You are on page 1of 15

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wells Fargo, US Banks desperation effort to dismiss, as


Harihar unveils evidence of mass scheme.
Boston, MA, February 20, 2016 The Office of the Inspector General has now informed the Plaintiff
Mohan A. Harihar, that the Executive Offices of the Department of Justice is now investigating
the allegations detailed in the civil/criminal complaint, Docket No: 2015-cv-11880, Harihar vs. US
Bank et al. (US District Court, Boston, MA).
In the meantime, before the alignment with Federal Prosecutors, counsel and prior to the completed
service of Summons to ALL Defendants (via US Marshall), it appears that the Defendant Lenders and
their retained counsel (co-Defendants in this complaint) are making a desperate effort to have the
complaint dismissed.
1

However referenced Lenders and their attorneys stand alone in their opinion. Their views apparently
are not shared by the ten (10) other listed Defendants; nor are they supported by the Department of
Justice, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Federal Bank Regulators, or a Nationally recognized Fraud
expert.
Harihars complaint, which continues to gain national and worldwide attention, provides details of
evidenced misconduct which connects: identified Lenders associated with the US Foreclosure/
Financial Crisis; Violations of the RICO Act including evidenced Collusion between the Defendant
Attorney(s)/ retained law firms, the MA Attorney Generals office, the US Attorneys Office and the
Boston BAR Association; multiple abuses of judicial discretion; failures by the Commonwealth to
prosecute criminal complaints; and the alignment of Defendant Real Estate Brokers/homebuyers who
have made the decision to sell/purchase an identified illegal foreclosure.
Harihar has maintained that the objective is to reach a mutual agreement with ALL parties, while
paving the way for an economic framework which will realistically lead to historic economic growth in
2
the US. However, Defendant decisions to decline or ignore these opportunities will continue to expose
the depth of related misconduct as the legal process moves forward.
Scroll down to view a copy of Harihars filed Opposition, in its entirety.

For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar


Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com
Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1
1

Defendant Lenders Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA; Defendant Attorneys David E.
Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson of K&L Gates, LLP.
2
The economic framework is reference to Harihars Intellectual Property, known as the Harihar FCS
Model

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
11880

CIVIL ACTION NO: 2015-cv-

Plaintiff
v.
US BANK NA, et al.
Defendants
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS US BANK NA and WELLS FARGO NAs
MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P 12(b)(6) AND
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

For reasons synonymous with opposition filed against the


Defendants additional two (2) filed Motions to Dismiss, the
Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, currently acting pro se,
respectfully prefaces this opposition with the following:

1. The Plaintiff is expected to accurately address ALL of the


supported allegations, against ALL Defendants at trial, in
full detail, and with the assistance of retained counsel
and Federal Prosecutors. The Plaintiff has made clear,
that it will likely be necessary to file a third amended

complaint, once the alignment with counsel and Federal


Prosecutors has taken place.
2. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has informed the
Plaintiff that this matter is now under investigation by
the Executive Offices of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
3. A Motion to appoint counsel is still pending in this
Court. The Plaintiffs efforts continue still, to
aggressively seek and retain counsel while this motion is
still pending.
4. The Plaintiff is not an attorney, has acted pro se for
nearly five (5) years in this matter out of financial
necessity, has made every effort to comply with the rules
of the Court, and will continue to do so, as the process
of aligning with Federal prosecutors and counsel
continues.
5. The supported allegations made in the referenced complaint
against fourteen (14) Defendants are all related by one
common thread an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE confirmed by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
6. At some point, there must be limitations and boundaries
set, for these Lenders identified with the US Foreclosure
Crisis. They are not, and should not be considered ABOVE
THE LAW. The failures by the Commonwealth to hold these

Bank Defendants accountable for their actions contribute


to the harm and damages of this Plaintiff and irreparably
damage an economic framework designed to assist the United
States.

After reviewing Defendants Motion(s) to Dismiss, The Plaintiff,


Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully files this Opposition with the
Court, based on the following:

7. The Plaintiffs Complaint brings well supported


claims/allegations which reveal a mass scheme which if
allowed to continue, threatens not only this Plaintiff,
but ALL ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNERS, in this
Commonwealth and Nation, and their legal efforts to recoup
damages suffered from the US Foreclosure Crisis.
This is a very well-planned scheme that ultimately impacts
trillions of dollars in mortgages throughout the United
States. Each of the Defendants play a specific role in
this scheme:
a. Beginning with the Defendants Wells Fargo NA, US Bank
NA, and CMLTI 2006-AR1 violations of Federal and State
Law, confirmed by the DOJ, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, and Federal Bank Regulators.

b. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts For the allegations


illustrating numerous abuses of judicial discretion
throughout multiple state courts; for its failures to
take corrective action regarding the referenced illegal
foreclosure; for its refusal to prosecute criminal
complaints filed by the Plaintiff; and resulting
damages to the Plaintiff and the referenced
Intellectual Property.3

