Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 36




MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
Plaintiff )
v. )
Defendants )




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

necessarily files this RENEWED MOTION to amend his original complaint, after Discovering

NEW EVIDENCE including: (1) An ADMISSION OF GUILT by Defendant – WELLS

FARGO and the RESPONSE issued by members of the US Senate; (2) Related DOJ/MA

AGO SETTLEMENT announcements involving the Defendant – WELLS FARGO and

separately, Lender HSBC; and (3) A related decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

involving the Defendant – WELLS FARGO.

Both individually and collectively, this newly discovered evidence: (1) RE-AFFIRMS

supporting arguments of the Plaintiff’s complaint which by due diligence could not have been

discovered until now; (2) contributes to the Plaintiff’s existing arguments indicating ERRED

judgments by both State and Federal Courts in the related litigation; (3) now raises

CONFLICTS with (ALL) Defendant arguments of record; and (4) re-affirms arguments to

allow the Plaintiff additional DISCOVERY, in order to educate the Court of ALL relative

FACTS before issuing judgment here. It now becomes necessary to inform the Court of this new

evidence and for the Court to allow the Plaintiff to amend his complaint, pursuant (at minimum)

to: (1) MA Land Court Rule 5; (2) Mass. Civ. R. Proc. 60(b)(2) and (3); and (3) Mass. Civ.

R. Proc. 15. A breakdown of these new discoveries and proposed actions are as follows:


found Discovery, the Plaintiff seeks to ADD the following FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

under Section IV of his complaint:


In a regulatory filing1, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a “technical error” kept

homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan modification. On August 3, 2018 a

routine regulatory report submitted by Wells Fargo contained a startling admission: A

review of the bank's internal systems had revealed a calculation error affecting hundreds of

struggling homeowners who had applied for mortgage modifications between April 2010

and October 2015.

“During the course of an internal review, we determined that an automated calculation

error may have affected the decision on whether or not to offer or approve some
mortgage modifications between April 13, 2010 and Oct. 20, 2015, when the error was
corrected,” the bank said in a statement. “We’re very sorry that this error occurred and

1 See Exhibit 1, to view the Wells Fargo Second Quarter 10Q Report, in its entirety (Due to
the length of the report – 174 pages), the Plaintiff has attached as a separate PDF file.
are providing remediation to the approximately 625 customers who may have been

This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing
financial difficulties.

“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already
from their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure
and mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family
and to have gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel
if that happened to me.”

This admission by Defendant – Wells Fargo is IDENTICAL to the Plaintiff’s original

Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

Throughout nearly Eight (8) years of Federal and State litigation, the Plaintiff has

articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO BE


AFTER RECEIVING EACH DENIAL LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with

Wells Fargo to get further explanation as to WHY his loan modification was denied.

Upon further review, it was disclosed that a “CALCULATION ERROR MADE BY

WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH TIME, after learning of this “calculation

error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and

approve the loan modification. EACH TIME (on six (6) different occasions over

twenty-two (22) months), the Defendant – WELLS FARGO REFUSED to correct

THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but you’ll have to start the process

over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through his own experience of record,

the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an

intentional act designed to ultimately (and illegally) foreclose on the Plaintiff.

As consistently stated in Court record(s), these evidenced claims are further supported,

since ALL phone conversations between the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and

Defendant – WELLS FARGO were recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.”

Despite multiple efforts by the Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State

and Federal) has consistently DENIED THEIR DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE.

Now, by this admission, the Plaintiff (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his

original complaint; (2) shows cause to allow for further DISCOVERY; (3) Impacts

ALL related litigation, INCLUDING judgments; and (4) has provided

INCREMENTAL evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court

Claim(s), re-affirming that the Defendant – WELLS FARGO has purposefully tried

to deceive this (and other) Court(s).

NOW, with Defendant – WELLS FARGO’S recent admission of guilt making

National Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth

Warren (D-MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman

Brian Schatz (D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo

over the issue, but Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells

Fargo and said that he expects answers by the end of the month2:

1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?

What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that

time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?

