Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)

APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO (VOID) ORDER ENTERED

MARCH 14, 2018 IDENTIFIES INCREMENTAL ACT(S) OF TREASON UNDER

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal (lower court Docket No. 15-cv-

11880), and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced

allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and 2.)

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

National Security. The evidenced allegations against referenced officers of the Court

include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - Therefore, it has now become necessary to file

Criminal Complaints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10)

1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
1
identified Federal (Circuit and District) Court Judges.2 Copies of this petition are necessarily

sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;

3. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

4. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives;

5. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

6. House Oversight Committee;

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

8. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

9. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

10. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

11. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

12. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, as this judiciary’s effort to “promote

public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,” has irrefutably been

compromised. By informing the Public, 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.

2
See Attachment A – Criminal Complaints filed with the FBI on March 19, 2018.
2
AFTER REVIEWING the (VOID) order issued March 14, 2018 by Circuit Judges –

Howard, Torruella, Kayatta, Barron and Lynch,3 the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar

necessarily informs this Court (and ALL previously referenced parties) of the following issues:

1. The Referenced Order is Considered VOID – First, based on the Appellant’s

interpretation of the Law(s) and for the list of reasons clearly articulated within the

record, Circuit Judges – Howard, Torruella, Kayatta, and Barron have LOST

JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY RELATED

litigation. There insistence to continue ruling here without jurisdiction demonstrates a

CONTINUED PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT, consistent with the reported

examples of record.

2. CLARIFICATION RE Any Judicial EXPEMTION(S) from Adhering to

Constitutional/ Federal Laws, Judicial Rules, etc. - The Appellant IS NOT AN

ATTORNEY and has NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE. Perhaps Circuit Judges –

Howard, Torruella, Kayatta, and Barron are considered EXEMPT from adhering

to Jurisdiction (and other Federal) Rules. Based on the evidenced court record(s), please

explain if these officers of the court OR ANY JUDGE within this circuit has earned

such an exemption to ignore jurisdiction rules. IF NO SUCH JURISDICTION

EXEMPTION EXISTS, then the Appellant’s interpretation of the Law is that the

accused officers of the court are DISQUALIFIED. Allowing these officers of the Court

to continue ruling without jurisdiction re-enforces that the INTEGRITY of this FIRST

CIRCUIT is COMPRIMISED.

3See Attachment B, to view the entered (VOID) order. Also, it is unclear as to WHY, Judge
Lynch – who is recused, is even listed here when he DID NOT participate in the decision.
3
3. The Referenced Order Is Considered an INCREMETAL ACT OF TREASON

Under ARTICLE III - As evidenced by the historical record(s), SEVEN (7) Officers of

the Court now stand accused of Treason under Article III, Section 3 for continuing to

rule without jurisdiction. They include:

a. First Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard;

b. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Recused);

c. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

d. First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

e. First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.; and

f. First Circuit Judge David J. Barron

g. US District Court Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson

The record shows that with each of these evidenced claims, referenced judges were

respectfully made aware of their offenses and respectfully given the opportunity to

initiate corrective action. Not only was no corrective action taken, but a review of court

records will show that these judges never even acknowledge the word TREASON, as if

no claim was ever made. It is the Appellant’s understanding, that as an AMERICAN

CITIZEN, and under FEDERAL LAW, ANY witnessed act of Treason must be

reported to: The President of The United States, the Governor (of the state where the

alleged act occurred) or a Judge. Furthermore, any FAILURE to REPORT a

witnessed act of Treason constitutes MISPRISION of TREASON under 28 U.S.C.

2382. With each of the evidenced claims and IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW, the Appellant

4
has necessarily informed – The President, Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) and the

Court(s).

