulting in severe detriment to the Plaintiff.
51. The Plaintiff believes the Commonwealth has refused to prosecute and correct erred
judgments (at minimum) out of fear of implicating themselves, and to avoid setting a
precedent for the Nation. Regardless, their failure to hold parties accountable is
– Former Attorney General Martha Coakley, mandates waiver of their right to sovereign
52. As a general proposition, substantive misconduct provides grounds for default with
prejudice because it more clearly and directly subverts the judicial process. The Plaintiff
respectfully calls for this Court to recognize the evidenced Federal and State records and
conclude that the conduct forming the basis for Defendant default was willful or done in
BAD FAITH or was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority.
53. In the referenced Federal litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Lower Docket No.
15-cv-11880), the Plaintiff raised – “Fraud on the Court” claims against ALL Defendants
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The record clearly shows that the Defendants’ arguments
show the intention to purposefully DECEIVE the Court. The Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)
motion went UNOPPOSED, warranting DEFAULT with Prejudice in favor of the
Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar. But that’s not all – the Defendants’ federal arguments
a. The Plaintiff shows cause here to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against
Bank Defendants, their Attorneys and the RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1;
b. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as
the SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact
c. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT
d. Respectfully, any failure to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be
experienced in the related Federal litigation. Should this occur, the Plaintiff will
54. The sua sponte RECUSAL of US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from
55. As with the identified deceptive techniques by Judge Burroughs that contributed to
her RECUSAL, a THOROUGH review of the Federal AND State record(s) shows the
Plaintiff has similarly identified IDENTICAL tactics by ALL presiding State and
Federal judges. It becomes necessary to respectfully inform this Court of these evidenced
e. Ignoring Issues;
explanation whatsoever;
j. Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct;
k. Allowing Perjury;
12
Related judgments from Massachusetts State Courts include the following Appeal/Dockets
No.’s: 1.) 2013-P-1829, 2.) 2013-P-0671, 3.) 2011-P-1515, 4.) 11-04499, 5.) 11-SP-3032, 6.)
1311AC001497, 7.) 1311AC001498, 8.) 1311AC001499, 9.) 1311AC001500, 10.)
1311AC001501 and 11.) 1311AC001502
l. Premature Dismissal PRIOR to DISCOVERY; and
56. EACH ONE of these DECEPTIVE TACTICS detailed within the record constitute
obvious and egregious judicial errors that warrant vacating referenced dismissals
with damages.
Argument(s)
57. EVEN IF the referenced Trust (or ANY other referenced Defendant) had legal standing
to the Plaintiff’s Property, the Plaintiff will, through DISCOVERY, provide before a
foreclosure arguments. This PARTIAL list includes (but is not limited to) the following:
WELLS FARGO NA (as servicer) during the 22-month loan modification effort
b. The collective actions which led to the $25B Mortgage Settlement, where the
c. The collective actions which similarly led to the $8B+ settlement between
boasted publicly about the AGO’s settlement with Nationstar (aka Mr. Cooper),
which included fines and sanctions over servicing abuses. However, it remains
(Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift
Supervision);
f. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and Minority Staff Report,
g. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of the National Commission
on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States;
Release;
j. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General Martha Coakley, (Public
58. The Plaintiff references Attachment B, which shows the filed DECLARATION OF
HOMESTEAD, associated with his property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell,
MA 01852, filed with the North Middlesex County Registry of Deeds on January 26,
2009. The historical record(s) shows that EVERY State and Federal Court related to this
litigation has COMPLETELY IGNORED the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims regarding
conclusively show that ALL Defendants/Appellees13 KNEW that there was NO LEGAL
59. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, at least for the purposes of a Rule 12 (b)(6) dismissal, the
support each of the statutory elements for the predicate acts that allegedly divested
S.A., 119F.3d 935, 949 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that in order to survive a motion to
dismiss, a Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to support each of the statutory elements
for at least two of the pleaded predicate acts) (citing Central Distribs. Of Beer, Inc. v.
60. The Plaintiff brings a second CIVIL RICO violation claim, described further in the
Mullins LLP, the DOJ/US Attorney’s Office, the MA Office of the Attorney
General, the Boston BAR Association, and Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson. The
relationships in question references the West LegalEd Center course entitled, “After the
13
The Plaintiff references ALL Defendants/Appellees associated with Harihar v. US Bank et
al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Appeal No. 17-1381.
