---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:16 AM
Subject: DEMAND to Address Criminal Complaints (Second Request)
To: maura.healey@state.ma.us
Cc: elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>, june.black@mail.house.gov,
NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov,
christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, boston@ic.fbi.gov

Attorney General Healey,

This email communication is delivered to your direct attention for the purpose of bringing criminal charges
associated with an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE identified by your office. You are aware of ongoing litigation related
to this matter - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880), which
includes the Commonwealth as a Defendant/Appellee. You are also aware that in this referenced litigation and as
part of Federal record, the UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claim(s) under FRCP 60(b)(3), shows cause to re-
address (and correct) prior (State) judgments that have been impacted.

There are two (2) motions being filed to address these Fraud on the Court claims - pursuant to Massachusetts
Civil Rule of Procedure 60(b)(3). As you know, the first has already been filed with the Northeast Housing
Court in Lawrence, MA. The second (See Attached) is now being filed in the with the Middlesex Superior Court.
You are aware that I continue to seek CRIMINAL CHARGES against ALL responsible parties associated with these
(and other) related claims of record. Updated criminal complaints have been filed with your office, however, it is
unclear as to why STILL, I have yet to receive a response.

Attached, please find a copy of the Motion to RESTORE the referenced case, MOHAN A. HARIHAR v. WELLS
FARGO NA, et al, Case No. 11-04499 being filed today with the Middlesex Superior Court. State Prosecutors are
now called again to enjoin this civil matter, bringing criminal charges against the Defendants, their attorneys and
additional parties named in the motion. Respectfully, please be advised of the following:

1. SHOULD the Commonwealth initiate corrective action including (but not limited to) bringing criminal
charges against referenced parties, there MAY be opportunity for discussing a mutual agreement in the related
Federal litigation;
2. ANY FAILURE to initiate corrective action here will certainly show cause to EXPAND upon or bring NEW -
COLOR OF LAW, DUE PROCESS and other claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
3. It has been made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the evidenced arguments related to this (State and Federal)
litigation are believed to impact matters of National Security, as they include (but are not limited to)
TREASON Claims under ARTICLE III and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832. Therefore,
The President, members of Congress, Governor Baker, the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be copied
on this email. The PUBLIC will also be copied for documentation purposes and out of continued concern for my
personal safety and security.

Please provide a documented response NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2018, stating your office's intentions
moving forward. Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
THE TRIAL COURT
MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) Case No. 11-04499

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND RESTORE CASE, PURSUANT TO

MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE 60(b)(3)

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files this Motion in accordance of

MA Superior Court Rule 9A, along with the following Disclosure(s):

1. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Motion against the Defendants is

directly related to ongoing Federal litigation in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.1 This

related Federal litigation includes (but is not limited to): a.) Evidenced allegations of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and b.) Economic

Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, - believed to impact matters of National

Security. Therefore, copies of this related Motion are sent via email, social media and/or

1
The related Federal litigation references: 1.) HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
cv-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880) and 2.) HARIHAR v. THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
 certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector

General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, members of the

US Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, House

Oversight Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Copies are

similarly delivered to Massachusetts State Legislators, to the direct attention of

Governor - Charley Baker (R-MA) and MA Attorney General - Maura Healey. A

copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS

serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for documentation purposes,

and out of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal safety/security.

2. The TREASON claims referenced above pertain to evidenced judicial misconduct claims

now alleged against SEVEN (7) Federal (District and Circuit) judges – INCLUDING

Chief Justice – Jeffrey R. Howard, for ruling WITHOUT jurisdiction. The Plaintiff

has necessarily brought judicial misconduct complaints against TEN (10) Officers of the

(Federal) Court,2 for their collective failures to uphold Federal Law(s) and the judicial

machinery of the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand upon by amendment, the

list of Defendants that allegedly bear some responsibility and have contributed (at least in

part) to the damages and increased hardships of the Plaintiff. Additional Defendants may

include (but would not be limited to) related officers of the Court (State and Federal) who

have failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, as evidenced by the record(s).

