for immediate release harihar files request for special...
TRANSCRIPT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Harihar Files Request for Special Prosecutor in Federal Foreclosure/RICO Complaint. Boston, MA, November 6, 2015 – A second amended complaint was filed on Friday in the US District Court (Boston, MA) by Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar (Scroll down to view 2
nd amended complaint in its
entirety). 14 Defendants include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the RMBS
1 - CMLTI 2006-AR1, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Attorney General of Massachusetts (former) – Martha Coakley, Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, David E. Fialkow (Esq.), Jeffrey S. Patterson (Esq.), Peter Haley (Esq.), Real Estate Brokers – Mary & Ken Daher (Daher Companies located in Methuen, MA), and homeowners Jeffrey & Isabelle Perkins – who apparently disregarded disclosures and moved forward with purchasing an illegal foreclosure.
2
The 173-page civil/criminal complaint adds 1600 additional pages of supporting documentation, dozens of email communications over nearly five (5) years to numerous government officials and agencies, Certified SEC documents, and 22-months of recorded conversations detailing deceptive practices during the attempted loan-modification process. In the meantime – Attorney General Maura Healey has officially BLOCKED Mr. Harihar on the Massachusetts AGO social media TWITTER page (for reasons unknown), and Massachusetts legislators are aggressively attempting to pass proposed Bill - S 1981, “CLEARING OF TITLE TO CERTAIN FORECLOSED PROPERTIES”. On September 17, 2015, the Massachusetts State Senate, in a vote of 31 – 7, passed a proposed bill that would restrict homeowners to 3 years (down from 20 years) to sue the responsible lender in order to regain their home after illegal foreclosure. This significant effort by Massachusetts State legislators to push through this legislation raises a number of immediate RED FLAGS. The growing list of Federal and State allegations includes (but is not limited to): RICO violations, “Color of Law violations”, 14
th Amendment infractions to Due Process & Equal Protection Rights, False
Claims, Fraud (including Deceptive Practices), Fraudulent Concealment/Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Fraudulent Assignments. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has publicly stated that the referenced foreclosure is ILLEGAL, VOID, and does not possess CLEAR TITLE. Per the direction of the US District Court, Harihar has filed through the Executive Branch of Government (DOJ/US Inspector General) – requests to appoint a special prosecutor, and additionally for Whistleblower protection.
1 RMBS - residential mortgage-backed security.
2 Referenced illegal foreclosure is located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
2
For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar Email: [email protected] Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile) Follow on Twitter: Mohan Harihar@MH_Foreclosur1
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 2015-cv-
11880
Plaintiff
v.
WELLS FARGO NA,
US BANK NA,
RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
MARTHA COAKLEY
HARMON LAW OFFICES PC,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH LLP,
DAVID E. FIALKOW – ESQ,
JEFFREY PATTERSON – ESQ,
PETER HALEY – ESQ,
MARY AND KEN DAHER - DAHER COMPANIES,
JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS
Defendants
CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 38(B) – SECOND AMENDED
PREFACE
The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully
submits this second amended complaint to address a substantial
amount of both Federal and State violations – some of which
have been already confirmed by the United States Department of
Justice (DOJ), and others.
4
It has become the clear belief of this Plaintiff, that the
well-supported and historically evidenced misconduct outlined
in this complaint is part of a greater scheme – which continues
to evolve, now adding (at minimum) clear violations of the RICO
Act, as well as Color of Law violations. Therefore, the
Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this civil action by bringing
to the Court’s attention the following:
1. The United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, have ALREADY
concluded that violations to both Federal and State law
have been identified with the Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and
as indicated through the $25B National Mortgage
Settlement.3 Moving forward, the proper articulation of
these violations will require (at minimum) the cooperation
and subpoenaed testimony from the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
2. Federal Bank Regulators have separately identified and
concluded similar findings of misconduct associated with
the Plaintiff’s foreclosure, through an independent
foreclosure review specific to the Plaintiff’s
foreclosure.4
3 See Attachment A
4 See Attachment B, Letter of Eligibility for Independent
Foreclosure Review, followed by a letter from the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve and the OCC, identifying the
5
3. Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968) -
revealing clearly improper relationships between the
Defendant’s retained counsel (current and prior)5, the
Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s
Office, and the Boston BAR Association. In related
proceedings, the Plaintiff has already brought this
concern to the attention of the following Massachusetts
Courts and Authorities:
a. The Northeast Housing Court (Middlesex County)
b. The Middlesex Superior Court
c. The Massachusetts Appeals Court
d. The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General
e. The Office of the Massachusetts Inspector General
f. The US Attorney’s Office (MA)
g. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
These clearly evidenced improper relationships have thus
far been completely ignored by the referenced
Plaintiffs’ foreclosure. The 18-page, April 2011 Interagency
Review of Foreclosure Practices and Policies Report is
additionally filed separately for reference – See Attachment C. 5 Defendants’ current counsel is K&L Gates, LLP; prior counsel
is Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.
6
Massachusetts Courts, adding Deprivation of Rights
violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242.6
4. The US Foreclosure Crisis is considered by many to be the
“Largest CASE of FRAUD in the History of these United
States.” The following documents are submitted as
reference to assist with articulating and clarifying the
magnitude of related misconduct, and the resulting
harm/damages to this Nation’s Economy, and to millions of
Americans:
a. Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and
Practices - Federal Reserve System/ Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift
Supervision, Washington D.C., 20117
b. WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS:Anatomy of a
Financial Collapse – Majority and Minority Staff
Report, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
United States Senate.8
c. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the
Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States.9
6 Plaintiff will further articulate RICO allegations, and
additional Color of Law allegations within this complaint. 7 See Attachment C.
8 See Attachment D.
9 See Attachment E.
7
d. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney
Procedure Manual, Version 1.10
e. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John
O’Brien, 1/18/12 Press Release.11
f. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General
Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12).12
5. This civil complaint draws from synonymous civil/criminal
lawsuits filed by numerous parties across the nation.
Three(3) of the supporting complaints referenced include:
a. The US DOJ complaint associated with the $25B
National Mortgage Settlement.
b. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ACE CORPORATION, et
al, Docket No:13-cv-00464-JFA (US District Court,
Western District of North Carolina) – which includes
the sworn testimony of FRAUD EXPERT, LYNN SYZMONIAK.
c. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS vs. WELLS FARGO, et al,
filed in Suffolk County Superior Court, Docket No:
11-4363-BLS.
Substantial subpoenaed testimony and Discovery from
multiple parties, including (but not limited to)
FRAUD EXPERT – LYNN SYZMONIAK will be necessary to
assist with articulating the ALREADY IDENTIFIED
10
See Attachment F. 11
See Attachment G. 12
See Attachment H.
8
violations to Federal and State law, related to the
Plaintiff’s foreclosure.
6. As directed by this Court, the Plaintiff has filed
complaints through the Executive Branch of Government,
with the United States Department of Justice (US DOJ) and
the Office of the Inspector General, to address referenced
alleged RICO violations, Color of Law violations,
protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and
related complaints filed with the Fraud Investigations
Unit of the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). As
previously stated, alignment with Federal and State
Prosecutors is crucial moving forward in this matter.
The Plaintiff is currently awaiting an update from the US
DOJ/Office of the Inspector General, along with the
assignment of a Special Prosecutor.
The Plaintiff respectfully now seeks additional
protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act
(Requests for protection have been submitted to the US
DOJ/Inspector General), where the ALREADY IDENTIFIED
misconduct of these Defendants (including False Claims)
damages the ability to implement the Plaintiff’s
Intellectual Property known as the FCS Model, thereby
cheating Federal and State governments, and the Public out
9
of economic benefit estimated in the trillions of
dollars.13
7. The announcement released by former Massachusetts Attorney
General Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015, and just days
before leaving office, addresses the consent judgment from
the amended 2011 complaint filed by the Commonwealth
against four banks including Defendant - Wells Fargo N.A.
The complaint details the Defendant’s unlawful conduct
resulting in void/illegal foreclosures14. In her January
2015 announcement, Attorney General Coakley re-states,
“Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts foreclosure law
and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act by illegally
foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents when the banks
lacked the legal authority to do so.”
8. The letter and payment sent by a Senior Vice-President of
Defendant - Wells Fargo, and received by the Plaintiff on
January 20, 2015, irrefutably re-affirms (at minimum)
consistent claims of deceptive practices.15
9. Certified SEC Documents – associated with Defendant CMLTI
2006-AR1, have been secured by the Plaintiff, and will be
13
See Attachment I, FCS (Foreclosure Crisis Solution) Model©
presentation, delivered to multiple high-ranking government
officials, including the Executive Offices of the President, at
the specific request of Vice President, Joe Biden. 14 See Attachment J, Complaint filed by the Commonwealth in
Suffolk Superior Court, Docket No: 11-4363. 15 See Attachment K
10
provided at trial, illustrating (at Minimum) the
FRAUDULENT ASSIGNMENTS supporting FALSE CLAIMS associated
with the Plaintiffs’ Foreclosure.
10. The Plaintiff will be providing at trial, dozens of
supporting letter/email correspondences sent over the last
several years, delivered to the following
parties/offices/agencies: The Executive Office of the
President of the United States (EOP) – to the specific
attention of Vice President Joe Biden, US Attorney Carmen
Ortiz (MA), MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, MA
Attorney General Maura Healey, US Senator Elizabeth Warren
(MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (MA), State Senator Eileen Donoghue(MA), Governor
Deval Patrick (MA), Governor Charles Baker (MA), Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe (FBI – Washington), Inspector
General Glen Cunha (MA), Timothy Sheehan (Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau – CFPB), Susan Herman
(President, American Civil Liberties Union – ACLU), the MA
Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, the Defendant’s
retained counsel (current and prior), and others.
11. The Plaintiff, who has historically acted as a pro se
litigant (out of financial necessity), continues to
aggressively seek and retain qualified counsel with regard
to this matter. There is considerable concern whether a
11
fair and just outcome is realistic as a pro se litigant,
considering magnitude of complex issues being addressed.
With the filing of this second amended complaint, the
Plaintiff respectfully re-files with the Court a separate
“Motion to Renew the Appointment of Counsel” per Title 28
U.S.C. § 1915.
12. The vast majority of impacted homeowners who have
been identified in this foreclosure crisis, lack the
finances, legal expertise, time, etc., to pursue legal
action for the already identified crimes committed against
them. This Plaintiff has dedicated the last five (5) years
of his life in this legal effort, primarily out of
principle, and with the clear intention of ultimately
providing a solution to a crisis that continues to plague
this nation. The results thus far have uncovered not only
a greater level of misconduct on multiple levels, but a
system set up for failure – with virtually no realistic
chance for the average American to succeed in this effort.
It is my sincere hope, that this Court will take the time
to understand and validate - what exactly has transpired
historically in this matter; as this matter proceeds to
trial; and prior to making its final decision(s).
13. It remains the clear objective of this Plaintiff to
gain agreement with ALL parties, and to succeed in the
12
implementation of a framework that proves beneficial to
ALL parties, and this Nation. Should a successful
agreement between parties be reached, the Plaintiff MAY
consider the withdrawal of filed criminal complaints.
14. With the filing of this second amended complaint, it
is the Plaintiff’s hope that this version provides
additional clarification for the serious and sensitive
concerns stated within, and which also complies with the
rules of the Court. Still, unless a mutual agreement is
reached beforehand, it is expected, that upon successfully
retaining legal counsel, a third amended complaint will
likely be necessary.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. JURIDICTION AND VENUE
III. PARTIES
A. Plaintiff
B. Defendants
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Real Estate Sale, Mortgage Finance, and Foreclosure
Procedures.
B. Plaintiff’s Mortgage.
13
C. Deceptive Practices During Plaintiff’s 22-Month Loan
Modification Effort.
D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff.
E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments.
F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure
Policies and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift
Supervision).
G. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and
Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, United States Senate.
H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual.
I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement.
J. Federal Bank Regulators – Independent Foreclosure
Review.
K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion.
L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law
offices PC.
M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion throughout Multiple
Massachusetts State Courts.
N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights.
O. Evidenced Tampering Violations.
14
P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to
State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.
Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiff’s Foreclosure
Identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General; also by an Independent Foreclosure Review
Conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.
R. Secondary Defendants.
S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff.
V. THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET
A. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, and the Trustees’
Role
B. Mortgage-Backed Securities Trusts, Controlled by the
Trustee Bank Defendants Allegedly Purchased Notes and
Mortgages on Homes in Massachusetts and Across the
United States.
C. The Foreclosure Problem in Massachusetts and the United
States
VI. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A),
Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
15
COUNT II FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(B),
Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT V FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(C),
Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a
Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C.
§ 3729 (a)(1)(B), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D), and 31
U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G)
COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act
Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 §§ 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),
Against ALL Defendants
COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder
of the Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation
of G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Failing to identify the Present
Holder of the Mortgage in Notice of Sale (as to the
Bank Defendants)
COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
16
G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Falsely Representing Status as
Holder of Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and
Servicing Practices (as to the Bank Defendants
COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Failure to Register Assignment of
Mortgages (as to the Bank Defendants)
COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of
Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation
of
G. L. c. 185, § 67 (as to All Defendants)
COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights.
COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968)
COUNT XV Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,
Title 18, USC, § 242
COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. § 501 (copyright infringement)
COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) (criminal
copyright infringement for profit)
COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants
17
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
IX. REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Plaintiff, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, brings
this enforcement action to hold multiple parties
accountable – from their violations of both Federal and
Massachusetts law, stemming from the US Foreclosure Crisis
that has gripped Massachusetts and this Nation since 2007.
These referenced violations have already been confirmed by
the United States Department of Justice, the Massachusetts
Attorney General’s Office, and Federal Bank Regulators.
The resulting damages to this Plaintiff are considerable.
Accordingly, pursuant to (at minimum) the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A, § 4, and G. L. c. 12,
§ 10, the Plaintiff seeks to require Defendants Wells Faro
NA, US Bank NA, and the Residential Mortgage Backed
Security (RMBS) – CMLTI 2006-AR1, and others to pay civil
penalties, restitution, and other compensation for harms
caused by their unfair and deceptive conduct (at minimum),
in Massachusetts.
2. This action is additionally brought to recover damages and
penalties arising from conduct by the defendants in
18
creating, selling, and servicing securities allegedly
backed by notes and mortgages respecting residential real
estate when in fact, the trusts that issued the securities
did not possess the notes and assignments of the
mortgages. When Defendants needed to bring foreclosure
actions they used fraudulent mortgage assignments to
conceal that over 1400 mortgage backed securities16 trusts
(“MBS Trusts”), each with mortgages valued over $1
billion, are missing these critical mortgage assignments
and notes. Without the notes and mortgage assignments,
which should have been delivered at the inception of the
trust, the trusts do not hold good title to the loans and
mortgages that investors and the Plaintiff have been told
secure the notes.17
3. The Primary Defendants names herein include (i) Trustees
which controlled the MBS Trusts whose assets consisted of
pools of residential mortgages in Massachusetts and
throughout the United States, (ii) the mortgage servicing
companies that managed the day-to-day operations of the
payment processing and foreclosure proceedings at the
direction of the trustee banks, and (iii) the depositors
16 Including MBS associated with Plaintiffs’ foreclosure,
Defendant - CMLTI 2006-AR1. 17
Subpoenaed Testimony will be required by (at minimum) Fraud
Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak.
19
that failed to convey to the trusts their rights and
interests in each mortgage loan.
4. Defendants concealed that the notes and assignments were
never delivered to the MBS Trusts and disseminated false
and misleading statements to the investors, including the
United States (“U.S”) Government, the states of
California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia,
North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of
Chicago and the City of New York.
5. The U.S. government and the States of California,
Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, North Carolina, the
District of Columbia, the City of Chicago and the City of
New York purchased securities issued by the MBS Trusts
that used the Defendants as depositors, trustees or
servicers, and are missing notes and assignments, or
include forged assignments. The U.S. Government and the
States of California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia,
North Carolina, the District of Columbia, the City of
20
Chicago and the City of New York are harmed by: (i) the
resulting impaired value of the purchased securities, (ii)
overcharges for fraudulent services and for services not
provided, imposed by the trustees and the mortgage service
companies, and (iii) the increased cost to prove good
title to the mortgages purportedly in their MBS’ asset
pools, since the supporting documents are either missing
or forged. The U.S. Government was further harmed by
payments made on mortgage guarantees to Defendants lacking
valid notes and assignments of mortgages who were not
entitled to demand or receive said payments.
6. The Plaintiff, Pursuant to (at minimum) the Federal False
Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.18 (the “FCA”),
references the investigations made by Nationally
recognized Fraud Expert, Lynn Syzmoniak, in furtherance of
a False Claims Act qui tam action and found that the
Defendants pursued and continue to pursue foreclosure
actions using false and fabricated mortgage assignments.
Those fabricated documents were filed in Courts throughout
the United States. In many instances, the Fraud Expert
also found that the notes, representing the title to the
18
This action is brought pursuant to both (i) the FCA as it
stood prior to the enactment of the Fraud Enforcement and
Recovery Act of 2009 (the “FERA”) and (ii) the FCA as amended
by the FERA.
21
mortgage, were never transferred to the Trusts, which
never held good title to the mortgages.
7. When the depositors and the trustee banks discovered that
the mortgage assignments were missing, the trustee banks,
together with associated servicing companies, default
Management Company and/or mortgage loan documentation
companies, devised and operated a scheme to replace
missing assignments, with fraudulent, fabricated
assignments. Likewise, to conceal that the Trusts were
never assigned the notes, the trustee banks in concert
with the mortgage servicing companies, which needed
possession of the note in order to foreclose, prepared
affidavits falsely representing that the Trusts had
possession of the note.
8. The purpose of the scheme was to meet the evidentiary
requirements imposed by courts in the foreclosure cases,
and to conceal from trust certificate holders the true,
and impaired value of the assets of each of the trusts,
crippled by the missing documents.
9. Furthermore, the MBS Trusts and their trustees, depositors
and their servicing companies misrepresented to the
investing public the assets of the Trusts and issued false
statements in their prospectuses and certifications of
compliance.
22
10. As similarly stated by the Massachusetts Office of
the Attorney General, the conduct alleged has affected
thousands of homeowners (MA) through their residential
mortgage loans, and includes, without limitation:
a) Engaging in unfair and deceptive foreclosure practices
by conducting foreclosures when the defendants lacked
the right to do so and misrepresenting to homeowners
their roles as mortgagees or as the holders of the
mortgages;
b) Engaging in false documentation practices to facilitate
their foreclosure practices;
c) Deceiving homeowners in the course of servicing
mortgage loans by misrepresenting to borrowers
regarding its loan modification programs, acting
deceptively in implementing loan modifications and
deceiving borrowers regarding foreclosure proceedings;
and
d) Failing to comply with Massachusetts' registration
statute.
11. As stated by the Department of Justice, Federal bank
Regulators and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General, the Defendants, and their subsidiaries and
related entities, are responsible for the vast majority of
unlawful foreclosures that occurred in the Commonwealth in
23
the last four (plus) years. The scope of both civil and
criminal misconduct alleged is significant, involves
complex facts, will (at minimum) require voluminous
discovery, subpoenaed testimony by multiple parties, and
the likely need for substantial case management. It
additionally calls for alignment with federal and/or state
prosecutors regarding associated criminal complaints19,
and the continued pursuit of criminal charges (at minimum)
against these Defendants.
12. Since much of the referenced misconduct has already
been confirmed20, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that
the Court allow for the re-filing of injunctive relief in
order to remedy, address, and prevent additional harm
arising out of the defendants' conduct, while legal
matters proceed.
13. Relief is sought for the infringement and damage to
the Plaintiff’s related Intellectual property, which
includes the project known as the FCS Model©.
14. The historical record on file with Massachusetts
State Courts in this matter collectively reflects an
19
See Attachment L, which includes a criminal complaint filed
with the Fraud Investigations Unit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). 20
Confirmation of referenced misconduct has been made by the
Department of Justice, Massachusetts Attorney General, and
Federal Bank Regulators.
24
overwhelming (and still growing) amount of evidence and
information which has steadily come forth, in full support
of this Plaintiff’s consistent claims – thus clearly
warranting new trial and this move to Federal Court.21
15. A thorough REVIEW AND VALIDATION of ALL related
Dockets22, transcripts, decisions, etc… will be necessary,
to confirm this Plaintiff’s consistent claims through over
four (4) years of litigation, as well as to expose/reveal
the serious concerns experienced in Massachusetts State
Courts including (but not limited to):
a) Clearly evidenced PERJURY allegations of the
Defendants (specifically, Defendants Wells Fargo NA, US
Bank NA, CMLTI 2006-AR1, and their retained counsel),
who have maintained that ZERO misconduct is related to
this matter.
b) The historical refusal by Defendants to provide
critical Discovery, and the failure of Massachusetts
State Courts to enforce and compel their production.
This is best exemplified by the repeated refusal to
21 Massachusetts State Courts include: Lowell District Court,
Middlesex Superior Court, Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 22 Related Dockets throughout Massachusetts State Courts include:
2013-P-1829, 2013-P-0671, 2011-P-1515, 11-04499, 11-SP-
3032,1311AC001497, 1311AC001498, 1311AC001499, 1311AC001500,
1311AC001501, 1311AC001502
25
compel the production of the recorded conversations
during the 22-month loan modification process, which
clearly demonstrates (at minimum) deceptive practices
in violation of G.L. c. 93A, § 2, by the Defendant –
Wells Fargo NA, mortgage servicer.
c) Multiple abuses of Judicial discretion;
d) Irrefutable negligence and 14th Amendment infractions to
Due Process and Equal Protection Rights experienced in
the Northeast Housing Court. 23
16. The Plaintiff respectfully brings to this Court’s
attention, the clearly evidenced discovery of IMPROPER
RELATIONSHIPS including DOCUMENTED COLLUSION and
CONFLICT24, involving the Defendant’s prior counsel -
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney
General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston
Bar Association. It has necessitated the involvement of
the US DOJ/Inspector General’s Office, the requested call
for (at minimum) multiple internal investigations, and
restates to necessity to involve Federal prosecutors to
address the numerous criminal allegations associated with
23 See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal never
received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court, preceded by the
complaint filed with the Committee on Professional
Responsibility for Clerks of the Court. 24 See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center
course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and
Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.
26
this complaint, including (but not limited to): Violations
to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968), and Deprivation of Rights
violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242. These
collective actions – the referenced misconduct of the
Defendants, and the failures of the Commonwealth (to
prosecute and/or take corrective action), further
threatens the Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff. This
Intellectual Property consists of projects, created by
this Plaintiff, designed to assist these United States
with economic recovery and growth, from damages suffered
by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure Crisis.
17. There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,
the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,
or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of
COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.
18. Re-stating, the announcement released by the former
Attorney General - Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015
addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011
complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks
27
including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A.25 The complaint
(which includes alleged misconduct synonymous to that
stated in this Docket), details the Defendant’s unlawful
conduct resulting in void/illegal foreclosures. The
Attorney General states, “Wells Fargo Bank violated
Massachusetts foreclosure law and the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act by illegally foreclosing upon
Massachusetts residents when the banks lacked the legal
authority to do so.” This declaration by the Massachusetts
Attorney General reaffirms the consistent claims by this
Plaintiff, over four (4) years of litigation.
19. The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for
the record, the Defendant US Bank NA’s prior counsel -
Harmon Law Offices PC, 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
investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful
foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the “Foreclosure
Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures
throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly
25
See Attachment J, Docket No: 11-4363, filed in Suffolk County
Superior Court, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and
includes Defendant – Wells Fargo NA
28
linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin – David
Stern.
20. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the list of
Defendants, either here or by separate legal action, as
the depth of related misconduct is revealed. This includes
any party, agency, employer, etc… who so chooses to
support any portion of the referenced misconduct.
Defendant’s newly retained counsel - K & L Gates, LLP, has
been given notice, that any alignment or show of support
to any portion of the referenced misconduct will show
cause to include them is this, or separate legal action.
This includes (but is not limited to) the recent decisions
to newly employ Attorney David E. Fialkow and Attorney
Jeffrey S. Patterson. Both Fialkow and Patterson have
recently separated from the Prior retained law firm –
Defendant, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP for
reasons unknown.26
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26
K & L Gates, LLP is the 3rd law firm to appear as retained
counsel to Defendant’s US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, and CMLTI
2006-AR1 (Replacing Defendant - Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough LLP, and Defendant - Harmon Law Offices PC). See
Notice, Attachment O.
29
21. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action pursuant to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968).
22. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action pursuant to the Deprivation of Rights
violations Under Color of Law, Title 18, USC, § 242.
23. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the
counts related to the False Claims Act pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367.
24. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants pursuant to subject matter jurisdiction over
this action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because
Defendants transact the business that is the subject of
this lawsuit in this Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
numerous acts proscribed by 31 U.S.C. 3729 occurred in
this Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
25. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 31
U.S.C. § 3732(a) because Defendants transact the business
that is the subject matter of this lawsuit in this
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and numerous acts proscribed
by 31 U.S.C. 3729 occurred in this Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
30
26. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
pursuant to G.L.c. 93A § 2, G.L.c. 12 § 10, and G.L.c.223
§ 3.
27. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to
G.L.c.223 § 8 and G.L.c. 93A § 2
28. The parties are joined in a single lawsuit pursuant
to (at minimum) Mass R. Civ. P.20, due to a significant
number of common issues of fact and law raised by the
claims detailed within and because these claims originate
out of the same series of transactions or occurrences,
namely, foreclosures that failed to comply with
Massachusetts and Federal Law.
29. Trial by jury is hereby respectfully demanded under
Civil Procedure Rule 38 § (a), taking into consideration
the historical abuses of judicial discretion throughout
multiple state courts, irrefutable negligence by the
Northeast Housing Court, 14th Amendment infractions to Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights, and the
Commonwealth’s failure/refusal to address and prosecute
Defendants’ (and counsel’s) evidenced criminal misconduct,
or to take ANY corrective action.