The Plaintiff has uncovered what is clearly considered as


evidenced violations of the RICO ACT including (but not
limited to) COLLUSION and IMPROPER RELATIONSHIPS that
exist between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Office of
the Attorney General), Defendants Nelson Mullins Riley
and Scarborough LLP, Defendant Jeffrey S. Patterson, the
US Attorneys Office, and the Boston BAR Association. The
West LegalEd Center course entitled, After the Bubble
Bursts Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and
Civil Litigation. The description of the course states,
Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of
leading prosecution officials, including the Attorney
General and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud

Referenced Intellectual Property includes the Harihar FCS


model.
3

and foreclosure cases. Learn about valuable strategies for


criminal defense attorneys in this area...
These improper relationships at minimum show clear cause,
as to why criminal complaints have been thus far
completely ignored by state prosecutors. Efforts made by
the Plaintiff to address these improper relationships in
every related Massachusetts State Court have been
completely ignored, as evidenced in ALL related
transcripts. These FACTS have been very troubling.

With the evidenced improper relationships and referenced


failures by the Commonwealth, the Plaintiff has lost faith
in the states willingness to protect those who have been
irreparably harmed by this crisis at minimum,
approximately 50,000 60,000 illegally foreclosed parties
in the Commonwealth alone.

Every related decision made in Massachusetts State Courts


has subsequently been called into question. The Plaintiff
has clearly articulated these allegations within the filed
second amended complaint, with additional supporting
documentation, transcripts, and subpoenaed testimony still
to be presented at trial and with the assistance of
counsel and Federal Prosecutors. Relying solely on related

historical decisions to dismiss here, prior to addressing


allegations against the Commonwealth at trial and
VALIDATING the FACTS, would be considered premature and
unjust.
c. Harmon Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP These
firms represent a tiered structure of legal defense,
beginning with Harmon, who has been directly linked to
thousands of illegal foreclosures throughout the
Commonwealth and under investigation by the
Massachusetts Attorney General (for wrongful
foreclosure and eviction practices), and who WITHDREW
from this case; the second tier is Nelson Mullin Riley
and Scarborough LLP, who also WITHDREW from this case
just days after being informed of becoming a Defendant,
subsequently parting ways with Defendants Fialkow and
Patterson. K & L Gates LLP now represents the third
tier.
d. Real Estate Brokers and Homebuyers who have ignored
Plaintiff Disclosures, and have aligned with the
misconduct of the Defendant Lenders.
8. Failure to State a Claim consistent with the historical
path taken by these Bank Defendants in related
Massachusetts State Court proceedings, the Failure to
State a Claim defense is incorrect, and simply false.

US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA are listed as Defendants in


the referenced complaint for (at minimum) the following
(supported) reasons:
a. Bank Defendants lied/perjured themselves before the
Court(s) at minimum, related court documents and
transcripts from Massachusetts State Courts which
reveal the Defendants consistently stating that zero
misconduct is related to the referenced foreclosure.
This directly conflicts with the findings by the DOJ,
Massachusetts Attorney General, Federal Bank
Regulators, and a Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT.
b. Evidence supporting Fraudulent Misrepresentation
There are multiple instances which support Fraudulent
Misrepresentation by

1. At minimum, includes the inaccurate account of


events during the Plaintiffs 22-month loan
modification attempt(s). Discovery4 will
ultimately assist with validating the
Plaintiffs accurate account of events;

Discovery Includes 22-months of recorded conversations


during the Plaintiffs attempted loan modification efforts with
the servicer, Defendant Wells Fargo NA. Defendants have
historically refused to produce this requested Discovery, and
Massachusetts State Courts have refused to compel their
production. Recordings will reveal at minimum, Deceptive
Practices, in line with the mass violations encountered
nationwide by the DOJ and Massachusetts Attorney General.
8

2. Declaring the referenced foreclosure as legal,


when the DOJ, Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Federal Bank Regulators and a recognized FRAUD
expert have tied the referenced foreclosure to
MASS VIOLATIONS of Federal and State Law
associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis.
Continuing to characterize the Plaintiffs
allegations as baseless, etc... conflicts
directly with public statements (and complaints)
made/filed by Federal and State Prosecutors, and
the Federal Reserve.
c. Evidence supporting Fraudulent Concealment As the
Defendants Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA have
intentionally kept numerous critical pieces of
evidence/information from being revealed in
Massachusetts State Courts. This is, at minimum
exemplified by the historical refusal of Discovery
evidence, and Plaintiffs Exhibits attached in the
second amended complaint, including: the April 2011
Report by the Federal Reserve/Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure
Attorney Procedure Manual, Version 1; WALL STREET AND
THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse Majority and Minority Staff Report, Permanent

Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate;


The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial
and Economic Crisis in the United States.

