Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 71

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

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 8/29/18 ORDER IDENTIFIES

UNPRECENTED ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, RE-AFFIRMING CAUSE TO

PETITION FOR REMOVAL/IMPEACHMENT UNDER ARTICLE II SECTION 4

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues EVIDENCED against judicial officers of the court –

associated with this (and related) Federal litigation,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. These evidenced allegations – now raised (collectively) against TWELVE

1
Aside from this Appeal (and its lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880), related Federal litigation
references: (1) HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-2074 (Also, lower
court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and (2) HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

(12) judicial officers of the Court also include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.2 Therefore,

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ALREADY filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) will necessarily be updated.3 Copies of this petition are necessarily sent via email, social

media and/or certified mail to the following Federal offices/agencies:

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).

2
Referenced Judicial Officers include: (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); (11) US Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez; and (12) US District Court Judge
William G. Young.
3
See Exhibit 1 (pages 11-14) – Original Criminal Complaints filed with the FBI on March 19,
2018 against referenced judicial officers (excludes (Circuit) Judge Lipez and (District) Judge
Young, who will be added to the updated criminal complaint.
2
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Copies will also be made available to the PUBLIC and to the NATIONAL MEDIA, as this

judiciary’s efforts to “promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,”

have clearly failed. 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.

AFTER REVIEWING the ORDER OF THE COURT4 issued August 29, 2018 by Chief

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee

Thompson, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully disagrees; as evidenced

arguments of record have shown these judicial officers to be INFERIOR and WITHOUT

JURISDICTION to issue such an order. THEREFORE, this referenced order is clearly

considered VOID. The order, in its entirety, states the following:

“The appellant's RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW EVIDENCE/


INFORMATION; (2) VALIDATE JUDICIAL OATH; (3) ADDRESS LEGAL
CONSEQUENCES RE JURISDICTION; AND (4) PETITION FOR RE-
HEARING/TRANSFER is construed as a petition for panel rehearing. The petition for panel
rehearing is denied.”

No further explanation or justification that would ALLOW such an order has been provided. A

copy of the original RESPONSE/MOTION is attached in its entirety for the purpose of

informing: (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS; (3) Congress; and (4) the list of previously referenced

offices/agencies, including the PUBLIC.5

4
See Exhibit 2 (pages 15-16)
5 See Exhibit 3 (pages 17-58)
3
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

As a reminder, Mr. Harihar - a pro se litigant WITH NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE, has

evidenced for the record and in FULL PUBLIC VIEW: (1) a continued ABUSE OF

JUDICIAL POWER exemplified by this Federal (Circuit and District Court) judiciary;

and (2) a level of egregiousness that has now CLEARLY SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL.

This Court is respectfully reminded that for nearly FOUR (4) years, referenced Judges have

repeatedly REFUSED to assist the Appellant with the APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL,

despite “TEXTBOOK” arguments of record warranting the Court’s assistance, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915. This (partial) list of judicial abuses evidenced by the Appellant includes (but is

not limited to) the following:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues6;

2. Refusing to TRANSFER to a different Circuit (or higher Court) with jurisdiction;

3. Refusing to address NEW EVIDENCED claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2),

including (but not limited to) the recent ADMISSION OF GUILT by the

Appellee – WELLS FARGO. Following the Admission of Guilt, on August 9,

2018, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), a member of the Senate Banking

Committee, called on Wells Fargo to provide more details about a mistake the bank

made that caused hundreds of customers to lose their homes and suffer from the

extensive consequences of foreclosure.7 The Appellant has long evidenced for the

record that he has been victimized by this same “ERROR”;

4. Refusing to VALIDATE their Judicial Oath of Office, when requested;

6
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over SIXTY (60) court documents which raise a
JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
7
See Exhibit 4 (pages 59-63)
4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

5. Refusing to acknowledge evidenced judicial misconduct claims of record against

INFERIOR judges (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).

6. Refusing to VACATE referenced judgments that have been considered VOID,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4);

7. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

8. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

9. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

10. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with

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

11. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

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

12. Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;

13. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

14. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

15. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

5
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

16. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

17. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

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

19. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

20. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

21. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record;

22. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

23. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

The Appellant believes that: (1) the level of evidenced judicial misconduct here is

UNPRECEDENTED; (2) without the ability to retain counsel, the proper path to a

LEGAL AND JUST remedy is unclear; and (3) there does not appear to be a corrective legal

remedy without the assistance of either (or combination of): (a) SCOTUS; (b) DOJ; or (c)

REMOVAL to a Congressional Panel. For the record, the Appellant’s documented efforts to

abide by the process and file judicial misconduct complaints have yielded similar PATTERNS

OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by: (1) the Chief Judge; (2) Judicial Council; and (3) includes

6
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

multiple documented failures by the Court Clerk8 and Circuit Executive.9 These documented

failures indicate a clearly broken system within the First Circuit. As a matter of record, the

Appellant has necessarily brought this matter to the attention of The Administrative Office of

US Courts – specifically, to the attention of Director James C. Duff.