With this referenced (VOID) order entered on March 14, 2018, the Appellant now brings

an incremental claim of Treason against Circuit Judges – Howard, Torruella, Kayatta,

and Barron. ALL Appellees, their retained counsel and the Clerk of the Court are

considered as witnesses to these incremental claims of Treason. Please note, Appellees

cannot seek refuge under the fifth Amendment, litigation privilege, sovereign (or

any other) immunity to avoid serving as witness to Treason. ANY failure to serve as

witness to treason will be considered MISPRISION of TREASON under 28 U.S.C.

2382.

4. Internal Operating Procedure X. Petitions for Panel Rehearing and Petitions for

Hearing or Rehearing En Banc

A. General. Fed. R. App. P. 40 and 35 should be consulted with respect to the

procedures. Petitions for rehearing are intended to bring to the attention of the

panel claimed errors in the opinion and they are not to be used for reargument of

an issue previously presented.

Under Rule 35(a)(1) Vote: The decision whether a case should be heard or reheard en

banc is made solely by the circuit judges of this circuit who are in regular active service.

Rehearing en banc shall be ordered only upon the affirmative votes of a majority of the

judges of this court in regular active service who are not disqualified, provided that the

5
judges who are not disqualified constitute a majority of the judges who are in regular

active service.

First, the Appellant respectfully calls for a thorough explanation of exactly HOW -

based on evidenced judicial misconduct that includes: 1.) TREASON, 2.) Judicial

FRAUD on the Court, 3.) Conspiracy, 4.) Economic Espionage and others -

authorization was given to ALLOW Circuit Judges – Howard, Torruella, Kayatta,

and Barron to rule here. Additionally, please clarify for the record:

a. The names of the individual council members who made such a determination;

b. If the evidenced record shows that five (5) out of ten (10) circuit judges are

considered disqualified, WHY then were duties NOT ASSIGNED to the most-

senior active circuit judge not disqualified? Please explain why Circuit Judge’s –

Lynch, Selya, Boudin, Stahl and Lipez were not considered replacements as

mandated by Rule 25(f);

c. Considering the PLETHORA of egregious judicial misconduct evidenced by this

federal judiciary, please explain in detail WHY a TRANSFER to another council

was not considered under Rule 25(f);

d. CLEARLY, there exists conflict with ACCURATELY ASSESSING “the

MERITS” of the complaint. Please provide the details of ALL supported

(Plaintiff/Appellant/ Complainant) arguments reviewed by referenced judges, and

how specifically they could possibly have arrived at the conclusion(s) that any

singular Appellant claim lacks merit.

6
Please be advised, SHOULD there be any failure (or refusal) to provide the

requested clarification, such action will certainly contribute to the list of abuses alleged

against this judiciary.

5. The Motion Requesting MA AGO Clarification – The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar

has provided this Court with evidenced claims supporting RELATED CRIMINAL

MISCONDUCT by the Appellees/Defendants. The Appellant has necessarily filed

criminal complaints with the MA AGO and the FBI, in the pursuit of criminal charges

against ALL responsible parties. It is UNCLEAR what is causing an extended delay by

State and Federal Prosecutors to bring criminal charges here (or to at least explain their

anticipated timeline to do so). This Court is respectfully reminded that: 1.) the

Commonwealth of MA is an Appellee, as is former AG Martha Coakley, 2.) There exists

evidenced COLLUSION between the MA AGO, US Attorney’s Office (MA) and

Bank Attorneys for Appellees – WELLS FARGO and US BANK. 4 The cause for this

extended delay (at least in part) is believed to come from State/Federal Prosecutor’s

effort(s) to avoid self-incrimination. NEVERTHELESS, if Prosecutors refuse to

prosecute evidenced crimes, AT MINIMUM, there is cause here to EXPAND UPON

and/or BRING NEW – COLOR OF LAW and DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

against both the Commonwealth and (in the related complaint) The United States.

EVEN IF the referenced Circuit judges had jurisdiction here, their conscious decisions to

blatantly IGNORE evidenced criminal claims that certainly impact a civil complaint

raises a number of red flags.