2See Exhibit 2 – to view in its entirety the August 9, 2018 letter from US Senator Brian
Schatz (D-HI) to Timothy J. Sloan (Wells Fargo CEO and President) and Elizabeth A. Duke
(Wells Fargo Chair, Board of Directors).
2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who

applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When

will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company

does not yet know?

3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells

Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received

this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted

customers are aware that they were harmed?

4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate

the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers

need to do to receive compensation?

5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be

accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?

6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to

remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those


7. What terms will Wells Fargo require impacted customers to agree to as a

condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an

impacted customer to waive any legal rights?

8. Through HAMP, the Treasury Department provided financial incentives to

participating institutions who modified eligible troubled borrowers’ mortgages.

Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by

the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial

incentives to the Treasury?

9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be

directly or indirectly related to Wells Fargo’s errors to credit reporting agencies?

If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to

remove these entries from borrowers’ credit reports?

10. Please provide information about the disposition of impacted customers’

foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo

plan to reconnect families to their homes?

11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common

stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please

explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder

returns ahead of other uses, such as increasing consumer remedies or investing in

improving internal investigations and controls. How much is Wells Fargo

currently investing or planning to invest in improving internal controls and

consumer protection?

12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and

disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,

why not?

13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells

Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to

prevent violations of law and consumer abuses?

These questions (and others) must now be answered HERE as well, as the Plaintiff

has evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has NOT been entirely

truthful with its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized,

will be severe. The gravity of this Discovery brings substantial conflict with the

Defendant’s arguments of record and INCREMENTALLY re-affirms the Plaintiff’s

Fraud on the Court claims.

B. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – On Wednesday, August 1, 2018,

the Department of Justice reached a $2.1B settlement agreement with the Defendant –

WELLS FARGO over evidenced allegations of mortgage abuses:

“Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $2.09 Billion Penalty for Allegedly Misrepresenting Quality

of Loans Used in Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities.”

This announcement by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED


1. DOJ Announcement RE-AFFIRMS the Appellant’s ALREADY-SUPPORTED

argument(s) pertaining to RMBS abuses/failures - A summary of the August 1,

2018 DOJ Press Release reads as follows:

“This settlement holds Wells Fargo accountable for actions that contributed to the
financial crisis,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio. “It
sends a strong message that the Department is committed to protecting the
nation’s economy and financial markets against fraud… Abuses in the mortgage-
backed securities industry led to a financial crisis that devastated millions of
Americans,” said Acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California,
Alex G. Tse. “Today’s agreement holds Wells Fargo responsible for originating
and selling tens of thousands of loans that were packaged into securities and
subsequently defaulted. Our office is steadfast in pursuing those who engage in
wrongful conduct that hurts the public….”

2. DOJ Announcement RE-AFFIRMS History of Abuses by Defendant – WELLS

FARGO - This latest announcement involving the Defendant – Wells Fargo comes

just THREE (3) MONTHS after the DOJ’s April 2018 Press Release: Wells

Fargo Bank Agrees to Pay $1.2 Billion for Improper Mortgage Lending


“Wells Fargo Bank Admits That It Certified that Loans Were Eligible for FHA

Mortgage Insurance When They Were Not, and That It Did Not Disclose

Thousands of Faulty Mortgage Loans to HUD.”

Over the last two years, Defendant – WELLS FARGO has also admitted that it

created millions of bank accounts without customers’ authorization, charged

improper fees on mortgage borrowers and forced thousands of auto-loan customers

to pay for insurance policies they did not need. Those practices, and others, also

have incrementally led to more than $1.1 billion in payments to the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau and other regulators, including a $185-million

settlement over unauthorized accounts in 2016.

