COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

LAND COURT DIVISION

) Case No. 18-MISC-000144

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
) COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff )
) 1. LACK OF STANDING TO FORECLOSE
v. )
) 2. QUIET TITLE;
US BANK NA, AS TRUSTEE FOR )
SECURITIZED TRUST CMLTI ) 3. DECLARATORY RELIEF
MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH )
CERTIFICATE SERIES 2006-AR1 ) 4. RECISSION
TRUST; WELLS FARGO NA; )
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC )
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AKA )
“MERS” AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, )
INCLUSIVE; ISABELLE AND )
JEFFREY PERKINS )
)
Defendants )

______________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFF COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE (AMENDED)

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully prefaces this complaint with the

following Disclosure(s):

1. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Complaint against the Defendants are

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

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).
 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 COMPLAINT are sent via email, social

media and/or 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 - Charlie 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 Court) 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

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.
 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).

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. 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), 2.) Fraud on the Court, 3.)

Due Process, 4.) Color of Law, 5.) Misprision 6.) Conspiracy 7.) Perjury and other

violations. The 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, this is the Plaintiff’s initial

appearance before this Massachusetts Land Court. Therefore, there is FULL expectation
 for this Court to uphold the law and correct (within its jurisdiction) any erred judgments

of record by the Commonwealth. Respectfully, any perceived failure to do so will be in

full public view, and will (at minimum) warrant filing incremental Judicial misconduct

complaints.

5. Although Federal litigation is ongoing, the evidenced record3 shows cause to correct the

erred judgments of the Commonwealth and seek damages including (but not limited to)

Quiet Title. The Plaintiff makes clear that with this complaint, 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.

6. 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) for the criminal

components associated with this litigation including (but not limited to) FRAUD. Along

with this civil complaint, the Plaintiff has necessarily filed incremental criminal

complaints with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the FBI. Copies of

both this civil complaint and the referenced criminal complaints have been delivered to

the direct attention of MA Attorney General – Maura Healey, Governor Charlie

Baker (R-MA), and the FBI via e-mail and/or social media communication. ANY

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.
 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) Color of Law/Due Process claims against the

Commonwealth and/or The United States.

7. 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). If necessary, the Plaintiff will seek subpoenaed testimony

from each of the above referenced offices/agencies to articulate (at minimum) exactly

how they reached a definitive conclusion that identified the Plaintiff’s foreclosure as

ILLEGAL.

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

incremental supporting evidence before a trial jury.

9. The Plaintiff respectfully brings to this Court’s attention, that as recently as Friday,

April 20, 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a $1B Fine to

Defendant – Wells Fargo for abuses tied to its auto lending and mortgage

businesses. This latest information should certainly contribute to the evidenced

PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified (at minimum) by Bank

Defendant, WELLS FARGO.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, complaining of the Defendants as

named above, and each of them as follows:

 I. THE PARTIES

10. Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, an American-born citizen, is now, and at all times

relevant to this action, a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

11. Defendant - US BANK NA (hereafter “US Bank”), as Trustee for securitized Trust

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

“CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust”), whose last known address is 800 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55402. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant

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

State of Massachusetts, and is the purported Master Servicer for Securitized Trust and/or

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

Trust as more particularly described in this complaint.

12. Defendant - MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., aka

MERS (“MERS”), Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MERS is

a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of MIDDLESEX, whose last

known address is 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia, 20190; website:

http://www.mersinc.org. MERS is doing business in the County of MIDDLESEX, State

of Massachusetts. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

Defendant MERS is the purported beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and/or a purported

participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or Deed of the Trust as more

particularly described in this complaint.

13. Defendants - ISABELLE AND JEFFREY PERKINS are the BORROWERS to the

mortgage associated with the property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA

01852. The Defendants also reside at the referenced property. Isabelle Perkins is the
 Principle of a business specializing in Real Estate Education, offering real estate

courses in the following areas: 1.) NJ Continuing Education, 2.) MA Continuing

Education, 3.) NAR Certification and Designations and 4.) MCNE Designation

courses from the Real Estate Negotiation Institute. Reference website:

http://isabelleperkins.com.