Dating back to the infancy stages of this litigation (and as a matter of record), the Appellant has

similarly informed the following legislative leaders here in the Commonwealth (via US Mail,

email, and/or social media communication) on a regular basis only to be IGNORED:

1. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

2. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);

3. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);

4. US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA);

5. MA Attorney General Maura Healey;

6. MA Attorney General (Former) – Appellee, Martha Coakley.

Upon filing this emergency response/motion, Mr. Harihar will again respectfully reach out to

these legislative leaders (excluding Appellee, Martha Coakley) – for the specific purpose of

addressing these evidenced allegations before a higher Court or authority.10

8
References Circuit Clerk Margaret Carter.
9
References Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg.
10
See Exhibit 5 (pages 64-67) – Email delivered on September 3, 2018 to Legislative leaders in
the Commonwealth of MA.
7
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

EVIDENCED ACTS OF TREASON – Based on his interpretation of Federal Law, the

Appellant – MOHAN A HARIHAR has (AGAIN) evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW a

judicial order that has CLEARLY been issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION; and therefore,

shows cause to bring incremental claims of Treason under ARTICLE III, Section 3 against:

(1) Chief Judge Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson and (3) Circuit Judge

Kermit V. Lipez.11 ALL Appellees, their retained counsel and the Clerk of the Court are

considered as witnesses to these claims of Treason. Please note, it is the Appellants’

understanding that Judges have NO JUDICIAL IMMUNITY against evidenced Treason (or

ANY CRIMINAL) claims. Similarly, 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 show cause to bring

(incremental) MISPRISION of TREASON claims under 28 U.S.C. 2382.

APPPELLANT’S CLOSING STATEMENT

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

the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal law, 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 also tied to evidenced claims of ECONOMIC 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

11
This is the first evidenced claim of TREASON brought against Circuit Judge Kermit V.
Lipez.
8
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

accountability for these evidenced crimes, including (but not limited to) IMPEACHMENT

under ARTICLE II, Section 4. ANY failure to do so will be IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW to

ALL AMERICANS. Based on the historical record, the Appellant HAS LOST ALL

CONFIDENCE in this First Circuit’s willingness to initiate necessary corrective action. This

INCLUDES the First Circuit Executive and the Court Clerk, who have personally

witnessed these evidenced claims of TREASON and perceived threats to National Security;

but have FAILED/REFUSED to inform their superiors and show cause to further support

existing Conspiracy claims.12

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 nearly EIGHT (8) 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 with the filed Court copy.13 If there is a question

regarding ANY portion of this RESPONSE, the Appellant is happy to provide additional

12 The Appellant has necessarily brought evidenced Conspiracy claims in the related litigation:
(1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No.
17-cv-11109; and (2) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket
No. 18-cv-11134.
13 See Exhibit 6 (pages 68-70), to view correspondence delivered to/from POTUS on

September 3, 2018 via www.Whitehouse.gov.


9
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

supporting information upon request, in a separate, hearing and with the presence of an

independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd Day of September, 2018

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

10
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 1

11
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

12
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

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.

13
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

14
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 2

15
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 16 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

16
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 17 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 3

17
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 18 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW EVIDENCE/INFORMATION;


(2) VALIDATE JUDICIAL OATH; (3) ADDRESS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RE
JURISDICTION; AND (4) PETITION FOR RE-HEARING/TRANSFER

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se and who is NOT A LEGAL

EXPERT, respectfully files this RESPONSE, as an EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF

CORRUPT CONDUCT continues to be exemplified by this Federal Judiciary. The most recent

example, evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW is the August 7, 2018 attempt to re-issue a

JUDGEMENT ORDER,14 when Two (2) of Three (3) NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Judges

LACK JURISDICTION. Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee

Thompson have BOTH previously been identified as INFERIOR JUDGES - for their

collective failures to uphold the Constitution, numerous Federal Law(s), and their Judicial

Oath. A thorough review of the historical record will reveal a very clear and articulated

explanation of how the Appellant arrived at these conclusions. Neither Chief Judge Howard

14 See Exhibit 1
18
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 19 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

nor Judge Thompson have ever once denied or even attempted to argue, a single judicial

misconduct claim against them – including acts of TREASON. “When a judge knows that he

lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of

jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller

v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

What is clear to this Appellant (and should be to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER), is a

continued judicial effort - NOW by this NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Panel to brush aside

ALL Appellant motions in order to reach a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED

OUTCOME.

This First Circuit Court has continuously failed to address (and correct) judicial misconduct

claims which have long been evidenced in full public view. As a result, the INTEGRITY of this

Appeals (and the District) Court is severely damaged and the APPEARANCE OF

IMPARTIALITY has long been compromised. Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of

Federal Law, the conscious decision by this newly assigned Circuit panel to CONTINUE

IGNORING: (1) JURISDICTION; and (2) the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct

claims - and instead issue an invalid judgment (at minimum) raises the following issues and

necessitates the following actions:

I. THE JUDGEMENT IS VOID

A. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is

VOID, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.