In May 2018, the Defendant – WELLS FARGO announced that it launched a new

marketing campaign, dubbed “Re-Established,” which focuses on its commitment

to rebuilding stakeholder trust following its fake account scandal. In a press release,

Wells Fargo said the campaign, which launched Sunday (May 6) will demonstrate

how the embattled bank is transforming as it emerges from a “challenging period in

its history.” Collectively, there historically has been a PATTERN of CORRUPT

CONDUCT by Defendant – WELLS FARGO, evidenced in FULL PUBLIC

VIEW that continues to support this Plaintiff’s consistent claims; further questioning

the validity of the Defendant’s arguments and IRREFUTABLY



C. HSBC $26.8M settlement with Massachusetts Regarding Securitization Practices

On Monday, August 6, 2018, London-based bank - HSBC revealed that it recently agreed

to a “settlement-in-principle” with the Department of Justice that would see the bank pay

a $765 million civil penalty that would resolve an investigation into the bank’s mortgage

origination and securitization activities from 2005 to 2007 which include Citigroup

RMBS Trusts.3 As a reminder, the RMBS Trust associated with the Plaintiff’s identified

illegal foreclosure is the Citigroup Trust – CMLTI 2006 AR-1. Additionally, the bank

said that it reached a settlement agreement with the Massachusetts Attorney General over

the state’s investigations into the bank’s mortgage securitization activities during the same

time period. According to the office of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey,

HSBC will pay $26.8 million to settle allegations that the bank “purchased and

securitized unfair residential mortgage loans” that were in violation of state law. The

The Court is respectfully reminded of the separate DOJ Press Release on July 14, 2014 -
Justice Department, Federal and State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement with
Citigroup for Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages. This
settlement included a $45.7 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
MA AGO states that HSBC did not originate the subprime loans in question, but did

purchase the loans from lenders and securitize them.

In a statement, MA AGO’s office said that HSBC’s activities caused harm to

Massachusetts residents: “HSBC’s securitization practices contributed to a financial

crisis that deeply harmed Massachusetts communities and caused families to lose their

homes,” Healey said. “We will continue to help consumers who were sold toxic

mortgages by these banking institutions and are pleased that this settlement will provide

significant relief for families that have suffered harm from unsustainable subprime


This latest Discovery by the Plaintiff shows cause to amend his original complaint and

certainly requires additional information (if necessary, by a court-ordered subpoena) from

the MA AGO for clarity and validation purposes. Once validated, the Plaintiff believes he

will have shown cause to (at minimum) add HSBC as an incremental Defendant to this


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

August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by

homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them

permanent mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable

Modification Program (HAMP) to offer loan modifications to borrowers who

demonstrated their eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et

al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). “Miscalculations in loans

modification reviews were common before and during the financial crisis. And they

remain an issue today” - Alys Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law

Center. “Consumers should not have to waive their legal rights and that way they can

accept the payment and then figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That

was standard several years ago when the regulators found systemic problems in loan

modification reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. Claims

were not waived.”

This Court is respectfully reminded that as part of the historical record (paraphrasing):

1. The Plaintiff submitted as evidence a letter he received from a Vice President for

Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check (issued to Mr. Harihar) was a

reimbursement (with interest) for his “Good Faith” payment that he was

INSTRUCTED to make in order to qualify for the loan modification – which he

never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years

AFTER the ILLEGAL Foreclosure, issued an apology for THEIR

FAILURE(S) to modify Mr. Harihar’s mortgage;

2. The Plaintiff’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in two (2) separate lawsuits.

The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AGs’ against Defendants that included

– WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement, the Plaintiff received

approximately $1200. The second lawsuit was brought by Federal Bank

Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up

the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B settlement, the

Plaintiff received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the Plaintiff reserved

the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell short of the damages

incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved the right to pursue

criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil litigation is to recover

the substantial remaining balance of damages rightfully due to the Plaintiff.


On March 23, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered (via US Mail and Email communication) a

HOMEOWNER DISCLOSURE to Real Estate Brokers – Ken and Mary Daher

(Weichert Realtors/ Daher Companies, Methuen, MA). The disclosure was delivered

for the specific purpose of informing the Brokers and ANY potential buyers, that

(overview): (1) the referenced foreclosure is considered VOID; (2) there is active/ongoing

litigation related to this illegal foreclosure; and (3) “Any party, having been made aware

of the associated documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this

referenced foreclosure for the purpose of purchase, may be subject to forthcoming

litigation against them (Civil and Criminal)”

The Plaintiff ALSO mailed this disclosure directly to Defendants – Jeffrey and Isabelle

