Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 192

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

Re: RENEWED APPLICATION FOR STAY OF JUDGEMENT, HARIHAR v


US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 6:22 PM
To: jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>,
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, kmchugh@harmonlaw.com, "Murphy, Matthew T."
<mmurphy@casneredwards.com>, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>
Cc: lwood@supremecourt.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov, theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, chairmanoffice@sec.gov,
CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us, igo-
fightfraud@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, Susan Goldberg
<susan_goldberg@ca1.uscourts.gov>

To All Counsel,

The attached (Renewed) Application No. 18A554 for a Stay of Judgment has been submitted to
The Supreme Court for consideration. Hardcopies are being mailed to your attention. Please be
advised, since the evidenced allegations: (1) are perceived to impact matters of National
Security; (2) include criminal violations by Defendants; and (3) include criminal violations by
judicial officers, the following offices/agencies are necessarily copied (either in this email, US Mail
and/or social media):

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov);


2. The US Secret Service;
3. SCOTUS;
4. The SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission);
5. The US Inspector General's Office;
6. The DOJ;
7. The US Attorney's Office;
8. The FBI;
9. The US House/Senate Judiciary Committees;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. The MA Attorney General's Office; and
15. The MA Inspector General's Office

The Public and Media sources Nationwide will also receive a copy of this email and attached
documents out of continued concerns for the Appellant's safety and security. Thank you for your
attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

(SCROLL DOWN TO VIEW)

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. 18A554
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

EMERGENCY MOTION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR: (1) A STAY


OF JUDGMENT; AND (2) ASSISTANCE W/ APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to Rule 23

of the Rules of this Court; and under 28 U. S. C. §2101(f) for a stay of judgment to

address the growing list of extraordinary circumstances and unresolved issues

previously acknowledged by this Court.1 The referenced judgment, dated August 7,

2018 (Exhibit 1), comes from a replacement (and similarly inferior) Circuit Panel

following: (1) the collective recusals of the initial panel2; and (2) the July 17, 2018

order which recalled the March 23, 2018 Mandate and vacated the January 17,

2018 Judgment (Exhibits 2 and 3)3. A timely petition for rehearing and for

rehearing en banc was denied by the same inferior Circuit Panel on September 7,

1 The Petitioner references Petition 17A-1359 which (in part) requested a timeline extension for
filing his Certiorari Petition; also identifying a list of unresolved, extraordinary issues. No
Opposition was filed against the Petition. On June 8, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the
Petitioner’s timeline extension, based on these extraordinary, unresolved issues.
2 The initial Circuit Panel assigned to Appeal No. 17-1381 and Appeal No. 17-2074 included: (1)

Circuit Judge David Barron; (2) Juan R. Torruella; and (3) William J. Kayatta, Jr. Judge Barron
was first to recuse on 5/18/18, followed by judges Torruella and Kayatta on 7/17/18.
3 All (8) related orders were similarly vacated.

3
2018 (Exhibit 4). Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal law, Mr.

Harihar believes that this plethora of unresolved (and certainly complex) legal

issues – beginning with jurisdiction, again prevents him from filing a petition for

Certiorari with this Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28

U.S.C. § 1254(1). The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be

due, if a stay (and/or timeline extension) is not granted, is December 9, 2018.

After reviewing the Judicial Codes of Conduct, it is the Petitioner’s

interpretation that one concept is nearly universal: judges are required to avoid

both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (“the appearance

standard”).4 In fact, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Caperton noted this

commonality and further explained the importance of such standards, in remarking

that codes of conduct “serve to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of

law.”5 Respectfully, as evidenced by the record, any objective observer who has

followed this litigation from the beginning will conclude: (1) a failure to adhere to

such standards; and (2) that the integrity of the First Circuit Judiciary has long

been compromised.

As grounds therefore, the Petitioner respectfully references the

circumstances summarized in Application 17A-1359 (Exhibit 5) and events of

4 See, e.g., ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 1 (2011) (“A judge shall uphold
and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”); Raymond J. McKoski, Judicial Discipline and the
Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees is What the Judge Gets, 94 MINN. L. REV. 1914,
1985 (2010) [hereinafter McKoski, Judicial Discipline] (noting that North Carolina and Oregon are
the only two states to have abandoned the appearance standard).
5 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Co., 556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009)

4
record occurring since that justify: (1) granting this emergency motion for a stay

order; and (2) assisting Mr. Harihar with the appointment of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915, prior to moving forward with this litigation:

1. Aside from Appeal No. 17-1381, the referenced list of extraordinary,

(and still) unresolved issues involves the following related litigation: (a) HARIHAR

vs. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-

11109); and (b) HARIHAR vs. HOWARD, et al. Docket No. 18-cv-11134.

2. Collectively, the Petitioner has evidenced what is believed to be an

unprecedented, egregious abuse of power exemplified by the First Circuit Appeals

Court and the lower District Court. As evidenced by the record, a review of the

referenced Appeal and the related litigation shows: (a) There has been a total of eight

(8) recusals; (b) Eight (8) out of Ten (10) First Circuit judges are considered

disqualified, including Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (c) Collectively, fourteen (14)

judicial officers (combined District and Circuit Court) stand accused of judicial

misconduct and based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal law, are

considered disqualified from ruling further in this Appeal or any related litigation;

and (d) Nine (9) judicial officers stand accused of Treason under Article III, Section

3 of the United States Constitution for continuing to rule without jurisdiction. The

accused judicial officers have failed to provide any valid response that denies or

refutes a single judicial misconduct claim, including Treason.

5
3. As evidenced by the record filed with the Circuit Executive – Susan

Goldberg, the Petitioner has repeatedly followed the legal process for addressing

judicial misconduct, only to encounter identical patterns of corrupt conduct with the

Chief Judge and the Judicial Council. As Circuit Executive, Ms. Goldberg (and her

staff) has witnessed this broken process firsthand. However, there appears to be no

action taken to inform the Administrative Office of US Courts or any other

(appropriate) authority. The Petitioner has therefore, as a matter of record taken it

upon himself to inform (and regularly update) Director James C. Duff

(Administrative Office of US Courts) of the referenced judicial failures and a clearly

broken process that exists within the First Circuit Judiciary. No corrective action

appears to have been initiated.

4. Since the referenced judicial misconduct claims have occurred within

court walls and are a matter of record, the respective court clerks, specifically – (1)

Margaret Carter; (2) Maria R. Hamilton; and (3) Robert Paine, have witnessed these

judicial failures firsthand. However, based on their inaction it seems clear that these

court officers have no intention of reporting evidenced judicial misconduct claims to

the Circuit Executive, or to any other appropriate authority. Similarly, all

Defendants/Appellants and their respective counsel have witnessed and refused to

acknowledge these referenced acts of judicial misconduct, including Treason –

warranting Misprision claims under 18 U.S. Code § 2382.

5. As evidenced by the record (and as required by Federal law), the

Petitioner has notified: (1) POTUS; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) the

6
respective (District/Circuit) Court(s) of evidenced Treason claims under ARTICLE

III. Since the severity of these evidenced claims is perceived to impact matters of

National Security, the following offices/agencies/committees have regularly been

updated: (1) the FBI – including (former) Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; (2) DOJ

– including (former) AG Jeff Sessions, US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and

(former) US Attorney Carmen Ortiz (MA) ; (3) OIG – specifically IG Michael

Horowitz; (4) MA Congressional leaders including (but not limited to) US Senator

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and US Congresswoman

Niki Tsongas (D-MA); and (5) both the House/Senate Judiciary Committees. No

corrective action has been initiated.

6. As evidenced by the record, the Petitioner has filed multiple criminal

complaints with the FBI against referenced Officers of the Court and opposing

parties for evidenced criminal misconduct that include (but are not limited to): (1)

RICO Violations; (2) Treason (also Misprision) claims; (3) Color of Law violations; (4)

Economic Espionage under 18 U.S. Code § 1831, and others (Exhibit 6). Since The

United States is an Appellant in the related litigation (referencing Appeal No. 17-

2074), these criminal claims have been witnessed firsthand by representing counsel:

(1) Assistant United States Attorney (MA) – Mary Beth Murrane; (2) Assistant

United States Attorney (MA) Cynthia A. Young; and (3) (initially by) Assistant

United States Attorney (MA) Dina M. Chaitowitz. As previously stated, the

Petitioner has brought these matters to the direct attention of US Attorney (MA)

7
Andrew Lelling as well as to his predecessor – US Attorney Carmen Ortiz (MA).

However, there has yet to be a response.

7. On July 17, 2018, following the recusal of Circuit Judge David Barron,

the First Circuit: (1) Recalled the Mandate issued March 23, 2018; and (2) The

judgment entered on January 17, 2018 and the relevant orders not already rendered

moot were vacated (Exhibit 3).