III. THE PARTIES
31
30. The Plaintiff is Mohan A. Harihar, a wrongfully
foreclosed and wrongfully displaced homeowner, who brings
this action to recover damages suffered, and also in the
public interest. Mr. Harihar is also the originator/owner
of three (3) separate projects specifically designed to
assist this Nation’s and overall Global economic recovery
from damages suffered from the US Foreclosure/Financial
Crisis. These projects include the FCS model27.
31. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("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
Commonwealth, including the Plaintiff’s foreclosed
property.28
32. Defendant US Bank, N.A. (“US Bank”), is a national
bank with a principal place of business in Saint Paul, MN.
As described below, US Bank either directly and/or
27 The FCS Model ©, is the Intellectual Property belonging to
the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar. See Attachment U for
completed form AO 121. 28 The referenced illegal foreclosure is located at 168
Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
32
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 Commonwealth, including the
Plaintiff’s foreclosed property.
33. Defendant CMLTI 2006-AR1 is the Residential Mortgage-
Backed Security (RMBS) Trust associated with the Plaintiff’s
illegal foreclosure.
34. 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 investigation of Harmon’s involvement with
unlawful foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the
“Foreclosure Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000
foreclosures throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also
been directly linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure
kingpin – David Stern.
35. Defendant Nelson Mullins 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 is the
33
current counsel to both Defendants - Wells Fargo and US Bank
(Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP).
36. Defendant David E. Fialkow is recently an attorney for K &
L Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).
37. Defendant Jeffrey Patterson is recently an attorney for K
& L Gates, LLP in Boston, MA (formerly with Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston).
38. Defendant Peter Haley is the Managing Partner for Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, located in Boston, MA.
39. Defendants Mary and Ken Daher are Real Estate Brokers are
associated with Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies located
in Methuen, MA.
40. Defendants Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins, who are believed
to have moved to the Commonwealth from the state of New
Jersey, are parties who have moved forward in purchasing the
referenced wrongful foreclosure, located at 168 Parkview
Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
41. Defendant Martha Coakley is the former Attorney General of
Massachusetts, and is believed to reside in Medfield, MA.
42. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts now becomes a Defendant
in this matter.
34
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Real Estate Sale, Mortgage Finance and Foreclosure
Procedures
43. This case began with the Plaintiffs’ purchase of a
home (December, 2005) in Lowell, Massachusetts financed
with a mortgage followed by a subsequent foreclosure case
based on deceptive practices and forged documents.
Plaintiffs’ investigations revealed that Defendants’
practices in this specific case occurred in numerous other
cases, and tainted foreclosures nationwide.
44. Generally, to finance the purchase and sale of real
estate, the buyer borrows money from a mortgage company.
The borrower signs a promissory note, secured by a
mortgage on the property, which is recorded as a lien
against the home. The note and mortgage are signed by the
borrower and by an officer of the bank or mortgage company
which originates the loan, i.e., the lender.
45. The lender records the mortgage as a lien against the
property by filing a copy with the county recorder’s
office in the county in which the property is located. Any
assignment of a note and mortgage from the lender to a
35
purchaser is accomplished by a writing signed by the
parties involved, which are often notarized or witnessed.
46. A subsequent purchaser traditionally records its
ownership of the note and mortgage by filing the
assignment with the county recorder’s office. But in the
case of mortgage-backed securities trusts, recording of
the assignments rarely occurred.
47. If the borrower defaults on the payments, the lender,
or a new owner of the note and mortgage, can bring a
foreclosure action in state court, to obtain a court order
for the auction of the property, and in this manner can
receive payment on the loan by sale of the asset. In a
foreclosure lawsuit, the Plaintiff must prove that a
property is subject to a note and mortgage, the Plaintiff
is the entity that lawfully owns the note and mortgage,
and a default by non-payment occurred.
B. Plaintiff’s Mortgage
48. On or about December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff (then a
married man) acquired a home on real property located at
the address of 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. The
lender and loan servicer was Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
49. In accordance with the terms of the note, Plaintiff
made monthly mortgage payments of approximately Two
36
Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight dollars to Wells Fargo
NA from December 2005 through August 2009 (Approximate).
50. Plaintiff’s mortgage was an adjustable rate mortgage.
Pursuant to its terms, the rate could only adjust on the
first day of January, 2011(5/1 ARM), and on the first day
of the month every six months thereafter (confirm),
provided the mortgage company gave written notice of the
adjustment.
C. Deceptive Practices During Plaintiff’s 22-Month Loan
Modification Effort
51. On or around November, 2008, the Plaintiff was
experiencing a financial hardship, and a substantial
effort was made to seek a loan modification with the
lender. The Plaintiff completed and submitted the required
financial paperwork as required, while continuing to make
scheduled monthly mortgage payments. Several months after
submitting the required documents for approval, the
Plaintiff received a decline notice for the requested loan
modification. The Plaintiff then followed-up with a phone
conversation to the mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo NA,
requesting an articulated explanation for the decline
notice. After a review of the Plaintiff’s application, the
mortgage servicer revealed that there had been a
37
“calculation error” made by the mortgage servicer, Wells
Fargo NA, which resulted in the declined loan modification
attempt. The Plaintiff then asked if this “error” could be
corrected, so that the loan modification could
successfully move forward. The Plaintiff was informed that
the error could not, or would not be corrected. The
Plaintiff was additionally informed that if he still
wished to receive a loan modification, he would have to
start the process again from the beginning. The Plaintiff
then started the loan modification again, for a second
time, and again, with the SAME result, and the same
“calculation error” made by the servicer, Wells Fargo NA.
The Plaintiff, while still making scheduled mortgage
payments, began to make a third attempt at a loan
modification, now eight to ten months into the effort to
modify his mortgage. The Plaintiff was then informed by
the mortgage servicer that a loan modification would not
be granted UNLESS there was a DEFAULT on the mortgage for
a period of at least ninety days. The Plaintiff was
additionally informed that a DEFAULT was a pre-requisite
to receiving an approved loan modification program. It was
only until this instruction was given by the Defendant,
that monthly mortgage payments ceased. On the Plaintiff’s
third attempt at a loan modification, now in default, the
38
Plaintiff was instructed to make a “good faith payment”
equivalent to one month’s mortgage payment in order to
qualify for the loan modification program. The Plaintiff
provided the payment as requested. Again, several months
passed, resulting in the same decline, with the same
“calculation error.” This loan modification effort
continued for a period of approximately twenty-two (22)
months, never resulting in a successful modification. A
foreclosure auction of the Plaintiff’s property took place
in September, 2010. Plaintiff was informed by the mortgage
servicer that the good faith payment made would not be
returned. All conversations during the twenty-two month
loan modification effort, between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant were said to be recorded. The production of
these recorded conversations has been consistently
requested during the Discovery phases and throughout ALL
proceedings in Massachusetts State Courts. The Defendants
have consistently refused to provide this requested
Discovery, and the Massachusetts State Courts have refused
to compel their production. The Plaintiff respectfully
insists that this Court issue an order to compel
production of these recordings prior to, or by the
Discovery phase.
39
52. New evidence has now been received by the Plaintiff,
from Defendant – Wells Fargo NA, in a correspondence dated
January 20, 2015, and includes a check addressed to the
Plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.34.29
i) This admission, as stated by Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage Senior Vice President – Leesa Whitt-Potter,
reaffirms this Plaintiffs’ consistent claims of
misconduct by the Defendant(s) - including the
deceptive solicitation of funds as an apparent pre-
requisite to approving the Plaintiff’s 22-month loan
modification effort. This deceptive solicitation of
funds by the Defendant is additionally supported in
recorded conversations during the 22-month loan
modification effort by this Plaintiff. These
documented actions confirm (at minimum) violations of
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, G.L.c. 93A.
ii) The timing of this admission coincidentally
comes only after the filing of complaints with
multiple agencies,30 and only after leave was granted
29
See Attachment K 30 Criminal complaints against the Defendants are filed with
the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office (See Attachment Q),
the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI (See Attachment L),
and the MA Inspector General’s Office (See Attachment P)
Additional complaints are filed with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Massachusetts
40
to this Plaintiff by the Massachusetts Appeals Court
to file for new trial.
53. The deceptive practices and related misconduct align
with the 2011 Complaint filed by the Massachusetts Office
of the Attorney General, 2011-4363-BLS, filed in Suffolk
County Superior Court. A settlement was recently reached
in January 2015 between parties in the amount of
approximately $3M. The announcement released by the former
Attorney General - Martha Coakley on January 16, 2015
addresses the consent judgment from the amended 2011
complaint filed by the Commonwealth against four banks
including the Defendant, Wells Fargo N.A. The complaint
(which includes alleged misconduct synonymous to that
stated within), details the Defendant’s unlawful conduct
resulting in void/illegal foreclosures. The Attorney
General states, “Wells Fargo Bank violated Massachusetts
foreclosure law and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection
Act by illegally foreclosing upon Massachusetts residents
when the banks lacked the legal authority to do so.” This
declaration by the Massachusetts Attorney General
Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel (See Attachment R), and the
Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR)(See Attachment S).
41
reaffirms the consistent claims by this Plaintiff, over
four (4) years of litigation.31
54. This matter originates from direct and irrefutable
association with the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis –
considered by many to be the largest case of FRAUD in the
history of these United States. Movies have been made
about it – ex. “Too Big to Fail” (2011) as well as
Documentaries – ex. “Inside Job” (2010). This misconduct
has caused harm to millions of American families and
considerable damage to this Nation’s and Global economy.
This SAME Misconduct associated with the Plaintiffs’
foreclosure has been identified by both the Massachusetts
Attorney General’s Office, and separately by Federal Bank
Regulators.32
55. A historical review of the complete record will
reveal related complaints against referenced Defendants -
filed with multiple agencies, organizations, etc…,
including:
31 Reference Suffolk County Superior Court Docket No: 11-4363,
filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and includes
Defendant – Wells Fargo NA 32 Misconduct associated with the Plaintiff’s foreclosure has
been identified by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General, in conjunction with the $25B National Mortgage
settlement. Misconduct has additionally been identified with
the Plaintiff’s foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure
Review, conducted by Federal Bank Regulators.
42
a) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (Fraud
Investigations Unit).
b) The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General
(Criminal Complaints).
c) The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).33
d) The Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel.
e) The Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR).
f) The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).34
g) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC).35
h) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
56. Defendant misconduct associated with the Plaintiff’s
referenced foreclosure is supported by the sworn testimony
of Fraud expert – Lynn Syzmoniak.36
57. Defendant misconduct including (but not limited to)
deceptive practices is supported in the recorded
conversations during the attempted 22-month loan
modification process, between Plaintiff and Defendant
(Mortgage servicer), Wells Fargo NA. The Plaintiff
respectfully insists that this Court issue an order to
compel the production of these recordings prior to, or
33Reference CFPB Case No’s: 130924-000286, 130926-001435, and
130926-001452, 34The Plaintiff will provide Certified documents at Trial
obtained through the Securities and Exchange Commission which
support (at minimum) Fraudulent Assignments. 35See Attachment T 36
Reference Docket No: C.A. No. 10-cv-01465-JFA
43
during the Discovery phase. The historical record will
show that Defendants – Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA have
repeatedly refused to produce this evidence, and
Massachusetts State Courts have repeatedly failed to order
Defendants to provide this critical Discovery.
D. Foreclosure Proceedings Against Plaintiff
58. In April/May 2009 (approximately), a real property
foreclosure action was filed against the Plaintiff,
titled, U.S. Bank NA as Trustee to CMLTI 2006-AR1 vs.
Mohan A. Harihar, Lowell District Court, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts), to foreclose on the referenced property.
59. The action was commenced by U.S. Bank NA. U.S. Bank
alleged that Defendant, MBS CMLTI 2006-AR1 owned the note
originally made to Wells Fargo on December 30 2005, for
$370,000, that it was entitled to enforce the original
note, and that the Plaintiff was in default. A foreclosure
auction of the referenced property proceeded in September,
2010.
E. Forged Documents, and Fraudulent Assignments
60. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAS ALREADY
DETERMINED THAT CLEAR TITLE DOES NOT EXIST WITH THE
PLAINTIFFS’ FORECLOSURE. The Plaintiff has consistently
brought this fact to the Court’s attention, and it has
been ignored. Certified documents provided by the
44
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been secured
by the Plaintiff to support Defendant misconduct including
(at minimum) fraudulent assignments.37
61. As indicated in the sworn testimony of Fraud Expert,
Lynn Syzmoniak, the Department of Justice and the
Massachusetts Attorney General, forgery (also known as
robo-signing) has been identified on mass-scale with
millions of foreclosures across the nation, including
foreclosures associated with Defendant CMLTI 2006-AR1.
Defendants have consistently failed to validate signatures
on file to suggest otherwise.
F. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies
and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, and Office of Thrift Supervision).38
G. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and
Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, United States Senate.39
H. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual40
I. $25B National Mortgage Settlement
J. Federal Bank Regulators – Independent Foreclosure Review
K. Improper Relationships Including Evidenced Collusion
37 Supporting SEC documents will be provided at trial, or
sooner, if requested by the Court. 38 See Attachment C 39 See Attachment D 40 See Attachment F
45
62. The Plaintiff respectfully brings to this Court’s
attention, the clearly evidenced discovery of IMPROPER
RELATIONSHIPS including DOCUMENTED COLLUSION and
CONFLICT41, involving the Defendant’s prior counsel -
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, the MA Attorney
General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, and the Boston
Bar Association. It has necessitated the involvement of
the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office, the
requested call for (at minimum) multiple internal
investigations, and restates to necessity to involve
State/Federal prosecutors to address the numerous criminal
allegations associated with this complaint, including (but
not limited to) Corruption. These collective actions –
referenced misconduct of the Defendants (alleged), and the
failures of the Commonwealth (to prosecute and/or take
corrective action) threaten the Intellectual Property of
the Plaintiff. This Intellectual Property consists of
projects, created by this Plaintiff, designed to assist
these United States with economic recovery and growth,
from damages suffered by the U.S. Financial/Foreclosure
41 See Attachment N, which references the West LegalEd Center
course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts” – Mortgage and
Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil Litigation.
46
Crisis. For this reason multiple parties are copied on
these communications to the Inspector General including42:
a) Vice President Joe Biden
b) Governor Charles Baker (MA)
c) Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
d) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
e) US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
f) Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
g) Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)
h) Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
i) Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
j) Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
63. There has been NO ATTEMPT MADE, by the Commonwealth,
the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, to deny, defend,
or even address these clearly evidenced allegations of
COLLUSION, and improper relationships made against them.
L. The Attorney General Investigation of Harmon Law offices PC
64. The Plaintiff will call for this Court to review for
the record, the Defendant US Bank NA’s prior counsel -
Harmon Law Offices PC, a law firm with a principal office
in Newton, MA. Harmon is the originally retained counsel
42
See Attachment P - Communications delivered to the Office of
the Massachusetts Inspector General.
47
by US Bank in this matter, who withdrew from this case
shortly after the MA Attorney General’s Office began its
investigation of Harmon’s involvement with unlawful
foreclosures. Harmon has been labeled the “Foreclosure
Mill” of Massachusetts, tied to over 50,000 foreclosures
throughout the Commonwealth. Harmon has also been directly
linked to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin – David
Stern. It is unclear, where this investigation of Harmon
currently stands.
M. Abuses of Judicial Discretion Throughout Multiple
Massachusetts State Courts
65. Plaintiff firmly believes that the Abuse of Judicial
Discretion has existed historically throughout all related
proceedings (MA State Courts) where judges and court
personnel systematically discriminate against litigants
who appear pro se, often dismissing their petitions or
motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. This has
been exemplified and documented in related proceedings
from the Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior
Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Judicial
Court. A thorough REVIEW AND VALIDATION of the referenced
dockets will reveal:
a) Failure to show cause for a denial(s).
b) Refusal to Clarify a Decision(s)
48
c) Repeated failure to compel the production of critical
Discovery evidence. This is best exemplified by the
repeated refusal to enforce the production of the
recorded conversations during the 22-month loan
modification process, which clearly demonstrates (at
minimum) deceptive practices in violation of G.L. c.
93A, § 2, by the Appellee – Wells Fargo NA, mortgage
servicer.
d) Refusal/failure to compel the requested validation of
information prior to rendering Decision (ex. Chain of
Title, Signatures on file, etc…).
e) Failure to acknowledge submitted evidence of misconduct
by reputable sources (MA Office of the Attorney General
and Federal Bank Regulators), aligned with the US
Foreclosure Crisis.
f) Failure to address and hold Appellees and their
retained counsel accountable for documented infractions
including: Fraudulent Concealment/ Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Aiding and Abetting Fraud, and
Perjury.
g) Failure to address and grant protection regarding
Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s concerns of slander, defamation
of character, etc… found in remarks documented by
49
opposing counsel; Counsel’s refusal to abide by
Notice(s) to Cease and Desist.
h) Failure to acknowledge referenced cases as listed in
the Table of Authorities, particularly, United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Master
Docket (11-mc-88-M-LDA), which references the same
issues, same Lender – US Bank NA, same Mortgage
Servicer – Wells Fargo NA, and same retained Counsel –
BOTH Harmon Law Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP,
specifically David E. Fialkow.
66. Abuse of Judicial Discretion – Stare Decisis is
additionally considered to have historically played a
significant role, with Justices in a current case treating
decisions in past similar cases as authoritative
precedents, and as seemingly directed by opposing counsel,
refusing to make the decision in a way that departs from
such precedents, regarding all of them as correctly
decided – Particularly since initial decisions rendered by
the lower Courts were made prior to the public release of
information regarding misconduct surrounding the US
Foreclosure Crisis, and additionally taking into account
CRITICAL NON-DISCLOSED information by counsel, which
includes the APRIL 2011 Report by Federal Bank Regulators.
50
67. Recent decisions announced by the Middlesex Superior
Court and the Northeast Housing Court.
a) Middlesex Superior Court - The Plaintiff first wishes
to recognize the Courts’ decision to correctly DENY the
Defendants’ attempt to bar future filings of the
Plaintiff. Additionally recognized is a NO-DECISION
pertaining to attempts by Defendants to collect related
Appellate (Brief) costs. However, considering the
enormity of DOCUMENTED evidence and information
supporting the Plaintiff’s consistent claims, clear
concerns pertain to the Court’s decisions DENYING
Injunctive Relief, the Return of Escrowed Funds, and
Notifying the Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR
Counsel. Consistent with historical decisions related
to this matter, the Court fails to provide ANY
clarification or rationale supporting its decisions.43
Furthermore, the denial of injunctive relief, and the
proper release of escrowed funds back to the Plaintiff
impacts state of indigence.
b) Northeast Housing Court – Similarly with regard to the
decision releasing $249 in Bond funds (and decisions
prior), the Court has seemingly ignored ALL supporting
43 A Motion requesting clarification and reconsideration has
been filed with the Middlesex Superior Court.
51
evidence and information provided by this pro se
litigant.
c) These recent decisions by both Massachusetts Courts,
further exemplify the Commonwealth’s clear refusal to
take corrective action, thus allowing harm and accruing
damages to unnecessarily continue towards this
Plaintiff. These disturbing concerns provide additional
support, questioning (at minimum) the integrity of the
Judicial system within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
d) The Plaintiff respectfully re-states the necessity to
involve Federal Prosecutors, the initiation of multiple
internal investigations, and the alignment of
referenced criminal complaint(s), in conjunction with
this filed Civil Docket.
e) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior
Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in
accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local
Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion
requesting Injunctive Relief to the Plaintiff (Motion
filed separately).
f) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex Superior
Court (MA), the Plaintiff respectfully files in
accordance of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Local
52
Rule 65, with this Federal District Court, a Motion
requesting a Temporary Restraining Order - TRO (Motion
filed separately).
g) With the recent decision made by the Middlesex
Superior Court (MA), the Plaintiff will temporarily
postpone filing a Motion to inform the Massachusetts
Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel, as the details of
attorney misconduct (alleged) is planned to be
addressed in the forthcoming trial.
N. 14th Amendment Infractions to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights
68. See Attachment M, which includes the Notice of Appeal
never received by the Massachusetts Appeals Court,
preceded by the complaint filed with the Committee on
Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court.
O. Evidenced Tampering Violations
69. The Plaintiff brings to this Court’s attention,
evidenced allegations of tampering with a Middlesex
Superior Court File. The Plaintiff’s efforts to address
clearly evidenced tampering violations with the Court were
completely ignored.44
44
Reference transcripts for Middlesex Superior Court Docket No:
11-04499.
53
P. Plaintiff Reports Defendants Fraudulent Actions to
State/Federal Authorities, Multiple Agencies.
70. The Plaintiff has filed fully supported criminal
complaints against these Defendants with the Massachusetts
Attorney General’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. No action taken. Numerous email
communications sent directly to MA Attorney Generals –
Martha Coakley and Maura Healey have been blatantly
ignored. In each their respective campaigns to run for
public office, both Coakley and Healey are on record,
boasting of their efforts to combat foreclose fraud, to
achieve political gain. As previously evidenced and
reported to this Court, Attorney General Healey has gone
so far as to BLOCK the Plaintiff from viewing the MA
Attorney General’s Office - social media page on TWITTER.
71. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the MA Office
of the Inspector General. No Action Taken.
72. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – No Action Taken.
73. The Plaintiff has filed complaints with the
Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers/BAR Counsel against
Defendants – David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson and
Peter Haley. The BAR Counsel is said to be monitoring this
matter, and awaits the Courts’ decision.
54
74. The Plaintiff has filed a complaint with the
Northeast Association of Realtors (NEAR) against Real
Estate Brokers – Ken and Mary Daher, Daher Companies Inc.,
Methuen, MA. The initial hearing has recessed pending
final decisions by the Court.
Q. Misconduct related to Plaintiff’s Foreclosure Identified by
the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General; also by an
Independent Foreclosure Review Conducted by Federal Bank
Regulators.
75. Restating that violations of both State and Federal
Law have already been determined by the US DOJ and the MA
Attorney General’s Office, as it relates to the
Plaintiff’s foreclosure. Similarly, Federal Bank
Regulators have determined misconduct associated with the
Plaintiff’s foreclosure through an Independent Foreclosure
Review.
R. Secondary Defendants
The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud Expert –
Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed to
assist with accurately articulating the degrees of
misconduct associated with who the Plaintiff considers
“Secondary Defendants.” A thorough review of the
historical record and ALL transcripts will be necessary to
55
understand the roles each of these Defendants played with
respect to the illegal foreclosure:
76. Harmon Law Offices PC – identified and under
investigation by the MA Attorney General’s Office for
their roles in thousands of illegal foreclosures
throughout the Commonwealth. Plaintiff allegations include
(but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and
Abetting Fraud.
77. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP – considered
the “second tier foreclosure mill law firm.” Plaintiff
allegations include (but are not limited to): RICO
violations, Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.
78. Peter Haley, Esq. – managing partner of Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, Boston Office. On
record as supporting the misconduct of representing
counsel, David E. Fialkow.
79. David E. Fialkow, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations
include (but are not limited to: Fraudulent Concealment,
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Perjury, and Aiding and
Abetting Fraud.
80. Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq. - Plaintiff allegations
include (but are not limited to: RICO violations,
56
Fraudulent Concealment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation,
Perjury, and Aiding and Abetting Fraud.
81. Mary and Ken Daher, Daher Companies (Weichert
Realtors) – Real Estate Brokers who disregarded
disclosures indicating an illegal foreclosure, choosing
instead to move forward unethically, with selling the
illegal foreclosure to the current homeowners, Jeffrey and
Isabelle Perkins. Plaintiff allegations include aiding and
abetting fraud.
82. Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins – current homeowners to
the referenced illegal foreclosure, having disregarded the
Plaintiff’s disclosure warning against misconduct
associated with the property, and legal action forthcoming
against ALL parties aligning with the misconduct,
including Real Estate Brokers and homebuyers. Isabelle
Perkins is believed to also be a licensed Real Estate
Agent for Weichert Realtors also.
S. Intellectual Property of the Plaintiff
83. Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, known as the FCS
Model© - involves a project created by the Plaintiff to
assist this Nation’s and overall economic recovery from
damages suffered during the US Foreclosure/Financial
57
Crisis. The documented MERITS of this project are
significant, having successfully reached the Executive
Offices of the President of these United States (EOP) – at
the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden, the
Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Finance Committee,
Senior Economic adviser to US Senator Elizabeth Warren
(MA), Congresswoman Niki Tsongas’ Office (MA), the
Chairman of a nationally ranked Strategic Communications
firm, the Attorney General Offices of Massachusetts and
New Hampshire, and two (2) Massachusetts State Senators.
Effectively implemented, this project is expected to have
a positive economic impact estimated in the trillions of
dollars. The collective actions of the Defendants are
considered to have negatively impacted and caused damage
to this project. Economic experts will be called at trial
to articulate the measure of all variables, in a
successfully implemented FCS model. The “value” of the FCS
model is equated to the (estimated) total positive
economic impact of a successfully implemented model
(measured in US dollars).
84. Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving
a template designed to assist (at minimum) the 4.2 million
FORECLOSED parties, identified in the US Foreclosure
Crisis, with filing a civil action against the responsible
58
Lender/party. Any party, agency, court, employer, etc…
whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any
portion of this project are expected to be included as
Defendants in this civil/criminal action(s).
An expanded overview of this Project is described as
follows:
a. As a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff has clearly
demonstrated the ability to properly construct
(and argue) a civil complaint as it relates to
this matter.
b. The final product of the proposed template can be
described as a “cleaned up” version of what
already exists on record. This version will be
simplified in a “step by step” manual, modified by
state, as needed.
c. Accessibility to this template is expected to come
(at minimum) with incorporating a website.
Numerous media sources including social media will
be used to communicate, educate, and inform the
public, and ALL affected parties of this new
available tool.
To put into context a value for this template, the
following formula is used:
59
(a) A baseline of 4.2M affected parties with similar
damages averaging an estimated $1M each.
(b) Multiply 4.2M (affected parties) by $1M (average
damages per) to estimate total damages; equating
the value of this template at 100% to an estimated
$4.2T.
85. Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property involving
a template designed to assist (at minimum) the 4.2 million
parties, identified in the US Foreclosure Crisis, with
filing a criminal action against the responsible
Lender/party. Any party, agency, court, employer, etc…
whose actions negatively impact or cause damage to any
portion of this project are expected to be included as
Defendants in this civil action. Accessibility and
communication of this template, once complete, will be
released in conjunction with the civil complaint model.
The Plaintiff elects to refrain at this time, from
assigning an estimated value to this criminal complaint
template, until counsel has been retained, and/or a
Federal prosecutor has been assigned.
V. THE MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES MARKET
86. Although relatively unknown and unused prior to 2004,
MBS trusts held approximately one-third of all residential
mortgages in the United States by the end of 2009.
60
87. Most trusts comprise between 2,000 and 5,000
residential mortgages, with notes, with an aggregate value
between $500 million and $2 billion.
88. These trusts are each governed by Pooling and Service
Agreement (“PSAs”) and other documents. The PSA
establishes most of the duties of various entities
involved in the creation and operation of the trust.
89. Each trust has a Master Servicer and most trusts also
have several subservicers. The servicing of the loans in
the trust includes billing for and collecting the monthly
mortgage payments, and managing defaults in the loan pool
when they occur. These duties were very lucrative, thus
many of the loan originators also had a mortgage servicing
division or subsidiary.
90. Because trusts are often comprised of loans from
several different mortgage company/originators, they can
have several sub-servicers.
91. Every mortgage servicing company included as a
defendant herein, utilized fraudulent mortgage assignments
to trusts that included homes in Massachusetts in their
loan pools.
92. Every trust, of course, has a trustee as well. These
trustees are usually among the largest banks in the world,
such as BANK OF AMERICA, BONY, CHASE, CITIBANK, HSBC,
61
DBNTC, DBTCA, and Defendants US BANK, and WELLS FARGO. One
of the
most significant duties of the trustee is to ensure the
conveyance of the mortgages and notes from the depositor
to the trust. This conveyance is done via mortgage
assignments.
93. The trusts represent to purchasers of their
securities that the notes and mortgages (bundled to form
the asset pool of the trust) will be delivered with
assignments to the trust in recordable form, so that they
will be able to foreclose on the assets in the event of
default.
94. Despite the trusts’ representations, many of the
mortgage documents were not delivered at all to the
trustee or, if delivered, were allegedly lost or
misplaced.
95. Nevertheless, the trustees, custodians, depositors,
and servicers of the MBS Trusts routinely provided
certifications of compliance, falsely asserting that they
had fulfilled their obligations as mandated by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Regulation AB
as well as the prospectuses and PSAs.
62
96. Without the valid mortgage assignments and properly
endorsed notes, the value of the assets in the trust are
severely diminished because the trustee is unable to
establish clear chain-of-title to pursue a foreclosure
action, and establishing entitlement to foreclose becomes
more complex and, therefore, more costly. Rather than
disclosing the missing loan documentation problem to
homeowners and courts, the Defendants filed fraudulent
mortgage notes and assignments in court to support their
foreclosure cases.
VI. DEFENDANTS’ ACTS VIOLATE THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT
97. Defendants created mortgage-backed securities that
lacked lawful assignments and other documents of the
mortgages underlying. Defendants then created – or had
created – fraudulent mortgage assignments and note
endorsements to use in foreclosures.
98. By 2008, at the latest, the Defendants knew that
documents were often not delivered to the trusts as
promised by the originators. This occurred so commonly
that the industry coined a term, exception reports, to
describe documents missing from loan pools. These
exception reports were simply a listing, by trust, of all
of the documents
63
missing from each trust.
99. Defendants manufactured, caused to be manufactured,
or purchased and used fraudulent mortgage assignments,
notes, and note endorsements in hundreds of thousands of
foreclosure and bankruptcy cases throughout the country.
100. Defendants used the fraudulent documents to conceal
from the MBS Trust investors, including the Government,
courts, homeowners, and HUD the enormity of the problem of
missing loan documents.
101. The trustees of the MBS Trusts, which claim ownership
of each of these mortgages, will incur significantly
higher costs of foreclosure in proving lawful title to the
subject property, or will never be able to prove
ownership, based on forged signatures on assignments to
their respective MBS Trusts. The resulting financial harm
to the investors of the MBS Trusts, including the
Plaintiff, is substantial.
102. SEC regulations also required most of the Defendants
to file certificates attesting that they have fulfilled
their duties with respect to the MBS Trusts. In
particular, 17 C.F.R. § 229.1122(d)(4) required the
trustee, custodian, and servicing Defendants to file a
report indicating (i) whether “ [c]ollateral or security
on pool assets is maintained as required by the
64
transaction agreements or related pool asset documents”
and (ii) whether “[p]ool assets and related documents are
safeguarded as required by the transaction agreements.”
Similarly, 17 C.F.R. § 229.1123 requires filing a
statement that “the servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the agreement in all material respects
throughout the reporting period or, if there has been a
failure to fulfill any such obligation in any material
respect, specifying each such failure known to such
officer and the nature and status thereof.”
103. According to the FRAUD EXPERT, the certificates filed
by Defendants pursuant to these provisions were false,
because they failed to state that the notes and mortgage
assignments were not safeguarded and, in fact, had not
been transferred to the MBS Trusts. In some instances, the
Defendants noted non-compliance, but only with reference
to minor issues and never disclosed that the mortgage
assignments and the notes and the related documents were
missing or that forgeries were being submitted in their
place.
104. In any foreclosures on assets in the MBS Trusts, the
trustee bank Defendants will be unable, or will have to
expend significant funds, to prove their allegations that
the MBS Trust is the lawful owner of the subject mortgage,
65
in addition to expenses due to the preparation and filing
of forged assignments. The amount the trustee bank
Defendants will expend to prove their ownership is
materially more than they would have spent if they had
complied with the procedures described in the respective
prospectus and PSA. In addition, the value of the security
must be discounted to account for the risk that a court
may not recognize the MBS Trust as the legal owner of the
security, and thus deny foreclosure on the collateral. The
cost for the trustee bank Defendants to establish the MBS
Trust as the owner of each mortgage included in the MBS
is, of course, passed on to the MBS Trust itself when the
trustee, custodian, and servicer(s) deduct their expenses
from the trust corpus.
105. This harm is not only economic, however. The
prevalence of the forged assignments and absence of the
original mortgage notes resulting in lost note affidavits
shook consumer confidence in investing and in government
regulation. The ease with which Defendants were able to
cash in on their fraudulent behavior encouraged others in
similar situations to attempt similar schemes, multiplying
the potential harm and loss of confidence exponentially.
As one of the FBI Special Agents involved in the
conviction of an LPS executive observed, “Our country is
66
increasingly faced with more pervasive and sophisticated
fraud schemes that have the potential to disrupt entire
markets and the economy as a whole.”45
106. Substantial subpoenaed testimony will additionally be
required by the referenced Fraud expert, Lynn Syzmoniak,
Federal and State Prosecutors, to assist with accurate
articulation and extent of ALL variables of associated
misconduct, relationships to referenced case examples, and
subsequent CAUSES OF ACTION.
VII. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729
(a)(1)(A), Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the
Depositor Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
107. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by
reference all the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1
through 106 of this Complaint.
108. This is a claim for civil penalties and treble
damages under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et
seq., as amended.
109. As alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the Defendants
created, serviced, or participated in the MBS Trusts.
45 DOJ Press Release, “Former Executive At Florida-Based Lender
Processing Services, Inc. Admits Role In Mortgage-Related
Document Fraud Scheme,” Nov. 20, 2012.
67
110. Defendants submitted claims to government entities,
including HUD, for the payment of mortgage guarantees
based on fraudulent documents in order to falsely assert
entitlement to the mortgage guarantees. Defendants
received millions of dollars in payments on federal
government guarantees of mortgages based on foreclosure
proceedings utilizing false assignments of notes and
mortgages. In addition, they improperly charged HUD for
the cost of filing with the courts the false documents.
Accordingly, the Defendants and their agents and employees
knowingly presented or caused to be presented a false or
fraudulent claim for payment or approval from the
government entity that paid the mortgage guarantee claim.
111. As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the MBS
Trusts lacked the requisites necessary for the mortgages
to be transferred to the MBS Trusts issuing MBS,
namely:(1) the legally binding assignments from the
originating bank to the MBS Trusts and, finally, to the
foreclosure agent; (2) the recording of title in the
county recorder’s office;and (3) the original note and
mortgage, signed by both borrower and lender. The
prospectus for the referenced MBS Trust, in other public
statements, falsely represented that the trust had
possession of these documents and held good title to the
68
mortgages and notes underlying the securities.
112. As further alleged in paragraphs 1-106, the
Defendants created false mortgage documents and charged
the MBS Trusts for their unlawful services. Likewise, the
Defendants charged the MBS Trusts for services that were
never provided, including, but not limited to, trustee and
custodial services relating to the notes and mortgage
assignments.
113. By virtue of the wrongful conduct alleged here, the
value of each of the MBS Trusts that was purchased by the
U.S. government or government-funded entity was impaired.
114. Defendants received millions of dollars in U.S.
government funds to provide services for MBS Trusts held
by the Treasury or other government-funded entity.
Defendants falsely represented that they had performed the
services paid for. Accordingly, the Defendants and their
agents and employees knowingly presented or caused to be
presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or
approval to the government entity that purchased MBS
Trusts.
115. Ultimately, by reason of these false and fraudulent
claims, the Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to
be damaged, in an amount yet to be determined.
69
116. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT I.
COUNT II FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(B),
Against the Trustee Bank Defendants, the Depositor
Defendants, and Wells Fargo NA.
117. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT II.
COUNT III FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D),
Against ALL Defendants
118. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT III.
COUNT IV FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G),
Against ALL Defendants
119. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT IV.
70
COUNT V FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(C),
Against ALL Defendants for Conspiracy to Commit a
Violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(A), 31 U.S.C. §
3729 (a)(1)(B), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(D), and 31
U.S.C. § 3729 (a)(1)(G)
120. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT V.
COUNT VI Massachusetts False Claims Act
Mass. Ann. Laws Ch. 12 §§ 5(B)(1)-(B)(4), 5(B)(8),
Against ALL Defendants
121. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VI.
COUNT VII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Foreclosing Without Being the Holder of the
Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
122. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VII.
71
COUNT VIII Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation
of G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Failing to identify the Present Holder of
the Mortgage in Notice of Sale (as to the Bank Defendants)
123. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT VIII.
COUNT IX Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G.L.c. 93A, § 2: Falsely Representing Status as Holder of
Mortgage (as to the Bank Defendants)
124. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT IX.
COUNT X Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Deceptive Loan Modification and Servicing
Practices (as to the Bank Defendants)
125. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT X.
COUNT XI Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices in Violation of
72
G. L. c. 93A, § 2: Failure to Register Assignment of Mortgages
(as to Bank Defendants)
126. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XI.
COUNT XII Declaratory Judgment: Failure to Register Transfer of
Beneficial Interests in Mortgages in Violation of
G. L. c. 185, § 67 (as to Bank Defendants)
127. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XII.
COUNT XIII 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due
Process and Equal Protection Rights.
128. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XIII.(Includes Defendant -
Commonwealth of Massachusetts)
COUNT XIV Violations to the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO)(18 USC §§ 1961 – 1968)
129. The assistance of Federal Prosecutors is needed to
assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
73
associated with COUNT XIV. (Includes at minimum Defendants
– Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Jeffrey S. Patterson,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP)
COUNT XV Deprivation of Rights violations Under Color of Law,
Title 18, USC, § 242
130. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNT XV.
131. Includes multiple Abuses of Judicial Discretion
within Massachusetts State Courts.
132. Includes the Commonwealth’s Failure to Prosecute and
Protect clearly evidenced crimes against this Plaintiff.
COUNT XVI Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. § 501 (copyright infringement)
133. The assistance of retained legal counsel and Federal
Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately
articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVI.
COUNT XVII Damage to Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, 17
U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b) (criminal
copyright infringement for profit)
134. The assistance of retained legal counsel, and Federal
Prosecutors is needed to assist with accurately
articulating the misconduct associated with COUNT XVII.
74
COUNTS XVII+ Misconduct Associated with Secondary Defendants
135. The assistance of retained legal counsel, Fraud
Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, and Federal Prosecutors is needed
to assist with accurately articulating the misconduct
associated with COUNTS XVII+.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that judgement be entered
against Defendants, ordering that:
A. Defendants pay an amount equal to three times the amount
of damages sustained because of Defendant’s actions, plus
civil penalties…….
i. Injunctive Relief
ii. Personal damages to marriage, family, career,
credit, future retirement and everyday living.
Personal damages include loss of Plaintiff’s
home, to which the Plaintiff was HOMELESS for
nearly two (2) years. A review of the historical
record will additionally reveal
Slander/Defamation of the Plaintiffs’ character
for the past four (4) years. Collective damages
easily meet the Federal minimum requirement of
$75,000 and are considered greater than $1M.