Perkins via certified mail, at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. The Defendants

either KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the legal risks moving forward and still

consciously decided to move forward with purchasing an IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL/


4 See Exhibit 3

Defendant - HSBC North America Holdings Inc., (hereafter “HSBC”), as the Parent

Company to CMLTI Mortgage Pass-Through Certificate Series 2006-AR1 Trust (hereafter

“CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust”), whose last known address is 452 5th Ave, New York, NY

10018. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

HSBC is a National Banking Association, doing business in the County of Middlesex,

State of Massachusetts, and is believed to be the purported Master Servicer for Securitized

Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed

of the Trust as more particularly described in this complaint. The Plaintiff respectfully calls

upon the MA AGO to provide further clarity for the record.



The Plaintiff’s initially filed complaint included a supported (and UNOPPOSED) claim(s) of

Fraud on the Court, evidenced in both MA State and Federal Courts. From the initial hearing

in this Court on May 8, 2018, Judge Vhay determined that it was “too early” to consider this

type of claim under Mass. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(3). Now, however, with the recent


an INCREMENTAL argument to support his Fraud on the Court claim. The two (2)

arguments supporting the Plaintiff’s Fraud on the Court claims include:

A. The EVIDENCED Securitization FAILURE of the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1;


B. The ADMISSION OF GUILT by the Defendant – WELLS FARGO, and this

relationship to the Plaintiff’s 22-month loan modification effort(s).

Based on these FACTS of record, and the Defendant’s arguments of record (or lack thereof),

there can be NO DOUBT that these Defendants, both individually and collectively are


respectfully requests that the Court (at minimum) ALLOW a NEW Cause of Action – Fraud

on the Court, to be added to the existing complaint, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. Proc.

60(b)(2)(3); Proposed language for the new claim includes (but is not limited to) the


1. Per Mass. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. “That cheaters

should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our

society and one of the underpinnings of our legal system.”6

2. 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

judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing

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) . . .

3. Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,

Numbering sequence to be revised in final draft, if necessary.
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL DEFENDANTS were

aware, or should have been aware that the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006 was VOID, and

therefore clear title did not exist with the Plaintiff’s property. Nevertheless, ALL

Defendants collectively participated in a scheme to defraud the Plaintiff of his

HOMESTEAD. 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 DOJ, Federal Bank Regulators, and the Massachusetts Attorney


4. 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;

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.

5. 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


6. 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.

7. 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

of record are identical to previous arguments from related litigation in MA State Court(s).


a. The Plaintiff shows cause here to bring NEW Fraud on the Court claims against

ALL Defendants and their respective attorneys;

b. Since Federal Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL Defendants stand as

UNOPPOSED, there CANNOT be a deviation from that position as it relates to

the SAME evidenced claims here. Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly impact

both Federal and State litigation, bringing incremental misconduct claims;

c. By law, once validated, Fraud on the Court claims must result in a DEFAULT

Judgment IN FAVOR of the Plaintiff WITH PREJUDICE;

d. Respectfully, any failure to uphold evidenced Fraud on the Court claims will be

interpreted as a failure to uphold the judicial machinery on the Court,


EVIDENCED in the related Federal/State litigation. Should this occur, the

Plaintiff will similarly show cause here to (at minimum) question the Judge’s



Based on this latest Discovery and following any INJUNCTION granted by the Court, the

Plaintiff shows cause to bring (at minimum) a DEFAULT Judgment, in favor of the

PLAINTIFF – MOHAN A. HARIHAR with prejudice.


With regard to future Discovery and based on the recent ADMISSION OF GUILT by the

Defendant – WELLS FARGO, the Plaintiff firmly believes that the Court may already

have enough evidence to support Mr. Harihar’s arguments. However, if that is not the case,

the Plaintiff makes clear that he seeks: (1) additional DISCOVERY to support his new

claims (once the court has granted permission to present new claims); and (2) Discovery in

order to oppose Defendant’s summary judgment motions. There exists some concern to

timely filing the required affidavit(s) under Rule 56(f), as parties with first-hand knowledge

of the facts (including the DOJ and MA AGO) have thus far been UNCOOPERATIVE

and/or UNRESPONSIVE to the Plaintiff’s multiple efforts requesting their assistance.

