Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP.

Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 988|Likes:
Published by Mohan Harihar
Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP.
Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP.

More info:

Published by: Mohan Harihar on Jul 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Foreclosed Homeowner calls for VALIDATION, & keeps multiple parties informed, including the EOP.
Lowell, MA, July 12, 2014
 –
 
On Friday, foreclosed homeowner - Mohan A. Harihar, filed an Appellate Reply Brief with
 
the Massachusetts Appeals Court, calling for a validation of information on file, as decisions by the Appellee
 –
 HARMON LAW OFFICES PC,
not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate Brief 
 clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with Appellee(s)
 –
 Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA. In a recent ruling, the Massachusetts Appeals Court has granted the Appellant
 –
 Mohan A. Harihar, leave to file for new trial, as new evidence and information continues to come forth in support of Mr.
Harihar’s consis
tent claims, warranting validation. Both Wells Fargo and US Bank have filed a motion
in attempt to reconsider and overturn the Court’s decision for new trial.
  As the impact of the US Foreclosure Crisis continues to be Headline News, this growing storyline is becoming more complex, with concerns related to due process, infringement of intellectual property, and the resulting impact to Court decisions when information is not validated, not supported, or not even produced. Due to this growing complexity, multiple parties are copied on communications including: The Executive Offices of the President (EOP),
the US Attorney’s Office,
 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), US Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), Governor Deval Patrick (MA), Attorney General Martha Coakley (MA), and Congresswoman Nikki Tsongas (MA). The filed Opposition and Appellant Reply Brief are also attached and can be viewed in their entirety (Scroll down to view). Prior Media Alerts are also available for viewing by clicking on the following links:
MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT ALLOWS FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO FILE FOR NEW TRIAL, BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE http://www.scribd.com/doc/232686869  FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER FILES FOR NEW TRIAL & TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT W/ NEW INFO http://scribd.com/doc/231548551 WRONGFULLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER TO ADDRESS INSPECTORS' GENERAL, & PETITION TRANSFER TO FEDERAL COURT http://www.scribd.com/doc/225049527
For Further Media Information Contact : Mohan A. Harihar
Email: mo.harihar@gmail.com Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Follow on Twitter:
Mohan Harihar@Mo_Harihar 
 
 
 2
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS  MIDDLESEX APPEALS COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH DOCKET NO: 2013P1829  MOHAN A. HARIHAR  Appellant vs. US BANK NA,  WELLS FARGO NA, HARMON LAW OFFICES PC, et al.  Appellees
OPPOSITION TO APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION REGARDING NEW TRIAL
 
Opposition to Appelle
e’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby respectfully
submitted by the Appellant, MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The Court is additionally asked to review the Appellant Reply Brief associated with this Docket, filed in conjunction with this Opposition. After a review
of the Appellee’s (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) motion,
this Court should allow the filing for new trial to stand, and deny
Appellee’s motion based on the following:
 1.
 
 Appellee, Harmon Law Offices PC
 
 As the third Appellee in this matter, and as the initially retained counsel to Appellee US Bank in this matter, Harmon has full knowledge of the intricate details involved,
and has chosen to file No Opposition or Motion of
Reconsideration in response to this Court’s decision to grant the
 Appellant new trial.
 Similarly, Harmon has also chosen not to file an opposing Appellee Brief with this associated Docket No. 2013-P-1829. As the initially retained counsel to Appellee
 US Bank NA, initiated in Lowell District Court
1
, these decisions not to file ANY Opposition or Appellate Brief clearly exemplifies a disconnect, lacking both consistency and alignment, with the current counsel for the Appellee(s)
 Nelson Mullins LLP. In fact,
Court transcripts from the Lowell District Court will support Harmon as stating that
 
“Mr. Harihar’s complaints/concerns are
 VALID.
 
This Court is well aware that
Harmon Law Offices PC has been under investigation by the MA Office of the Attorney General
 
for the past
 
three (3) years, for wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices.
2
 
1
 
Lowell District Court, US Bank NA vs. Mohan A. Harihar, Docket No: 201111SU001495
 
2
 See -
Docket No. 12-P-407, Harmon Law Offices vs. Attorney General, filed with this Appeals Court
. A recent unanimous ruling by this Appeals Court affirmed a 2011 Suffolk Superior Court
decision allowing the MA Attorney General’
s office to continue examining
Harmon Law Offices
for alleged “unfair and deceptive acts” related to the firm’s foreclosure and eviction work
.
 
 
 3
In Massachusetts, Harmon Law Offices PC is referred to as a
“Foreclosure Mill”,
 having been associated with approximately 50,000 foreclosures in this Commonwealth alone, yet chose to
 WITHDRAW 
 as counsel from this matter, coincidentally as the Attorney General
’s
Office was beginning their investigation. Harmon has also been definitively connected to recently
disbarred 
 Florida foreclosure kingpin
 David Stern. This combination of historical facts, ongoing investigation, and disconnect with current counsel,
at MINIMUM shows cause to question  ALL information submitted by these Appellees, warranting validation, as consistently requested by this Appellant.
 2.
 
Claims by Appellees (US Bank NA and Wells Fargo NA) that there is ZERO misconduct associated with this matter
 conflicts with the overwhelming amount of documented evidence, which has steadily come forth, supporting both civil and criminal misconduct against Appellees and their retained counsel. 3.
 
 Appellees consistent refusal to validate information and requested discovery
 must be addressed along with its historical impact to related court decisions, and to determine if Appellees have been truthful with the Court(s). 4.
 
 New Evidence continues to come forth
 
Since the Appellant’s filing
for new trial, new evidence has again come forth, involving Appellee -
US Bank vs. Mary McCulley, Docket No. DV 09-562C,
the Honorable John C. Brown presiding. The jury rendered its verdict and found that Defendant: US Bank committed fraud and constructive fraud against Plaintiff Mary McCulley and that the fraud and constructive fraud injured and caused damage to Ms. McCulley. The jury also rendered its verdict that found US Bank liable for punitive damages. 5.
 
This matter now extends considerably beyond a singular foreclosure
 
 as articulated in the Appellant Brief, Reply Brief, etc...additional factors which must be considered involve:
a.
 
14
th
 Amendment infractions
b.
 
Relationship to US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis
c.
 
Impact to Appellant’s Intellectual Property
 
d.
 
Whether the involvement of the MA/US
Inspectors’ General is
necessary.
The Court is asked to reference the Appellant’s associated Brief and Reply
Brief for added explanation fully supporting this position. Since the initial decisions rendered in the Lower Courts, and with the overwhelming amount of information which has come forth since, it has become clear that one side has been truthful with the Court(s), and one side has not. Validation now is necessary to make clear that determination. Finally, and as follow-up to the originally filed motion for new trial, the Appellant informs the Court of the following: 1.
 
As of July 9, 2014 at 5pm EST, no reply was received pertaining to the
final opportunity to voluntarily seek agreement
 afforded to

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->