14. Defendant – WELLS FARGO NA, (hereafter "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.

15. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff has owned the property located at 168

Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852 (“The Property”).

16. Aside from Defendants – Isabelle and Jeffrey Perkins, and the other parties identified in

the related federal litigation, Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities of basis

for liability of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, each as

fictitiously named Defendant is some manner liable to the Plaintiff, or claims some right,

title or interest in the Property. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true

names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and therefore

alleges, that at all relevant times mentioned in this complaint, each of the Defendants are

responsible in some manner for injuries and damages to Plaintiff so alleged and that such

injuries and damages were proximately caused by such Defendants, and each of them.
 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein mentioned,

each of the defendants were the agents, employees, servants, and/or joint-venturers of the

remaining Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein below,

were acting within the scope of such agency, employment and/or joint venture.

II. JURISDICTION

18. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this complaint all occurred

within Middlesex County, State of Massachusetts.

19. The Property is located within the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts with an

address of 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.

III. INTRODUCTION

20. 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).

21. Litigation pertaining to this referenced illegal foreclosure has been ongoing for over

seven (7) years – four (4) years in Massachusetts State Court(s) and nearly 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 al4 and 2.) Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v.

THE UNITED STATES.5

4
Lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880
5
Lower Docket No. 17-cv-11109
22. In the related Federal litigation, the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the

Court (and other) claims brought against ALL related Defendants named here shows

cause (at least in part) to: 1.) File this NEW complaint for Quiet Title with the Land

Court 2.) Address evidenced Fraud on the Court claims and correct erred judgments in

other Massachusetts State Courts and 3.) Seek monetary and all applicable damages

through a separate, NEW complaint(s) to be filed with the Middlesex Superior Court.

23. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and

equitable relief, and (if allowed) for compensatory, special, general and punitive

damages. 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.

24. 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.

25. Based on the evidenced PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified

historically by both Federal and State Judiciaries, the Plaintiff here respectfully demands

a TRIAL BY JURY.

26. A thorough review of the record(s) in the related Federal proceedings reveal evidenced

arguments which conclusively show that the referenced CMLTI 2006-AR1 Trust (and

all other referenced parties), have NO LEGAL STANDING to the Plaintiff’s Property

and that the trust itself is considered VOID. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to
 address with this Land Court, these evidenced arguments, and also to correct erred

judgments of the Commonwealth as it pertains to the Plaintiff’s Property and his

HOMESTEAD PROTECTION.6

27. Plaintiff, homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in question

(the “Home”), which is the subject of this action, in that the originating mortgage lender,

and others alleged to have ownership of Plaintiff’s mortgage note and/or Deed of Trust,

have unlawfully sold and/or transferred their ownership and security interest in a

Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the Property, and, thus, do not have lawful

ownership or security interest in Plaintiff’s Home which is described in detail herein. For

these reasons, the Court should Quiet Title in Plaintiff’s name.

28. Before proceeding further, Defendants will be given a single opportunity – as a sign of

Plaintiff’s GOOD FAITH to reach a mutual agreement. As evidenced by the historical

record(s), Defendants who are also associated with the referenced Federal litigation have

been given MULTIPLE opportunities to seek mutual agreement and have either denied

or ignored them. Should this opportunity here be denied or ignored, there will not be

another.

29. The Plaintiff respectfully makes known to this Court (and as a matter of record), that in

the related federal litigation, the other major component of the Plaintiff’s Appeals

pertains to the Misappropriation of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property – also considered

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

claims of Economic Espionage are issues of record. Therefore, any failure to initiate

6
See Attachment A
 correct action here will show cause to expand upon existing, or to bring NEW claims

against ALL responsible parties, including the Commonwealth.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendants CAN MAKE NO LEGAL CLAIM TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY

30. Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in

her lawsuit (along with The United States)7 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 of 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.

31. 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 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:

7
Docket No: 2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL
 a. First, 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.

b. Second, 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.

c. Third, 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 140.8 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.

