Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-2074
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Appellee )
)

APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT PURSUANT

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (4) AND (6)

The Appellant respectfully prefaces this EMERGENCY MOTION with the following

Disclosure statement:

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the Civil Complaint against THE UNITED

STATES, this associated Appeal, and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited

to) evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution,

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and are believed to impact matters of

National Security. Therefore, copies of this filed MOTION are sent via email, social media

and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector

1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-cv-1381 (Also,
lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

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). 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 Appellant’s

continued concerns for personal safety/security.

I. CONTINUED FAILURE TO ADDRESS JURISDICTION

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who collectively for over two (2) years is STILL

wrongfully forced to represent himself as a PRO SE litigant, respectfully files this DEMAND

to VACATE APPLICABLE JUDGEMENT(S)2 without further and UNNECESSARY

JUDICIAL DELAY. The historical record(s) reveals that the Appellant has repeatedly raised

jurisdiction issues dating back to at least AUGUST 2016, only to be IGNORED over and over

again. This is evidenced: 1.) Here, in this appeal; 2.) In the lower court docket no. 17-cv-

11109; 3.) In the related appeal no. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al; and 4.) In its

related lower court docket no. 15-cv-11880. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on

the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacating with damages, and can never

be time barred.

"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."

Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250

2
The Appellant calls reference to the Dismissal orders associated with Docket No.’s 17-cv-
11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also 15-cv-11880, HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al. which are considered issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, as evidenced by the
historical record.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): “Silence can

only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry

left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. We cannot condone this shocking

conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be

tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.”

The lengthy (and still growing) list of evidenced claims identifying jurisdiction (and other) issues

has necessarily led to bringing Judicial Misconduct claims (all of which stand as

UNOPPOSED) against TEN (10) Federal (Circuit and District) Court Judges, and includes

members of the FIRST CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs – stands accused of judicial

misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (6 counts,

ALL UNOPPOSED) for ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION. Following these

evidenced claims, Judge Burroughs RECUSED herself from HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109;

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper - stands accused of judicial misconduct

including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,

UNOPPOSED) for ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

3. US Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit) - stands accused of judicial

misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,

UNOPPOSED) for ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

4. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;


Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

5. US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr. - stands accused of judicial misconduct

including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,

UNOPPOSED) for ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

6. US Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (US District Court (NH), serving as a member of

the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 90033);

9. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI), serving as a

member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.

90033);

10. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME), serving as a

member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.

90033);

II. LIST OF ADDITIONAL UNRESOLVED ISSUES SUPPORTING MOTION TO

VACATE JUDGEMENTS

These UNRESOLVED issues, evidenced by the historical record(s) include (but are not limited

to) the following:

1. Failing to address evidenced claims of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of

The US Constitution alleged against FOUR (4) Federal (Circuit and District) Judges,

including Chief Justice Howard, for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION;

2. Failing to address multiple evidenced claims of MISPRISION of TREASON,

PURSUANT to 18 U.S. Code § 2382, brought against three (3) additional officers of
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

the Court3 and twenty-one (21) parties in the related litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK

et al;

3. Failing to address Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 1832, and matters believed to impact National Security;

4. Failing to promptly exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to Assist with the

Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

5. Failing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).4

6. Failing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial

Code of Conduct;

7. Failing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS;

8. Failing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

9. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of

Law;

10. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

11. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

3
Misprision of Treason claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 are filed against Circuit Clerk –
ROBERT M. FARRELL, Circuit Clerk MARGARET CLARK and Deputy Clerk –
MATTHEW A. PAINE;
4
The Appellant draws reference to the related case, Harihar v. US Bank et al, where the Court
(Both District and Appellate) repeatedly failed to acknowledge the CLEARLY EVIDENCED
and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar. By Federal Law, a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan
A. Harihar SHOULD HAVE already been issued.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

12. Failing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

13. Failing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

14. Failing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as

stated within the record;

15. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for TRANSFER to another circuit WITH

Jurisdiction;

16. Failing to address DEMAND(S) FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION;

17. Failing to address repeated requests to TIMELY VALIDATE the referenced Dismissal

Order(s);

18. Failing to address and ACKNOWLEDGE the relationship of this Complaint to

HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), including PACER recognition;

19. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. REFUSAL(S) to RECUSE by both Circuit and District Court judges. It is important to

note, that while US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs refused to recuse

herself (twice) in HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880), her

IMMEDIATE RECUSAL for the EXACT SAME REASONS when assigned to the

related complaint HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Docket No. 17-cv-11109)

is certainly recognized;

21. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) supporting PREMATURE DISMISSAL;

22. Failing to address the well evidenced and continued PATTERN of CORRUPT

CONDUCT within this litigation;


Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

III. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and (6)

A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.5A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,

will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).6 A party seeking to void the

judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting subject-matter jurisdiction

over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claim

amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial power.”7 Only when the jurisdictional error is

“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.8 A judgment may also be void under

Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process.

The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments IN

EACH of the issues listed in the prior section. ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would

suggest that VALIDATING JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is

certainly appropriate. HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) thus

far exemplifies what MAY be collectively considered the largest, and certainly most

egregious ABUSE OF AUTHORITY by a Federal Judiciary in US history. The argument

can certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to be

a set agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar

DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST RESOLUTION in either of his complaints.

