Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
The Supreme Court has held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he
has engaged in Treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by
law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and suggests that he is then engaging in criminal acts of
treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce. Courts have
repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the
interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts. With the
referenced order issued on March 15, 2017, it is alleged that Judge Burroughs has AGAIN acted without
jurisdiction for a 4th time. Each occurrence is considered an act of Treason.
This 4th Treason allegation is now added to the list of Judicial Misconduct allegations under review by the
Judicial Council of the First Circuit Appellate Court, which includes (but is not limited to):
1. Prejudice/Bias
2. Judicial Fraud on the Court
3. Treason to the Constitution (3 prior allegations)
4. Refusal to Recuse (2 allegations)
5. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel
6. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff
7. Unnecessary Judicial Delay
8. Color of Law Violations
9. Conspiracy Claims
In his reply, Harihar states, Since August 2016, Judge Burroughs has yet to DEFEND, DENY, or even
ADDRESS a single one of these serious allegations. The conscious decision made here again - to issue
an order without jurisdiction, reveals a BLATANT DISREGARD for the CONSTITUTION, and the
JUDICIAL MACHINERY that Judge Burroughs has sworn to uphold. This continued PATTERN OF
CORRUPT CONDUCT by a Federal District Court Judge shows cause to now bring a FOURTH(4th)
allegation of Treason to the Constitution against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It is the Plaintiffs
interpretation, that these evidenced offenses are considered criminal in nature, and also provide
grounds for IMPEACHMENT. By now, it SHOULD be clearly evident to ANY objective observer, that NOT
ONLY is a fair and impartial trial UNLIKELY, but it becomes ABSOLUTELY clear that a United States
District Court Judge is willing to commit multiple acts of Treason to prevent this Plaintiff from ever
arriving at a jury trial.
ANYONE who examines the historical FACTS of this litigation, will see that there appears to be a set AGENDA,
exemplifying a malicious intent to (at minimum): 1.) Critically damage the legal efforts of this Plaintiff; 2.)
Negatively impact the resulting precedent set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent the implementation of a
framework designed to repair and grow the United States Economy. It would seem (at least on its surface)
that Judge Burroughs is aligned with that agenda.
Due to the severity of Civil AND Criminal allegations within the Plaintiffs complaint including (but not limited to)
conspiracy claims, judicial misconduct, etc., Congressional intervention and criminal investigations are certainly
warranted. Therefore, a copy of this filed REPLY will additionally be delivered to the following
Offices/Agencies/Courts:
For safety and security reasons, and also to inform the millions of Americans who stand to be negatively
impacted by these acts (alleged) the Plaintiff has, and will continue to make these evidenced FACTS available
to the PUBLIC, including this REPLY to the judicial order associated with Document No. 137.
The 4.2M parties who were similarly harmed and incurred damages from an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE
certainly should be forewarned that if they so choose to legally seek damages resulting from an illegal
foreclosure, they are likely to face similar elements of misconduct, including (but not limited to)
government corruption, as exemplified throughout this litigation.
Scroll down to view a copy of the filed - REPLY TO JUDICIAL ORDER DENYING REIMBURSEMENT OF
COSTS AND FEES, DOCUMENT NO. 137, in its entirety.
Click on the attached link to view a copy of the Judicial Misconduct Petition, in its entirety:
http://scribd.com/document/338338675
Page 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants
this REPLY to the judicial order, Document No. 137, issued on March
15, 2017 by Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The order comes one (1) day
after the Plaintiff filed a NOTICE (See Document No. 136) informing
the United States of OVERDUE COSTS and FEES owed to the Plaintiff.
authority:
Page 2
I. The Judicial Order (Document No. 137) is considered VOID
No. 137 (and ALL those prior) are considered VOID. The record
IMPEACHMENT.
A. Judicial Prejudice/Bias
Page 4
F. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING
I. Conspiracy Claims
BAD FAITH.
The record will ALSO show that the Plaintiff filed a REPLY to
the Order associated with Document No. 129, that appears (at
referenced BAD FAITH acts had not been committed by the United
underscores the need for the COURT to assist the Plaintiff with
in the Document No. 137 Order, 45 C.F.R. 30.11 MAY not be the
4Per 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) - Any judgment against the United
States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in
his or her official capacity for fees and expenses of attorneys
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid as provided in sections
2414 and 2517 of this title, except that if the basis for the award
is a finding that the United States acted in BAD FAITH, then the
award shall be paid by any agency found to have acted in bad faith
and shall be in addition to any relief provided in the judgment.
Page 6
Burroughss clarification of the order is yet another example
Page 7
States)5 are in reality two (2) of the opposing parties (as is
the case here) and when the interests of the indigent litigant,
court said that the district court's decision must "rest upon
counsel.
5 The Complainant has already taken the legal steps to inform the
United States of his intention to file suit either separately or
through an amendment of the existing complaint. The Complainant has
additionally offered an opportunity to the United States to seek
agreement, and awaits a decision.
Page 8
3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both
Plaintiff (28 U.S. Code 144), and has chosen NOT to support
Page 9
impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
unlikely.
counsel; or
Page 10
Legal Fees will continue to accrue at an hourly rate of $1000
per hour, and will remain capped at 40 hours per week. The
$11,829,420.
warranted
Offices/Agencies/Courts:
E. Members of Congress
Page 11
VI. Fear for Personal Safety
SAFE walking down the street or in his own apartment. Now, the
137.
The 4.2M parties who were similarly harmed and incurred damages
VII. CONCLUSION
Burroughs;
AGREEMENT.
Rule 11.
Page 14
If the Court has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional
request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Page 15
Attachment A
Page 16
Page 17
Attachment B
Page 18
Page 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Page 20