8. On July 23, 2018, the Petitioner filed a response to the July 17 th order

(Exhibit 7), identifying the (same) list of unresolved issues that must first be

addressed once the replacement panel is assigned (including, but not limited to):

a. Continued refusal to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues;

b. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

c. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

d. Refusal(s) to recuse (other than those already recognized);

e. Continuing to issue orders after losing jurisdiction, each constituting

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

f. Refusing to address or even acknowledge: (1) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights; (2) Evidenced Economic Espionage

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832; and (3) matters believed to

impact National Security;

g. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or

unnecessarily delaying without valid cause, repeated requests for

8
the Court to assist with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1915;

h. Refusing to address the evidenced (and unopposed) Fraud on the

Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4) and (6);

i. 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;

j. Refusing to address identified Due Process Violations, including (but

not limited to) refusing a trial by jury;

k. Ignoring requests for a grand jury;

l. Refusing to address and re-establish the clearly evidenced imbalance

of hardships;

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

Rights Under Color of Law;

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

Against Rights;

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

Statements;

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

of Rights;

9
q. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing legal (and other) fees due

to the Appellant, as stated within the record;

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

presence of an independent court reporter;

s. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact, refusing discovery

and prematurely moving for Dismissal;

t. Failing to address the Petitioner’s request(s) to Clarify the DOJ’s

intention to enjoin the civil complaint with criminal indictments;

u. Failing to identifying for the record impacted (Federal and State)

litigation;

v. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s good faith opportunity(s) to

reach a mutual agreement; and

w. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s repeated concerns for his

personal safety and security.

9. On July 26, 2018 the Court assigned the following replacement panel:

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

Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez (Exhibit 8). As a matter of record, both Chief Judge

Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson had previously been considered

disqualified to rule further in this litigation and refused to recuse, without valid

cause.

10
10. On July 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to remove

disqualified/inferior Circuit judges. The record shows that the Emergency Motion

was ignored by the replacement panel (Exhibit 9).

11. On August 5, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion for a

hearing to address the continued imbalance of hardships and request for injunction

(Exhibit 10) The record shows that this Emergency motion was also ignored by the

inferior replacement panel.

12. On August 7, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued a judgment

without jurisdiction denying the Disqualification motion - providing a grossly

inaccurate, misconstrued and ultimately invalid explanation (Exhibit 11). The (void)

judgment affirmed dismissing the Petitioner’s complaint and all pending motions.

13. On August 16, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the Judgment

order (Exhibit 12), addressing the following: (1) New Evidence; (2) Validation of

Judicial Oath under 28 U.S. Code § 453; (3) Legal consequences impacting

jurisdiction; and (4) a petition for re-hearing/transfer. At this stage, an

unprecedented eight (8) out of ten (10) First Circuit judges were considered

disqualified to rule further in this (or any related) litigation. Considering the severity

of legal issues, coupled with an evidenced (and unprecedented) abuse of judicial

power, a request for transfer to SCOTUS or before a Congressional panel was

considered appropriate.

11
14. On August 29, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued an Order

without jurisdiction, denying the Petitioner’s motion without cause (Exhibit 13).

15. On September 3, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Response to

the 08/29/18 Order, identifying an unprecedented abuse of judicial authority, re-

affirming cause to Petition for removal/impeachment under Article II, Section 4

(Exhibit 14).

16. On September 7, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued an

incremental order without jurisdiction, inaccurately interpreting it as a

reconsideration motion and denying it (Exhibit 15).

17. On September 19, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the (void)

09/07/18 order, identifying a continued abuse of judicial power and questioning

whether mental illness has been a factor in referenced judicial decisions (Exhibit 16).

18. On October 5, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued a (void) order

without jurisdiction, giving a grossly misconstrued explanation that: (a) once again

ignored jurisdiction (and other extraordinary, unresolved) issues; (b) ignored

SCOTUS’ acknowledgment of these extraordinary, unresolved issues; and (c)

prohibited further filings from the Petitioner (Exhibit 17).

19. On October 10, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the (void)

10/05/18 order which: (a) re-affirmed egregious judicial misconduct under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b)(4); (b) brought an incremental claim of Treason under Article III; and (c)

showed cause for amendment and transfer (Exhibit 18).

12
20. On October 12, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from First Circuit

Clerk Maria R. Hamilton, which stated the following:

“This will acknowledge receipt on October 10, 2018, of your correspondence

dated October 10, 2018, regarding the above case. Please be advised that

pursuant to this court's October 5, 2018 order denying your motion for

clarification, the court stated that "[n]o further filings from appellant will be

accepted in this appeal." As a result, I am returning your papers to you

without taking action on them. I have also enclosed a copy of the October 5,

2018 order for your records.”

At minimum, the Circuit Clerk has failed to recognize the list of extraordinary

issues that: (a) render the referenced Court order void; and (b) render the

replacement panel inferior (Exhibit 19).

21. The Petitioner believes that collectively, these referenced circumstances

bring an unprecedented scenario that warrants intervention by: (a) SCOTUS, to

assist with resolving the existing issues impacting this litigation; (b) The Executive

Branch, to address evidenced criminal claims of record, including (but not limited to)

Treason under Article III, Criminal RICO claims, Economic Espionage and others;

and (c) a Congressional panel to address the egregious abuse of judicial power

evidenced by the First Circuit judiciary.

13
22. As previously stated in Petition 17A-1359 the Petitioner respectfully

restates that the case itself presents substantial issues of law, among which include

the following (partial list): (1) whether jurisdiction issues were properly addressed by

the First Circuit (and District) Court; (2) whether under Article III Section 3 of the

US Constitution, a Circuit (or District) Court judge continued to rule after losing

jurisdiction; (3) whether Rule 60(b)(3), (4) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure (Unopposed claims) was properly addressed by the Court(s); (4) whether,

under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a Circuit judge(s) who has presided in the referenced

appeal, failed to recuse following jurisdiction (and other referenced) issues; (5)

whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Circuit Judges failed to properly address evidenced

Economic Espionage claims and matters believed to impact National Security; (6)

whether under 28 U.S.C. §1915 Circuit Judges failed 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; (7) whether Circuit

judges (and previously the District Court) took appropriate action following each of

the eight (8) recusals of record; (8) whether the lower courts properly addressed and

re-established a balance of hardships; and others . The Petitioner believes that if he

had been able to secure counsel on his own, or if the lower courts properly exercised

their discretion under 28 U.S.C. §1915, additional questions of law warranting this

Court’s attention would certainly be revealed. Moving forward, the Petitioner

respectfully reserves the right to bring any additional, related claims to the attention

of this Court.

14
23. Petitioner requires the requested Stay to enable all three (3) branches

of government to timely address and resolve all existing legal issues. Upon doing so,

and if it is even still necessary to file a petition with this Court, Petitioner respectfully

requests assistance with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915. A review

of the record will reveal that the Petitioner has exemplified a “textbook” example that

warrants such assistance. At minimum, considering the extensive list of legal issues

involved, experienced counsel representing both sides would certainly aid with

judicial economy moving forward.

24. Should the Petitioner become successful in acquiring counsel (either on

his own, or through the assistance of this Court), there would then be an opportunity

to explore the First Circuit’s Civil Appeals Management Plan (CAMP), governed by

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and First Circuit Local Rule

33.0. Local Rule 33.0 mandates alternative dispute resolution of all civil appeals. The

purpose of the CAMP program is to provide a confidential forum in which to promote

settlement where feasible, simplify the issues on appeal, and address procedural

questions and any other matters that may assist in the disposition of the proceeding.

Since the Petitioner has repeatedly (and wrongfully) been denied assistance under

28 U.S.C. §1915, the CAMP program was previously not an available option. The

Petitioner respectfully reminds the Court that he has in Good Faith, historically

offered multiple opportunities to the opposing parties in an effort to reach a mutual

agreement. Opposing parties have either denied or ignored all of the Petitioner’s

15
efforts. At minimum, exploring the CAMP option would certainly aid with judicial

economy moving forward.

25. For the foregoing reasons, if after all extraordinary issues have been

resolved it becomes necessary to still file a Certiorari petition, the Petitioner hereby

requests a sixty-day extension of time; once the Stay of judgment has been lifted, or

at such a date deemed appropriate by this Court.

26. Respectfully, 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 Motion are necessarily

delivered to the President, DOJ, OIG and members of Congress. A copy will also be

made available to the Public out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and

security.

If your Honor has any questions regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires

additional information, the Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

The Petitioner is grateful for this Court’s consideration.