Bubble Bursts”– Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil
Litigation.14
61. The referenced judicial misconduct complaints against the TEN (10) Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges stem from documented actions within the records of: Harihar v. US
Bank (Appeal No. 17-1381, Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880), Harihar v. The
United States (Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109), and also
include the actions (or lack thereof) of the Judicial Council associated with Judicial
Misconduct Complaint No. 90033 against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. Collectively,
these evidenced claims show cause to (at minimum) expand upon existing conspiracy
claims. The Plaintiff respectfully states that evidenced judicial misconduct includes (but
Counsel;
and security;
14 See Attachment C
h. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 4; Misprision of a Felony;
k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC § 2671, 28 USC § 2674 and
28 USC § 1346;
n. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
p. Refusal to RECUSE;
Please be advised, this partial list claims evidenced within the record(s) shows cause to
conclude that the INTEGRITY of both this US District Court and the First Circuit Court
impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface), that elements of corruption may
exist; and that an effort has been made (at minimum) – by TEN (10) Federal Judges, to
brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome. At this
stage, it is unclear whether the referenced judges are part of a greater conspiracy designed
to (in part) ultimately prevent the successful implementation of the Plaintiff’s Intellectual
Property/Trade Secret – The HARIHAR FCS Model. For these reasons, the related
litigation has been brought to the attention of: (1) The President, (2) Congress, (3) the
House Judiciary Committee, (4) US Attorney General – Jeff Sessions, and (5) US
63. Before a trial Jury, Plaintiff will call for a thorough review of ALL related State litigation
drawing identical and/or similar comparison to numerous judicial failures and erred
64. A thorough review of the related federal litigation reveals evidenced claims by this
Plaintiff that are believed to impact matters of National Security, and include: 1.) The
Economic Espionage Act of 1996, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, and 2.) Acts of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, warranting the intervention of Congress, the FBI and
the Department of Justice, to address associated criminal (and other) legal components.
Evidenced Treason claims of record have been raised against referenced judges for
ruling without jurisdiction. The record clearly shows that with each claim of evidenced
Treason, the President has been notified by the Appellant (as is required by Federal
from the White House is included as attachments with each court filing.15 Since this
15
See Attachment D, for proof of delivery (and receipt) of this Civil Complaint sent to the
direct attention of the President.
complaint is related to the referenced federal litigation, a copy has necessarily been
65. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
66. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants
specified hereinabove, regarding their respective rights and duties, in that Plaintiff
contends that Defendants, and each of them, had no right to displace the Plaintiff, nor did
they have a right to foreclose and re-sell the Property because Defendants, and each of
them, have failed to perfect any security interest in the Property, or cannot prove to the
court they have a valid interest. Thus, the purported power of sale by the above specified
67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and there upon alleges that the only individual who has
standing to foreclose is the holder of the note because they have a beneficial interest. The
only individuals who are the holder of the note are the certificate holders of the
securitized trust because they are the end users who pay taxes on their interest gains;
furthermore, all of the banks or other entities holding the note in the middle of the chain
68. Plaintiff further contends that the above specified Defendants, and each of them, had no
right to foreclose on the Property because said Defendants, and each of them, did not
properly comply with the terms of Defendants’ own securitization requirements and
falsely or fraudulently prepared documents required for Defendants, and each of them, to
69. Plaintiff requests that this Court find that the purported power of sale contained in the
Note and Deed of Trust has no force and effect at this time, because Defendants’ actions
in the processing, handling and foreclosure of this loan involved numerous fraudulent,
false, deceptive and misleading practices, including, but not limited to, violations of State
disadvantage to Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff further requests that title to the
Property remain in its name, with said Deed of Trust remaining in beneficiaries’ name,
during the pendency of this litigation, and deem that any attempted sale of the Property is
70. The irrefutable argument referenced above which voids all mortgages contained within
the referenced trust and the trust itself, indicates that all actions having occurred since are
considered “unlawful and void.” Therefore, not a single Defendant listed above including
Defendant MERS can have any legal, equitable or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in
the Property. Plaintiff re-states that ALL referenced Defendants also named in the related
71. Defendants, and each of them, through the actions alleged above, have or claimed the
right to illegally commence foreclosure under the Note on the Property via a foreclosure
action supported by false or fraudulent documents. Said unlawful foreclosure action has
caused and continues to cause Plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury in that real property
is unique.
