Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

RENEWED APPLICATION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR A STAY OF


JUDGEMENT AND REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to: (1)

Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court; (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) for a stay of

judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated

August 7, 20181; and (3) 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for transfer of this civil action to The

United States Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §

1254(1). As grounds therefore, the Petitioner respectfully states the following:

1. The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be due is

January 28, 2019, following the recent timeline extension granted by your Honor on

December 4, 2018. This timeline extension was granted after your Honor

acknowledged for a second time, the list of extraordinary, unresolved issues

1 See Exhibit 1 to view the August 7, 2018 Judgement.


(beginning with jurisdiction) warranting such an extension. As a respectful

reminder, a partial list of these extraordinary, unresolved issues (as stated in

Application No.’s 17A1359, 18A554, 18A585 and in a recent letter to Chief Justice

Roberts)2 includes the following:

a. Refusing to address, clarify and correct jurisdiction issues;

b. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

c. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

d. Refusal(s) to recuse;

e. Refusing to provide for the record, additional details requested

by the Appellant pertaining to the improper relationship

between recused Circuit Judge – David Barron and Appellee –

Wells Fargo;

f. Refusing to clarify whether or not the same (or similar)

improper relationships warranting recusal exist with any other

judicial officer in this First Circuit (or with the lower) Court(s).

g. Continuing to issue orders after losing jurisdiction - each

constituting acts of Treason under Article III, Section 3 of the

Constitution;

h. Refusing to address or even acknowledge the Appellant’s:

(1) Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, (2) Evidenced Economic

2 See Exhibit 2 to view the Appellant’s 12/3/18 Letter to Chief Justice Roberts, in its entirety.

2
Espionage claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and (3) matters

believed to impact National Security;

i. Failing 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;

j. Refusing to address the evidenced and unopposed Fraud on the

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

k. Refusing to address evidenced and 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;

l. Refusing to address identified Due Process Violations, including

(but not limited to) refusing a Trial by Jury;

m. Ignoring requests for a Grand Jury;

n. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced Imbalance of

Hardships;

o. Refusing to address evidenced claims under 18 U.S. Code

Chapter 96 – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.

p. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of

Rights Under Color of Law;

3
q. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy

Against Rights;

r. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and

False Statements;

s. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for

Deprivation of Rights;

t. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s repeated concerns

for his personal safety and security;

u. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees

due to the Appellant, as stated within the record;

v. Refusing to address demand(s) for clarification hearings, with

the presence of an independent court reporter;

w. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact – prior to

moving to Discovery and prematurely moving for Dismissal.

2. A review of the historical record will reveal that upon your Honor’s

first acknowledgment of these extraordinary issues on June 8, 2018, it appeared

that the First Circuit began to initiate corrective action by withdrawing the issued

Mandate and vacating the referenced Judgment. However, the series of events that

have followed since – as described in Applications 18A554 and 18A585, reveal a

continued pattern of corrupt conduct by an inferior Circuit Panel that appears

intent on reaching a pre-determined outcome.

4
3. More than three (3) weeks after your Honor granted a second timeline

extension, no further corrective action had been initiated by the First Circuit. On

December 28, 2018 the Petitioner filed a motion calling for the First Circuit to: (1)

Recall the Mandate; (2) Vacate the Judgment and (3) Allow the Petitioner to amend

his original complaint, based on this Court’s second acknowledgment of

extraordinary, unresolved issues and also the Discovery of new evidence.3

4. Later that same day, December 28, 2018, the Petitioner received a

letter via email communication from the First Circuit Clerk – Maria R. Hamilton.4

In the clerk’s letter, Ms. Hamilton references an issued order dated October 5, 2018,

where the court stated that "no further filings from Appellant will be accepted in

this appeal." However, as a matter of record, Ms. Hamilton is aware that this

referenced “order” is considered void, as the record shows it has been issued by an

inferior replacement Circuit Panel that lacks the jurisdiction to issue such an order.

Furthermore, as a matter of record these inferior Circuit Judges – including the

Chief Judge - Jeffrey R. Howard, stand formally accused of evidenced criminal

violations including (but not limited to): (1) Treason under Article III, Section 3; (2)

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

Economic Espionage (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831; and (4) 18 U.S.

Code Chapter 96 – RICO violations. As witness to these evidenced allegations, Ms.