16
Respectfully submitted,

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

November 14, 2018

17
-18-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. 18A554
____________
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: (1) a Stay of
Judgment; and (2) Assistance with Appointment of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915,
to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 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 November 14,


2018.

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

1
APPENDIX TO PETITIONER’S APPLICATION
FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT

2
APPENDIX TO PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR

STAY OF JUDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit 1, Judgment, August 7, 2018 ........................................................................... 2


Exhibit 2, Notice of Recusal, May 18, 2018 .................................................................. 5
Exhibit 3, Order Recalling Mandate and Vacating Judgment, July 17, 2018 ............ 8
Exhibit 4, Order Denying Rehearing, September 7, 2018 ......................................... 11
Exhibit 5, Application 17A-1359 ................................................................................. 17
Exhibit 6, FBI Filed Criminal Complaints ................................................................. 42
Exhibit 7, Petitioner Response to July 17, 2017 Order .............................................. 46
Exhibit 8, Judgment, August 7, 2018 ......................................................................... 61
Exhibit 9, Emergency Motion to Remove Inferior Judges, filed July 29, 2018 ......... 63
Exhibit 10, Emergency Motion for Injunction, filed August 5, 2018 ......................... 79
Exhibit 11, Judgment Order Issued w/out Jurisdiction, August 7, 2018 .................. 87
Exhibit 12, Petitioner Response to August 7, 2018 Judgment Order ....................... 90
Exhibit 13, Judgment Order Issued w/out Jurisdiction, August 29, 2018 .............. 133
Exhibit 14, Petitioner’s Emergency Response to August 29, 2018 Order .............. 135
Exhibit 15, Order Issued w/out Jurisdiction, September 7, 2018............................ 147
Exhibit 16, Petitioner Response to September 7, 2018 Order ................................ 149
Exhibit 17, Order Issued w/out Jurisdiction, October 5, 2018................................. 156
Exhibit 18, Petitioner Response to October 5, 2018 Order ...................................... 158
Exhibit 19, Letter from First Circuit Clerk, October 12, 2018 ................................ 170

3
Exhibit 1

4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117323394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Entry ID:
6189010

United States Court of Appeals


For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;


HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Howard, Chief Judge,


Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
__________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: August 7, 2018

Pursuant to this court's order dated July 17, 2018, mandate was recalled, the
original judgment was vacated, and the appeal was assigned to the present panel
for further review.

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

5
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[.]").

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117323394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Entry ID:
6189010

Having reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, we affirm the judgment
dismissing the complaint. All other pending motions are denied.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.0(c).

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar


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

6
Exhibit 2

7
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117291463 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2018 Entry ID:
6171187

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
MARGARET CARTER JOHN JOSEPH MOAKLEY
CLERK UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
1 COURTHOUSE WAY, SUITE 2500
BOSTON, MA 02210
(617) 748-9057

May 18, 2018

Re: Harrihar v. US Bank, N.A., et al


Appeal No. 17-1381

Dear Mr. Harrihar and Counsel:

Judge David Barron, who participated in this court’s June 5, 2017, July 31, 2017,
August 8, 2017, March 14, 2018, April 4, 2018 and April 11, 2018 Orders, as
well as the January 17, 2018 Judgment, in the above-referenced case, has advised
me that, during the time this case was pending, he would have been required to
recuse under Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges
and 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) due to a financial interest in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
a party to this case. The judge was unaware of this conflict until this month. Upon
learning of the issue, Judge Barron directed that I notify the parties of his recusal
and invite them to respond to the disclosure if they wish to do so.

Advisory Opinion No. 71 (“Disqualification After Oral Argument”), issued by


the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Codes of Conduct, provides the
following guidance for addressing a disqualification that is not discovered until
after a judge’s participation in the case:

[A] judge should disclose to the parties the facts


bearing on disqualification as soon as those facts
are learned, even though that may occur after entry
of the decision. The parties may then determine
what relief they may seek and a court (without the
disqualified judge) will decide the legal
consequence, if any, arising from the participation
of the disqualified judge in the entered decision.

In accordance with Advisory Opinion No. 71, I am disclosing the conflict for
your consideration. Should you wish to respond, please file your response with
the Clerk's office by June 8, 2018. Any response will be publicly docketed,
absent a motion to seal, and will be considered by the court without participation
by Judge Barron.

8
Sincerely,

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

Enclosures Orders dated June 5, 2017, July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14,
2018, April 4, 2018 and April 11, 2018; Judgment dated January 17, 2018; and
Advisory Opinion No. 71

cc:
Mohan A. Harihar, David E. Fialkow, Jesse Mohan Boodoo, Kurt R. McHugh,
Kevin Patrick Polansky, Matthew T. Murphy, Jeffrey B. Loeb, David Glod

9
Exhibit 3

10
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117314508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Entry ID:
6184064

United States Court of Appeals


For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;


HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Torruella
and Kayatta
Circuit
Judges.
__________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered: July 17, 2018

On May 18, 2018, the Clerk sent a letter to the parties disclosing that a judge who
participated in the court’s June 5, 2017, July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14,

11
2018, April 4, 2018 and April 11, 2018 Orders, as well as the January 17, 2018
Judgment, in the above-referenced case, held a financial interest in a party to the
case during the time the case was pending, though he was unaware of it at the
time. The parties' responses have been referred to the remaining two panel
members, without the participation of the recused judge.

Upon consideration of the responses, the court's mandate issued on March 23,
2018 is recalled. The judgment entered on January 17, 2018 and the relevant
orders not already rendered moot are vacated. The Clerk is directed to assign this
case to a new panel for further review.

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117314508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2018 Entry ID:
6184064

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar


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

12
Exhibit 4

13
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117335822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Entry ID:
6196279

United States Court of Appeals


For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;


HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Howard, Chief Judge,


Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
__________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered: September 7, 2018

We construe the appellant's response to this court's order dated August 29, 2018, as a
motion for reconsideration, and we deny it. Mandate shall issue forthwith.

By the Court:

14
/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar, David E. Fialkow, Jesse Mohan Boodoo, Kurt R.


McHugh, Kevin Patrick Polansky, Matthew T. Murphy, Jeffrey B.
Loeb, David Glod

15
Exhibit 5

16
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

APPLICATION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR AN EXTENSION OF


TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to Rule

13(5) of the Rules of this Court, for an extension of time of 60 days, to and including

August 11, 2018 (Saturday), for the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari to

review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated

January 17, 2018 (Exhibit 1), on which a timely petition for rehearing and for

rehearing en banc was denied on March 14, 2018 (Exhibit 2). The jurisdiction of this

Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

27. The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be due, if

not extended, is June 12, 2018.

28. On May 18, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from the Clerk of the

First Circuit Appeals Court signifying the recusal of Circuit Judge David Barron, a

presiding judge in the referenced Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron’s recusal

17
impacts eight (8) issued orders, including the Judgment order. Petitioner was given

a timeline of June 8, 2018 to file a response and request relief. A response was timely

filed with Court on June 4, 2018 (Exhibit 3). In this filed response, the Petitioner

raises a number of unresolved issues, including (but not limited to): (1) Jurisdiction,

(2) Criminal claims and (3) matters perceived to impact National Security.

29. Petitioner had previously filed for an Emergency Stay order with the

First Circuit on April 6, 2018, citing his intention to file a Petition for Certiorari and

the list of unresolved issues (including jurisdiction) that first, must be addressed.

The motion was denied, without valid cause. Now, with Judge Barron’s recusal

(collectively, the third recusal associated with this litigation) Petitioner’s response

again shows cause to question (at minimum) the validity of the judgment itself. The

response includes a motion requesting an Emergency STAY/Injunction that

temporarily suspends the timeline for filing his petition until ALL issues have been

resolved. However, considering the approaching deadline to file, the history of this

litigation and the gravity of issues involved, it is unclear whether the First Circuit

will issue a timely ruling.

30. The case presents substantial issues of law, among which include (but
are not limited to:

(1) whether jurisdiction issues were properly addressed by the First Circuit (and

District) Court; (2) whether under Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution, a

Circuit (or District) Court judge continued to rule after losing jurisdiction; (3)

whether Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Unopposed claims)

was properly addressed by the Court(s); (4) whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a

Circuit judge(s) who has presided in the referenced appeal, failed to recuse

18
following jurisdiction (and other referenced) issues; (5) whether, under 18 U.S.C. §

1832 Circuit Judges failed to properly address evidenced Economic Espionage

claims and matters believed to impact National Security; (6) whether under 28

U.S.C. §1915 Circuit Judges failed 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; and (7) whether Circuit judges

(and previously the District Court) took appropriate action following the recusal of

US District Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs. Additional questions of law

warranting this Court’s attention can be found by referencing the June 4, 2018

response (Exhibit 3).