5
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
6
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
7
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v.
Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).
8
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

When considering other reasons besides jurisdiction that justify relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)

is also considered applicable - referencing: 1.) The list of issues from the prior section, and 2.)

The Appellants meritorious arguments of record which speak to his Intellectual

Property/Trade Secret protected under The Economic Espionage Act, and its perceived

impact to National Security.

IV. MOTIVE

While further investigation is certainly warranted to conclusively determine MOTIVE,

arguments are certainly made to show an intention to prevent precedent(s) from being set, as

it pertains to illegal foreclosure accountability, and EVEN with assistance in appointing

counsel. A just resolution in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant would (at minimum) set

precedent impacting 4.2M illegal foreclosures as identified by the Department of Justice

and Federal Bank Regulators. For example - If you have 4.2M potential lawsuits which

now can rely on precedent, each suit averaging $1M, total legal risk becomes $4.2T. Now

imagine if precedent is additionally set with the appointment of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915.

And that’s JUST the beginning… The historical record shows that EVERY PRESIDING

JUDGE (along with Defendants/Appellees) associated with this litigation has failed to even

mention or reference the words Economic Espionage, National Security, or the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property known as the HARIHAR FCS model © – designed to conservatively

deliver $5T in Economic growth to the United States. As a matter of record, the Court, and
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

ALL parties are well-aware of meritorious presentations the Appellant has made to

numerous government offices including (but not limited to): the Congressional offices of

both US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) , US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA),

Deputy Chief Counsel (former) of the House Financial Services Committee – Gail Laster,

and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) (under the Obama Administration) – per

the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden.

While further investigation is certainly warranted, the argument for MOTIVE can again be

made, where Officers of the Court have conspired to damage the Appellant’s Intellectual

property rights, ultimately preventing the possibility of its implementation nationwide.

Nevertheless, whatever the motive, there is NO justification for their misconduct. To the

extent that referenced District and Circuit judges have so egregiously abused their authority,

the Court should certainly vacate the judgements in both affected cases9 and award maximum

civil damages to the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar.

Reference is appropriately drawn to the following legal citations:

Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise

from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In

regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of

9
Reference is made to this case, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also to
HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided

by presumption in favor of jurisdiction.”

Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not

show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have

existed.”

Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or at 202-03: It is interesting to note the repeated references to fraud in

the above quotes. Therefore, the meaning of fraud should be noted: Fraud. An intentional

perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some

valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a

matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it

to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with

intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added)

–Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally

v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its

elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material

information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the

public… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

V. CONCLUSION

When a litigant’s repeated (and collective) efforts to address JURISDICTION, TREASON

CLAIMS, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE, DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, FRAUD ON THE

COURT and others go UNANSWERED AND IGNORED for a year and a half, there is just

cause to (at minimum): 1.) Attack the Court’s integrity; 2.) Vacate impacted Judgement(s),

and considering the severity of issues 3.) Bring these matters to the attention of the President,

Congress AND the American Public.

While the Appellant realized that undertaking this MONUMENTAL legal battle would

likely be a long road, NEVER did he anticipate the level of corruption so blatantly

evidenced by this judiciary. The Appellant makes clear that – based on the historical record, he

has understandably LOST ALL FAITH in this FEDERAL JUDICIARY to uphold the law,

and is certain that ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would reach the same conclusion.

THEREFORE, for the reasons stated within and by the evidenced record(s), the Appellant –

Mohan A. Harihar respectfully calls for a Court - WITH JURISDICTION to: 1.) VACATE

referenced judgements which are considered VOID, and 2.) AWARD the Appellant the

maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is allowed by law.

What MAY be subject to additional debate – to be determined by either Congress OR a Court

that is recognized as having jurisdiction, is identifying the proportion of liability by Appellee. In

HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-2074) it is clear that there is only one

(1) party – the Appellee, that bears responsibility. However, in the related case, HARIHAR v.

US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), the argument can be made that while the record reveals
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE COURT claims against the Defendants/Appellees warrant a

DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, such egregious abuse evidenced by this Federal Judiciary MAY

either: 1.) Supersede the referenced DEFAULT, or 2.) Proportionately assess damages payable

by Appellees/Defendants AND the United States. There is also CLEAR EXPECTATION for

the Court to assess professional licensure penalties (including, but not limited to disbarment)

against referenced Defendants/Appellees where it is warranted and for the Department of Justice

(DOJ) to TIMELY provide an update with regard to the Appellants RELATED CRIMINAL

complaints of record.

Finally, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully states that once these referenced

judgements have been appropriately vacated and damages have been rightfully awarded as

stated, the intention remains to align with The United States for the purpose of implementing the

HARIHAR FCS model© nationwide. Successful implementation will undoubtedly assist in

paving the way to historical economic growth and prosperity for our great Nation.

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this document to the President,

confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment A) with the filed Court copy. A duplicate

copy of this motion is also filed under the related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US

BANK et al. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Appellant is happy

to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate, hearing and with the

presence of an independent court reporter.


Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

Respectfully submitted this 23rd Day of December, 2017

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

Attachment A
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 23, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF users:

Dina Michael Chaitowitz

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