72. The wrongful conduct of the above specified Defendants, and each of them, unless
restrained and enjoined by an Order of the Court, will continue to cause great and
irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not had the beneficial use and enjoyment of
his home since being wrongfully displaced by Defendants following the referenced
73. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy and the injunctive relief prayed
for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to remedy the irreparable loss to
Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future unless
inherently unique and it will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount
74. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
75. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants
specified hereinabove, where, in the related litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, the
evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff indicate that (at minimum) the failed securitization
76. The Plaintiff’s evidenced argument conflicts with the Defendant’s arguments contained
within their Motions to Dismiss, and collectively throughout the historical record.
77. Plaintiff therefore necessarily filed a Fraud on the Court claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
UNOPPOSED.
79. The Plaintiff now shows cause to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against same
80. Therefore, State records clearly reveal that Defendants’ identical arguments show their
intention to purposefully DECEIVE the following State Courts: 1.) The Lowell District
Court, 2.) The Massachusetts Housing Court, 3.) The Middlesex Superior Court, 4.) The
Massachusetts Appeals Court and 5.) The Massachusetts Supreme Court. The Plaintiff’s
Rule 60(b) motion went UNOPPOSED, warranting DEFAULT with Prejudice in favor
81. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as
SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact both
Federal and State litigation, showing cause to bring incremental misconduct claims;
82. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT
83. Respectfully, any failure here to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be
Federal litigation. Should this occur, the Plaintiff will similarly show cause here to file a
84. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
85. The Defendants concealed the fact that the Loans were securitized as well as the terms of
the Securitization Agreements, including, inter alia: 1.) Financial Incentives paid; 2.)
Borrower’s loan changed in character inasmuch as no single party would hold the Note
but rather the Notes would be included with other notes, split into tranches, and multiple
investors would effectively buy shares of the income stream from the loans. Changing the
character of the loan in this way had a materially negative effect on the Plaintiff that was
86. Defendants knew or should have known that had the truth been disclosed, Plaintiff would
87. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff based in these misinterpretations and improper
disclosures.
88. Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance upon the misrepresentations was detrimental. But for
failure to disclose the true and material terms of the transaction, Plaintiff could have been
alerted to issues of concern. Plaintiff would have known of Defendant’s true intentions
and profits from the proposed risky loan. Plaintiff would have known that the actions of
the Defendants would have an adverse effect on the value of Plaintiff’s home.
89. Defendants’ failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction induced Plaintiff to
enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein.
90. Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them.
91. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment, Plaintiff was
damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to costs of Loan,
92. Defendants are guilty of malice, fraud and/or oppression. Defendants actions were
malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff in
that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff. As such Plaintiff is entitled to recover,
in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish Defendants and to deter them
93. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully
94. Defendants intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiff those Defendants who were entitled
to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the Deed of Trust. In fact,
Defendants were not entitled to do so and have no legal, equitable or actual beneficial
95. Defendants misrepresented that they are the “holder and owner” of the Note and the
beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. However, this was not true and was a misrepresentation
of material fact. Documents state that the original lender allegedly sold the mortgage loan
they had no legal, equitable, or pecuniary interest in. This type of conduct is outrageous.
Defendants have fraudulently foreclosed on the Property for which they have no
monetary or pecuniary interest. This type of conduct – confirmed also by: 1.) the
Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, and
96. Defendant’s failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction induced the Plaintiff
to enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein.
97. The material misrepresentations were made by Defendants with the intent to cause
Plaintiff to reasonably rely on the misrepresentation in order to induce the Plaintiff to rely
misrepresentation was made with the purpose of initiating the securitization process
as illustrated above, in order to profit from the sale of the Property by selling the
note to sponsors who then pool the note and sell it to investors on Wall Street and
98. Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them.
99. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment, Plaintiff was
damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to costs of Loan,
100. Defendants are guilty of malice, fraud and/or oppression. Defendants actions
were malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
Plaintiff in that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff. As such Plaintiff is entitled
102. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants, Harmon Law
Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP unlawfully employed the United States Mail,
Massachusetts State Courts, and perjured and fabricated evidence to divest him of
the operation or management of the enterprise itself and that the pattern of
and
Plaintiff asserts that he was prevented from discovering that he was the victim of fraud
104. Plaintiff has alleged that Bank Defendants, Harmon Law Offices PC and
divest him of HIS homestead. Consequently, this Court MUST find that the Plaintiff’s
106. The Plaintiff’s second CIVIL RICO violation claim reveals improper
relationships between Defendants – Nelson Mullins LLP, the DOJ/US Attorney’s Office,
the MA Office of the Attorney General, the Boston BAR Association, and Defendant -
Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson. The relationships in question references the West LegalEd
Center course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts”– Mortgage and Foreclosure issues
in Criminal and Civil Litigation.16 Here, these referenced Defendants and others,
“Criminal and civil litigation in mortgage and foreclosure cases is an area in which
legal issues are rapidly evolving, stakes are high and uncertainty is rampant. As a
result, a variety of different areas of practice overlap for many clients and
practitioners.
This program will focus on criminal and regulatory issues emerging from the collapse
of the national real estate and secondary mortgage markets. Among the topics to be
explored are: the uncovering of widespread fraud in the origination of mortgages prior
to the collapse, and the priorities of state and federal authorities in prosecuting such
cases; civil and criminal authorities priorities in confronting fraud in connection with
post-collapse foreclosure rescue transactions; and criminal and regulatory issues
relating to banking and foreclosure practices in connection with mortgages held in
pooled investment vehicles.
Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of leading prosecution officials, including
the Attorney General and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud and
foreclosure cases. Learn about important practical issues and valuable strategies for
criminal defense attorneys in this area, including the likely impact of new regulations
16 See Attachment C
at the state and federal level in the area of consumer protection in connection with
mortgages. Two panels of experts will present some of the latest breaking developments
in this area, including the impact of the SJC’s ground-breaking Ibanez decision.”
• Property Flips
• Foreclosure Rescue Schemes
• Lender and Borrower Misconduct
• Fraud in the Secondary Market
• Defending Real Estate Professionals
a. Juliane Balliro, Esq., Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
b. Paul G. Levenson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney,
c. The United States Attorney's Office District of Massachusetts
COLLUSION and (at minimum) show cause to FIRST question WHY criminal
complaints filed by the Plaintiff WERE NEVER brought as charges before the
Court(s). The Plaintiff MUST be allowed the opportunity to present these facts before a
trial jury.
Division.
114. As with Coursen vs. JP Morgan, here the Plaintiff similarly alleges Deceptive
Trade Practices under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act M.G.L. 93A § 21
against the Bank Defendants and the Defendant – Citigroup Global Realty Corp;
Plaintiff is allowed to Bring Suit (per Ch. 93A §9); Remedies Available include
Injunction, double or treble damages, attorney's fees and costs (Ch. 93A §11).
115. These Deceptive Trade Practice allegations are exemplified (in part) in the
recorded conversations between the Plaintiff and the Mortgage servicer (Defendant –
116. The recorded conversations between mortgage servicer and the Plaintiff will
reveal (at minimum) that: 1.) The servicer stated a 90-day default was a requirement
to qualify for a loan modification under HAMP, 2.) The Plaintiff DID IN FACT
QUALIFY for a loan modification under HAMP guidelines, as many as six (6) times
over a 22-month period, but was denied due to the servicer’s “calculation errors” that
the Bank Defendant’s activities violated Deceptive Trade Practice Laws, and he must be
allowed the opportunity to establish those facts through the course of discovery.