31. Petitioner requires the additional requested time to enable the First

Circuit to timely address and resolve all existing legal issues. Upon doing so, and if

it is even still necessary to file a petition with this Court, Petitioner is expected to

have retained experienced legal counsel to research the legal issues and to prepare

an appropriate petition for consideration by this Court.

32. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner hereby requests that an extension

of time to and including August 11, 2018, be granted within which Petitioner may

file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

33. 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 Motion are delivered to

19
the President, DOJ and members of Congress. A copy will also be made available to

the Public out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and well-being.

34. If your Honor has any questions regarding any portion of this Motion,

or requires additional information, Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

The Petitioner is grateful for this Court’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

June 6, 2018

20
Exhibit 1

21
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117243937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2018 Entry ID:
6144225

United States Court of Appeals


For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK NA; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;


HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Torruella, Kayatta and


Barron, Circuit
Judges.
__________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: January 17, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar ("Harihar") appeals from the district court's decisions


dismissing his foreclosure-related claims. The appellees have moved for summary
disposition on the grounds that Harihar has not presented a substantial question

22
for review in his opening brief. We grant the appellees' motions for summary
disposition and affirm the judgment of the district court.

We bypass the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellees regarding the scope of
the appeal. See United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59, 64 n.5 (1st Cir.) (noting that
"[t]he defects in the notice of appeal do not bear upon Article III subject matter
jurisdiction"), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 161 (2017). Harihar has offered no
argument in his opening brief to suggest reversible error in the district court's two
decisions granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. Harihar has thus waived
any Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117243937 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2018
Entry ID: 6144225

challenge to the district court's disposition of the merits of his claims. See Best
Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v. Universal Ins. Grp., 875 F.3d 733, 737 (1st Cir. 2017)
(affirming merits decision on waiver grounds where appellants failed to address
the decision in opening brief).

We have reviewed the other claims of error identified in Harihar's opening brief
and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court in all respects. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.0(c).

Harihar's pending Demand for Entry of Default Judgment is denied. We deny


Harihar's remaining pending motions as repetitive of previous requests for relief
that the court has already denied, or as moot. The appellees' and Defendants
Jeffrey S. Patterson and David E. Fialkow's requests for attorney's fees and other
relief is denied.

Affirmed.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar


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

23
Exhibit 2

24
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117265613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 Entry ID:
6156474

United States Court of Appeals


For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;


HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella, Lynch6, Thompson,
Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.
__________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered: March 14, 2018

Pursuant to First Circuit Internal Operating Procedure X(C), the petition for
rehearing en banc has also been treated as a petition for rehearing before the

6
Judge Lynch is recused from this matter and did not participate in its determination.

25
original panel. The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of
judges who decided the case and the petition for rehearing en banc having been
submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having
voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing
and petition for rehearing en banc be denied.

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117265613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 Entry ID:
6156474

The Motion Requesting MA AGO Clarification Regarding Filed Criminal


Complaints, which we construe as a request for an order from this court, is denied.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar


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

26
Exhibit 3

27
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 RESPONSE TO THE MAY 18, 2018 RECUSAL OF

CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID BARRON

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

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

cv-11880), and in the RELATED Appeal,7 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced

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

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

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

include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - On March 19, 2018, Criminal Complaints were

filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10) identified Federal

7
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
28
(Circuit and District) Court Judges. Therefore, copies of this RESPONSE are necessarily sent

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

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz (OIG);

4. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

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

6. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

7. House Oversight Committee;

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

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

Program (SIGTARP);

10. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

11. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

12. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

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

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

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

compromised. By informing the Public, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties

are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued

concerns for personal safety/security.

29
COMES NOW the Appellant, who files this timely RESPONSE after being notified on May

18, 2018 of the RECUSAL by Circuit Judge David Barron. The announcement of this recusal

raises a number of issues, including (but not limited to) the following:

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted;

II. This Court MUST Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in similar fashion;

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES;

IV. Impacted Litigation;

V. Impacted Orders;

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

VII. Relief Requested

__________________________________________________________________

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted

After reviewing the referenced 5/18/2018 letter8 announcing the recusal of Judge David

Barron, the explanation provided is considered insufficient, in that far more detail is required

in order to fully understand ALL factors leading up to this recusal. The Appellant

respectfully requests that Judge Barron provide for the record a detailed explanation of

exactly HOW, at this time he came to find out about a Financial interest in the

Appellee/Defendant – Wells Fargo. While the Appellant does not necessarily question the

conflict itself, there is cause to question the timing of its discovery. This Appeal was initiated

8 See Attachment A
30
in April 2017 – therefore, further validation is needed to confirm all details related to the

judge’s “newly discovered” financial interest in Appellee, Wells Fargo;

II. This Court MUST NOW Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in Similar Fashion

This Court is aware that the announced recusal of Judge Barron is the THIRD (3rd)

RECUSAL associated with this litigation. On June 19, 2017, the first Judge to recuse was

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the RELATED case – HARIHAR v THE UNITED

STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109. Despite multiple documented efforts by the Appellant,

the record will conclusively reveal multiple failures by BOTH the District and Appellate

Courts to address and remedy the list of resulting conflicts and impacted orders associated

with this recusal.

The second recusal was announced by Chief Judge Howard, who recused Circuit Judge

Sandra Lynch from ruling on the 3/14/2018 decision for reasons UNKNOWN.9

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Aside from the issues related to the referenced recusals, this Court is reminded of the list

of existing issues which, as evidenced by the record, have been IGNORED by this Court

- BEGINNING WITH JURISDICTION ISSUES. This Court AND the American

Public have now witnessed the following acts, EACH of which constitute judicial

misconduct – bringing to this Appellant (and likely to ANY OBJECTIVE

OBSERVER) a heightened state of ALERT and OUTRAGE:

9
The 3/14/18 Order referenced the Appellant’s Petition for re-hearing en banc. Questions are
raised regarding not only the recusal of Judge Lynch, but also regarding the jurisdiction of other
judges issuing the referenced order(s).
31
A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues10;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

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

E. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

F. 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;

G. 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;

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

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

I. 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;

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

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

10
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.
32
M. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of

Law;

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

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

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

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

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

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

stated within the record;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

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

and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

IV. Impacted Litigation

This Court must now address ALL litigation, associated orders and misconduct

complaints impacted by Judge Barron’s recusal, not just Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron

is also a presiding judge in the RELATED APPEAL No. 17-2074 – HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES, and as a member of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL, has contributed to

orders associated with related judicial misconduct complaints.

33
This Court is now aware that on May 30, 2018, the Appellant filed a NEW Complaint

with the District Court against multiple Defendants including TEN (10) Officers of the

Court who are considered to be INFERIOR JUDGES (Reference Docket No. 18-cv-

11134, HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al). Judge Barron

is listed here as a Defendant and as an inferior judge. The DEMAND is now respectfully

made to address ALL referenced litigation and judicial misconduct complaints impacted

by recusal.

V. Impacted Orders

The Appellant first addresses the EIGHT (8) impacted orders of Appeal No. 17-1381:

A. ORDER OF COURT Entered: June 5, 2017 - Here, the appellant's motions for

appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are denied. ALL requests

here have been denied WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, even when clarification and

reconsideration had been respectfully requested. With the recusal of Judge Barron (and

the previous RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs), the Appellant shows cause to attack

this order and have it VOIDED by the Court. Before any attempt to re-address the issues

contained in the original motion, the Court is respectfully reminded that

JURISDICTION remains an issue. The remaining TWO (2) presiding Circuit Judges

– Judge Torruella and Judge Kayatta are considered to have ALREADY LOST

JURISDICTION to rule in this or ANY RELATED litigation. Once jurisdiction has

been properly restored, evidenced arguments supporting the Appellant’s motion (at

minimum) SHOULD result in the following:

1. THE COURT SHOULD initiate corrective action for these publicly evidenced

errors, beginning with actions two (2) thru five (5) listed below. IF corrective

34
action is initiated here, there MAY be opportunity to amend or withdraw judicial

misconduct (and other) complaints (if allowed by law). Any failure to initiate

corrective action here will certainly contribute to the ongoing effort calling for

their immediate removal from the Bench;

2. An ORDER granting the Appellant assistance with the appointment of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Once experienced legal counsel has been

retained, the Appellant reserves the right to further amend this response as

deemed necessary;

3. An ORDER granting a STAY of ALL collection activity against the Appellant

while litigation is ongoing;

4. VACATING the existing Judgment and Mandate Order.

5. ISSUING a DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR of the APPELLANT –

MOHAN A. HARIHAR with prejudice, based on the PUBLICLY

EVIDENCED AND UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claims under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). There is NO grey area here. Furthermore,

Appellees/Defendants have NO ALLOWABLE ARGUMENT since the

record reveals NO PRIOR ARGUMENT;

B. Once corrective action is initiated (as described above), the remaining orders11

associated with this Appeal No. 17-1381 are perceived as MOOT. The Appellant

restates that he retains the right to amend this response, if only partial corrective action

is initiated or as deemed necessary.