32. THEREFORE – a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 (nor ANY other party)

can make NO LEGAL CLAIM to the PLAINTIFF’S referenced Property located at

8 Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140

 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust, Trustee, Mortgage

Servicer, etc… 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.) Since these parties

had no right to foreclose, they 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.9 THEREFORE, those same Defendants can have NO

argument here.

The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear, that this AMENDED complaint does not currently

include a FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM. HOWEVER, should there be ANY

Defendant argument here that resembles their past arguments of State (and Federal) record,

OR that conflicts with an UNOPPOSED claim of federal record, the Plaintiff will show

cause to bring (either by amendment or by filing) a NEW Fraud on the Court claim(s) before

this Land Court pursuant to (at minimum) Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure

60(b)(3).

B. Federal RECUSAL Shows Cause to VOID ALL Related Orders

33. The sua sponte RECUSAL of US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from

the related Federal Litigation, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (17-cv-11109)

shows cause for this Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders, INCLUDING related

judgments from Massachusetts State Courts – which MUST be considered VOID

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

 (Including, but not limited to the Housing Court’s Summary Judgment related to the

Plaintiff’s Foreclosed Property).10

C. Historical FACTS Demonstrating DECEPTIVE JUDICIAL CONDUCT

34. As with the identified deceptive techniques by US District Court Judge – Allison Dale

Burroughs that contributed to her RECUSAL, a THOROUGH review of the Federal

AND State record(s) shows the Plaintiff has similarly identified IDENTICAL tactics by

ALL presiding State and Federal judges. It becomes necessary to respectfully inform

this Court of these evidenced techniques which include (but are not limited to):

a. Failure to consider the possibility of (related) erred judgments;

b. Ignoring the Law;

c. Citing Invalid Law;

d. Ignoring the Facts;

e. Ignoring Issues;

f. Corruptly calling a complaint "frivolous" and denying motions with no valid

explanation whatsoever;

g. Block Filing of Motions and Evidence;

h. Denying Constitutional Rights;

i. Automatically Ruling against PRO SE litigants;

j. Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct;

k. Allowing Perjury;

10
Related judgments from Massachusetts State Courts include the following Appeal/Dockets
No.’s: 1.) 2013-P-1829, 2.) 2013-P-0671, 3.) 2011-P-1515, 4.) 11-04499, 5.) 11-SP-3032, 6.)
1311AC001497, 7.) 1311AC001498, 8.) 1311AC001499, 9.) 1311AC001500, 10.)
1311AC001501 and 11.) 1311AC001502
 l. Premature Dismissal PRIOR to DISCOVERY; and

m. Denying a Hearing(s) without cause.

35. EACH ONE of these DECEPTIVE TACTICS detailed within the record constitute

obvious and egregious judicial errors that (at minimum) warrant vacating referenced

dismissals with damages.

D. Incremental Actions/Evidenced Documents Supporting the Illegal Foreclosure

Argument(s)

36. EVEN IF the UNOPPOSED arguments of Federal record did not exist, the Plaintiff will

through DISCOVERY, provide before a jury an incremental list of evidenced

actions/Documents supporting his illegal foreclosure arguments. This PARTIAL list

includes (but is not limited to) the following:

a. The RECORDED conversations between the Plaintiff and Defendant –

WELLS FARGO NA (as servicer) during the 22-month loan modification effort

revealing the DECEPTIVE TACTICS demonstrated by the mortgage servicer;

b. The collective actions which led to the $25B Mortgage Settlement, where the

Plaintiff’s foreclosure was identified as ILLEGAL, along with 4.2M other

foreclosures. This referenced settlement included Defendants – WELLS

FARGO NA and US BANK NA;

c. The collective actions which similarly led to the $8B+ settlement between

Federal Bank Regulators and Financial Institutions including Bank Defendants

– WELLS FARGO NA and US BANK NA;

d. Incremental legal actions taken by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office,

under former Attorney General (and Defendant) – Martha Coakley. Even as

 recent as January 2018, the current MA Attorney General – Maura Healey has

boasted publicly about the AGO’s settlement with Nationstar (aka Mr. Cooper),

which included fines and sanctions over servicing abuses. However, it remains

unclear as to WHY the Attorney General (former and current) have

blatantly ignored and refused to address and prosecute the Plaintiff’s

PUBLICLY evidenced claims;

e. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

(Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift

Supervision);

f. “Wall Street and the Financial Collapse”; Majority and Minority Staff Report,

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Senate;

g. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of the National Commission

on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States;

h. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual;

i. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John O’Brien, 1/18/12 Press

Release;

j. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General Martha Coakley, (Public

Document No. 12); and others.