118. 15 U.S.C. §1692(a)(6) defines the term “debt collector” to include any person
who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the
119. Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants knew that they did not possess the legal
120. Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f, “[a] debt collector may not use unfair or
unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Subparagraph (6) of that
Consequently, this Court must find that Plaintiff’s allegations present a question of fact as
to whether the Bank Defendant’s activities violated the FDCPA, and he must be allowed
121. Questions of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under the Massachusetts
Defendants and Citigroup Global Realty Corp., knew they did not have the legal right to
collect the alleged debt and created manufactured evidence, sham pleadings and
deceptive conduct to do so. Massachusetts Statutes provides that “no person shall attempt
122. Plaintiff will show that Bank Defendants asserted a legal right that did not exist,
with actual knowledge that the right did not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s
123. The Plaintiff adds a civil conspiracy claim that proves: (a) the existence of an
agreement between two or more parties; (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by
unlawful means; (c) the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy; and (d)
damage to Plaintiff as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy. Olson v. Johnson,
124. A cause of action for abuse of process requires a showing of willful or intentional
misuse of process for some wrongful or unlawful object, or ulterior purpose not intended
by law. Peckins v. Kaye, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) (citing Cline
v. Flagler Sales Corp., 207 So. 2d 709(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)). Plaintiff should be able
to overcome dismissal of his common law claims for civil conspiracy and abuse of
process at this stage of the proceedings through his factual allegations that Defendants (at
minimum, Bank Defendants) acted unlawfully, and in agreement, with the intent to
defraud him through the use of sham documents and fabricated evidence, and that their
126. EVEN IF referenced Defendants had ANY standing to the Plaintiff’s Property,
there is just cause to bring HAMP and False Claims violations against the Defendant
127. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the
to borrowers who demonstrated their eligibility during a trial period (The case is Corvello
v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). The
Plaintiff has consistently stated that the Bank Defendants refused to modify the
though the Plaintiff clearly met the requirements set forth by HAMP (and other) loan
modification programs. The Plaintiff must be allowed the opportunity to establish the
17
ALL State and Federal Courts associated with this litigation have, WITHOUT CAUSE,
refused to allow DISCOVERY for any and all Plaintiff’s claims, including (but not limited to)
producing the recorded conversations detailing the Plaintiff’s 22-month effort to receive a
loan modification.
129. Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1519, the Plaintiff will add one Count (each
130. The tampering allegation of the related Middlesex Superior Court file has been
well documented with Massachusetts State Courts and has been completely ignored by
Superior Court Clerk’s Office, the Plaintiff is not aware of any parties - other than
referenced Defendants or Court employees to have accessed the referenced file, or who
131. Court must find that Plaintiff’s allegations present a question of fact as to
whether these Defendants tampered with the Superior Court file, and he must be allowed
the opportunity to establish those facts through the course of discovery and further
132. As managing partner of the Boston Office, Peter Haley is on record in an email
communication to the Plaintiff, stating that both he and the firm fully support ALL
134. Plaintiff brings evidenced allegations which irrefutably show that ALL
Defendants knew, or should have known, that they had NO LEGAL STANDING to the
Plaintiff’s Property yet STILL Conspired to Defraud him of his evidenced
HOMESTEAD.
135. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conspiracy, Plaintiff has incurred
and continues to incur damages in an amount according to proof but not yet ascertained
including without limitation, statutory damages and all amounts paid or to be paid in
136. Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff who is therefore
137. Defendants’ actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious,
appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in the same behavior.
139. The actions set forth by Defendants, as set forth herein, are considered to have
been made in BAD FAITH, where the Plaintiff has unlawfully been removed from and
140. This outcome has been created without any right or privilege on the part of the
Defendants, and, as such, their actions constitute outrageous or reckless conduct on the
part of Defendants.
those Defendants were entitled to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the
Deed of Trust. In fact, Defendants were not entitled to do so and have no legal, equitable
142. Defendants’ conduct – fraudulently claiming the right to foreclose and then
outrageous and extreme that it exceeds all bounds which is usually tolerated in a
civilized community.
143. Such conduct was taken with the specific intent of inflicting emotional distress on
the Plaintiff, such that Plaintiff would be so emotionally distressed and debilitated that he
would be unable to exercise legal rights in the property; the right to title in the property,
the right to cure the alleged default, right to verify the alleged debt Defendants attempted
to collect, and right to clear title of the Property, and right to clear title to the Property
such that said title will regain its marketability and value.