75
iii. Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property - While the
Plaintiff has every right to seek 100% of the
damages/infringement as described within, the
Plaintiff will initially set the total relief
sought – equivalent to 1 percent (1%) of the
template defined in 64(b), or $42B. Should an
agreement between parties be reached based on
this fraction of damages, Plaintiff MAY consider
various options of payment to lessen the burden
of payment. However, if it is instead the
Defendant’s decision not to seek agreement based
on this very minimal percentage, the Plaintiff
reserves the right to adjust damages up to and
including 100 percent (100%) of ALL six (6)
sections of damages as described within, and
without consideration for various options of
payment.
iv. The Plaintiff will be awarded all costs of this
action, including attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
costs reimbursement of ALL associated legal
fees/costs affecting this Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff will look to the recommendations of counsel
(once retained) and the Court to assist with a breakdown
76
of relief due to the Plaintiff by each of the Defendants,
along with their ability to pay.
B. The Plaintiff makes very clear before this Court; the
formula used to calculate damages here, ONLY takes into
consideration the measured timeline of the US Foreclosure/
Financial crisis (estimated 2006 – 2010). The 4.2M
affected parties identified are similarly from this
estimated timeline only. It is NOT to say that similar
misconduct has not occurred before this timeline, or
since. Additionally, the formula is ONLY applied to
impacted FORECLOSURES within this estimated timeline.
THE PLAINTIFF MAKES VERY CLEAR, THAT ASSOCIATED MISCONDUCT
IS NOT LIMITED TO FORECLOSURES ALONE.
Should an agreement here between parties be unsuccessful,
the plaintiff will reserve the right to address this
expanded misconduct in a separate action(s).
IX. REQUEST FOR A TRIAL BY JURY
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
77
CLOSING STATEMENT
It is through sheer arrogance and the apparent belief of
being “ABOVE THE LAW” that these Defendants now find
themselves in this position of increased legal risk. This
Plaintiff has followed the rules of the Court; has clearly
conducted himself in an ethical manner; exemplified complete
transparency, and shown beyond ANY doubt, evidenced
misconduct by Defendants and their retained counsel. It is
understandable to suspect, that a degree of embarrassment
exists – knowing that this pro se litigant has historically
exemplified the ability to successfully argue this matter in
a Court of law. Regardless, their position now comes by
their own hand. As this pro se Plaintiff has abided by the
rules of the Court, so too, must these Defendants and
counsel be held accountable when they violate and abuse the
law.
The Plaintiff - Mohan A. Harihar, has clearly gone over and
above, perhaps more so than any individual in this
Commonwealth or Country, not only to irrefutably prove this
case, but to also provide a solution which aids in this
Nation’s economic recovery, and ALL parties affected.
78
It remains my sincere hope, that a mutual agreement will be
reached here, while paving the way for an economic framework
that brings historic economic growth to these United States.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
Attachment A
79
80
81
82
83
84
Attachment B
85
Eligibility for Independent Foreclosure Review
Borrowers were eligible for an independent foreclosure review if they met the following criteria:
the property securing the loan was the borrower's primary residence;
the mortgage was in the foreclosure process (initiated, pending, or completed) at any time between
January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010; and
the mortgage was serviced by one of the following mortgage servicers:
America's Servicing Company* Countrywide* National City Mortgage*
Aurora Loan Services* EMC Mortgage Corporation* PNC Mortgage*
BAC Home Loans Servicing* EverBank/EverHome Mortgage Company Sovereign Bank*
Bank of America* Financial Freedom (OneWest) SunTrust Mortgage*
Beneficial* GMAC Mortgage U.S. Bank*
Chase* HFC* Wachovia Mortgage*
Citibank* HSBC* Washington Mutual (WaMu)*
CitiFinancial* IndyMac Mortgage Services (OneWest) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.*
CitiMortgage* MetLife Bank* Wilshire Credit Corporation*
*These companies are participating in the Payment Agreement.
Eligible borrowers were sent a Request for Review form by mail starting in November of 2011 when the program launched.
If a borrower previously filed a complaint with these servicers about foreclosures pending during the review period, they were still eligible to file for an independent review of their foreclosure.
There were no costs associated with being included in the review; the review was a free program. Borrowers should beware of anyone requiring payments for assistance in connection with the Independent Foreclosure Review or any other foreclosure assistance program.
Federal Reserve's Role
The Federal Reserve's role is to ensure compliance with the enforcement actions issued in April 2011, including the payment process under the agreement in principle announced in January of 2013.
OCC and Federal Reserve examiners are continuing to closely monitor the servicers' implementation of plans required by the enforcement actions issued in April 2011 to correct the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and
foreclosure practices.
86
87
Attachment C
(Insert Report - Federal Reserve System/ Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency/ Office of Thrift Supervision,
Washington D.C., 2011)
88
Attachment D
(Insert - WALL STREET AND THE FINANCIAL CRISIS: Anatomy of a
Financial Collapse – Majority and Minority Staff Report,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States
Senate.)
89
Attachment E
(Insert - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of
the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and
Economic Crisis in the United States)
90
Attachment F
(Insert - Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Foreclosure Attorney
Procedure Manual, Version 1)
91
Attachment G
92
93
94
95
Attachment H
(Insert - Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report, Attorney General
Martha Coakley, Public Document No. 12)
96
Attachment I
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Attachment J
(Insert Commonwealth’s Complaint filed in Suffolk Superior
Court, Docket No: 11-4363)
118
Attachment K
119
120
121
Attachment L
122
Complaint Referral Form
Internet Crime Complaint Center
Please review your complaint for accuracy, prior to submitting it
to the IC3.
The following information was provided by the victim and may be
forwarded to the
appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agencies.
Your Personal Information * First Name:Mohan
Middle Name:A
* Last Name:Harihar
Business Name:
* Age:40 - 49
* Gender:M
* Address:168 Parkview Avenue
Address (continued):
Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:
* City:Lowell
Do you live within the city limits?: Yes No
County:Middlesex County
State:Massachusetts
* Country:United States
* Zip Code / Route:01852
* Phone Number:6179212526
* E-mail Address:[email protected]
Name of your local police or sheriff's office:
Lowell Police Department
Is the complaint you are filing related to the Internet or an online service?
Yes No
123
Do you have pertinent documents in paper form?
Yes No
Information about the Individual/Business that victimized you Business
Name:Nelson Mullins Riley Scarboropugh LLP
First Name:Peter
Middle Name:
Last Name:Haley
Gender:M
Address:One Post Office Square
Address (continued):30th Floor
Suite/Apt./Mail Stop:
City:Boston
State:Massachusetts
Country:United States
Zip Code / Route:02109
Phone Number:6175734714
E-mail Address:[email protected]
Other Identifiers Web Site:
IP Address:
IRC Server:
Chat Room Name:
Usenet Newsgroup:
Other:
Monetary Loss
* Please specify the total dollar amount of your loss from this
incident:
$ 999999999 (US Dollars)
Please indicate the means of payment (select all that apply)
Cash
Cashier's Check
Check/Debit Card
124
Credit Card
Money Order
Wire Transfer
Other (Specify Other)
Did you use a third party online payment service such as PayPal, BidPay,
Escrow?
Yes No
Description of the Incident * Describe in your own words how you
have been victimized.
Be specific. Include date(s) of transaction(s), a description of any items
that were not delivered or were counterfeited, any transaction numbers
(from Ebay, Western Union, PayPal, etc.), and any other pertinent
information that helps to explain how you were victimized. Also if you
received anything by U.S. Mail, FedEx, or UPS, specifically describe the
envelope, by the date, time, city and zip code shown on the stamp
cancellation postmark.
During an initial call to file a complaint with the Boston Office of the FBI
(Fraud Investigations), it was additionally suggested to file an online
complaint on this site, as a received email includes an admission
associated with fraudulent misconduct which extends beyond the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This matter involves documented
misconduct, both criminal and civil, involving multiple parties in active
litigation for nearly 3 years against Mohan A. Harihar, and the associated
foreclosed property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell MA 01852.
Parties include: US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage
Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP - specifically, associate David
E. Fialkow and managing partner Peter Haley, Nelson Mullins LLP as a
whole, as the documented admission by Mr. Peter Haley includes the
support of the entire firm, and finally Harmon Law Offices PC. Active
litigation is currently in both the MA Appeals Court and the MA Supreme
Court. Criminal complaints against referenced parties have recently been
filed in Lowell District Court. Documented fraudulent misconduct includes
(but is not limited to) deceptive practices during the 22-month loan
125
modification process, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, perjury, and aiding and abetting fraud. Prior retained
counsel representing US Bank NA was Harmon Law Offices PC (Newton,
MA), who has been under investigation by the MA Attorney General for
foreclosure related practices, and who immediately withdrew as counsel
from this case once informed by Mohan Harihar that they would be held
criminally and civilly accountable if they continued as counsel. Nelson
Mullins LLP and their associated clients US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA
have been afforded multiple opportunities to cease and desist, but have
chosen instead to continue this misconduct, and accruing harm and
damages against Mohan A. Harihar. As this matter has been definitively
associated with FRAUD on a NATIONWIDE MASS-SCALE by two(2)
reputable sources (Federal bank Regulators and The MA Attorney
General), the associated misconduct has been brought to the attention of
multiple parties including: MA Attorney Generals Office, Middlesex County
District Attorney, members of the US and State Senate, members of
Congress, the media and the public. Complaints are filed with numerous
agencies (see below). Aside from the documented admission included in
the email by Peter Haley, documented misconduct is included in nearly all
related court documents and transcripts from the following Courts: Lowell
District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex County Superior Court,
MA Appeals Court, and MA Supreme Court (Docket numbers provided
upon request). Following the recent criminal complaint filed in Lowell
District Court, the DOJ has announced the JP Morgan settlement, the
recent Ocwen Financial settlement, and the forthcoming 2014 fraud cases
against associated lenders/mortgage servicers. It is been clearly
articulated by Mohan A. Harihar in numerous communications, that aside
from pursuing criminal and civil accountability against referenced parties,
Mr. Harihars intention is to aid the DOJ in these next chapters of the US
Foreclosure Crisis, and what is arguably the largest case of Fraud in United
States history. This matter additionally involves intellectual property
considered to be the property of Mohan A. Harihar, specifically designed to
aid foreclosed homeowners negatively impacted by this associated
misconduct, as well as aiding in the nations economic recovery. To date,
presentations pertaining to the referenced intellectual property have been
successfully made to multiple parties including: 1. A Senior member of the
126
House Finance Committee (Washington, DC). 2. Two (2) Attorney General
Offices. 3. Two (2) State Senators. 4. A Congressional Office. 5. A Lender
Senior VP of Risk Compliance. 6. A Chairman of a Nationally ranked
Strategic Communications firm. A presentation is currently being prepared
for a member of the US Senate. This is an overall summary of events
related to this matter.
Please indicate any medium used by the individual/business in the course
of the incident.
Bulletin board
Chat room
Fax
In person
Internet messaging
Newsgroup
Telephone
Web site
Wire
Other
Please indicate the initial means of contact with the individual/business
that victimized you.
Other
Was this initial means of contact unsolicited/uninvited?
Yes No
What was your relationship with the individual/business you are
complaining about prior to the incident you are reporting?
no prior relationship
127
Did you conduct any research on the individual/business prior to the
incident?
Yes No
How much time has passed since you determined you were victimized?
6 months or more
Contact Information
Are there witnesses or other victims to this crime?
Parties identified by both Federal Bank Regulators as well as the National
Mortgage Settlement and all 50 Attorneys General. Victim count
associated with this matter is at minimum considered to be 4.2M parties.
Have you reported this crime to any law enforcement or government
agencies?
Better Business Bureau
Consumer protection agency
Individual/business that victimized you
Police/other law enforcement
Private attorney
Provide the specific name of each organization, contact name, contact
phone number, email address, date reported, and report number (if
known).
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General Middlesex County District
Attorney MA Bar of Overseers/Bar Counsel US Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) Internal Revenue Service - In process
Digital Signature
Read the following statement below, and confirm your agreement by
typing your full name below in the box provided:
By digitally signing this document, I affirm that the information I provided
is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I have read the IC3's
128
Privacy Policy, and understand that this information may be provided to
law enforcement and regulatory agencies. If available, I will provide
additional documentation not included in this complaint, such as email
correspondence, payment receipts, or electronic logs, upon request to the
best of my ability. I authorize the dissemination of the complaint, or
information in the complaint, to appropriate federal, state, local, tribal or
international Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) for purposes of
investigating the complaint.
Digital Signature:
To confirm the submission of your complaint, please enter the following
letters below.
--> -->
Captcha Response
129
Attachment M
130
April 10, 2014
Committee on Professional Responsibility for Clerks of the Court Attn: Thomas Ambrosino John Adams Courthouse, Room 2500 1 Pemberton Square Boston, MA 02108 RE: Official Complaint filed against Susan Trippi, Northeast Housing Court
VIA US MAIL
Mr. Ambrosino:
My name is Mohan A. Harihar, and I wish to file an official complaint under Superior Court Rule 3:13 against Susan Trippi – Clerk Magistrate of the Northeast Housing Court for Middlesex County, whose negligence in failing to assemble a record for Appeal has led to the WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT of Mohan A. Harihar, additionally impacting DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS. This matter is related to my 3+ year ongoing, pro se effort against a wrongful foreclosure, involving the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. Since the initial ruling by the Northeast Housing Court, an overwhelming amount of information and evidence has come forth over the past 3 years, supporting my consistent claims of misconduct against referenced parties, along with the MA Appeals Court granting leave to file for New Trial in the lower Court(s). On April 29, 2013, following a hearing before Judge David Kerman, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail informing me that my request for new trial had been DENIED, despite the new evidence/information presented, showing no cause or reason supporting the decision. A Motion was then immediately filed with the Court, requesting CLARIFICATION of the decision. On May 14, 2013, I received a notice from the Northeast Housing Court by mail DENYING MY REQUEST TO CLARIFY THE DECISION.