19
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 20 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

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

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.15A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).16 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.”17 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the

judgment as void.18 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 IDENTIFIED – EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES (See Below).

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) exemplifies what MAY be collectively considered one

of 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

15
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
16
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
17
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).
18
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
20
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 21 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

that the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar, DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST

RESOLUTION here, or in any related litigation.

C. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any

proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See

Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24

L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh

(1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L

ed 608.

D. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its

judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is

no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710

(6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."

(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).

E. A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing

void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343,

84 L ed 370.

F. "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper

office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to

rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir.

1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization

Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and

Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

21
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 22 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

LACK OF JURISDICTION is just ONE (1) of (at least) TWENTY (20)

EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES associated with this Appeal (and previously in

the lower Court), as recognized by SCOTUS.19 This Court ALSO recognized the ENTIRE list

of unresolved issues (Below), following the recusal of Judge Barron, after he disclosed having

a FINANCIAL INTEREST with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO.20 A review of the record

will show that the Appellant has repeatedly brought this list of extraordinary/unresolved issues

before the Court, only to be IGNORED as if they do not exist – EVEN NOW, as indicated by

the attempt to issue a (VOID) judgment order. As a respectful reminder and for documentation

purposes, the list of extraordinary/unresolved issues includes (but is not limited to) the following:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues21;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

19
Following the January 17, 2018 judgment issued by the initial panel, the Appellant filed a
motion with the Supreme Court requesting a timeline extension for filing his Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. On June 8, 2018, SCOTUS granted the motion, acknowledging the list extraordinary/
unresolved issues warranting such an extension.
20
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant has requested additional disclosures
regarding the judge’s improper relationship, however, no information has been provided.
21
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
22
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 23 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

7. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with

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

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

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

9. Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

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

16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,

as stated within the record;

23
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 24 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

It is a COMBINATION of these factors – RECUSAL AND THIS LIST OF

EXTRAORDINARY/UNRESOLVED ISSUES which initially led to withdrawing the Mandate

and Vacating Judgment. After reviewing this NEW Panel’s explanation (below), there is now an

INCREMENTAL EXAMPLE OF RECORD that shows a continued INTENT to IGNORE

the referenced list of extraordinary circumstances; and instead brush aside all motions in

order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome:

The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is denied. See
United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against judge separate from the case
under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic recusal can be obtained by the simple
act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000) (similar); United
States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's
suit or threatened suit against him[.]").

Suggesting that automatic recusal is based solely on the act of suing a judge is a complete

misrepresentation of the facts and the associated case references (above) are therefore

improperly applied. The significance of tying the separate lawsuit to necessary recusal comes

from the Appellant’s evidenced arguments of record that irrefutably define the referenced

24
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 25 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

judges as INFERIOR. Any objective observer who reads through the Judgment and compares it

to the Appellant’s motion (and historical record) will undoubtedly agree:22

It is the failure(s) to uphold their Judicial Oath, the Constitution and Federal Law that: (1)

irrefutably disqualifies Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson; and (2) Voids the Judgment.

The civil and criminal complaints filed against them personally are secondary contributing

factors where collectively, the totality of these issues MUST result in their disqualification.

Any failure by this Court to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson will further

expose and re-affirm the failure to show impartiality.

II. DEMAND TO VALIDATE 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 judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars

against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge

does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200

(1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v.

Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

22
See Exhibit 2, to view the Appellant’s Motion to Remove Inferior Circuit Judges, in its
entirety, filed July 29, 2018. Please note, the Appellant’s Motion has previously been made
available to the Public.
25
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 26 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

By issuing the August 7, 2018 Judgement Order (and for reasons stated within and throughout

the record), CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMPSON and CIRCUIT

JUDGE LIPEZ have consciously disregarded their Judicial Oath of Office. Therefore, the

Appellant shows just cause for their removal from the Bench and potential impeachment,

pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453.

III. INCREMENTAL Act of TREASON Under ARTICLE III

Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, it has been evidenced that Chief Judge

Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - 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 continued to

rule in the absence of jurisdiction - as if some form of exemption has allowed them to ignore

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

such exemption. Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United

States, wars against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the

Land. If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re

Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or

acts of treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia:

“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp
that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” See
Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.

THEREFORE, by consciously issuing the JUDGEMENT order WITHOUT

JURISDICTION on August 7th, 2018, it is interpreted that Chief Judge Howard and Judge

Thompson have committed an INCREMENTAL act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,

26
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 27 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Section 3 of the US Constitution. Serving as WITNESS to these incremental acts of Treason,

aside from the Appellant, are the following parties:

1. The Circuit Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter;

2. ALL Appellees/Defendants; and

3. Representing counsel to the Appellees/Defendants;

For the record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court - Any party (referenced above) who

refuses to serve as witness to these (NEW) evidenced claims of Treason will incur the following

incremental claims against them: 1.) MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 2.)

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; and 3.)

ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831.