144. At the time (and since) the Defendants began their fraudulent foreclosure
proceedings, Defendants were not acting in good faith while attempting to collect on the
subject debt. Defendants, and each of them, committed the acts set forth above with
complete utter and reckless disregard of the probability of causing the Homeowner to
Plaintiff’s home or claim of the right to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home, the Plaintiff has
suffered severe emotional distress including lack of sleep, anxiety and depression.
146. Plaintiff did not default in the manner stated in the Notice of Default, yet because
of Defendants’ outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has been living under the constant emotional
retirement savings, and has been forced to endure a reduced standard of living.
148. The conduct of Defendants, and each of them, as herein described, was so vile,
base, contemptable, miserable, wretched and loathsome that it would be looked down
upon and despised by ordinary people. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages
similar conduct.
150. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above. Defendants,
and each of them, disparaged Plaintiff’s exclusive valid title by and through the
herein, including, but not limited to, the Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and
Trustee’s Deed.
151. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such documents were improper
in that at the time of execution and delivery of said documents, Defendants had no right,
title or interest in the Property. These documents were naturally and commonly to be
interpreted as denying, disparaging and casting doubt upon Plaintiff’s legal title to the
documents, Plaintiff’s title to the Property has been disparaged and slandered, and there
is a cloud on Plaintiff’s title, and Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages
expenses in order to clear title to the Property. Moreover, these expenses are continuing,
and Plaintiff will incur additional charges for such purpose until the cloud on Plaintiff’s
title to the Property has been removed. The amounts of future expenses and damages are
humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, and emotional and physical distress,
resulting in the loss of sleep and other injuries to his health and well-being, and continues
to suffer such injuries on an ongoing basis. The amount of such damages shall be proven
at trial.
155. At the time that the false and disparaging documents were created and published
by the Defendants, Defendants knew the documents were false and created and published
them with the malicious intent to injure Plaintiff and deprive him of his exclusive right,
title and interest in the Property, and to obtain the Property for their own use by unlawful
means.
156. The conduct of the Defendants in publishing the documents described above was
December 30, 2005 (hereafter referred to as “Closing Date”) Plaintiff entered into a
loan secured by Plaintiff’s principal residence (Subject Property). This note was secured
158. All Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse
to Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the note secured by the deed of
159. All Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse
to Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the deed of trust securing the note
160. The claims of all Defendants are without any right whatsoever, and Defendants
have no right, estate, title, lien or interest in or to the property, or any part of the property.
161. The claim of all Defendants herein named, and each of them, claim some estate,
right, title, lien, or interest, in or to the property adverse to Plaintiff’s title, and these
162. Plaintiff, therefore, alleges upon information and belief, that none of the parties,
to neither the securitization transaction, nor any of the Defendants in this case, hold a
perfected and secured claim in the Property, and that all Defendants are estopped and
and all persons claiming under them, from asserting any adverse claim to Plaintiff’s title
164. Plaintiff requests the Court award Mohan A. Harihar costs associated with this
166. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants
concerning their respective rights and duties regarding the Note and Trust Deed.
167. Plaintiff contends that Defendants had no authority to Displace the Plaintiff from
his Property, nor did they have the authority to Foreclose upon and sell the property.
168. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that Defendants
dispute Plaintiff’s contention and instead contend they had the authority to displace,
169. Plaintiff therefore requests a judicial determination of the rights, obligations, and
interest of the parties with regards to the Property, and such determination is necessary
and appropriate at this time under the circumstances so that all parties may ascertain and
know their rights, obligations, and interest with regard to the property.
170. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously
described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Trust Deeds as of the
Date the Notes were assigned without a concurrent assignation of the underlying Trust
Deeds.
171. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously
Default).
172. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously
described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of whether any Defendant had
173. Plaintiff requests all adverse claims to the real property must be determined by a
174. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff is entitled to the
175. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff owns in fee simple,
and is entitled to the quiet and peaceful possession of, the above-described real property.
176. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Defendants, and each of
them, and all persons claiming under them, have no estate, right, title, lien or interest in
178. Defendants violated TILA by failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate material
disclosures required under TILA and not taking into account the intent of State
Legislature in approving this statute which was to fully inform home buyers of the pros
and cons of adjustable rate mortgages in a language (both written and spoken) that they
can understand and comprehend; and advise them to compare similar home products with
other lenders. It also requires the lender to offer other loan products that might be more
179. Any and all statute(s) of limitations relating to disclosures and notices required
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et.seq. were tolled due to Defendants’ failure to effectively
180. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiff, who contends he has the right
to rescind the loan on the Subject Property alleged in this Complaint, and based on
181. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations Plaintiff has incurred
and continues to incur damages in an amount according to proof but not yet ascertained
including without limitation, statutory damages and all amounts paid or to be paid in
182. Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff who is therefore
183. Defendants’ actions in this matter have been willful, knowing, malicious,
appropriate to punish Defendants and to deter others from engaging in the same behavior.
185. The loan to Plaintiff was a federally regulated mortgage loan as defined in
RESPA.
186. Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) 1999 Statement of Policy
established a two-part test for determining the legality of lender payments to mortgage
brokers for table funded transactions and intermediary transactions under RESPA:
a. Whether goods and facilities were actually furnished or were actually performed
b. Whether the payments are reasonably related to the value of the goods or facilities
187. In applying this test, HUD believes that total compensation should be scrutinized
performed to determine whether it is legal under RESPA. The interest and income that
directly to Defendant’s failure to disclose that they will gain a financial benefit while
188. No separate fee agreements, regarding: 1.) the use of Wells Fargo “Cost of
Savings” as the Index for the basis of this loan, 2.) Disclosures of additional income due
to interest rate increases or 3.) the proper form and procedure in relation to the
189. Defendants violated RESPA because the payments between the Defendants were
misleading and designed to create a windfall. These actions were deceptive, fraudulent
and self-serving.
190. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has incurred damages not
192. Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the loan and all accompanying loan documents for
all of the foregoing reasons: 1.) Fraud on the Court; 2.) TILA violations; 3.) Failure to
Fraudulent Inducement; 6.) failure to abide by the PSA; 7.) making illegal or fraudulent
transfers of the note and deed of trust; and 8.) Public Policy Grounds, each of which
193. The Public interest would be prejudiced by permitting the alleged contract to
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for rescission of the stated loan in its entirety.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, will ask for the following for each Cause of Action to be
awarded:
PRIOR to moving forward, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court FIRST issue a
Housing, 2.) Transportation and 3.) other related costs as they existed BEFORE the
Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The
President, confirmation from the White House is attached (See Attachment D) with the filed
Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Complaint, the Plaintiff is happy
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
The INFORMATION (Text Box) reads as follows:
“This UPDATED Criminal Complaint is filed by Massachusetts resident - Mohan A. Harihar for
the specific purpose of bringing CRIMINAL CHARGES (Federal and State) against ALL
identified parties associated with the ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE of his residential
Property/HOMESTEAD located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. As a respectful
reminder: 1.) The Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) The MA Attorney General’s Office and 3.)
Federal Bank Regulators have ALL identified the referenced foreclosure as ILLEGAL. Civil
litigation related to the referenced illegal foreclosure is ongoing in the First Circuit Appeals
Court – Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v US BANK et al, and Appeal No. 17-2074
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES. A third complaint is now being filed with the
Massachusetts Land Court, in conjunction with this criminal complaint (which will be included
as an attachment for the Court’s records). Evidenced CRIMINAL claims of record include (but
are not limited to): FRAUD, Criminal RICO, Conspiracy, Economic Espionage, Treason,
Misprision, Fraud on the Court and others. ANY continued failure to prosecute these evidenced
criminal claims will show cause to expand upon (or bring NEW) Color of LAW/Due Process
violations against THE UNITED STATES and ALL responsible parties. Please be advised - on
January 24, 2018, 10:12am (EST), I placed a call to FBI Headquarters to report an evidenced act
of TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE against The United States. After nine (9) minutes
of articulating these evidenced claims (ALL of which are documented by court record(s)), the
intake FBI agent HUNG UP on the phone call. This is a serious concern which must be legally
addressed, as it impacts the ongoing litigation. It is also interpreted that these evidenced criminal
claims impact NATIONAL SECURITY. It is my understanding that ALL calls are recorded. Out
of fear for my personal SAFETY AND SECURITY, copies of this criminal complaint are made
available to the public.”
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on February 22, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF users:
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com