2
The referenced TEN (10) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judge’s - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr.,
David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard and District Court
Judge Denise J. Casper.
3. In the referenced Federal litigation – HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, the evidenced

judicial misconduct claims of record brought against the initial presiding US District

Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs eventually led to her RECUSAL from

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. This recusal: 1.) re-affirms ALL judicial

claims – including (but not limited to) six (6) counts of TREASON for ruling

WITHOUT Jurisdiction; 2.) shows cause for the Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders;

3.) mandates that the District Court VOID ALL related orders, including the dismissal

order.

4. On May 18, 2018, the First Circuit Appeals Court announced the RECUSAL of a

SECOND Federal Judge from the referenced litigation – Circuit Judge David Barron,

who apparently has “Just Discovered” having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with

Defendant/Appellee WELLS FARGO.

5. The evidenced PATTERN(S) OF CORRUPT CONDUCT alleged against the Federal

Judiciary is IDENTICAL and/or resembles similar patterns of corrupt conduct evidenced

by related judgments here in this Commonwealth. This Court is respectfully reminded

that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and former Attorney General – Martha

Coakley are Appellees in the related federal litigation, with evidenced allegations that

include (but are not limited to): 1.) RICO (Civil/Criminal) Violations, 2.) Fraud on the

Court claims, 3.) Due Process Violations, 4.) Color of Law Violations, 5.) Misprision

claims 6.) Conspiracy claims 7.) Perjury and other violations. The nearly SEVEN (7)

year historical record(s) of this litigation shows an obvious cause for concern and

questions whether this referenced pattern of corrupt conduct will continue here.

While there certainly is concern, the Plaintiff has FULL expectation that this Court will
 uphold the law and correct any past erred judgments of record. Respectfully, any

perceived failure to do so will be in full public view, and will (at minimum) warrant

filing incremental Judicial misconduct complaints.

6. Although Federal litigation is ongoing, the evidenced record3 shows cause to restore this

case, correct erred judgments and seek damages. The Plaintiff makes clear that once this

case is restored and his complaint amended, it is not intended to duplicate damages

sought in the related Federal litigation. At the conclusion of this litigation, any relief

awarded to the Plaintiff here will be appropriately deducted from relief sought in the

referenced Appeal(s), to avoid duplication.

7. The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that he additionally seeks CRIMINAL

CHARGES (State AND Federal) and PROFESSIONAL PENALTIES (where it is

warranted) against ALL Defendants (and ALL responsible parties still to be named) for

the criminal components associated with this litigation including (but not limited to)

FRAUD. Aside from this motion, the Plaintiff has necessarily filed incremental

criminal complaints with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.4

The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that it is his intention to enjoin this complaint (once

restored) with criminal charges against ALL responsible parties, including NEW

Defendants to be named in this motion. Copies of this motion and the referenced

3
The evidenced record includes (but is not limited to) the argument and sworn testimony by
Fraud Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, representing The United States in the related case:
0:2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL. The Fraud Expert’s testimony
conclusively shows that the referenced Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS) Trust –
CMLTI 2006-AR1 is considered VOID, and therefore has NO LEGAL STANDING to the
Plaintiff’s property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
4 See Attachment A – UPDATED FBI AND MA AGO criminal complaints were filed

separately against each Defendant. To avoid excessive repetition, a condensed version is attached
with this motion.
 criminal complaint(s) have necessarily been delivered to the direct attention of MA

Attorney General – Maura Healey, Governor Charley Baker (R-MA), and the FBI

via e-mail communication.5 ANY continued failures by State and/or Federal

Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against referenced parties will be in full public

view and will (at minimum) show cause to expand upon (or bring new) claims against the

Commonwealth and/or The United States.

8. A review of the historical record shows that EVERY State and Federal Court associated

with this litigation has been made aware that the referenced property in question has been

identified as an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE by: 1.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators, and 3.) The Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General (AGO).

9. Plaintiff has also filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, to provide

incremental supporting evidence before a trial jury.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, who respectfully files this motion to

RESTORE this case, as Federal records conclusively reveal:

1. UNNOPOSED CLAIMS OF FRAUD ON THE COURT, pursuant to (at minimum)

FRCP 60(b)(3) and MA Civil Rules of Procedure 60(b)(3);

2. Additional Causes of Action involving additional parties warranting injunction and an

amendment of the original complaint, once it has been restored.

