No.

18-7752

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

____________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Petitioner
v.

US BANK NA, et al
Respondents
____________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit
_______________

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR*
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
*Petitioner, Pro Se Mo.harihar@gmail.com
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED
20. Whether the unpublished denial of Application No.
18A554 (Request for STAY and Assistance with the
Appointment of Counsel)1 constitutes an erred
judgement, consistent with the pattern of corrupt
conduct evidenced by the lower Courts – at minimum
impacting Jurisdiction, warranting: (1) Clarification; (2)
Reconsideration; (3) cause for Recusal, if left uncorrected;
(4) cause for judicial removal and/or impeachment under
ARTICLE II, if left uncorrected; (5) cause for amendment
to the Petitioner’s related complaint against The United
States, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (6) cause for amendment
to the Petitioner’s related complaint against inferior
judicial officers – HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-
cv-11134?
21. Whether the continued, incremental actions by: (1) Bank
Respondents; (2) Respondent David E. Fialkow, Esq.; and
(3) Respondents – Jeffrey/ Isabelle Perkins in the
Middlesex Superior Court2 warrant amendment to the
original complaint (at minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) and (3)?
22. Whether the evidenced failures by the inferior MA Land
Court Judge – Hon. Michael Vhay shows cause to amend
the original complaint, bringing additional claims
against the Respondent – Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (at minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2), (3) and (4)?3
23. Whether the continued inaction/nonfeasance by the
Executive and Legislative branches of government
(Federal and State) shows cause to expand upon Due
Process/Color of Law violations, warranting amendment
to the original complaint and related federal litigation
(referenced above) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3) and
(6)?

1 See Exhibit 1
2 References the Middlesex Superior Court (MA) Docket No. 1981-CV-00050
3 References MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Questions Presented………………………………………. 1
Table of Authorities……………………………………….. 3
Opinions below................................................................ 4
Jurisdiction...................................................................... 5
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved........ 6
Introduction to Supplement……………………………….7
Statement of the Case..................................................... 9
Reasons for Granting the Petition................................. 12
A. Failure to Grant Certiorari will Evidence a
Systemic Breakdown within the Judicial Branch
of Government.
Conclusion ...................................................................... 13
Supplement Appendix ……………………………………. 15
Proof of Service…………………………….……………..... 33

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)…………………6

Harihar v The United States
(1st Circuit 2017) ……………………………………1
Harihar v Howard
(1st Circuit, 2018) …………………………..…..1,11
Harihar v Wells Fargo
(MA Land Court, 2018) …………………….……10
Harihar v Wells Fargo
(MA Middlesex Superior Court, 2018) …….…..10

Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ..........................................4,5,7,9,10,13
18 U.S.C. § 1831 .....................................................7,8,13
28 U.S.C. §455(a)…………………………….……..………5
28 U.S.C. § 144 …………………………….…………....…5
18 U.S.C. § 242…………………………….………..….…11
18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 ………………….…………….…..11
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) …………………………………...……5

Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) ...................................................1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) .........................................1,12,13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)……………………….....……...….1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)……………………………..………1
Fed. R. App. P. 33…………..…….…………..…….…10,13
Local Rule 33………………………………….……..…10,13

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

Article II……………………………………..………..1,6,7,13
Article III, Section 3…………………………………6,7,8,12

3
 IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

________
No. 18-7752
_____________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR - Petitioner

v.

US BANK NA, et al - Respondents

___________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

To the United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
______________

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mohan A. Harihar respectfully petitions for a writ of

certiorari to review the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case.

OPINIONS BELOW
The order list: 586 U.S. (published February 19,
2019) shows an unpublished decision to Application
No 18A-554. A separate docket search reveals that
the STAY application and request for assistance
with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
§1915 was denied without cause.

4
 JURISDICTION

As a matter of record, presiding judges in both the First

Circuit Appeals Court and US District Court of
Massachusetts lost jurisdiction for their evidenced
failure(s) to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
their Judicial Oath and the Constitution of The United
States. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under
28 U.S.C. 1254(1). However, following the unpublished
denial to Application No. 18A554 dated February 19,
2019, the jurisdiction of each Justice and the integrity
of this court is now called into question, warranting (at
minimum): (1) Clarification for the record – as to
whether this unpublished denial was a unanimous or
majority decision.4; (2) In either scenario, clarification
is necessary to determine exactly how each Justice
arrived at the decision to deny the application – taking
into consideration the list of twenty-three (23)
“extraordinary, unresolved issues” twice acknowledged
by Justice Stephen Breyer; (3) Reconsideration – as any
objective observer who reviews the evidenced record
would consider this denial as a decision made in error.