11
Remaining orders impacted by recusal (Appeal No. 17-1381 ONLY) include orders issued on
the following dates: July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14, 2018, April 4, 2018 and April
11, 2018 Orders, as well as the January 17, 2018 Judgment.
35
VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Based on Judge Barron’s recusal, the reasons stated above and throughout this Appeal,

shows absolute cause to initiate corrective action. Once these critical errors have been

corrected (as described by the Appellant), there will no longer be a need to petition the

US Supreme Court. HOWEVER, until corrective action is initiated, the due date for

filing the Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is fast approaching on June 12,

2018. THEREFORE, with the filing of this response, the Appellant respectfully requests

that the Court issue an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend

the timeline for filing his petition until ALL unresolved issues have been appropriately

addressed.

VII. Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR respectfully requests the

following relief, based on these referenced reasons impacted by recusal:

A. Initiate corrective action by assisting the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

B. Consider ALL referenced orders associated with this Appeal VOID;

C. ISSUE an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend the

timeline for filing his petition with the Supreme Court until ALL unresolved issues have

been appropriately addressed and resolved in this Appeals Court.

D. VACATE the Judgment and Mandate ORDER associated with this Appeal;

E. ISSUE a DEFAULT JUDGMENT - IN FAVOR of the APELLANT, MOHAN A.

HARIHAR with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

36
F. Issue an order for additional relief to the Appellant for: 1.) Punitive damages, 2.)

Declaratory relief and 3.) ANY OTHER relief deemed appropriate by the Court;

G. Issue an order for a reimbursement of legal fees (and ALL associated costs) as

previously described by the Appellant;

H. Appropriately address for the record, related issues pertaining to (at minimum)

evidenced CRIMINAL misconduct, Economic Espionage and National Security

and others. This will require the input from the Executive Branch of Government,

including (but not limited to): 1.) The President, 2.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 3.) The FBI, 4.) specific Congressional Committees.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s efforts to address and initiate the referenced corrective

action(s). For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE to the attention

of The President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment B) with the filed Court

copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Appellant is happy to

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

presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully re-submitted this 4th Day of June, 2018

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

37
Attachment A

38
39
Attachment B

40
41
42
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 4, 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
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

43
Exhibit 6

44
45
The TEXT BOX of the FBI Criminal Complaint states the following:

I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

DEFENDANTS: 1.) Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq; 2.) David Glod, Esq; 3.) Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq; 4.) Matthew
T. Murphy, Esq; 5.) Kurt R. McHugh, Esq; 6.) Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq.; 7.) David E. Fialkow, Esq; 8.)
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq; 9.) Martha Coakley, Esq; 10.) Peter Haley

CONTACT INFORMATION: Atty’s Loeb/Glod – Rich May PC, 176 Federal St, Boston, MA 02110; Atty’s
Polansky/Haley – Nelson Mullins LLP, 1 Post office Sq, 30th Flr, Boston, MA 01960; Atty Murphy – Casner
& Edwards, 303 Congress St, Boston, MA 02210; Atty McHugh – Harmon Law Offices PC, 150 California
St, Newton MA 02458; Atty Boodoo – MA AGO, 1 Ashburton Pl, 20th Fl, Boston, MA 02108; Atty’s
Fialkow/Patterson – K&L Gates LLP, State Street Financial Ctr, 1 Lincoln St, Boston, MA 02111; Atty
Coakley – Foley Hoag LLP, 155 Seaport Blvd, Boston, MA 02210.

ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against referenced attorneys have occurred
in the timeline associated with the litigation: HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower
Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880) and HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court
Docket No. 17-cv-11109).

The evidenced allegations conclusively show that (at minimum) these attorneys have personally
witnessed acts of Treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and have failed/refused to
report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report Treason and other witnessed
acts of Judicial Misconduct additionally contributes to existing CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated
in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or lack thereof) these parties 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 complainant believes that upon
further investigation, additional claims against these atty’s are likely. 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
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.

Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with the referenced litigation and
include judicial misconduct complaints/petitions filed with the Office of the Circuit Executive. A separate
complaint has also been filed with the Director of the Administrative Offices of US Courts and Board of
BAR Overseers (MA).

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 other 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 appropriate
agencies.

46
47
Exhibit 7

48
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117316682 Page: 49 Date Filed: 07/23/2018 Entry ID: 6185308
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 TO JULY 17, 2018 ORDER, VACATING JUDGMENT

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

following the Court’s July 17, 2018 ORDER to recall the March 23, 2018 MANDATE; also

vacating the January 17, 2018 JUDGEMENT and all related orders. The Appellant is certainly

grateful to this Court for initiating this necessary, corrective action. However, based on the

Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, the order does fall substantially short of correcting

ALL existing, unresolved issues. While the Court re-assigns this Appeal to another panel, there

is an IMMEDIATE SENSE OF URGENCY to FIRST address the following:

1. Assistance with the APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL pursuant to 28 U.S.C.


§1915;

2. Re-establishing a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS – beginning with an immediate

injunction which AT MINIMUM addresses the Appellant’s HOUSING AND

TRANSPORTATION HARDSHIPS;

49
3. CLARIFICATION FROM THE DOJ RE: CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS –

The Appellant has made very clear, his intentions to enjoin this civil action(s) with

Criminal indictments against ALL responsible parties,12 through the assistance of

Federal Prosecutors. This Court is aware that the Executive Branch of Government –

including POTUS, the DOJ and FBI, have been regularly copied on ALL related

Court filings since the Discovery of evidenced Treason claims under Article III. As a

matter of record, criminal complaints have long been filed with the FBI for the specific

purpose of bringing criminal indictments. It remains unclear as to what is causing a delay

for the Executive Branch/DOJ to officially respond. With the assistance of the Court, the

Appellant now seeks clarification from the DOJ to reveal a timeline for Federal

Prosecutors to enjoin the Appellant’s civil efforts to bring criminal indictments against

ALL referenced parties. The Court is respectfully reminded that Assistant US Attorneys

– Mary Murrane and Dina Chaitowitz (MA Boston Office), have personally

witnessed much (if not all) of the referenced criminal claims of record.

On July 15, 2018, following: (1) The 7/11/18 announcement of the President’s

Executive Order regarding the Establishment of the Task Force on Market Integrity

and Consumer Fraud; and (2) The Appellant’s filed 7/13/18 EMERGENCY

MOTION for a HEARING, CLARIFICATION and INJUNCTION, an email

communication was delivered to the attention of Assistant US Attorney – MARY

12
Including (but not limited) to the named Appellees/Defendants and
referenced Officers of the Court.
50
MURRANE.13 As a reminder, Asst. US Attorney Murrane is representing counsel to The

UNITED STATES in the RELATED Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v THE

UNITED STATES. The email communication called for the US Attorney’s Office (MA)

to TIMELY update the Court regarding the Appellant’s filed criminal complaints and

the DOJ’s intentions to formally bring criminal indictments. It remains unclear as to

what is causing a delay for a response from the US Attorney’s Office. It is also unclear as

to whether AG Sessions and the newly created taskforce have been officially updated

with these recent events.

4. Impacted Litigation – The Appellant respectfully makes clear that the July 17th

order impacts the following Federal AND State litigation, directly related to this Appeal:

a. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Docket

No. 17-cv-11109);

b. HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al., Docket No.

18-cv-11134;

c. HARIHAR v. WELLS FARGO, et al, Docket No. 18-MISC-000144 (MA

Land Court);

d. HARIHAR v. US BANK, et al, Docket No. 11-04499 (Middlesex Superior

Court);

e. US BANK NA v. MOHAN A. HARIHAR, Docket No. 11-SP-3032 (Northeast

Housing Court).

Upon filing this response, the Appellant will also inform the referenced Courts of this

recent development by LEGAL NOTICE;

13
See Exhibit 1
51
5. Remaining Jurisdiction and Judicial Misconduct Issues – Moving forward,

there remains critical concern surrounding JURISDICTION in this First Circuit. The

Appellant has evidenced for the record – and in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, jurisdiction and

judicial misconduct claims against TEN (10) FEDERAL (District and Circuit) Court

Judges. This Court is aware that the severity of these claims – including (but not limited

to) TREASON claims under ARTICLE III, RICO, Judicial Fraud, Conspiracy,

Economic Espionage and others has necessarily led to informing the following

Offices/Agencies/Courts:

a. POTUS;

b. SCOTUS14;

c. The Administrative Office of US Courts – specifically, Director James


C. Duff;

d. The US Office of the Inspector General – specifically, IG Michael


Horowitz;

e. The Department of Justice (DOJ) – including the US Attorney’s


Office (MA);

f. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

g. Members of Congress – (1) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (2)


US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and (3) US Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (DMA). The Appellant has also regularly informed and updated
BOTH the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (via Social Media,
specifically – TWITTER); and

h. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA).