5 See Attachment B
 I. INTRODUCTION

This is an action involving the foreclosure of the residential Property belonging to the Plaintiff.

As a matter of record, this foreclosure was declared ILLEGAL by: 1.) The Department of

Justice (DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators and 3.) The Massachusetts Attorney General’s

Office). Litigation pertaining to this referenced illegal foreclosure has been ongoing for nearly

seven (7) years – four (4) in Massachusetts State Court(s) and over three (3) years in Federal

Court(s). There are two (2) Appeals which are ongoing: 1.) Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v.

US BANK et al6 and 2.) Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES.7

In the related Federal litigation, the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court

claims brought against ALL related Defendants named here (and additional parties still to be

named) shows cause (at least in part) to: 1.) Restore this case, 2.) Identify ALL responsible

parties and 3.) address and correct erred judgments of the Commonwealth.8 As described within

the referenced federal record(s), Sovereign, Judicial and any other form of immunity

including litigation privilege is waived when there exists an evidenced Fraud on the Court

claim(s) – as is the case here.

ADDITIONAL PARTIES – Aside from Bank Defendants and their attorneys of record, the

referenced Federal record shows cause here to expand upon the list of Defendants, once the case

has been restored. Additional parties include (but are not limited to):

6
Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880
7
Lower Docket No. 17-cv-11109
8
The Plaintiff is currently addressing related issues in both the MA Land Court and the
Northeast Housing Court.
 1. Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp;

2. K&L Gates, LLP;

3. Nelson Mullins, LLP;

4. Harmon Law Offices, PC;

5. David E. Fialkow, Esq (K&L Gates, LLP).;

6. Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq (K&L Gates, LLP).;

7. Peter Haley, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP);

8. Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC);

9. Mary Daher (Daher Companies, Methuen, MA);

10. Ken Daher (Daher Companies, Methuen, MA);

11. Isabelle Perkins (Resident, 168 Parkview Ave, Lowell, MA 01852);

12. Jeffrey Perkins (Resident, 168 Parkview Ave, Lowell, MA 01852);

13. Martha Coakley, Esq. (Foley Hoag, LLP);

14. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

This is a civil action brought by the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and equitable

relief, and for compensatory, special, general punitive and any other applicable relief deemed

appropriate by this Court. The Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement for legal (and associated

costs). While Plaintiff is initially proceeding as a pro se litigant (out of financial necessity) his

time is considered no less valuable that that of opposing counsel.

The evidenced allegations brought by the Plaintiff here, and throughout the history of this

litigation are believed to represent only a portion of infractions by the identified Defendants.
Plaintiff retains the right to expand upon by amendment, additional related claims and/or parties,

should it become necessary; also, in the event Plaintiff is successful in retaining counsel. Based

on the evidenced PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified historically by both

Federal and State Judiciaries, once this case is restored, the Plaintiff here respectfully demands a

TRIAL BY JURY.9

Before proceeding further, AND WHILE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO, ALL

EXISTING Defendants are being given a single opportunity – as a sign of Plaintiff’s GOOD

FAITH to reach a mutual agreement. Should this opportunity be denied or ignored, there

will not be another. The Plaintiff makes clear, that aside from maximum civil damages,

criminal accountability and professional licensure penalties (including but not limited to license

revocation and disbarment) is sought against ALL Defendants, where applicable. Any

additional failure(s) here by State Prosecutors to bring charges for evidenced criminal

claims brought by this Plaintiff will show cause to (at minimum) expand upon and/or file

NEW RICO (Civil and Criminal), Due Process, Color of Law (and other) violations against

The Commonwealth.

Please be advised - In the related federal litigation, another major component of the Plaintiff’s

evidenced claim(s) pertain to the Misappropriation of HIS Intellectual Property – also

considered a Trade Secret, protected under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

9
An UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court Claim SHOULD be considered fairly
straightforward, resulting in a DEFAULT Judgement in favor of the PLAINTIFF – Mohan A.
Harihar, with Prejudice. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law(s), and assuming that
MA Civil Rules of Procedure are UPHELD here, a trial by jury may not be considered necessary.
Evidenced claims of Economic Espionage are issues of record. Therefore, any failure to take

correct action here will show cause to expand upon existing, or bring NEW claims against