The Petitioner respectfully reminds this Court that he

is not a legal expert and has virtually no legal
experience aside from this litigation. It remains unclear
as to how this Court could possibly deny assisting the
Petitioner with the appointment of counsel under 28
U.S.C. §1915. This alone is a concern that impacts
jurisdiction, considering the enormity of complex legal
issues – including matters perceived to impact National
Security. Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the
law - whether or not any (or all) Justice(s) elects to
reconsider the denial of Petition 18A554 will
determine: (1) whether disqualification/recusal under
28 U.S.C. §455(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 144 becomes

4 If found to be majority decision, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court
identify for the record - which five (5) Justices ruled in favor of denying Application No.
18A554.

5
necessary; and (2) Reconsideration will also determine
whether or not it becomes necessary to notify Congress
and the President under ARTICLE II, (at minimum)
citing grounds for removal and potentially,
impeachment. If ultimately it is found that one (1) or
more Justices: (a) have lost jurisdiction; (b) are
considered disqualified from ruling further in this
litigation; and (c) fail (or refuse) to recuse sua sponte, it
is the Petitioner’s interpretation that any further
ruling from an Inferior Justice will be considered as
“Warring against the Constitution of the Unites States”
- an act of Treason under ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Respectfully, please be advised - Should this occur, the
Court Clerk, the Respondents (along with their
respective counsel) and any Justice who maintains
their jurisdiction will be considered as witnesses to an
act of Treason. By Federal Law, it will again become
necessary for the Petitioner to notify the President of
The United States (POTUS) as well as Congress.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor
state governments may deprive any person “of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.” A similar
due process provision was found in the Magna Charta, as
well as early state constitutions. Chief Justice William
Howard Taft explained the purpose behind the clauses in
Truax v. Corrigan (1921) as follows: “The due process
clause requires that every man shall have the protection
of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a
law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not
arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold
his life, liberty, property and immunities under the
protection of the general rules which govern society. It, of
course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it
makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s
right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or
the Legislature may not withhold.”

6
 Additional Constitutional and Statutory Provisions may
also apply (including Articles II and III), considering the
interpreted matters pertaining to National Security,
Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831, Treason –
ARTICLE III and other evidenced claims. The Petitioner
respectfully re-states that the enormity of complex legal
issues associated with this litigation (at minimum)
certainly calls into question this (as well as the lower)
Court’s failure/refusal to assist him with the
appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPPLEMENT

Since filing the Petition for Certiorari on January 28,
2019, there has been incremental activity by this Court,
as well as in Massachusetts State Courts that warrant
filing this supplement. In addition, the severity of issues
– including (but not limited to) the perceived
threat/impact to National Security and the continued
failure(s) by Federal/State Prosecutors to bring criminal
indictments makes it necessary to inform this court of
updated communications to multiple government
offices/agencies including: (1) The Office of the Inspector
General – specifically, IG Michael Horowitz; (2)
Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (3) Congressional
leaders - US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), US
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and US Congresswoman
Lori Trahan (D-MA).
The Petitioner raises considerable concerns as the list of
twenty-three (23) extraordinary, unresolved issues5 –
each of which shows cause to stay the judgement,
appears (at least on its surface) to have been brushed
aside by this Supreme Court without cause, in order to
reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome. To any
objective observer, this would appear identical to the
evidenced pattern of corrupt conduct exemplified by the

5The Petitioner references the twenty-three extraordinary, unresolved issues identified in

Applications: (1) 17A1359; (2) 18A585; and (3) 18A554 (See Exhibit 2)

7
 lower courts – indicating a systemic breakdown in the
Federal (and State) Judiciary.
Respectfully, this Court is reminded that: (1) Justice
Breyer has twice granted a timeline extension to the
Petitioner based on this very list of extraordinary,
unresolved issues; and (2) The initial First Circuit
Panel6 was forced to recuse (in part) for their
failure/refusal to address and resolve these identified
issues.
This Court is respectfully reminded that: (1) there has
been an unprecedented eight (8) federal recusals
associated with this litigation; and (2) Evidenced
misconduct claims have been formally brought against a
total of fifteen (15) federal judges – indicating what
clearly appears to be a systemic failure within the
Judicial Branch of Government.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the Petitioner’s
evidenced claims against both the Respondents as well
as named judicial officers include some of the most
severe crimes known to our Nation, including (but not
limited to): (1) Treason under ARTICLE III; (2)
Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) RICO
claims, and others. Yet, a thorough review of all court
documents shows that neither the Respondents nor the
presiding judge(s) have ever even mentioned these
words – as if there is the expectation that these
evidenced claims will ultimately be brushed aside in
order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.
This is currently evidenced at every level of the Federal
(and State) Judiciary – which as of right now, includes
this United States Supreme Court.
The Petitioner respectfully makes clear that unless
these issues are justly resolved, he does not have faith

6The initial First Circuit Panel (recused) consisted of: (1) Circuit Judge David Barron, who
also admitted to an improper relationship with the Respondent – WELLS FARGO; (2) Juan
R. Torruella; and (3) William J. Kayatta, Jr. The replacement, inferior Circuit Panel,
consisting of: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;
and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez – refused to recuse, dismissing the Petitioner’s
Appeal No. 17-1381 without jurisdiction.