E. Commonwealth’s FAILURE to Protect the Plaintiff’s Homestead

37. The Plaintiff references Attachment A, which shows the filed DECLARATION OF

HOMESTEAD, associated with his property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell,

MA 01852, filed with the North Middlesex County Registry of Deeds on January 26,

2009. The historical record(s) shows that EVERY State and Federal Court related to this
 litigation has COMPLETELY IGNORED the Plaintiff’s evidenced claims regarding

his homestead. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments of (Federal) record(s)

conclusively show that ALL Defendants/Appellees11 KNEW that there was NO LEGAL

STANDING to the Plaintiff’s property, and STILL CONSPIRED to DEFRAUD the

Plaintiff of his HOMESTEAD.

38. Before a trial Jury, Plaintiff will call for a thorough review of ALL related State litigation

drawing identical and/or similar comparison to numerous judicial failures and erred

judgments in state courts.

39. The Plaintiff will additionally seek subpoenaed testimony from multiple sources

including (but not limited to): 1.) The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office 2.) The

Department of Justice and 3.) Federal Bank Regulators to articulate ALL factors which

led to their conclusion that the referenced Foreclosure of the Plaintiff’s Property was in

fact - ILLEGAL.

F. Economic Espionage and Perceived Threats to National Security

40. A thorough review of the related federal litigation reveals evidenced claims by this

Plaintiff that are believed to impact matters of National Security, and include: 1.) The

Misappropriation of the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, protected under the

Economic Espionage Act of 1996, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, and 2.) Acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, warranting the intervention of Congress, the FBI and

the Department of Justice, to address associated criminal (and other) legal components.

Evidenced Treason claims of record have been raised against referenced judges for

ruling without jurisdiction. The record clearly shows that with each claim of evidenced

11
The Plaintiff references ALL Defendants/Appellees associated with Harihar v. US Bank et
al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Appeal No. 17-1381.
 Treason, the President has been notified by the Appellant (as is required by Federal

law) via e-mail communication (www.whitehouse.gov). Proof of delivery and receipt

from the White House is included as attachments with each court filing. Since this

complaint is related to the referenced federal litigation, a copy has necessarily been

delivered to the attention of the President.12

V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION.

LACK OF STANDING

A. NO BANK DEFENDANT had Legal Standing to Foreclose or Re-Sell Plaintiff’s

Property

41. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

42. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Bank Defendants

(Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA) specified hereinabove, regarding their respective

rights and duties, in that Plaintiff contends that Defendants, and each of them, had no

right to displace the Plaintiff, nor did they have a right to foreclose and re-sell the

Property because Defendants, and each of them, have failed to perfect any security

interest in the Property, or cannot prove to the court they have a valid interest. Thus, the

purported power of sale by the above specified Defendants, and each of them, no longer

applies.

43. Plaintiff is informed and believes and there upon alleges that the only individual who has

standing to foreclose is the holder of the note because they have a beneficial interest. The

12
See Attachment B, for proof of delivery (and receipt) of this Civil Complaint sent to the direct
attention of the President.
 only individuals who are the holder of the note are the certificate holders of the

securitized trust because they are the end users who pay taxes on their interest gains;

furthermore, all of the banks or other entities holding the note in the middle of the chain

of transfers were paid in full.

44. Plaintiff further contends that the above specified Defendants, and each of them, had no

right to foreclose on the Property because said Defendants, and each of them, did not

properly comply with the terms of Defendants’ own securitization requirements and

falsely or fraudulently prepared documents required for Defendants, and each of them, to

foreclose as a calculated and fraudulent business practice.