IV. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS of the CIRCUIT CLERK/CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

The law clerks’ duty of confidentiality ends when a clerk believes a federal judge(s) has done

something wrong outside of the deliberative process. The confidentiality guidelines for law

clerks are intended to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The fundamental goal of the

confidentiality guidelines would be subverted if the rules forced law clerks to be silent about

judicial misconduct. WHEN A JUDGE engages in illegal activities or inappropriate behavior

(as is the case here), that’s clearly NOT what’s intended to be confidential. Therefore, there

(AGAIN) is a clear expectation for Clerk Margaret Carter to similarly acknowledge referenced

jurisdiction (and other) issues, including the VOID judgement. A Mandate CANNOT legally be

issued when the judgement is considered void. Clerk Carter is also expected to inform the Circuit

Executive – Susan Goldberg, of this latest development. The Circuit Executive then must update

the Administrative Office of US Courts, considering the gravity of judicial misconduct issues.
27
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 28 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Please be advised, EVEN BEFORE the referenced judgment and as a matter of record, these

referenced officers of the court personally witnessed prior act(s) of Treason under Article III, and

failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report

Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct contributes to existing CONSPIRACY

(and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or lack thereof), the

Appellant has necessarily filed criminal complaints with the FBI and states that these facts

establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following crimes have occurred:

MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to

commit offense or to defraud United States; and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic

Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831. Aside from criminal accountability, Clerk Carter and

Circuit Executive Goldberg are listed as DEFENDANTS in the Appellant’s recently filed civil

lawsuit – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, et al., Docket No. 18-cv-11134.

Professional complaints have also been filed with the Administrative Office of US Courts, to

the specific attention of Director James C. Duff.

Any continued failure(s) by the Circuit Clerk and/or the Circuit Executive to acknowledge and

report evidenced judicial misconduct shows cause to file new, or to expand upon existing

civil/criminal/professional claims.

V. DOJ OBLIGATIONS RE: EVIDENCED CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT

The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS are already

filed with the FBI against CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD and CIRCUIT JUDGE

28
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 29 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON. Judges DO NOT have immunity from criminal prosecution.

Therefore, the Appellant clearly expects the DOJ to bring criminal charges against ALL

responsible parties, including referenced officers of the Court for the evidenced criminal

claims of record. Any CONTINUED failure by the DOJ to do so shows cause to expand

upon existing claims against The United States including (but not limited to) Color of Law

and Due Process violations.

VI. NEW JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS AGAINST CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ

By affirming the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s complaint, Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez

now similarly stands accused of judicial misconduct for his evidenced failure to uphold his

Judicial Oath, the Constitution and numerous Federal laws. As with the other accused judicial

officers, Judge Lipez is respectfully given the opportunity to initiate corrective action, by (at the

very least) informing the Court IF his was a minority opinion that disagreed with the judgment

order.

Respectfully, any failure by Judge Lipez to initiate corrective action will necessarily show cause

to: (1) File a NEW Judicial Misconduct complaint; (2) File a Criminal Complaint with the FBI;

(3) Amend the existing civil complaint against The United States (HARIHAR v. THE UNITED

STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and (4) Amend the

existing civil complaint – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No.

18-cv-11134.

VII. NEW INFORMATION RE: APPELLANT – WELLS FARGO

29
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 30 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Over the past two (2) weeks the Appellee – WELLS FARGO, has made National Headlines on

three (3) separate occasions, each of which bare impact to this litigation:

A. ADMISSION OF GUILT - In a regulatory filing, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a

“technical error” kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan modification.

“During the course of an internal review, we determined that an automated calculation error
may have affected the decision on whether or not to offer or approve some mortgage
modifications between April 13, 2010 and Oct. 20, 2015, when the error was corrected,” the
bank said in a statement. “We’re very sorry that this error occurred and are providing
remediation to the approximately 625 customers who may have been impacted.”

This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing financial
difficulties.

“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already from
their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure and
mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family and to have
gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel if that happened to
me.”

This admission by Appellee – Wells Fargo is IDENTICAL to the Appellant’s original

Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES. From the

beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the Appellant

articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO BE DENIED SIX

(6) SEPARATE TIMES. AFTER REVEIVING EACH DENIAL LETTER – Mr. Harihar

would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as to WHY his loan modification

was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a “CALCULATION ERROR MADE

BY WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH TIME, after learning of this “calculation

error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve

the loan modification. EACH TIME (on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22)

months), the Appellee – WELLS FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating,

“I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.”

30
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 31 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

CLEARLY, through his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO

ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an intentional act designed to ultimately (and illegally)

foreclose on the Appellant.

These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the Appellant

– MOHAN A. HARIHAR and Appellee – WELLS FARGO were recorded for “training

and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant/Plaintiff to force their

production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has consistently DENIED THEIR

DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE. Now, by this admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1)

shows cause to amend his original complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence

supporting his Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee –

WELLS FARGO has purposefully tried to deceive this Court.

B. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications - On

August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by

homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them permanent

mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable Modification

Program (HAMP) to offer loan modifications to borrowers who demonstrated their

eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). “Miscalculations in loans modification reviews were

common before and during the financial crisis. And they remain an issue today” - Alys

Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Consumers should not

have to waive their legal rights and that way they can accept the payment and then

31
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 32 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That was standard several years ago

when the regulators found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up

the independent foreclosure review process. Claims were not waived.”

This Court is respectfully reminded that as part of the record (paraphrasing):

1. The Appellant submitted as evidence a letter he received from a Vice President

for Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check was a reimbursement

(with interest) to the Appellant for his “Good Faith” payment that he was

INSTRUCTED to make in order to qualify for the loan modification – which he

never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years

AFTER the ILLEGAL Foreclosure, issued an apology for its FAILURE(S) to

modify Mr. Harihar’s mortgage;

2. The Appellant’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in two (2) separate

lawsuits. The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AG’s against Defendants that

included the Appellee – WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement, the

Appellant received approximately $1200. The second lawsuit was brought by

Federal Bank Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification

reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B

settlement, the Appellant received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the

Appellant reserved the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell

short of the damages incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved

the right to pursue criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil

32
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 33 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

litigation is to recover the substantial remaining balance of damages rightfully due

to the Appellant.

C. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – This Court is respectfully

reminded of the Notice filed with this Court on August 3, 2018 after being informed of a

recent Press Release from the DOJ on Wednesday, August 1, 2018. This announcement

by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED LITIGATION

(paraphrasing):

1. RE-AFFIRMS the Appellant’s ALREADY-SUPPORTED argument(s)

pertaining to RMBS abuses/failures;

2. RE-AFFIRMS a history of MORTGAGE ABUSES by Appellee – WELLS

FARGO;

3. Recognizes the THREAT of PROSECUTION and IMPACT to RELATED

CIVIL LITIGATION;

4. Calls for DOJ CLARIFICATION and questions the UNNECESSARY DELAY

to bring CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS HERE; and

5. This Court is reminded of EVIDENCED record demonstrating COLLUSION

BETWEEN BANK ATTORNEYS, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (MA) and MA-

AGO23

The Court is respectfully reminded that this new information CONTRIBUTES to the existing

and UNOPPOSED – Fraud on the Court Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), that articulates

that the related RMBS securitized Trust is VOID. This latest information re-affirms the

Appellee’s clear intent to deceive this Court.

23 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
33
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 34 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

VIII.CAUSE FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION – There is now a level of legal

concern, where a fair and just legal remedy is no longer thought to be possible – at least

through this First Circuit Judiciary. The Appellant has now evidenced for the record – IN

FULL PUBLIC VIEW, judicial misconduct by ELEVEN (11) Federal (District and

Circuit) Judges. There are ONLY THREE (3) remaining First Circuit Judges who are

believed to be qualified to rule in this litigation. Accused Officers of the Court HAVE NOT

DENIED A SINGLE MISCONDUCT CLAIM against them and the Appellant’s numerous

requests for TRANSFER have been DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE. Even with the list of

EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES acknowledged by SCOTUS and this

Appeals Court, it seems clear that this newly assigned Panel of Judges has NO INTENTION

TO INITIATE CORECTIVE ACTION.

NOW, with APPELLEE – WELLS FARGO’S recent admission of guilt making National

Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman Brian Schatz (D-HI)

said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo over the issue, but Schatz also

laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells Fargo and said that he expects answers

by the end of the month:

1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?

What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that

time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?

34
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 35 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who

applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When

will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company

does not yet know?

3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells

Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received

this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted

customers are aware that they were harmed?

4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate

the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers

need to do to receive compensation?

5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be

accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?

6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to

remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those

determinations.

7. What terms will Wells Fargo require impacted customers to agree to as a

condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an

impacted customer to waive any legal rights?

8. Through HAMP, the Treasury Department provided financial incentives to

participating institutions who modified eligible troubled borrowers’ mortgages.

Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by

35
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 36 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial

incentives to the Treasury?

9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be

directly or indirectly related to Wells Fargo’s errors to credit reporting agencies?

If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to

remove these entries from borrowers’ credit reports?

10. Please provide information about the disposition of impacted customers’

foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo

plan to reconnect families to their homes?

11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common

stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please

explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder

returns ahead of other uses, such as increasing consumer remedies or investing in

improving internal investigations and controls. How much is Wells Fargo

currently investing or planning to invest in improving internal controls and

consumer protection?

12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and

disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,

why not?

13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells

Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to

prevent violations of law and consumer abuses?

36
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 37 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

These questions (and others) must now be answered here as well, as the Appellant has

evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has not been entirely truthful with its

admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized, will be severe. The

gravity of this Discovery shows cause for removal and transfer before a Congressional

Panel.