There certainly remains a concern regarding the overall INTEGRITY and

14
Reference Application 17A-1359, and the Appellant/Petitioner Motion requesting a
timeline extension for filing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, based on the severity of unresolved
issues, including judicial misconduct. SCOTUS granted the motion on June 8, 2018,
acknowledging the extraordinary circumstances warranting such an extension.
52
IMPARTIALITY of this First Circuit. If after assigning a new panel of judges, a similar

PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT is evidenced, TRANSFER to a different

Circuit or even CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION may be deemed necessary.

Once JURISDICTION has been re-established the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court

Claim under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(3) MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED AND

UPHELD; resulting in a DEFAULT Judgement, in favor of the Appellant –

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, with PREJUDICE.

6. Economic Espionage and National Security Concerns – Once a new panel of

Circuit Judges has been selected (and jurisdiction has once again been established), the

Appellant will look for the Court to acknowledge ALL evidenced claims of record

involving the Appellant’s Intellectual property/Trade Secret, Economic Espionage

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and the overall perceived threat to our Nation’s

Security. Any continued failure to acknowledge these evidenced claims will again show

cause for Transfer and question the impartiality and intentions of this Court;

7. Appellant’s GOOD FAITH Opportunity to Reach Agreement – The

Appellant recognizes the potential impact of a DEFAULT judgment if the law is

ultimately upheld in a $42B lawsuit. The Appellant respectfully makes clear for the

record that it is not his intention to bankrupt the Commonwealth or to cause havoc

upon Financial markets. It is in fact, exactly the opposite. Anyone who has taken the

time to understand the referenced IP/Trade Secret belonging to the Appellant knows that

the CLEAR INTENTION is to ultimately assist THE UNITED STATES with Economic

53
Repair15 and Growth. While certainly under NO obligation to do so, the Appellant – as a

SIGN OF HIS CONTINUED GOOD FAITH, is willing to CONSIDER entering into

a discussion to reach a mutual agreement with ALL parties.

8. Reimbursement for the Appellant’s TIME – The list of extraordinary

circumstances leading to the 7/17/18 order vacating judgement shows that a substantial

amount of time has been wasted – both the Appellant’s as well as the Court’s time.

THEREFORE, prior to moving forward, the Appellant seeks reimbursement for his

time, which is considered no less valuable than that of opposing counsel. A hearing is

now respectfully requested to discuss the details and timeliness of reimbursement to the

Appellant.

9. Concerns RE: Personal Safety and Security – Prior to moving forward and

considering the perceived threats to National Security, the Appellant respectfully calls for

this Court to finally acknowledge for the record, his continued concerns for his personal

safety and security.

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 PUBLIC out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for

his personal safety and security. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this response,

the Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request.

Economic Repair – References damages suffered as a result from the US


15

Foreclosure/ Financial Crisis of 2008.


54
Respectfully submitted this 23rd Day of July, 2018.

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

55
Exhibit 1

56
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: EMERGENCY Hearing Requested for 7/17/18 & New Executive Order
To: mary.murrane@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov, june.black@mail.house.gov,
christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, boston@ic.fbi.gov, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig
<dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>

Dear Assistant US Attorney Murrane,

On Friday, July 13, 2018, I filed an EMERGENCY MOTION with the First Circuit Appeals Court
requesting a hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2018, to address UNRESOLVED ISSUES impacting my
CERTIORARI Petition to SCOTUS (Reference Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al). A
copy of the filed motion has been attached as reference. As representing counsel in the RELATED
Appeal - HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-2074), both you and your co-counsel -
Asst. US Attorney Dina Chaitowitz are well aware of these referenced issues involving evidenced
CRIMINAL claims including (but not limited to): (1) Acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III; (2)
ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832; (3) Civil/Criminal RICO Violations pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1961; and additional violations which collectively are perceived to impact our Nation's
Security (See also, HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-
cv11134).

You are also aware that criminal complaints have long been filed with the FBI and DOJ to address
these evidenced claims for the specific purpose of bringing criminal charges against ALL responsible
parties. You are aware that by Federal Law - POTUS has necessarily been informed and regularly
updated, since these claims include evidenced acts of Treason and matters perceived to impact National
Security. As a matter of Federal record, there are now over FORTY (40) documented email
communications to the White House (via WH.gov) - specifically to POTUS since the discovery of
Treason claims in August 2015 (and also well before the current administration took office). As an
incremental means of communication, specifically - TWITTER, I have continued to update POTUS,
members of Congress, DOJ, FBI, OIG, etc... as well as the PUBLIC out of continued concerns for my
personal safety and security.

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018, POTUS signed an Executive Order Regarding the Establishment of
the Task Force on Market Integrity and Consumer Fraud. I say with complete confidence that this
litigation(s) has irrefutably played a key role - at least in part in creating this Executive Order.

It is unclear as to WHY, Federal Prosecutors have failed thus far to bring criminal charges here in this
litigation - for crimes so blatantly evidenced in Federal record. It is also unclear as to WHY the DOJ -
specifically your office, has remained silent when directly asked to provide a response. Now, with the
signing of this Executive Order, I am respectfully calling for the US Attorney's Office (MA) to bring these
matters to the direct attention of Attorney General Sessions, as head of this newly created Task
Force. I also request that you timely provide for the record an update for the Court in both referenced
Appeals (17-1381 and17-2074).

57
Please be advised, due to the severity of issues associated with this litigation, the following
offices/agencies will receive copies of this email communication (either directly and/or via social media):
(1) POTUS; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (3) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (4) US
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (5) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (6) DOJ; (7) FBI and (8)
OIG. A copy will also be made available 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!

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar

58
Exhibit 2

59
60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

61
I hereby certify that on July 23, 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

62
Exhibit 8

63
64
Exhibit 9

65
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117319424 Page: 66 Date Filed: 07/29/2018 Entry ID: 6186809

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 NOTICE16, 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:

16
See Exhibit 1
66
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 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:

A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues17;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

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

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

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

17
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.
67
F. 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;

G. 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;

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

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

I. 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;

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

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

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

Color of Law;

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

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

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

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

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

68
R. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,

as stated within the record;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

T. 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)18; (3)

18
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.
69
Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)19; (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 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

19
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
70
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 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

71
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 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

72
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.

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

73
Exhibit 1

74
75
76
Exhibit 2

77
78
79
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 29, 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

80
Exhibit 10

81
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117322315 Page: 82 Date Filed: 08/05/2018 Entry ID: 6188432
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. )

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING TO ADDRESS CONTINUED IMBALANCE OF


HARDSHIPS AND CALL FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully DEMANDS that this

Court schedule a hearing to address the IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS that continue to

weigh heavily in his favor. There appears to be an UNNECESARY JUDICIAL DELAY to

CORRECT a number of unresolved issues.

The most pressing issue right now pertains to the Appellant’s only available source of

TRANSPORTATION. This Court is well-aware that the ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE

associated with this litigation NOT ONLY caused: (1) an extreme financial hardship; but also

(2) severely damaged the Appellant’s credit, making it impossible to purchase/lease a

vehicle on his own. For over five (5) years, the Appellant has necessarily had to burden family

members and BORROW their vehicles in order to have transportation to/from his place of

employment and for other everyday needs. On August 25, 2018, the Appellant will be faced

82
with the reality of being WITHOUT transportation, as the lease on the vehicle - he has been

allowed to borrow, will have EXPIRED, creating the following issues:

1. The Plaintiff is still indigent, as recognized by this Court, and does not have the financial

means to: (a) purchase a vehicle; (b) lease a vehicle; or even (c) put a down payment on a

vehicle;

2. The Appellant has worked very hard to begin rebuilding his credit, after it was destroyed

by ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE. However, his current credit standing – while

improving, has not yet been fully restored to excellent status. Even if the Appellant were

able to qualify for an auto loan (or lease) on his own: (a) the interest rate; (b) lack of

down payment; and (c) overall monthly payment will not be affordable, based on his

limited income and less-than-perfect credit score.

3. If the Appellant is unable to secure a vehicle moving forward, there is certain risk to

current employment, and ultimately the ability to provide basic everyday needs (food,

shelter, clothing, etc.).