Through their own extensive investigations, these State and Federal government agencies

have definitively identified the Plaintiff’s foreclosure as VOID include (but are not

limited to): (1) the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (MA AGO), specifically –


Department of Justice (DOJ). Additional parties include Federal Bank Regulators and

specific employees of the Defendant -Wells Fargo, who interacted directly with the

Plaintiff during his 22-month loan modification efforts.


The Plaintiff respectfully requests additional time to file his Opposition to the Defendants’

Summary Judgment Motion, based on the following:

A. Related Litigation – The Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that he is also a pro

se litigant in related litigation involving FIVE (5) other State/Federal Courts. The

Plaintiff is only ONE (1) person, who is NOT a legal expert and whose ONLY legal

option has been to represent himself. The substantial time needed to address the

totality of legal issues associated with this litigation requires the assistance of a

LEGAL TEAM, never mind a single pro se litigant. Aside from representing himself

here, the Plaintiff’s time is consumed with the following:

1. SCOTUS – Application No 17A-1359. The Plaintiff is currently preparing his

Petition(s) for Writ of Mandamus/Certiorari;

2. US Court of Appeals (First Circuit) – HARIHAR v. US BANK et al,

Appeal No. 17-1381 – The Plaintiff is addressing JURISDICTION and a host

of other legal issues;

3. US Court of Appeals (First Circuit) – HARIHAR v. THE UNITED

STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 – The Plaintiff is currently addressing related

criminal issues with the DOJ AND as recent as TODAY, September 7, 2018,

the RECUSAL of presiding Circuit Judges Torruella, Kayatta and

Barron. There have now been SIX (6) recusals associated with this


4. Middlesex Superior Court – HARIHAR v. WELLS FARGO et al, Docket

No. 11-04499 – The Plaintiff is now preparing to file a motion to VOID

judgment and RESTORE the case, considering the newly discovered


other recent/historical discoveries;

5. Northeast Housing Court – US BANK NA v. MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Docket No. 11-SP-3032 – Similarly, the Plaintiff is now preparing to file a

motion to VOID judgment and RESTORE the case, considering the newly


FARGO, and other recent/historical discoveries.

B. Latest Discovery Adds Incrementally to Plaintiff’s Opposition – the latest

discoveries referenced within, including the ADMISSION OF GUILT by Defendant

– WELLS FARGO now requires additional work to address FRAUD ON THE

COURT (and other) supported claims in the Plaintiff’s opposition;

C. Additional Time Required to Address Current Housing and Transportation

Hardships – This Court is aware of the Plaintiff’s efforts to re-establish a

BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS, specifically as it pertains to HOUSING and

TRANSPORTATION. The Plaintiff has until September 14, 2018 to secure a

vehicle and his current AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEASE expires at the END OF

OCTOBER. The Plaintiff is desperately seeking a TIMELY resolution to these


D. Plaintiff’s Current Employment – In addition to managing this list of issues/legal

tasks, Mr. Harihar has a job as a part-time bartender, working five (5) nights a week

in order to financially survive while legal matters proceed.

THEREFORE, for these reasons (stated above), the Plaintiff respectfully requests a

timeline extension to Friday, September 28, 2018, for filing his Opposition to the

Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion.



The Plaintiff believes that with these latest developments (as referenced within), there is just

cause to bring incremental claims including (but not limited to): (1) Fraud in the

Concealment; and (2) Fraud in the Inducement against ALL Defendants. The Plaintiff

respectfully wished to clarify whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to address these

new evidenced claims, or whether they must be filed in a different court.


WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has

CONCLUSIVELY evidenced as a matter of court record, a number of NEW legal claims

requiring (at minimum) the Court to initiate the following next steps:

1. RECOGNIZE the Plaintiff’s latest Discoveries and ACCEPT this document as an

ADDED amendment to his original complaint;

2. ALLOW the Plaintiff a timeline extension to Friday, September 28, 2018, for filing

opposition to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (if it even becomes


3. Issue an Order for subpoenaed testimony from the DOJ and MA AGO in order to

validate for the record the details of: (a) the Plaintiff’s VOID foreclosure; and (b) the

latest HSBC (and other) Settlement(s). Determine whether it is necessary to include

HSBC as a Defendant (or any other party) in a newly amended complaint;

4. Since Defendants have previously stated they ARE NOT interested in reaching a mutual

agreement, these recent developments re-affirm the Plaintiff’s supported arguments for:

(1) Substantial DISCOVERY, pursuant to MA Land Court Rule 8; and (2) a move for

DEFAULT judgment, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. Proc. 60 (b)(3), in favor of the

Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR with Prejudice;

Corrective action initiated by this Land Court MAY allow for consideration in resolving (at

least a portion of) existing misconduct claims against Appellee - Commonwealth of

Massachusetts (Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK).

The Plaintiff is grateful the Court’s consideration. The evidenced arguments of the Plaintiff are

believed to have National implications including (but not limited to) matters of National

Security. Therefore, a copy of this MOTION will be sent to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2)

members of Congress; (3) the DOJ; (4) the FBI; (5) the OIG; and (6) Governor Charlie

Baker (R-MA). The PUBLIC will also be copied out of the Plaintiff’s continued concern for his

personal safety and security. Confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See

Exhibit 4) with the filed Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this

motion, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a

separate hearing and with the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 7th Day of September, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720

Exhibit 1
(See the separate PDF Attachment to view the 174-page
Wells Fargo Second Quarter 10Q Report, in its entirety)

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
March 23, 2014
Weichert Realtors, Daher Companies FOR DOCUMENTATION AND
Attn: Kenneth Daher, Mary E. Koontz-Daher DISCLOSURE PURPOSES
235 East Street
Methuen, MA 01844
RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability


Mr. and Mrs. Daher,

It is my understanding that your company, Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies, located in

Methuen, MA, has elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview
Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
Please be advised of the following:
1. The referenced foreclosed residential property has been definitively associated with
misconduct by both the MA Office of the Attorney General and the National Mortgage
Settlement. Settlement payment received.

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

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

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

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

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

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

⚫ Page 2 March 23, 2014

8. Referenced parties have refused to validate Chain of Title, have refused to validate
signatures on file related to the foreclosed property, and have refused to provide
requested Discovery which further supports deceptive practices, specifically – the
recorded conversations between homeowner Mohan A. Harihar and the Mortgage
Servicer Wells Fargo NA, during the 22-month loan modification attempt.

9. Any Real Estate Broker or Real Estate Agent, having been made aware of the associated
documented misconduct, who chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure
for the purpose of resale, will be considered as aiding and abetting fraud, and may be
subject to forthcoming litigation (Civil and Criminal).

10. Any party, having been made aware of the associated documented misconduct, who
chooses to align themselves with this referenced foreclosure for the purpose of purchase,
may be subject to forthcoming litigation against them (Civil and Criminal).

11. The recent eviction of Mohan A. Harihar from the referenced foreclosure property is being
considered an act of Wrongful Displacement, and is being addressed with the Court, as
well as state and federal prosecutors.

12. It is my understanding that by law, you will be required to disclose all information related
to the referenced foreclosure, including this communication.

13. Due to the serious nature of this matter, additional parties will be copied on this
communication including: Vice President Joe Biden, Deputy Assistant Director Tim
Sheehan (CFPB), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth
Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA),
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA),
State Senator Eileen Donoghue (MA), the Massachusetts Association of Realtors
(MAR, via twitter), the National Association of Realtors (NAR, via Twitter), and
Nelson Mullins LLP - including the individual managing partners of the firm, since
documented misconduct extends beyond the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

14. This communication is additionally being published for the purpose of exposing this
misconduct to the nation, as it is arguably considered the largest case of FRAUD in the
history of the United States, and in effort to assist the millions of wrongfully foreclosed
homeowners identified by the US Foreclosure Crisis, all fifty (50) Attorneys’ General, and
Federal Bank Regulators.

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


Mohan A. Harihar

Exhibit 4


I hereby certify that on September 7, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)