Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

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 MOTION TO BRING INCREMENTAL CLAIMS OF TREASON

UNDER ARTICLE III AGAINST CIRCUIT JUDGES: TORUELLA, KAYATTA AND

BARRON

Please be advised, based on the Appellant’s interpretation of the Law, it has previously been

evidenced that Circuit Judges: Torruella, Kayatta and Barron - LACK JURISDICTION to

rule in this litigation. Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant respectfully requesting

clarification for their actions, these judges have refused to do so. Instead, they have insisted on

continuing to rule without jurisdiction, as if some form of exemption has allowed them to ignore

their judicial oath, and Federal Law(s). The Appellant is NOT AWARE of any such exemption.

THEREFORE, by consciously issuing the order on April 4, 2018, DENYING relief to the

Appellant, this order is AGAIN interpreted as an INCREMENTAL act of TREASON under

ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.

1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

EVEN IF Circuit Judges: Torruella, Kayatta and Barron had jurisdiction to continue ruling

here, there is certainly cause to question the content (or lack thereof) of this single-sentence

order:

“Regardless of how we might construe the plaintiff-appellant's "Emergency Response," the

motion does not establish entitlement to any relief from this court, and is therefore denied.”

First, the Appellant’s Emergency Response to the Order issued March 14, 2018 brought the

following issues before the Court:

1. The Referenced Order is Considered VOID;

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

Federal Laws, Judicial Rules, etc;

3. The Referenced Order Is Considered an INCREMETAL ACT OF TREASON Under

ARTICLE III;

4. Internal Operating Procedure X. Petitions for Panel Rehearing and Petitions for Hearing
or Rehearing En Banc

5. The Motion Requesting MA AGO Clarification to filed Criminal Complaints

Based on the Appellant’s evidenced claims of record and the supporting arguments in each of the

above issues, please articulate exactly HOW you arrived at your (above) conclusion(s). Please

include reference to each document reviewed which contributed to your decision(s).

Second, the Appellant has consistently made clear throughout this litigation EXACTLY HOW

he has arrived at his evidenced conclusion, based on his interpretation of the law. Presiding

2
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

judges have failed to provide a single VALID argument to support their rulings – even when

clarification was requested. The referenced order issued April 4, 2018 is just the latest example

that collectively demonstrates these judicial failure(s). Circuit Judges: Torruella, Kayatta and

Barron may not be pleased that they have been accused of misconduct. HOWEVER, there has

yet to be a single denial, rebuttal, or even a valid argument against ANY of these judicial

misconduct claims. Their actions – if allowed to stand without accountability, suggest to the

AMERICAN PUBLIC that they are somehow exempt from upholding their judicial oath, or the

judicial machinery of the Court.

28 U.S. Code § 453 – OATHS OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before

performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will

administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,

and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon

me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, who has followed this litigation - IN NO WAY can

conclude that Circuit Judges: Torruella, Kayatta and Barron have upheld this judicial oath.

Now, 1.) The President, 2.) OIG, 3.) FBI, 4.) DOJ, 5.) House and Senate Judiciary

Committee’s, 6.) Office of the Circuit Executive and 7.) the Administrative Office of US

Courts will necessarily be updated on this latest criminal development.

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

3
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

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

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.

Respectfully submitted this 6th Day of April, 2018

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

4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

Attachment A

5
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

6
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

7
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274718 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161726

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on April 6, 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