3 See Exhibit 3
4 See Exhibit 4

5
Hamilton has failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Her

failure(s) to report Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct

additionally contribute to existing conspiracy (and other) claims as stated in the

referenced litigation. These actions (or lack thereof) are believed to have

contributed to the Misappropriation of a Trade Secret (IP) designed to assist the

United States with economic growth/repair associated with the US Foreclosure

Crisis. The Petitioner believes that upon further investigation, additional claims

against Ms. Hamilton are likely and he reserves the right to expand upon/file new

claims if deemed necessary.

5. The Petitioner states that these facts involving the First Circuit Clerk

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

occurred: (1) Misprision of Treason 18 U.S. Code § 2382; (2) 18 U.S. Code § 371 -

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud The United States; (3) Economic

Espionage (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831 and (4) Color of Law/Due

Process violations. Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated

with the referenced litigation and include judicial misconduct complaints/petitions

filed with: (1) the Office of the First Circuit Executive; and (2) the Administrative

Office of US Courts. The Petitioner has now formally filed a criminal complaint

against Clerk Maria R. Hamilton with the FBI,5 with copies of the complaint

necessarily delivered to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2) Director James C. Duff

5 See Exhibit 5

6
(Administrative Offices of US Courts); (3) The DOJ; (4) members of Congress and

other appropriate offices/agencies/committees. Based on these evidenced actions by

the First Circuit Court, the Petitioner shows cause to: (1) amend his (separate)

original complaint against The United States (Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court

Docket No. 17-cv-11109), expanding (at minimum) upon evidenced Color of Law,

Due Process and RICO violations; and (2) add Ms. Hamilton as a Defendant to the

separate civil complaint – HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134. Your

Honor is respectfully reminded that the dismissal orders associated with each of

these civil complaints are considered void, as the Petitioner has evidenced for the

record that they too have been issued by inferior judicial officers who lack

jurisdiction.

6. Respectfully, while there was no given explanation to support your

Honor’s denial of Application No. 18A554 (initial request for a Stay of Judgment),

the Petitioner believes that your Honor may have intended to allow the First

Circuit a final opportunity to initiate corrective action. It should now be clear

however, as indicated by the record (and despite this Court’s second

acknowledgment of extraordinary, unresolved issues) that the First Circuit Appeals

Court has no intention of resolving these issues or correcting its erred judgement(s).

7. Based on the Petitioner interpretation of Federal Law, all issues must

be resolved before moving to a higher Court. The First Circuit’s refusal to resolve

7
these identified issues and initiate corrective action intentionally prevents the

Petitioner from legally filing his Certiorari Petition.

8. Therefore, since all possible remedies from the lower courts have been

exhausted, the Petitioner hereby requests that your Honor grant; (1) a Stay of

Judgement; and (2) the removal/transfer of the Appeal to this Court in order to

resolve referenced issues and ultimately arrive at a just resolution.

5. Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the

Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1)

Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage and (3)

matters believed to impact National Security, copies of this petition are necessarily

delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media) to:

a. POTUS6;

b. The Honorable Chief Justice John Roberts;

c. US Inspector General Michael Horowitz;

d. Director James C. Duff (Admin. Office of US Courts);

e. Acting US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker;

f. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);

g. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

6 See Exhibit 6

8
h. Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) House Judiciary

Committee;

i. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Senate Judiciary

Committee;

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

k. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and

l. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)

A copy will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide

out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and well-being. If your Honor

has questions regarding any portion of this Petition, or requires additional

information, the Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

The Petitioner is grateful for your Honor’s consideration of his request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
January 5, 2019

9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
___________________________________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, hereby certify that copies of the


attached Application to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, for a Stay of Judgement
and Removal to The United States Supreme Court were served on:

David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP)


State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 261-3126
david.fialkow@klgates.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E. Fialkow, Esq. and
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney General)


One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of MA and Martha Coakley, Esq.


Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 01960
617.217.4720
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Nelson Mullins LLP and Peter Haley, Esq.

Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)


303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
617.426.5900
mmurphy@casneredwards.com

Counsel for Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies)

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)


176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC)


150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
617.558.8435
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Counsel for Harmon Law, PC and Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

Service was made by Priority/Express USPS mail on January 5, 2019.

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com