A Notice of Appeal was immediately filed in person with the Northeast Housing Court (See Exhibit A). While filing the Notice of Appeal, I was approached by Ms. Trippi, requesting for me to be patient with regard to the Assembly of the Record, and that it might take a “couple of weeks” for the assembled record to be received by the MA Appeals Court. Nearly a year later, and after multiple follow-ups with the Northeast Housing Court Clerk’s Office, both by phone and in person, the record has still not been assembled for delivery to the MA Appeals Court. I have additionally addressed this directly with Ms. Trippi twice, both by phone – prior to the eviction order going out, and secondly in person, while attempting to secure an EMERGENCY STAY of the EVICTION order. However, the question was ignored, and I did not receive an answer. I have witnessed Ms. Trippi at work, both in the Clerks’ Office of the Northeast Housing Court in Lawrence, MA as well as in multiple sessions of the Northeast Housing Court, at the Middlesex Superior Court in Lowell, MA. She appears to be very capable of the duties required by her position. However, there is no excuse for the negligence that has occurred here, and numerous Red Flags are now raised, questioning the cause of this misconduct, on multiple levels as a result. The negligence exemplified here has allowed the premature execution of an eviction order, and has prevented the creation of a Docket case file within the MA Appeals Court. I am now HOMELESS, and I should not be. This misconduct is inexcusable, and I am insisting that there is accountability for the harm and damages caused by these actions, while I continue efforts to repair the damage caused by these collective events.* Thank you for your attention to this matter.
*This matter regarding wrongful foreclosure and wrongful displacement includes documented misconduct, considered both civil and criminal, and against multiple
131
parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Harmon Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP – specifically (at minimum) Attorney David E. Fialkow and Managing Partner Peter Haley. Criminal chargesare aggressively being pursued
against referenced parties as complaints on file with both the MA Attorney General’s Office as well as the Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI. For this reason, please be advised - multiple parties are copied on this communication including, but not limited to: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), US Senator Elizabeth Warren, US Senator Ed Markey, MA Governor Deval Patrick, MA Attorney General Martha Coakley, Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas, MA State Senator Eileen Donoghue, and the US Attorney’s Office.
Respectfully,
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
132
Exhibit A
133
NOTICE OF APPEAL
The Defendant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting Pro Se, respectfully files a Notice of Appeal with this court in
the above referenced matter, after first receiving the Court’s Order denying Defendant’s Motion for New Trial,
dated April 29, 2013, followed by the denied Motion requesting Clarification of the Order, received May 14,
2013.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
134
Attachment N
135
136
Attachment O
137
November 10, 2015
VIA EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE K&L Gates, LLP Attn: Brian L. Olson, Chief Human Resources Officer State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111-2950 RE: Attorneys David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson.
Mr. Olson:
It is my understanding that K&L Gates LLP has made the decision to recently employ, as
Partner’s in the Boston Office, Attorneys – David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson
(Previously with Nelson Mullins Reilly & Scarborough, LLP). It is also my understanding that
K&L Gates has made the decision to replace Nelson Mullins as retained counsel to both US
Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA, in litigation against Mohan A. Harihar.
Please be advised of the following:
1. The evidenced civil and criminal misconduct associated with the historical record of
this matter is included as part of a new complaint being filed in Federal Court. The
evidenced misconduct includes (at minimum):
a. Fraud
b. Deceptive Practices
c. Anti-trust Violations
d. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
e. Fraudulent Assignments
f. Perjury
g. Aiding and Abetting Fraud
h. 14th Amendment Constitutional infraction to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights.
i. Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion – involving the MA
Attorney General’s Office, the MA US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR
138
association, and Defendant’s counsel (prior) – Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP.
j. Abuses of Judicial discretion
k. Infractions/Infringement to the Intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.
Harihar, including projects designed to assist with this Nation’s (and Global)
economic recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.
2. David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson, and their former employer – Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough LLP will now be included Defendants in this Federal
complaint(s). Nelson Mullins is on record as supporting the documented misconduct
of retained counsel. Senior management has remained silent for nearly two (2) years
since having been implicated by the managing partner of the Boston Office, Peter
Haley.
3. Clear evidence of improper relationships including Collusion is on record.
Furthermore, there has been no denial by ANY party – the Massachusetts Attorney
General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, or Nelson
Mullins Riley and Scarborough LLP, of these very serious, and clearly evidenced
allegations.
4. Any party, agency, employer, etc… who so chooses to align themselves in support of
this referenced misconduct, is expected to be added as a Defendant in the forthcoming
Federal action(s).
5. A copy of this correspondence will be included in the referenced Federal complaint.
6. While K&L Gates has yet to been listed as a Defendant, Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar
has reserved the right to expand the list of Defendants as the depth of misconduct
continues to be revealed/exposed.
You are now respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions as they pertain
to this matter. Please note, a failure to do so will be interpreted as a decision to support the
evidenced misconduct of referenced clients and new employees/partners of K&L Gates, LLP.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
139
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Attachment P
140
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
August 15, 2014
VIA HAND DELIVERY Office of the Inspector General John W. McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 RE: Growing Concerns Related to MA Foreclosure & Ongoing Litigation
Dear Inspector General Cunha:
My name is Mohan A. Harihar – I am a Massachusetts wrongfully foreclosed homeowner, in
active litigation now for over 3 ½ years, currently being heard in the MA Appeals Court –
Docket No: 2013-P-1829 (Also reference 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671). Since the initial
rulings in the Lower Courts, an overwhelming amount of information has come forward in
support of my consistent claims of civil and criminal misconduct against the referenced
lenders and their retained counsel. In addition, this matter now includes irrefutable 14th
Amendment infractions to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights, concerns of Collusion
and Clear Conflict with ongoing litigation, and multiple abuses of Judicial discretion. The
collective concerns related to this matter are many, and sadly question the integrity of the
judicial system within this Commonwealth.
It has unfortunately become necessary to request the assistance of your office, to review and
monitor what has occurred here from inception to present day. I have included several
documents filed with the Court to assist with your review:
141
1. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Motion Requesting Clarification and
Reconsideration.
2. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Motion Requesting Validation.
3. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply to Appellee’s Opposition to initiate a
validation process, and request for Special Prosecutor.
4. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Brief.
5. Docket 2013-P-1829 Appellant Reply Brief.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone –
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
142
August 21, 2014
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY Office of the Inspector General John W. McCormack State Office Building One Ashburton Place, Room 1311 Boston, MA 02108 RE: New Concerns Related to MA Foreclosure & Ongoing Litigation
Dear Inspector General Cunha:
As follow-up to the letter hand delivered to your office last Friday, August 15, 2014, an
additional concern has now emerged, re-affirming the necessity to inform the Office of the
Inspector General in this matter.
On Monday, August 18, 2014, and in response to the Motion filed last Friday, August 15,
2014 with the Massachusetts Appeals Court requesting the Clarification of a Decision, the
Court has DENIED this request to clarify their decision. This represents a common theme
throughout the history of this matter, as detailed in the Appellant Brief/Reply Brief to the
associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Decisions made without cause, and requests to clarify
these decisions are subsequently denied. It re-affirms the clear concerns of a “Too Big to Fail”
mentality, thus questioning the Integrity of the Judicial system in this Commonwealth.
Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent to this Appellant, as well as 65,000
wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears clear – no matter
how much evidence or information there is supporting your claim, you will not be allowed to
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
143
succeed in recouping compensation for the damage caused or in holding responsible parties
accountable for their misconduct.
Understanding this matter is still in active litigation, the request made to the Inspector
General’s Office is to monitor and review the details of this matter, as a corrective path
continues to be sought within the MA Court system.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone –
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
144
December 22, 2014
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Office of the Inspector General
John W. McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 1311
Boston, MA 02108 RE: Request for Internal Investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, et al.
Dear Inspector General Cunha:
After filing the August 2014 request to review & monitor – the civil/criminal matters
pertaining to the Wrongful Foreclosure of Mohan A. Harihar, this email communication is
respectfully sent to your attention on this Monday, December 22, 2014 with regard to the
following:
1. Concerns involving the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, who has
exemplified no effort to prosecute or any attempt to even mediate definitive criminal
misconduct associated with the Wrongful Foreclosure/Displacement of Mohan A.
Harihar - all of which is well documented, fully supported and on file with the
Court(s).46
2. Clear and irrefutable evidence of Collusion and conflict has been revealed47
, as it
pertains to the referenced matter, involving the following parties:
a. The Office of the MA Attorney General.
b. Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP.
46
Reference MA Appeals Court Docket(s) 2012-P-1515, 2013-P-0671, 2013-P-1829, and also Criminal
Complaints filed directly with the MA Office of the Attorney General and the Fraud Investigations Unit of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 47
See attached, Exhibit A
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
145
c. The US Attorney’s Office.
d. The Boston BAR Association.
This evidence has been brought to the attention of the MA Appeals Court, and
apparently ignored.
3. Additional evidence on file with the Court(s), support (at minimum) the following
criminal misconduct:
a. Fraud (including, but not limited to Deceptive Practices).
b. Fraudulent Concealment.
c. Fraudulent Misrepresentation.
d. Fraudulent Assignments.
e. Perjury.
f. Confirmation of Fraud by nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT – Lynn
Syzmoniak.
4. Attorney General - Martha Coakley has been regularly updated directly via email for
over two (2) years, apparently choosing to ignore/disregard this matter. Associated
criminal complaints are additionally on file with the MA Office of the Attorney
General.
5. The clear, and evidenced relationship between the MA Attorney General’s Office and
Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP (retained counsel for Wells Fargo NA and
US bank NA in litigation vs. Mohan A. Harihar), supports clear collusion, conflict,
and shows cause to question the integrity of the MA Attorney General’s Office, their
failure to prosecute, or attempt to even mediate this matter.
6. The Attorney General’s “ongoing investigation” of Appellee/Defendant – Harmon
Law Offices PC for related misconduct, raises additional questions and concerns for
their lack of action here as well. These concerns which include Nelson Mullins Riley
and Scarborough LLP, also identify what is considered to be a “second tier to the
foreclosure mill law firm.”
7. It has been made clear, that this matter is not a singular issue. It has been irrefutably
identified and connected to civil and criminal misconduct associated with the US
Foreclosure Crisis, which has definitively caused irreparable harm to approximately
146
65,000 wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth, and at
minimum, 4.2 million throughout this Nation.
Since the August 2014 request to monitor & review this matter, your office has been
regularly included in related communications. These stated concerns pertaining to the
criminal misconduct associated with this matter respectfully should, and may already
be realized.
An email communication has been sent this morning to the direct attention of Attorney
General Martha Coakley48
. It is a third and final follow-up requesting an update to
mediation efforts regarding this matter. A requested timeline for response ending
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 @ 5pm EST has been given to provide an officially
documented and detailed update.
The US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis is arguably considered by many, to be the largest
case of FRAUD in the history of these United States. As anticipated, the decisions
made by referenced parties choosing to ignore these documented facts and concerns,
continue to expose the depth of associated misconduct - and still more evidence is
forthcoming, including (but not limited to) certified documents provided by the
SEC.49
Based on the current path, the interpreted message sent by this Attorney General, to
65,000 wrongfully foreclosed homeowners throughout this Commonwealth appears
clear – no matter how much evidence or information there is supporting your
claim/criminal complaint, you will not be allowed to succeed in holding
responsible parties accountable for their criminal misconduct. They are
considered “ABOVE THE LAW.” These serious concerns clearly question the
integrity of the Attorney General’s Office, and of Attorney General Coakley.
48
The Office of the MA Inspector General has been copied on this email correspondence to Attorney General
Coakley. 49
SEC – Securities and Exchange Commission.
147
You have been made aware, that these concerns are additionally related to a separate,
private economic project(s), created by Mohan A. Harihar - designed to assist with this
Nation’s and overall global recovery from the US Foreclosure/Financial crisis50
. All
parties, actions, etc…that bring increased risk to these projects, will be included in
forthcoming litigation for civil damages associated with the infringement to
Intellectual Property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar. Parties thus far currently include
(but are not limited to): Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, the Securitized Mortgage
Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1, Nelson Mullins LLP, and Harmon Law Offices PC.
You are aware, that the MA Appeals Court has recently granted Mohan A. Harihar
permission to file for new trial for civil damages related to the referenced wrongful
foreclosure, and referenced Intellectual property. Leave has been granted, due to the
overwhelming amount of documented evidence and information which continues to
come forth in full support of Mr. Harihar’s consistent claims. Failure to take corrective
action by the Attorney General will show cause to include the Commonwealth as a
Defendant in the referenced, forthcoming civil action.