The Appellant should NO LONGER be forced to BURDEN family members in order to satisfy

basic transportation needs.

Since the recent RECUSAL of Judge Barron, both SCOTUS as well as this Court, have

acknowledged the list of EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES which contributed to

VACATING the JUDGEMENT (and ALL related orders) associated with this Appeal. These

circumstances include (but are not limited to) - Refusing to address the clearly evidenced

83
IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS. The Appellant respectfully calls for this Court to now

schedule a hearing to address these hardships without any further, unnecessary delay.

Please be advised, identical motions will be filed with the related federal litigation20, as the same

imbalance of hardships applies. Once balance is restored in one (1) case, it is anticipated to be

considered balanced in all three (3) referenced cases; and the remaining hardship motions are

expected to then be considered moot.

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

confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 1) with the filed Court copy. A copy will also

be made available 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 5th Day of August, 2018.

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

20
Related Federal litigation references: (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.
84
Exhibit 1

85
86
87
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 5, 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

88
Exhibit 11

89
90
91
Exhibit 12

92
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 93 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
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,21 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

21 See Exhibit 1
93
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.

94
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.22A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).23 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.”24 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the

judgment as void.25 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

22
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
23
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
24
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).
25
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
95
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).

96
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.26 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.27 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:

A. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues28;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

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

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

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

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

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

26
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.
27
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant has requested additional disclosures
regarding the judge’s improper relationship, however, no information has been provided.
28
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.
97
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

G. 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;

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

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

I. 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;

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

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

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

Color of Law;

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

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

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

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

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

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

as stated within the record;

98
S. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

T. 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

99
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:29

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.

29
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.
100
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,

101
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.
102
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

103
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

104
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.”

105
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

106
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

107
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-

AGO30

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.

30 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
108
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?

109
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

110
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?

111
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;

112
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

113
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.

114
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

115
Exhibit 1

116
117
Exhibit 2

118
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 NOTICE31, 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:

VIII. 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

31
See Exhibit 1
119
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:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues32;

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

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

Security;

32
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.
120
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;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

121
20. 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)33; (3) Circuit

Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)34; (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

33
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.
34
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
122
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.

IX. 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:

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

Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and

D. 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.

X. 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

123
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.

XI. 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.

XII. 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.

XIII. 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

124
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.

XIV. 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.

125
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

126
Exhibit 3

127
128
129
130
Exhibit 4

131
132
133
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 16, 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

134
Exhibit 13

135
136
Exhibit 14

137
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117333807 Page: 138 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,35 include (but are not

limited to): (1) evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section

35
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.
138
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 (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)

139
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.

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 COURT36 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-

36
See Exhibit 2 (pages 15-16)
140
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.37

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 issues38;

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


jurisdiction;

37
See Exhibit 3 (pages 17-58)
38
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.
141
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.39 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;

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

Appellant’s Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced

39
See Exhibit 4 (pages 59-63)
142
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;
143
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

144
multiple documented failures by the Court Clerk40 and Circuit Executive.41 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

40
References Circuit Clerk Margaret Carter.
41
References Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg.
145
the specific purpose of addressing these evidenced allegations before a higher

Court or authority.42

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.43

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

42
See Exhibit 5 (pages 64-67) – Email delivered on September 3, 2018 to
Legislative leaders in the Commonwealth of MA.
43
This is the first evidenced claim of TREASON brought against Circuit
Judge Kermit V. Lipez.
146
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 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.44

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

44
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.
147
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.45 If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this RESPONSE, the

Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a

separate, hearing and with the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd Day of September, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

45
See Exhibit 6 (pages 68-70), to view correspondence delivered to/from
POTUS on September 3, 2018 via www.Whitehouse.gov.
148
Exhibit 15

149
150
Exhibit 16

151
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117341305 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/19/2018
Entry ID: 6199373

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 RESPONSE TO VOID ORDER ISSUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

REVEALS CONTINUED JUDICIAL ABUSE AND RAISES QUESTIONS OF

MENTAL ILLNESS

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

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

associated with this (and related) Federal litigation,46 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

46
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.
152
FOURTEEN (14) judicial officers of the Court also include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.47

Therefore, CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ALREADY filed with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) will necessarily be updated.48 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);

47
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; (13) US Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch; and (14) US Circuit Judge
Norman H. Stahl.
48
See Exhibit 1 – Original Criminal Complaints filed with the FBI on March 19, 2018 against
referenced judicial officers (excludes Judges - Lipez, Stahl and Young, who will be added to the
updated criminal complaint).
153
12. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

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 ORDER49 issued September 7, 2018 by Circuit Panel: (1) Chief

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez; and (3) Circuit Judge O.

Rogeriee Thompson, it becomes clear to this Appellant (and should be clear to ANY Objective

Observer), that the BLATANT JUDICIAL ABUSE OF POWER evidenced by this First

Circuit has SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL.

To be clear, this Order is considered VOID. This latest example shows a Circuit Panel of

Judges that completely REFUSE to address JURISDICTION, and the PLETHORA of legal

issues which – individually and collectively re-affirm their disqualification. This Panel has

instead INSISTED on RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, brushing aside ALL Appellant

motions – in order to arrive corrupt and pre-determined outcome. The record clearly shows

precisely how the Appellant has arrived at these EVIDENCED conclusions. At the forefront of

this egregious abuse, is CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, who has long been

considered disqualified to rule in this litigation. A thorough review of the record now shows that

49
See Exhibit 2
154
the Chief Judge has lost complete control of this Court; to the extent that MENTAL ILLNESS

should ONCE AGAIN be considered and investigated. At the VERY LEAST, the argument

can be made where this Chief Judge MAY have influenced other judicial officers to betray their

oath. Collectively, these egregious judicial abuses – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW,

certainly contribute to the Appellant’s concerns for his personal safety and security.

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) the DOJ; or

(c) REMOVAL to a Congressional Panel. As a matter of 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 multiple documented failures by the Court Clerk50 and Circuit Executive.51 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.

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 Judicial Officers of the Court who stand

50
References Circuit Clerk Margaret Carter.
51
References Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg.
155
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 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 – thus adding to

existing Conspiracy claims.52 The Appellant therefore prays for relief/intervention from a

Court (likely SCOTUS) or Congressional panel with the jurisdiction to address these legal

issues.

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

52The 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.
156
that faith. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the RESPONSE to the attention

of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached with the filed Court copy.53 If there is a

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

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

an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 19th Day of September, 2018

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

53 See Exhibit 3
157
Exhibit 17

158
159
Exhibit 18

160
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 )

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE/MOTION FILED PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4):


(1) RE-AFFIRMS EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT; (2) TREASON UNDER
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3; (3) CAUSE FOR AMENDMENT; AND
(4) CAUSE FOR TRANSFER

After reviewing the Order54 issued by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O.

Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.

HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees as this INFERIOR replacement Circuit

Panel has NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER. Furthermore, it is believed

that this Panel has intentionally MISCONSTRUED the Appellant’s RESPONSE, filed

September 19, 2018.55 The result is an ever-repeating PATTERN OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT – that appears to be led by the CHIEF JUDGE – JEFFREY R. HOWARD.

54
See Exhibit 1, p. 12 to view the ORDER issued October 5, 2018 in its entirety.
55
See Exhibit 2, p. 15 to view the Appellant’s RESPONSE to the Oder issued on September 7, 2018, by
INFERIOR Circuit Judges - Jeffrey R. Howard (Chief Judge), O. Rogeriee Thompson and Kermit V Lipez.
161
Once again, this INFERIOR Circuit Panel refuses to even acknowledge JURISDICTION and

the lengthy list of UNRESOLVED ISSUES – which as a matter of record, have already been

acknowledged by SCOTUS56; thereby failing to uphold the Constitution, Federal Rules and

their Judicial Oath. Instead, these judicial officers have AGAIN consciously chosen to issue an

incremental order when they CLEARLY LACK THE JURISDICTION to do so.

Respectfully, what should be clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, is that Chief Judge –

Jeffrey R. Howard (who is likely the influencer of this REPLACEMENT panel) has LOST

COMPLETE CONTROL of this First Circuit Court. As a respectful reminder:

1. EIGHT (8) out of TEN (10) Circuit judges are now DISQUALIFIED from ruling in

this and ALL RELATED litigation57;

2. A combined total of FOURTEEN (14) District and Circuit Judges are now

DISQUALIFIED from ruling in this and ALL RELATED litigation;

3. There are now EIGHT (8) RECUSALS associated with this litigation; and

4. There are now NINE (9) Judicial officers associated with this litigation who stand

accused of TREASON for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION; including CHIEF

JUDGE – Jeffrey R. Howard.