IX. PETITION for WRIT of MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI – Collectively, the list of

extraordinary circumstances is unprecedented at the Circuit level, where JURISDICTION

issues alone will show cause to grant Mandamus/Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Based on his interpretation of Federal law, the Appellant believes he has exhausted all

possible avenues for legal remedy within this Court. However, the evidenced judicial failures

of record will ultimately show cause for SCOTUS to grant a Writ of Mandamus and/or a

Writ of Certiorari.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has

CONCLUSIVELY evidenced as a matter of court record, a number of legal claims requiring (at

minimum) the following next steps:

1. Before anything else – JURISDICTION must be re-established, either: (a) in this Court

(if still a legal option), (b) by TRANSFER to another Circuit with jurisdiction, (c) by

REMOVAL to SCOTUS, or (d) by removal to a Congressional panel;

37
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 38 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

2. The ADMISSION OF GUILT by Appellee – WELLS FARGO re-affirms the

Appellant’s consistent claims and adds incrementally to his Fraud on the Court

claim(s). Therefore, the Court should bring a DEFAULT JUDGMENT, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), in favor of the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, with

prejudice and AWARD the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is

allowed by law;

3. The Appellant has also demonstrated that a Court with jurisdiction should ultimately

VACATE the referenced judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and AWARD

the Appellant the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is allowed by

law (It is unclear whether Conclusion #2 or Conclusion #3 has legal precedence);

4. That this Court should consider the existing Circuit Panel as INFERIOR Judges who are

WITHOUT JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED from ruling further in this, or

any related litigation;

5. That a Court with jurisdiction should finally acknowledge the COMPLEXITY OF

LEGAL ISSUES that warrant the Court’s assistance with the ASSIGNMENT of

LEGAL COUNSEL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

6. Since the judgment is considered VOID, there are several MOTIONS which are still

pending, BEGINNING WITH the Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Injunction

and to re-establish a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.;

7. The Appellant also requests timely clarification regarding his right to file a Petition

for re-hearing, pursuant to FRAP Rule 40. Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation

of Federal law, filing the petition at this time is NOT believed to be necessary, since

the referenced judgment is considered VOID. If somehow it is determined that filing a

38
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 39 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

petition for re-hearing becomes necessary, the Appellant respectfully requests that this

response ALSO serve as said petition; also requesting that the Court accept this oversized

petition as compliant with FRAP Rule 40(b), considering the number and severity of

issues. Re-stating that the ever-increasing complexity of legal issues warrants the Court’s

assistance with the assignment of Counsel;

8. A Court with jurisdiction should assess maximum professional penalties against ALL

Appellees (where applicable), including (but not limited to) disbarment.

9. With regard to the related CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS of record, the Appellant

requests an official update for the record - from the DOJ stating their timeline for

bringing criminal indictments against ALL responsible parties.

10. With regard to the Appellant’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, Mr. Harihar had

previously requested a formal meeting with POTUS for the purpose of potentially

implementing a program designed to bring substantial economic benefit to The United

States. A scheduling update from the Executive Branch is respectfully requested.

11. With regard to the Appellant’s ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED PROPERTY, Mr.

Harihar should be allowed to (at minimum) establish a free and clear Quiet Title in his

name ONLY. Appellees – JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS should be given a

48-hour timeline to vacate the premises, under the supervision of the Middlesex County

Sherriff’s Department.

12. Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR should be allowed to legally return to

HIS HOME, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852, without any further

unnecessary delay.

39
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 40 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration and attention to these very serious

matters. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE/MOTION to the

attention of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 4) with the filed Court

copy. A copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC

out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a

question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional

supporting information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 16th Day of August, 2018.

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

40
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 41 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 1

41
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 42 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

42
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 43 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 2

43
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 44 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT MOTION FOR RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF INFERIOR/DISQUALIFIED


CIRCUIT JUDGES – CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this MOTION,

following the Court’s July 26, 2018 NOTICE24, which informed the parties of: (1) a newly

assigned Circuit panel of judges; and (2) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that the case will be

submitted on the briefs without oral argument. The Appellant objects to both the panel selection

(at least in part) and a pre-mature submission without oral argument, as a number of critical (new

and previously identified) issues remain:

I. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges Assigned to Panel are Inferior/ Disqualified

On July 26, 2018, the Court’s NOTICE, delivered to ALL parties via E-mail communication,

identified the NEW panel of Circuit Judges as: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit

24
See Exhibit 1
44
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 45 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. HOWEVER, based

on the historical record of this litigation, BOTH Chief Judge Howard AND Judge Thompson

are considered as INFERIOR JUDGES – having been previously DISQUALIFIED to rule in

this, or any related litigation. The Appellant has clearly evidenced as part of the record,

numerous judicial infractions indicating (at minimum): (1) a failure to show impartiality; (2) a

failure to uphold Federal Law(s) and their judicial oath; and (3) a CONTINUED

PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT revealing an intention to further harm the

Appellant, and collectively this Nation. As a respectful reminder, this Court has recently

VACATED the judgment associated with this Appeal based on the RECUSAL of Judge

Barron AND this PARTIAL LIST of judicial infractions by referenced Federal Judges:

24. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues25;

25. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

26. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

27. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

28. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

29. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

25
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
45
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 46 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

30. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with

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

31. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

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

32. Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;

33. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

34. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

35. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

36. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

37. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

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

39. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

40. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

41. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,

as stated within the record;

42. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

46
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 47 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

43. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

Please be advised, a thorough review of the record will show that neither Chief Judge

Howard nor Judge Thompson have DENIED or REFUTED a single one (1) of the claims

listed above. It remains unclear as to HOW this Court could possibly have approved the

selection of this panel, considering its recent ACKNOWLEDGMENT of JURISDICTION

and list of other extraordinary issues.