ALL responsible parties, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS REALTY CORP CAN MAKE NO LEGAL

CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY – PRIOR to addressing the UNOPPOSED Fraud

on the Court Claim, it is important to understand the following: Nationally recognized

FRAUD EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in her lawsuit (along with The

United States)10 that, “Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that

over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical

documents,” meaning that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact,

non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing these kinds of

securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have a name

for this: “securitization FAIL.” The Department of Justice is well aware of this FACT, as is

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Every securitization — requires the creation and funding of a securitization trust that must

take physical possession and control of the trust property on or before the closing date of the

trust. The securitization trustee is the sole and exclusive legal title holder of the thousands of

promissory notes, original mortgages and assignments of mortgage. This transfer of the trust

10
Docket No: 2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL
 property, the legal res, to the trust at or around the loan origination is a necessary condition

precedent to a valid securitization. It is necessary for several reasons:

1. Someone must be the “legal” owner of the mortgage loan. Only the legal owner of

the loan has the legal right to sell mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) to investors.

2. Actual physical transfer of ownership is necessary because the cash flows that go

from the homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS purchasers are tax

exempt. If the trust does not perfect legal title by taking physical possession of the

notes and mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code, specifically 26 U.S.C. §

860G(d)(1), provides for a 100 percent tax penalty on those non-complying cash

flows.

3. The legal ownership of the loans must be “bankruptcy remote” that is, because

bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back and seize assets from bankrupt

entities, the transfer to the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee in the

securitization chain of title can have any cognizable interest in the loans. For this

reason, all securitization trusts are “special purpose vehicles” (“SPVs”) created

for the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans and all securitization

trustees represent and certify to the MBS purchasers that the purchase is a “true sale”

in accordance with FASB 140.11 But it never happened. No securitization trustee

of any securitized mortgage loan originated from 2001 to 2008 ever obtained

legal title or FASB 140 “control” of any securitized loan.

11 Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140

 THEREFORE – a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can make NO LEGAL

CLAIM to the PLAINTIFF’S referenced Property located at 168 Parkview Avenue,

Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust cannot make a legal claim to the property, it had

no right to collect any monies from the Plaintiff or to foreclose on the Plaintiff; c.) If the

Trust had no right to foreclose, it also had no right to re-sell the property, thereby

making the foreclosure sale VOID. This evidenced argument of record stands

UNOPPOSED by ALL Defendants in the referenced Federal litigation.12 THEREFORE,

those same Defendants can have NO argument here.

B. Evidenced (AND UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court Claims

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

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

not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our society and one

of the underpinnings of our legal system.”13

The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As set forth

in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998): The requisite fraud on the court

occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently

set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial

system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of

fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.”

Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . .

12 Reference HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880

13
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,

misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL DEFENDANTS (and

parties still to be named) were aware or should have been aware that clear title did not exist

with the Plaintiff’s property and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud the

Plaintiff of his HOMESTEAD. The Court is well aware that this is not an isolated incident.

The Plaintiff is able to conservatively provide 4.2 million other examples of this scheme, as

described by the DOJ, Federal Bank Regulators, and the Massachusetts Attorney

General.

A summary overview of the scheme begins with the RMBS Trust which, as detailed in the

Plaintiff’s preceding paragraphs, has no legal standing to the Plaintiff’s property. Every

action thereafter is impacted; has no legal standing and therefore is moot/void; ranging from

collecting monthly mortgage payments, to foreclosure, resale, etc... As previously detailed,

ALL Defendants have benefited from the alleged scheme against the Plaintiff, either

personally or financially; Litigation privilege should not apply when there is no legal

standing, nor should sovereign immunity. The Defendant Trust, Bank Defendants,

attorney and law firm Defendants, Defendant Real Estate Brokers and Defendant

Homebuyers have benefitted financially from the alleged scheme – when they had no legal

standing to do so; resulting in severe detriment to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff believes the Commonwealth has refused to prosecute and correct erred

judgments (at minimum) out of fear of implicating themselves, and to avoid setting a
precedent for the Nation. Regardless, their failure to hold parties accountable is

UNACCEPTABLE. As evidenced by the Federal record(s), the UNOPPOSED Fraud on

the Court Claim against Defendant – Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Defendant –

(Former) Attorney General Martha Coakley, mandates waiver of their right to sovereign (or

any other form of) immunity moving forward.