56
The Appellant references Supreme Court Application No. 17A-1359, and the timeline extension granted by
Supreme Court Justice - Stephen Breyer, who acknowledged the list of EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES/ UNRESOLVED ISSUES warranting such an extension. A summary of these issues is
further described in this filed response.
57
The only two (2) remaining First Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction are: (1) Circuit
Judge Bruce M. Selya and (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin. However, EVEN IF the Court intended to select a
SECOND replacement panel, it lacks a third qualified circuit judge to do so, re-affirming the Appellant’s cause
for TRANSFER. Related litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;
and (2) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
162
The Appellant continues to identify what collectively is considered an UNPRECEDENTED

and certainly egregious level of judicial misconduct evidenced by this Federal Judiciary.

Please be advised, the severity of issues brought by Mr. Harihar - including (but not limited to)

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3, mandate notifying (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS;

(3) OIG; (4) House and Senate Judiciary Committees; (5) DOJ; and (6) the FBI. This latest

example of JUDICIAL ABUSE – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, adds incrementally to

an already lengthy list of evidenced claims; showing cause for TRANSFER before either: (1) a

Congressional panel; or (2) SCOTUS. A summary of this latest development is described as

follows:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

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

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.58A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,

will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).59A 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.”60Only when the jurisdictional error is

“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.61A judgment may also be void under Rule

60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process.62Specifically, inadequate

58
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431 F.3d at 412.
59
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
60
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).
61
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
62
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
163
notice or failure to provide notice or service of process may result in a lack of due process

rendering a judgment void.63

A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be made “within a reasonable time.”64 However, courts have

held that a motion to vacate a judgment as void may be brought at any time, regardless of the

statute of limitations and other deadlines.65 In addition, a court, on its own motion, may set aside

a judgment as void provided notice is given of the contemplated action and an opportunity to be

heard.66

I. EGRIGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY THE REPLACEMENT CIRCUIT

PANEL - The VOID order issued on OCTOBER 5, 2018, by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R.

Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V.

Lipez continues to reinforce the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct claims including

(but not limited to) the following STILL UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

1. Refusing to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE;

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

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

63
Id. at 853-54, citing In re Chess, 268 B.R. 150, 155 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2001).
64
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). A motion under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (3) must be made “no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.”
65
See Hacienda Hearing & Cooling Inc. v. United Artist Theatre Co., 406 B.R. 643, 648 (Bankr. Del. 2009) citing
United States v. One Toshiba Color TV, 213 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting is final judgment is void, “no
passage of time can transmute [it] into a binding judgment” and further stating that “a court may always take
cognizance of a judgment’s void status whenever a Rule 60(b) motion is brought.”); In re Ruehle, 296 B.R. 146,
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003).
66
In re Missouri Prop. Ltd., 211 B.R. 914, 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1996).
164
6. 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;

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;

165
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record;

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.

As with the prior Circuit panel, the Appellant has CLEARLY shown just cause to attack and

VOID ALL ORDERS associated with this Appeal and in the related federal litigation – and

the record shows that Mr. Harihar has done just that; with NO VALID rebuttal of record

from ANY Appellee/Defendant or accused Officer of the Court.

WHAT EXISTS NOW IS PERCEIVED AS AN UNPRECEDENTED LIST OF

FOURTEEN (14) Federal (Circuit and District Court) judges who have been

DISQUALIFIED from ruling in this (and any related) litigation. The disqualified judicial

officers making up this list include the following:

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 First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

166
8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez;

9. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch;

10. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;

11. US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);

12. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);

13. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME);

14. US District Court Judge William G. Young.

II. TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of The Constitution - by issuing the order on

October 5, 2018 WITHOUT JURISDICTION, this replacement Circuit panel has now

committed an INCREMENTAL ACT of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Since this EVIDENCED claim of Treason has occurred ON THE RECORD, it is witnessed

by: (1) Circuit Clerk – Maria R. Hamilton; (2) The PUBLIC (referencing public access to

PACER); and (3) ALL Appellants and their respective counsel of record. As witnesses, any

failure to acknowledge this (and all prior reported) act(s) of Treason will be interpreted as

MISPRISION OF TREASON - 18 U.S. Code § 2382. As required by Federal law, Mr.

Harihar necessarily brings this (incremental) evidenced claim of Treason to the

attention of: (1) POTUS; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) this Court. As a

reminder, there are NINE (9) Federal Judges associated with this litigation who thus far

stand accused of Treason against The Constitution. They include:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

167
3. US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit);

4. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez (NEW Claim);

9. US District Court Judge William G. Young.

III. CAUSE FOR AMENDMENT

Based upon this Circuit Panel’s incremental act(s) of judicial abuse, the Appellant shows

cause to expand upon his existing claims and amend his two (2) related complaints: (1)

HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (2) HARIHAR v

CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No 18-cv-11134. Mr. Harihar also

chows cause to expand upon his criminal complaints filed with the FBI.

IV. CAUSE FOR TRANSFER

The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that he is a pro se litigant – WITH NO

LEGAL EXPERIENCE. Considering the severity of legal issues listed before this Court, it

bears repeating to ask for the record exactly HOW Mr. Harihar could possibly have been

DENIED counsel under Title 28 U.S.C. §1915? It should seem CLEAR to ANY

OBJECTIVE OBSERVER that when the record shows that 80% of the First Circuit Judges

have committed evidenced acts of misconduct, there appears to be ABSOLUTELY NO

INTENTION to UPHOLD the law. There exists instead the INTENT TO REACH A

168
CORRUPT AND PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME. ALSO, with only TWO (2)

remaining eligible replacement judges, it is not legally possible for a second replacement

panel within this Circuit. THEREFORE, combined with the evidenced level of

egregiousness, the Appellant shows cause for removal/transfer of this Appeal (and the related

litigation) to either: (1) SCOTUS; or (2) A Congressional Panel.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has followed the law to the best of his ability as a pro

se litigant and has been respectful to this and EVERY Court. The nearly FOUR (4) year

historical record of this Federal litigation has conclusively shown that this Federal judiciary is

plagued by an EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER that must be stopped. Based

on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal Law and the Judicial Oath of Office, this Circuit

Panel and collectively - ALL FOURTEEN (14) Federal Judges have DISCRACED the

COURT and this NATION. This is an unprecedented series of events at the Circuit level that in

the Appellant’s opinion, at minimum warrants:

1. Certiorari to ultimately be granted by the U.S. Supreme Court;

2. MA Congressional leaders to bring these evidenced claims of judicial abuse to the

attention of the House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

3. The involvement of the Executive Branch – specifically DOJ and Federal

Prosecutors to bring indictments associated with criminal complaints filed by the

Appellant;

4. The Dismissal (and all related) order(s) to be considered VOID, pursuant (at

minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and (4);

169
What remains unclear is how to proceed AFTER filing this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(4), considering the lack of available First Circuit Judges with jurisdiction. Since the

Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and has NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE:

1. A MOTION will next be filed with SCOTUS to inform the Court and determine the

next legal steps as it pertains to this Docket and the related litigation;

2. Mr. Harihar awaits an ANSWER from Congressional Leaders: (1) US Senator

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (2) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and (3) US

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) regarding their progress in bringing this matter

to the attention of Congress67;

3. Mr. Harihar awaits notification from the DOJ – specifically from Attorney General –

Jeff Sessions and US Attorney (MA) Andrew Lelling regarding referenced criminal

indictments and alignment with the Appellant’s civil litigation. The Court is respectfully

reminded that Assistant US Attorneys (MA) – Mary Murrane and Cynthia Young

have also witnessed these judicial abuses FIRSTHAND, as they are representing

counsel in the related litigation, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No.

17-2074.

4. Before proceeding further, Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §1915 is clearly warranted, considering the TEXTBOOK set of

circumstances before this Court.

67
See Exhibit 3, p. 31 to view the E-mail communication delivered to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on
October 5, 2018. Copied on the E-mail (and via social media) were the following parties: (1) POTUS (via
www.whitehouse.gov and TWITTER); (2) US Inspector General – Michael Horowitz; (3) Governor Charlie
Baker; (4) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (5) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (6) The DOJ,
including US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and Asst. US Attorney Mary Murrane (MA); (7) Each
individual member of Congress, including the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (via TWITTER); (8)
MA Attorney General Maura Healey; (9) MA Inspector General Glen Cunha; and (10) the FBI.
170
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the MOTION to the attention of POTUS,

confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See Exhibit 4, p. 36) with the filed

Court copy. A copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources

nationwide, out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If

there is a question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Mr. Harihar is happy to provide

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

independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of October, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

171
Exhibit 19

172
173