THEREFORE, the Appellant calls for Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson to

RECUSE themselves; and for the Court to re-assign/replace the panel vacancies with Circuit

Judges who are considered to have jurisdiction (if applicable). As a matter of record, the

Appellant has now brought EVIDENCED claims of judicial misconduct against TEN (10)

Federal (District and Circuit) judges associated with this litigation – IN FULL PUBLIC

VIEW. SIX (6) out of TEN (10) First Circuit Judges are considered WITHOUT

JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY related litigation: (1) Chief

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella (RECUSED)26; (3) Circuit

Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)27; (4) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; (5)

Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta (RECUSED), Jr.; (6) Circuit Judge David J. Barron

(RECUSED). Please be advised, the Appellant has previously requested and is still waiting for

26
Following the recusal of Judge David Barron, Judges Torruella and Kayatta
removed/recused from the initial panel for reasons which include (but are not limited to) the
list of extraordinary circumstances listed above.
27
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
47
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 48 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

additional details and DISCLOSURES regarding the IMPROPER FINANCIAL

RELATIONSHIP between Judge Barron and the Appellee – WELLS FARGO. It is also

unclear as to whether additional and/or similar improper relationships exist within this First

Circuit Judiciary. The current re-assignment of this panel continues to critically damage the

INTEGRITY of this Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Appellant will show further cause to: (1)

Transfer this Appeal to another Circuit with jurisdiction; or (2) Considering the severity of

issues (including the perceived impact to National Security), transfer to a Congressional

panel.

II. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges are DEFENDANTS in a Separate, Civil Complaint

filed by the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF)

This Court is aware that there is related (Federal) litigation, aside from this Appeal:

A. HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court

Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and

B. HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-

11134.

CLEARLY, there exists a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when TWO (2) of the newly

assigned panel judges (Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson) are DEFENDANTS in a

separate lawsuit brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The Appellant

requests for clarification as to HOW this conflict could possibly have been overlooked.

III. Two (2) of Three Circuit Judges Stand Accused of TREASON Under ARTICLE III

This Court (and the AMERICAN PUBLIC) is well aware that as a matter of record, evidenced

TREASON claims have now been brought against SEVEN (7) Federal (District and Circuit)

Judges for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. These accused officers of the Court

48
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 49 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

include Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. NOT ONE (1)

accused officer of the Court has denied a single Treason claim, and POTUS has been

regularly copied on ALL Court filings (as is required by Federal Law) since the evidenced

Discovery of Treason claims in August 2015.

IV. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges have CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the

FBI against them.

The evidenced Treason and other serious criminal claims alleged against Chief Judge

Howard and Judge Thompson have shown cause for the Appellant to file Criminal

Complaints with the FBI and the DOJ. CLEARLY, this contributes further to a CONFLICT

OF INTEREST in being assigned as a panel member to this Appeal.

V. CONTINUED JURISDICTION ISSUES

The record shows that the Appellant has filed well over FIFTY (50) + court documents which

raise a JURISDICTION issue(s), ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal

(District and Circuit) Judges. The referenced July 26, 2018 email communication and NOTICE

issued by the Court signifies that JURISDICTION STILL HAS NOT BEEN RE-

ESTABLISHED. It remains UNCLEAR as to whether this First Circuit can legally re-establish

jurisdiction. Ignoring jurisdiction issues (at minimum) shows cause to transfer this Appeal to

another Circuit.

VI. Remaining Circuit Judges WITH Jurisdiction

The remaining Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction here are

believed to include: (1) Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya; (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin; (3)

Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl; and (4) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. After the

recusal/removal of Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson, the Appellant believes that the list

49
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 50 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

of Circuit Judges (above) are the ONLY REMAINING First Circuit Judges who MAY be

legally eligible to serve on a panel in this Appeal. With the filing of this Motion, the Appellant

respectfully calls for the Court to clarify for the record the selection process for its assignment of

Circuit Judges.

VII. DEMAND for INJUNCTION

The July 26, 2018 Notice issued by the Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter, states the

following,

“This is to advise you, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that this case will be submitted on the

briefs without oral argument.”

It would appear (at least on its surface) that in addition to jurisdiction issues, an effort is being

made by this First Circuit Court to IGNORE the Appellant’s motion(s) for an Injunction and

issues associated with recently vacated orders. As previously stated, the Appellant respectfully

calls for a new panel (with jurisdiction) to address these legal matters PRIOR to moving forward

with this Appeal. Since the Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and has NO LEGAL

background, one of the first issues to address (once jurisdiction has been established) is

ASSISTING MR. HARIHAR with the APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915 and re-establishing a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.