While the Bank Defendants criticize the amount of


Exhibits provided in the Plaintiffs second amended
complaint, the Plaintiff has provided multiple examples
where these Defendants have concealed evidence in order
to deceive the Court.
d. Evidence supporting Improper Relationships as
previously described in No. 7.
9. US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA stand alone in their
opinions The views expressed here in this Motion (and
historically) differ with the views of:
a. The Department of Justice (DOJ)
b. The Massachusetts Attorney General (Former and current)
c. The Federal Reserve
d. Former retained counsel Nelson Mullins, LLP. Has
shown no support for the direction taken by the
departed attorneys, Fialkow and Patterson. In fact, it
is speculated that Fialkow/Pattersons exit from Nelson
Mullins LLP was influenced by the resulting legal risk
brought to their firm, in association with this matter.

10

e. Defendant/Former Manager - Peter Haley has remained


completely silent, and has shown no support to this
matter, since the referenced 2013 email communication.
f. Defendant Harmon Law Offices, PC has exemplified no
alignment with the views of these Bank Defendants since
their withdrawal as counsel.
g. With the exception of their retained Counsel - The
remaining ten (10) Defendants have exemplified no
alignment with the views of these Bank Defendants.
10.

Compliance with Federal Rule 8 As previously

stated, it will likely be necessary for a third amended


complaint to be filed with the Court, once the Plaintiff
has aligned with counsel and Federal prosecutors. In the
meantime, the Plaintiff is happy to provide the Court with
a shortened statement to justify relief, either here or by
separate filing to remain compliant with the Rules of the
Court:

Each of the named Defendants share a portion of


responsibility and accountability for the evidenced
misconduct outlined in this civil/criminal complaint(s)
which has resulted in irreparable harm and damages to the
Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar, and to the Plaintiffs
intellectual property which includes an economic framework

11

designed to assist the United States with economic


recovery and growth, estimated in the trillions of
dollars5. The Plaintiff therefore deserves to be awarded
justifiable relief, as it relates to these collective
damages.
11.

Defendants Case Examples - The Plaintiff

respectfully brings to this Courts attention, that upon


review of the supporting cases submitted by the Defendants
US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, there does not appear to
be one (1) case example provided, which reflects
circumstances equivalent to this matter. Specifically, no
case example has been provided to the Court which includes
the magnitude of documented civil and criminal misconduct
as does this matter. In fact, the Plaintiff does not
believe there to be a single case decision, in this
Commonwealth, or any state in the Nation, which
articulates and provides justification in lieu of
documented civil and criminal misconduct provided.
Therefore, all such related arguments by these Defendants,
and their impact to ALL related decisions, respectfully,
must be considered VOID.

The economic framework refers to the Plaintiffs intellectual


property, known as Harihars FCS Model.
5

12

12.

This case represents matters of National importance

Defendants - Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA both here and


historically have avoided ANY and ALL discussion of the
Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, and its merits. They
are well aware that this economic framework the HARIHAR
FCS Model, once implemented represents a realistic path of
historic economic growth for this country, while
correcting the mass injustice(s) caused by the US
Foreclosure Crisis and irreparable harm to millions of
Americans.
A premature dismissal would have negative implications
nationwide, and would show cause to question whether
corruptive elements extend beyond the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
13.

The Plaintiff respectfully calls for this Court to

recognize, the many opportunities historically extended to


these Defendants to reach agreement, ALL of which have
either been ignored or declined the latest of which has
been filed along with this Opposition (See attached
Notice, and 1/26/16 Demand letter). These ignored and/or
failed opportunities have historically only led to the
Plaintiff uncovering more supporting evidence, further
exposing the depth of misconduct.

13

14.

There is a lot of relative information still to

review and understand prior to making a just decision in


this matter. The Bank Defendants motion fails to provide
the Court with an accurate or complete account of events.
The Plaintiff is confident, that once ALL relative
Discovery evidence, testimony, etc... has been accurately
presented with the assistance of counsel/Federal
prosecutors - only then will the Court be in the best
position to make a well-informed decision.

CONCLUSION
The efforts made here by Defendants US Bank NA and Wells Fargo
NA to dismiss, are viewed as clear acts of desperation to avoid
accountability. Their gross mischaracterizations of historical
events have been made abundantly clear and should no longer be
tolerated by this Court. Furthermore, with the exception of
their retained counsel, their views are supported by NO ONE.
These Defendants will have their opportunity to argue their
position before a jury trial, and only after the Plaintiff has
aligned with counsel and Federal prosecutors. A premature
decision to dismiss here would irreparably harm not only this
Plaintiff as an individual, but this Nation as a whole. For the
reasons stated within, and in the Plaintiffs second amended

14

complaint, the Court should DENY the Defendants Motion(s) to


Dismiss, until the alignment with federal prosecutors and
counsel has taken place, and should reserve any final decisions
until ALL relative information has been accurately presented
and validated at trial.

If the Court has ANY questions or requests any additional


information to clarify this position, the Plaintiff if happy to
provide if needed.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff

15

You might also like