As a general proposition, substantive misconduct provides grounds for default with prejudice

because it more clearly and directly subverts the judicial process. The Plaintiff respectfully

calls for this Court to recognize the evidenced Federal and State records and conclude that

the conduct forming the basis for Defendant default was willful or done in BAD FAITH or

was deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the Court’s authority.

In the referenced Federal litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Lower Docket No. 15-

cv-11880), the Plaintiff raised – “Fraud on the Court” claims against ALL Defendants under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Based on the Federal Court record, the Defendants’ arguments

show the clear intention to purposefully DECEIVE the Court. The Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)

motion went UNOPPOSED, warranting DEFAULT with Prejudice in favor of the Plaintiff

– Mohan A. Harihar. But that’s not all – the Defendants’ federal arguments of record

are identical to previous arguments from related litigation in Massachusetts State

Court(s). Therefore:

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

against (at minimum) Bank Defendants, their Attorneys and the Parent

Company to RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006-AR1;

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

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

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

CONFLICT with both Federal and State litigation, bringing incremental

misconduct claims;

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

DEFAULT Judgment IN FAVOR of the Plaintiff WITH PREJUDICE;

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

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

IDENTICAL to the PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT currently

experienced in the related Federal litigation. Should this occur, the Plaintiff

will similarly show cause here to file a judicial misconduct complaint(s).

C. Additional Causes of Action Warrant Amending Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

Aside from the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court Claim, Federal record shows cause to

raise additional claims here against existing Defendants, and also against additional parties

(previously named) who stand accused of related misconduct. Additional Causes of Action

include (but are not limited to):

1. Lack of Standing;

2. Fraud in the Concealment;

3. Fraud in the Inducement;

4. Civil RICO Claim (1);

5. Civil RICO Claim (2);

6. Deceptive Trade Practices;

 7. FDCPA and MCDCA violations;

8. Civil Conspiracy and Abuse of Process;

9. HAMP and FALSE CLAIMS Violations;

10. Tampering Violations;

11. Conspiracy to Defraud Plaintiff’s Homestead;

12. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;

13. Slander of Title;

14. Declaratory Relief;

15. Violation of TILA 15 U.S.C. § 1601, ET. SEQ;

16. Violation of RESPA 1 U.S.C. § 2601, ET. SEQ.

After first bringing these evidenced claims before the MA Land Court, the Plaintiff was

informed that it is the Middlesex Superior Court that has jurisdiction over such issues. Once this

case has been restored, the Plaintiff will (by Amendment and Discovery) expand upon these

evidenced claims of record. This Court should consider the Plaintiff’s claims as FACT, as the

basis for all arguments are apparent upon the (Federal) record. Therefore, based on the Plaintiff’s

interpretation of Rule 9A, an affidavit is not required.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the evidenced arguments contained within, the Plaintiff respectfully seeks the

following (initial) relief:

1. Vacate the existing judgement, based on the evidenced (Federal) record.

 2. Restore this case and allow the Plaintiff to amend his complaint as described

above;

3. Determine whether or not existing Bank Defendants – Wells Fargo NA and US

Bank NA are interested in reaching a mutual agreement;

4. Determine whether or not the Attorneys who previously represented Bank

Defendants are interested in reaching a mutual agreement;

5. Request an ANSWER from the Attorney General – Maura Healey, regarding her

office’s intention to bring related criminal charges against ALL accused parties

in addition to civil remedies.

6. Once the case is restored, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction to establish a

BALANCE of HARDSHIPS prior to moving forward with litigation.

7. In addition to civil damages the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for legal fees

which includes his time as a pro se litigant, since his time should be considered no

less valuable than that of opposing counsel.

Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The

President, confirmation from the White House is attached (See Attachment C) with the filed

Court copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide additional supporting information upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd Day of May, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
The INFORMATION (Text Box) reads as follows:

“This UPDATED Criminal Complaint is filed by Massachusetts resident - Mohan A. Harihar for
the specific purpose of bringing CRIMINAL CHARGES (Federal and State) against ALL
identified parties associated with the ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE of his residential
Property/HOMESTEAD located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852. As a respectful
reminder: 1.) The Department of Justice (DOJ), 2.) The MA Attorney General’s Office and 3.)
Federal Bank Regulators have ALL identified the referenced foreclosure as ILLEGAL. Civil
litigation related to the referenced illegal foreclosure is ongoing in the First Circuit Appeals
Court – Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v US BANK et al, and Appeal No. 17-2074
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES. A third complaint is now being filed with the
Massachusetts Land Court, in conjunction with this criminal complaint (which will be included
as an attachment for the Court’s records). Evidenced CRIMINAL claims of record include (but
are not limited to): FRAUD, Criminal RICO, Conspiracy, Economic Espionage, Treason,
Misprision, Fraud on the Court and others. ANY continued failure to prosecute these evidenced
criminal claims will show cause to expand upon (or bring NEW) Color of LAW/Due Process
violations against THE UNITED STATES and ALL responsible parties. Please be advised - on
January 24, 2018, 10:12am (EST), I placed a call to FBI Headquarters to report an evidenced act
of TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE against The United States. After nine (9) minutes
of articulating these evidenced claims (ALL of which are documented by court record(s)), the
intake FBI agent HUNG UP on the phone call. This is a serious concern which must be legally
addressed, as it impacts the ongoing litigation. It is also interpreted that these evidenced criminal
claims impact NATIONAL SECURITY. It is my understanding that ALL calls are recorded. Out
of fear for my personal SAFETY AND SECURITY, copies of this criminal complaint are made
available to the public.”
Attachment B
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 23, 2018 at 11:16 AM
Subject: DEMAND to Address Criminal Complaints (Second Request)
To: maura.healey@state.ma.us
Cc: elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>, june.black@mail.house.gov,
NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov,
christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, boston@ic.fbi.gov

Attorney General Healey,

This email communication is delivered to your direct attention for the purpose of bringing criminal charges
associated with an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE identified by your office. You are aware of ongoing litigation related
to this matter - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880), which
includes the Commonwealth as a Defendant/Appellee. You are also aware that in this referenced litigation and as
part of Federal record, the UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claim(s) under FRCP 60(b)(3), shows cause to re-
address (and correct) prior (State) judgments that have been impacted.

There are two (2) motions being filed to address these Fraud on the Court claims - pursuant to Massachusetts
Civil Rule of Procedure 60(b)(3). As you know, the first has already been filed with the Northeast Housing
Court in Lawrence, MA. The second (See Attached) is now being filed in the with the Middlesex Superior Court.
You are aware that I continue to seek CRIMINAL CHARGES against ALL responsible parties associated with these
(and other) related claims of record. Updated criminal complaints have been filed with your office, however, it is
unclear as to why STILL, I have yet to receive a response.

Attached, please find a copy of the Motion to RESTORE the referenced case, MOHAN A. HARIHAR v. WELLS
FARGO NA, et al, Case No. 11-04499 being filed today with the Middlesex Superior Court. State Prosecutors are
now called again to enjoin this civil matter, bringing criminal charges against the Defendants, their attorneys and
additional parties named in the motion. Respectfully, please be advised of the following:

1. SHOULD the Commonwealth initiate corrective action including (but not limited to) bringing criminal
charges against referenced parties, there MAY be opportunity for discussing a mutual agreement in the related
Federal litigation;
2. ANY FAILURE to initiate corrective action here will certainly show cause to EXPAND upon or bring NEW -
COLOR OF LAW, DUE PROCESS and other claims against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts;
3. It has been made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the evidenced arguments related to this (State and Federal)
litigation are believed to impact matters of National Security, as they include (but are not limited to)
TREASON Claims under ARTICLE III and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832. Therefore,
The President, members of Congress, Governor Baker, the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will be copied
on this email. The PUBLIC will also be copied for documentation purposes and out of continued concern for my
personal safety and security.

Please provide a documented response NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 25, 2018, stating your office's intentions
moving forward. Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment C
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 23, 2018 I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court via (USPS)
mail. A Copy of the motion was also sent via certified (USPS) mail to the following counsel of
the Defendant at their last known address:

David E. Fialkow
K&L Gates, LLP
State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com