45. Plaintiff requests that this Court find that the purported power of sale contained in the

Note and Deed of Trust has no force and effect at this time, because Defendants’ actions

in the processing, handling and foreclosure of this loan involved numerous fraudulent,

false, deceptive and misleading practices, including, but not limited to, violations of State

laws designed to protect borrowers, which has caused Plaintiff to be at an equitable

disadvantage to Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff further requests that title to the

Property remain in its name, with said Deed of Trust remaining in beneficiaries’ name,

during the pendency of this litigation, and deem that any attempted sale of the Property is

“unlawful and void.”

46. The irrefutable argument referenced above which voids all mortgages contained within

the referenced trust and the trust itself, indicates that all actions having occurred since are

considered “unlawful and void.” Therefore, not a single Defendant listed above

including Defendant MERS can have any legal, equitable or actual beneficial

interest whatsoever in the Property. Plaintiff re-states that ALL referenced Defendants
 also named in the related federal litigation stand UNOPPOSED to this evidenced

argument – Therefore, these SAME Defendants can have NO ALLOWABLE

ARGUMENT here without a contradiction to Federal record. ANY attempt by these

same Defendants to bring a contradicting (or ANY) argument will show cause for the

Plaintiff to raise (at minimum) a Fraud on the Court claim here, pursuant to

Massachusetts General Laws, Rule 60(b)(3).

47. Defendants, and each of them, through the actions alleged above, have or claimed the

right to illegally commence foreclosure under the Note on the Property via a foreclosure

action supported by false or fraudulent documents. Said unlawful foreclosure action has

caused and continues to cause Plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury in that real property

is unique.

48. The wrongful conduct of the above specified Defendants, and each of them, unless

restrained and enjoined by an Order of the Court, will continue to cause great and

irreparable harm to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not had the beneficial use and enjoyment of

his home since being wrongfully displaced by Defendants following the referenced

illegal foreclosure of the property.

49. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy and the injunctive relief prayed

for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to remedy the irreparable loss to

Plaintiff. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future unless

Defendants’ wrongful conduct is restrained and enjoined because real property is

inherently unique and it will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount

of damage it will suffer.

 VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
QUIET TITLE

50. Plaintiff’s title to the above-described property is derived as follows: On or about

December 30, 2005 (hereafter referred to as “Closing Date”) Plaintiff entered into a

Consumer Credit transaction with Wells Fargo, NA by obtaining a $340,000 mortgage

loan secured by Plaintiff’s principal residence (Subject Property). This note was secured

by a First Trust Deed on the property in favor of Wells Fargo, NA.

51. ALL Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse to

Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the note secured by the deed of trust

to the property, the subject of this suit.

52. ALL Defendants named herein claim an interest and estate in the property adverse to

Plaintiff in that Defendant asserts he is the owner of the deed of trust securing the note to

the property, the subject of this suit.

53. The claims of ALL Defendants are without any right whatsoever, and Defendants have

no right, estate, title, lien or interest in or to the property, or any part of the property.

54. The claim of ALL Defendants herein named, and each of them, claim some estate, right,

title, lien, or interest, in or to the property adverse to Plaintiff’s title, and these claims

constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the Property.

55. Plaintiff, therefore, alleges upon information and belief, that none of the parties, to

neither the securitization transaction, nor any of the Defendants in this case, hold a

perfected and secured claim in the Property, and that all Defendants are estopped and

precluded from asserting an unsecured claim against Plaintiff’s estate.

56. Plaintiff requests the decree permanently enjoins Defendants, and each of them, and all

persons claiming under them, from asserting any adverse claim to Plaintiff’s title to the

Property; and

57. Plaintiff requests the Court award Mohan A. Harihar costs associated with this action,

and such other relief as the Court deems proper.

VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

DECLATORY RELIEF

58. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

59. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants

concerning their respective rights and duties regarding the Note and Trust Deed.

60. Plaintiff contends that Bank Defendants had no authority to Displace the Plaintiff from

his Property, nor did they have the authority to Foreclose upon and sell the property.