Finally, the Appellant reminds the Court of his filed response to the July 17, 2018 order, which

included a GOOD FAITH OPPORTUNITY to REACH AGREEMENT with ALL

PARTIES. The Appellant respectfully expects a documented ANSWER from ALL Appellees

NO LATER THAN this Friday, August 3, 2018.

50
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 51 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

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

POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A

copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC out of

the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a question

regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting

information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 29th Day of July, 2018.

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

51
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 52 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 3

52
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 53 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

53
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 54 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

54
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 55 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

55
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 56 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 4

56
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 57 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

57
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 58 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

58
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 59 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 4

59
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 60 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

60
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 61 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

61
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 62 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

62
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 63 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

63
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 64 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 5

64
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 65 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

---------- Forwarded message ---------


From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:52 PM
Subject: Your Assistance is Requested RE: EXPOSED JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT - FIRST
CIRCUIT
To: Constituent.services@state.ma.us <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
<elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>, <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>,
<june.black@mail.house.gov>
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
<andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov>, <mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>,
<boston@ic.fbi.gov>, <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, <Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov>,
<scheduling@warren.senate.gov>, <emily.rosa@jud.state.ma.us>, <ma-igo-general-
mail@state.ma.us>, <Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov>, <igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us>,
<maura.healey@state.ma.us>, <jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us>

Dear Gov. Baker, Sen. Warren, Sen. Markey and Congresswoman Tsongas,

The attached RESPONSE is being filed with the First Circuit Appeals Court today - Monday,
September 3, 2018. This court document exposes an egregious PATTERN of CORRUPT
CONDUCT and ABUSE of JUDICIAL POWER that has SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL.
Since the infancy stages of this litigation and as a matter of record, your offices have been
regularly updated with regard to this judicial misconduct and despite repeated pleas for your
assistance, you have consciously chosen to remain silent. As a respectful reminder, evidenced
allegations against members of this Federal Judiciary include (but are not limited to) the
following:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues[1];


2. Refusing to TRANSFER to a different Circuit (or higher Court) with jurisdiction;
3. Refusing to address NEW EVIDENCED claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), including
(but not limited to) the recent ADMISSION OF GUILT by the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO. Following the Admission of Guilt, on August 9, 2018, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-
Hawaii), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, called on Wells Fargo to provide more
details about a mistake the bank made that caused hundreds of customers to lose their
homes and suffer from the extensive consequences of foreclosure.[2] The Appellant has long
evidenced for the record that he has been victimized by this same “ERROR”;
4. Refusing to VALIDATE their Judicial Oath of Office, when requested;
5. Refusing to acknowledge evidenced judicial misconduct claims of record against
INFERIOR judges (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).
6. Refusing to VACATE referenced judgments that have been considered VOID, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4);
7. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);
8. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting acts of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

65
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 66 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

9. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s Intellectual


Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National Security;
10. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily delaying
WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with the Appointment
of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;
11. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claims
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);
12. Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;
13. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not limited
to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;
14. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;
15. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;
16. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of
Law;
17. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
18. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
19. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
20. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal
SAFETY AND SECURITY;
21. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as
stated within the record;
22. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the presence
of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;
23. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to DISCOVERY
and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

The Appellant - Mohan A. Harihar believes that: (1) the level of evidenced judicial misconduct
here is UNPRECEDENTED; (2) without the ability to retain counsel, the proper path to a
LEGAL AND JUST remedy is unclear; and (3) there does not appear to be a corrective legal
remedy without the assistance of either (or combination of): (a)POTUS; (b) SCOTUS; (c)
DOJ; or (d) REMOVAL to a Congressional Panel. For the record, the Appellant’s
documented efforts to abide by the legal process and file judicial misconduct complaints have
yielded similar PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by: (1) the Chief Judge; (2)
Judicial Council; and (3) includes multiple documented failures by the Court Clerk[3] and
Circuit Executive.[4] These documented failures indicate a clearly broken system within the
First Circuit. As a matter of record, the Appellant has necessarily brought this matter to the
attention of The Administrative Office of US Courts – specifically, to the attention of
Director James C. Duff.

I am once again respectfully requesting your assistance - as a matter of record and in full public
view, to assist with bringing this matter to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS ; (3)

66
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 67 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Congress; and (4) The DOJ. Please be advised, for documentation purposes, a copy of this
email communication will be filed with the Court as an attachment to the referenced response. A
copy will also be made to the PUBLIC, out of continued concerns for my PERSONAL
SAFETY AND SECURITY. Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF


MASSACHUSETTS!

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA
617.921.2526 (mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

[1] The record shows that the Appellant has filed over SIXTY (60) court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
[2] See Exhibit 4 (pages 59-63)
[3] References Circuit Clerk Margaret Carter.
[4] References Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg.

67
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 68 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

Exhibit 6

68
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 69 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

69
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 70 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

70
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 71 Date Filed: 09/03/2018 Entry ID: 6195156

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 3, 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

71