4
Reference Attachment C – The West LegalEdcenter© course, “After the Bubble Bursts.”

7
Allowing this decision to stand will (at minimum): 1.) show a continued Pattern of Corrupt

Conduct that re-affirms the integrity of the First Circuit Appellate Court is compromised and 2.)

show cause to expand upon already existing claims against the Commonwealth and United

States including (but are not limited to): Violations to the Due Process Clause, Color of Law

violations, Conspiracy claims, Civil/Criminal RICO violations, and Federal Tort Claims. 5

APPPELLANT’S CLOSING STATEMENT

This legal experience is one which NO AMERICAN should EVER have to endure. Based on

the Appellant’s interpretation of the law(s), those officers of the Court who stand accused of

crimes including TREASON, have DISCRACED both the Court AND this Country for which

they have the distinct privilege to serve. There is NOTHING HONORABLE with these actions.

And when the accused are tied to evidenced claims of ESPIONAGE, it is again the Appellant’s

interpretation of the Law that they’ve now become Domestic Enemies of The United States.

Therefore, there MUST now be civil, criminal and professional accountability for these

evidenced crimes. ANY failure to do so will be IN FULL VIEW of the American Public. Based

on the historical record, the Appellant NO LONGER HAS CONFIDENCE in this First Circuit

to initiate the necessary corrective action. There is certainly an expectation for the Circuit

Executive and the Court Clerk, as witness to also inform the appropriate offices/agencies,

as it pertains to these evidenced claims of TREASON and perceived threats to National

Security.

5
Reference also Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (Lower Court
Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
8
Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR states that he has been respectful to this and

EVERY Court and has followed the law to the best of his ability for the past seven (7) years.

While the many evidenced acts of misconduct have shown just cause to lose faith in government,

it remains my SINCERE HOPE, that the United States will take corrective steps in restoring

that faith.

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the RESPONSE to the attention of The

President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment D) with the filed Court copy.

If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this RESPONSE, the Appellant is happy to

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

presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 21st Day of March, 2018

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

9
Attachment A

10
11
The CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TEXT BOX reads as follows:

I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEFENDANTS:1.)US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;2.)US District Court Judge
Denise J. Casper;3.)US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit)4.)US Circuit Judge Juan R.
Torruella;5.)US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.; 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);9.)US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI); 10.) US
District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME).
Contact Information: John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse,1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210, Clerk's Office: 617-748-9057
ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against referenced officers of the
Court have occurred in the timeline associated with the associated litigation: HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); HARIHAR v. THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and actions related to filed
judicial misconduct complaints/petitions.
The evidenced allegations conclusively show that (at minimum) 6 out of 10 referenced officers
of the court have ruled without jurisdiction, constituting an act(s) of Treason under Article III,
Section 3 of the Constitution. The individual and collective actions of these court officers also
show the intentional and collective CONSPIRACY to (at minimum) Misappropriate a Trade
Secret (IP) designed to assist the United States with economic growth/repair associated with
the US Foreclosure Crisis. The complainant believes that upon further investigation, additional
(related) crimes committed by these officers will be evidenced. The Complainant maintains the
right to expand upon/file new claims if deemed necessary.
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The Complainant states that these facts establish probable
cause that (at minimum) the following crimes have occurred: TREASON to the Constitution
under ARTICLE III, Section 3; ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code §
1831; MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit
offense or to defraud United States.
Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with the referenced
litigation. Please be advised, since this matter involves evidenced claims of TREASON and
matters perceived to impact National Security, the Complainant (by his interpretation of
Federal Law) has necessarily communicated these claims to the President. Members of
Congress and appropriate agencies. The PUBLIC has also been copied out of concerns for
personal safety and security. Copies of this criminal complaint will be delivered to the
President's attention, filed with the Court and communicated to other referenced parties as
well.

12
13
Attachment B

14
15
16
Attachment C

17
18
Attachment D

19
20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 21, 2018 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:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod
David E. Fialkow
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Kurt R. McHugh
Jesse M. Boodoo

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

21