ALL responsible parties that have been identified have been given ample opportunity,
to seek and reach agreement regarding these matters. These opportunities have been
repeatedly either denied or ignored. Therefore, I respectfully call for the following
action(s):
1. A full internal investigation of Attorney General Martha Coakley, Nelson Mullins
LLP, Harmon Law Offices PC and ALL parties who have been associated with
this matter.
2. Securing a Special Prosecutor to forthcoming litigation, and determining the
appropriate Court venue.
50
The FCS model is one of three projects considered to be the intellectual property belonging to Mohan A.
Harihar (Copyright, Patent-pending).
148
3. Continued monitoring of all civil Court proceedings, including historical decisions
from ALL Courts.51
Please be advised, the following parties have been copied on this email communication: Vice
President Joe Biden, Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA), US
Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), Attorney General-Elect Maura
Healey (MA), Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)52
, Christina Sterling
(Spokesperson, US Attorney’s Office - MA)53
, and Susan Herman (President, ACLU).
Separate Media communication has also been made available for the specific purpose of
informing the People of this Commonwealth, and this Nation of these concerns (Attached for
reference)54
. ALL communications (email, etc…involving ALL responsible parties and
related Court documents) are additionally being prepared for publication as reference and to
provide public awareness.
It brings me no pleasure to move in this legal direction. However, any system which
allows this level of criminal misconduct to continue without any accountability, will not,
nor should ever be tolerated.
For additional questions regarding this matter, I can be reached directly via cell phone –
617.921.2526.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
51
MA Civil proceedings have included: Lowell District Court, Northeast Housing Court, Middlesex Superior
Court, MA Appeals Court, and the MA Supreme Court. 52
CFPB – Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 53
DOJ - Department of Justice. 54
Click on the following link to view the 12/22/14/Media Alert:
149
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Deval Patrick (MA)
Governor-Elect Charles Baker (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA)
Attorney General-Elect Maura Healey (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, US Attorney’s Office (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
EXHIBIT A
150
151
March 20, 2015
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Office of the Inspector General
John W. McCormack State Office Building
One Ashburton Place, Room 1311
Boston, MA 02108
RE: Update to Harihar Litigation and Move to Federal Court
Dear Inspector General Cunha:
This email correspondence is sent to your direct attention as follow-up to
prior communications (last delivered, August 22, 2014). The depth of
documented misconduct surrounding the Harihar Foreclosure continues to come
forth. While the Massachusetts Appeals Court has already granted - Mohan A.
Harihar leave to file for new trial, the collective facts surrounding this
matter satisfy (at minimum) the Federal requirements of diversity; damages
exceeding a threshold of $75,000; violations to Federal Antitrust laws;
Constitutional Violations of the 14th Amendment to Due Process and Equal
Protection Rights; Improper relationships revealing evidenced Collusion and
Conflict involving the Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, the US
Attorney’s Office, the Boston BAR Association, and Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP; and numerous abuses of Judicial discretion on multiple
levels - in which the Commonwealth thus far has failed to address and take
corrective action.
ALL parties are additionally aware of the related infringement/damages to
Mr. Harihar’s Intellectual Property. This includes projects designed to
assist with this Nation’s and overall Global economic recovery from the US
Foreclosure/Financial Crisis. New civil and criminal complaints are now
being prepared for filing in Federal Court.
Original Defendants include:
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
152
1. Wells Fargo NA
2. US Bank NA
3. RMBS CMLTI 2006-AR1
4. Harmon Law Offices PC
Additional Defendants in the forthcoming Federal civil/criminal actions
will include:
5. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
6. Nelson Mullins LLP
7. Attorney David E. Fialkow
8. Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson
9. Attorney Peter Haley
10. Real Estate Brokers Kenneth and Mary Daher
11. Purchasers of the referenced illegal foreclosure – Jeffrey and
Isabelle Perkins.
Please be advised, as a prelude to filing new Federal actions, injunctive
relief is now being sought in the Middlesex Superior Court – providing an
opportunity for the Commonwealth to take corrective action. Any corrective
action taken by the Court (or failure to do so) will be recognized as this
matter moves to Federal Court.
This is a very serious and sensitive matter. The overwhelming amount of
evidenced misconduct directly ties to what many consider the largest case
of FRAUD in the history of these United States. Respectfully, you are aware
that the evidenced allegations, including clear concerns of CORRUPTION,
have made it necessary to involve your office, and a call for (at minimum)
multiple internal investigations.
Please be advised - this correspondence (and those prior) are considered
part of the record as this matter moves to Federal Court. Your office is
respectfully requested to articulate for the record, your intentions for
initiating next steps as it relates to these serious allegations.
Additionally, please advise whether the involvement of additional Offices
and/or agencies (please be specific) is now required. A copy of this
correspondence is being filed with the Middlesex Superior Court, in
addition to the Government officials and agencies copied in the list below.
153
If your office has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional information,
please advise.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
Cc: Vice President Joe Biden
Governor Charles Baker (MA)
US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA)
US Senator Ed Markey (MA)
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA)
Attorney General Maura Healey (MA)
Assistant Deputy Director Timothy Sheehan (CFPB)
Christina Sterling, Spokesperson, DOJ (MA)
Susan Herman (President, ACLU)
154
Attachment Q
155
156
157
Attachment R
158
159
Attachment S
160
June 20, 2014
Northeast Association of Realtors FOR DOCUMENTATION, DISCLOSURE & LEGAL
6 Liberty Way, Suite 204 PURPOSES Westford, MA 01886 RE: Ethics Complaint – Daher Companies
VIA US MAIL
Dear Northeast Association of Realtors,
It has unfortunately become necessary to file an Ethics Complaint55
against two (2) members of the Northeast Association of Realtors:
1. Mary E. Koontz-Daher, Daher Companies (Principal).
2. Kenneth Daher, Daher Companies (Principal).
In late February 2014, and following the Wrongful Displacement of Mohan A. Harihar, Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies (located at 25 East Street, Methuen, MA 01844), elected to list the foreclosed residential property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. This property has been in ongoing litigation pertaining to Wrongful Foreclosure for over three (3) years, and is currently being heard in the MA Appeals Court, Docket No. 2013-P-1829. Associated misconduct is considered both civil and criminal, and is fully supported against multiple parties including (but not limited to): US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, Harmon Law Offices PC, Nelson Mullins LLP and the Securitized Mortgage Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1.
On March 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Daher, Principals of Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies, to notify all parties of the serious circumstances associated with this matter, and the potential legal risk to ANY, and ALL parties, choosing to align themselves with the associated misconduct. This Notice of Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability has apparently been ignored.
56
55
See Appendix, Completed Form E-1, as required, p. 5 56 See Appendix, March 23, 2014 Email Communication RE: Disclosure, Civil & Criminal Liability, p. 6 - 9
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
161
On May 23, 2014, an email communication was sent to Daher Companies, with an update to ongoing litigation, outlined in the 5/19/14 Media Alert, and a second NOTICE was issued to parties choosing to align themselves with any associated misconduct.
57
On June 7, 2014, after receiving feedback from local Realtors of potential disclosure non-compliance, an email communication was sent to Daher Companies, informing them that a formal complaint was now being prepared against them, for concerns surrounding non-disclosure to multiple parties including (but not limited to): other Real Estate Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc… Shortly thereafter, I received an email communication response from Mary Koontz-Daher, a response considered inappropriate, unprofessional, and falsely stated.
58
After receiving the email, I received a missed phone call on my mobile phone. A voicemail was left by a woman identifying herself as Mary Koontz-Daher, in an erratic voice, stating that I should “be a man and identify myself” and that I should return the call. I then returned the phone call, stated my name and that I was returning a missed call from this number. The same erratic voice identified herself as Mary Koontz-Daher, who claimed to not know who I was, claimed to not know why I was sending her company the previously stated communications, and stated that she was sending the information to her attorney, and notifying the Methuen Police Department.
Despite multiple interruptions, I notified Mrs. Daher that as explained in the email communication, notice was formerly given regarding the related concerns, and a formal complaint was now being filed against the appropriate parties. I additionally stated that I too, would be notifying the Methuen Police Department, which I did, immediately after ending the phone conversation with Mrs. Daher.
As documented in this complaint and in supporting documents, I have consistently made clear my name, associated address, email address and contact phone number. To be clear, until the June 7, 2014 email and phone call from Mrs. Daher, there had been no communications received by the references parties. The references by Mrs. Daher on June 7
th, 2014 stating that she does not know who I am, or why legal notice has
been sent to Daher Companies conflicts with supporting documents on file.
This is a very serious matter. It appears that Weichert Realtors – Daher Companies has specifically chosen to ignore the email communications/Broker Disclosure Notice sent to them, choosing instead to knowingly list and market a foreclosed property which is still in active and ongoing litigation, and without notifying other Brokers, Real Estate Agents, potential buyers, etc… of the potential & considerable legal risk(s).
Feedback has come forth from both local area Real Estate Agents, Brokers, and attendees of a recently held Open House, stating no mention of any Disclosures. Instead, emphasis was given to an incentive – “Enter to Win $250,000 from WELLS FARGO”.
I am certain, that the conduct exemplified by the referenced Broker(s) does not meet with the standards of NAR’s Code of Ethics, and have highlighted several areas within the Preamble, as well as Articles 1, 2, 3, 11, 12 & 14.
59 I am calling for this association to further investigate this matter, including the already
concluded open houses from 6/1, 6/8, 6/14, independent showings, broker open houses, etc…to further determine how many misinformed parties may unnecessarily become subject to increased legal risk.
Additionally, please be advised, and as stated in the 5/19/14 media Alert, pending the outcome of litigation in MA Appeals Court, this matter is being prepared for transfer to Federal Court, and to additionally be addressed with the MA and US Inspectors’ General. A copy of this complaint is being filed with the MA Appeals Court to articulate the concerning tactics exemplified by the Appellees - Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, and associated Broker. Complaints already filed with the MA Office of the Attorney General, Fraud Investigations Unit of the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Federal Trade Commission
57 See Appendix, May 23, 2014 Email Communication and 5/19/14 Media Alert (Click on Link to access), p. 9 58 See Appendix, June 7, 2014 Email response by Mary Koontz-Daher, and attached original communication(s), p.9 59 See Appendix, Highlighted sections within NAR - Code Of Ethics and Standards of Practice, p. 10 - 14
162
(FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Better Business Bureau (BBB) will also be updated with a copy of this complaint.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
163
APPENDIX
164
165
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
166
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
VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION
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.
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.
167
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 against them (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), 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.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
168
WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527
169
170
171
172
173
NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
174
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Complainant
vs.
MARY AND KEN DAHER,
WEICHERT REALTORS – DAHER COMPANIES
Respondent
ETHICS VIOLATIONS HEARING
I. OPENING STATEMENT
Before proceeding, I – Mohan A. Harihar (Complainant) wish to make this panel aware of the
following:
a. This matter is directly associated with ongoing litigation involving the related
Summary Judgment, forthcoming civil action involving (but not limited to) the
Respondents, and the pursuit of criminal charges against (but not limited to) the
Respondents.
b. The panel may deem necessary to postpone this hearing to a more appropriate
future date, as evidence/information continues to come forth in full support of the
Complainant’s consistent claims, also exposing the depth of related misconduct.
c. The attached Motion, recently submitted to the MA Appeals Court will assist in
articulating an overview of this matter.
d. The Complainant requests the recording of these proceedings, and for transcripts to
be made available for ongoing (and future litigation).
e. The Respondents are being given a single opportunity to retract ANY false
statements made against the Complainant – Mohan A. Harihar. Consideration will
be given as civil and criminal matters proceed. Failure to retract ALL false
statements against Mohan A. Harihar will be addressed in forthcoming civil and
criminal actions.
II. CLOSING STATEMENT
175
After reviewing the facts related to this complaint, the panel is asked to consider the
following:
a. Does the conduct exemplified by these Respondents meet the Standard of NAR’s
Code of Ethics? If the answer to that question is “NO”, then appropriate action and
or penalties should be assessed.
b. If you are a potential buyer, would you want to be informed of these details prior
to purchase? Similarly, if the answer to that question is “YES” and you were NOT
properly informed, appropriate action and/or penalties are again warranted.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
14 Circle Rd. (Mail Only)
Lowell, MA 01852
176
Attachment T
Freedom of Information Act Request
Office of General Counsel
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580
Mohan A. Harihar 168 Parkview Avenue Lowell, MA 01852 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
177
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I request that a copy of the following document(s) be
provided to me: All investigative records concerning the following companies – US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA,
CMLTI 2006-AR1, and Nelson Mullins LLP. These parties are directly associated with documented misconduct
pertaining to foreclosed property of Mohan A. Harihar. Documented misconduct includes (but is not limited to)
fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Please also include the three (3) complaints
which have been forwarded to your agency from the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (Originally filed by
Mohan A. Harihar).
I request a waiver of all fees for this request as I am an individual with limited financial means, acting pro se, with
on-going litigation within the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Disclosure of the requested information to me is
additionally in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of these institutions, the collective misconduct which has impacted over 4.2 million US
households (associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis), and to assist the Justice Department in providing a
pathway for further prosecution.
If you need to discuss this request, I can be reached at 617.921.2526 (Mobile). Thank you for your consideration
of my request.
Sincerely,
Mohan A. Harihar
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
178
Attachment U
179