61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that Bank Defendants

dispute Plaintiff’s contention and instead contend they had the authority to displace,

foreclose upon and sell the property.

62. Plaintiff therefore requests a judicial determination of the rights, obligations, and interest

of the parties with regards to the Property, and such determination is necessary and

appropriate at this time under the circumstances so that all parties may ascertain and

know their rights, obligations, and interest with regard to the property.

63. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Trust Deeds as of the
 Date the Notes were assigned without a concurrent assignation of the underlying Trust

Deeds.

64. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the NOD (Notice of

Default).

65. From (at minimum) the UNOPPOSED argument(s) of Federal record previously

described, Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of whether any Bank

Defendant had the authority to foreclose on the Property.

66. Plaintiff requests all adverse claims to the real property must be determined by a decree

of this Court.

67. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive

possession of the property.

68. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Plaintiff owns in fee simple and is

entitled to the quiet and peaceful possession of, the above-described real property.

69. Plaintiff requests the decree declare and adjudge that Defendants, and each of them, and

all persons claiming under them, have no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the

real property or any part of the property.

VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

RECISSION

70. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

71. Plaintiff is entitled to rescind the loan and all accompanying loan documents for all of the

foregoing reasons: 1.) Lack of Standing; 2.) Failure to provide a VALID Mortgage Loan
 Origination Agreement; 3.) Failure to abide by the PSA; 4.) making illegal or fraudulent

transfers of the note and deed of trust; and 5.) Public Policy Grounds, each of which

provides independent grounds for relief.

72. The Public interest would be prejudiced by permitting the alleged contract to stand; such

action would regard an unscrupulous lender.

73. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount

not yet ascertained, to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for rescission of the stated loan AND mortgage in their

entirety.

IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, will ask for the following for each Cause of Action to be

awarded:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – STANDING

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law;
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
 g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have no
estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of the
property.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – QUIET TITLE

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – DECLARATORY RELIEF

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – RECISSION

1. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;

2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
3. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial;
4. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law;
5. For Restitution as allowed by law.
6. For Legal fees and Costs of these collective legal actions;
7. For Declaratory Relief, including but not limited to the following Decrees by this
Court that:
a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party;
b. The Trust has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
c. The Trustees of the Trust have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
 d. The Sponsor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the
Property;
e. The Depositor(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against
the Property;
f. The Mortgage Originator(s) has no enforceable secured or unsecured
claim against the Property;
g. Current Homeowners have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim
against the Property;
h. Determines all adverse claims to the real property in this proceeding;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to the exclusive possession of the Property;
j. Plaintiff owns in fee simple, and is entitled to the Quiet and peaceful
possession of, the above-described real property;
k. Defendants, and each of them, and all persons claiming under them, have
no estate, right, title, lien or interest in or to the real property or any part of
the property.

PRIOR to moving forward, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court FIRST issue a

separate INJUNCTION to establish a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS as it pertains to: 1.)

Housing, 2.) Transportation and 3.) other related costs as they existed BEFORE the

referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the Plaintiff wants to rightfully return to HIS HOME, without further

UNNECESSARY delay. The PLETHORA of evidence already exemplified by court record(s)

SHOULD be more than enough to correct past erred judgments made by this Commonwealth as

it relates to this ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE AND DISPLACEMENT. If there is a question

regarding ANY portion of this Complaint, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional supporting

information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 11th Day of MAY, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
Attachment B
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 11, 2018 and as directed by the Court, I filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court via certified (USPS) mail. Copies of the amended complaint along with the
associated summons’ were sent via certified (USPS) mail (as allowed by the Court) to the
following Defendants at their last known address:

1. US BANK, NA
Attn: Andrew J. Cecere, Chairman/President/CEO
800 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402

2. WELLS FARGO, NA
Attn: Michael Bradford, President
101 North Phillips Avenue
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
United States

3. MERS, Inc.
Bill Beckmann, President/CEO
1818 Library Street, Suite 300
Reston, Virginia, 20190

4. JEFFREY PERKINS
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852

5. ISABELLE PERKINS
168 Parkview Avenue
Lowell, MA 01852

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