8
 in this panel to deliver a just (and impartial) decision to
Petition No. 18-7752.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15(8) the Petitioner

respectfully supplements his Petition for Certiorari, filed on
January 28, 2019.
2. At the scheduled conference held on February 15, 2019, this
Court addressed the Petitioner’s Application for a STAY of
Judgement and Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel
– pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 (Application 18A554).
3. On February 19, 2019, this Court issued an order list: 586
U.S., consisting of several hundred cases. After reviewing
the document, Application 18A554, HARIHAR v US BANK
et al was only one (1) of four (4) cases with an unpublished
decision. A separate docket search revealed that this Court
denied the Petitioner’s Application without cause.
4. On February 20, 2019, the Petitioner placed a follow-up call
to the Clerk’s office and was transferred to SCOTUS Analyst
– Jake Travis, who confirmed that the Court denied the
Application without cause, also choosing not to publish the
decision – for reasons unknown.
5. The denial of Application 18A554 now presents new issues
which must be resolved before proceeding further with this
litigation:
a. Clarification – The Petitioner respectfully requests
that this Court clarify for the record exactly how they
arrived at their decision to deny Application 18A554,
including whether it was a unanimous or majority
decision. If found to be a majority decision, the
Petitioner requests that the Court identify for the
record each of the five (5) Justices ruling in favor of
the denied application.
b. Reconsideration - In either scenario, the Petitioner
respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its
decision before proceeding further, as any objective
observer will view the referenced denial as an erred
judgement. Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of
the law, any failure to reconsider and correct this

9
 erred judgement will impact jurisdiction, showing
cause to (at minimum) bring a formal misconduct
complaint(s).

It bears repeating where - if this Court reconsiders its

decision and grants both a STAY of judgement and
assistance with the appointment of counsel, 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 efforts. At minimum, exploring the CAMP
option would certainly aid with judicial economy
moving forward.

6. Since filing the Petition on January 28, 2019, the

Petitioner draws attention to the related/ongoing state
litigation involving the Massachusetts Land Court7 and
the improper transfer to the Middlesex Superior Court
(MA).8 In summary, a thorough review of both state
dockets reveals:
a. An identical pattern of corrupt conduct
exemplified by an inferior judge – Hon. Michael
Vhay. These evidenced actions by a state judicial
officer add incrementally to the systemic failures

7
References MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144
8
References the Middlesex Superior Court (MA) Docket No. 1981-CV-00050

10
 of the Commonwealth. The Petitioner therefore
shows cause to amend his original complaint, (at
minimum) expanding upon Due Process and
Color of Law violations under 18 U.S.C. § 242
against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Petitioner also shows cause to amend his
related complaint – HARIHAR v HOWARD
(Docket No. 18-cv-11134), adding Judge Michael
Vhay as a Defendant.9;
b. A thorough review of all documents filed in the
Middlesex Superior Court by Respondents: (1) Wells
Fargo; (2) US BANK; (3) Jeffrey Perkins; and (4)
Isabelle Perkins – indicates the apparent expectation
(as if by knowledge) that the presiding judicial officer
will ultimately brush aside the Petitioner’s evidenced
jurisdiction and transfer claims, ultimately arriving
at a corrupt and pre-determined outcome. Therefore,
the Petitioner (at minimum) shows cause to amend
the original complaint, expanding upon existing
Fraud on the Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3).
7. On Sunday, February 17, 2019, the Petitioner delivered
an email communication to Governor Charlie Baker (R-
MA),10 which addressed the following:
a. The continued failures of the MA AGO11 to bring
criminal indictments against named Respondents;
b. A reminder of the evidenced RICO claims
involving: (1) the Massachusetts AGO; (2) the US
Attorney's Office (MA); and (3) the (former)
representing law firm for Bank Respondents - US
BANK and WELLS FARGO (Nelson Mullins Riley
and Scarborough, LLP). Click on the attachment
below to view the evidenced RICO claim12 - "After
the Bubble Bursts". This textbook case of collusion
identifies improper relationships that - at least in
part, provides an irrefutable argument as to why

9 Please be advised, it has recently been brought to the Petitioner’s attention that an
improper relationship is believed to exist between Judge Michael Vhay and MERS Inc.
10 See Exhibit 3 to view the email communication delivered to Governor Charlie Baker (R-

MA) and other referenced government offices/agencies/courts.

11 MA AGO – Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.
12 RICO claims raised under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 96

11
 criminal indictments have never been brought by
the MA AGO or the Department of Justice
(DOJ).13
c. Concerns over the Governor’s inaction/
nonfeasance, since bringing evidenced Treason
claims under ARTICLE III to his direct
attention (as required by Federal Law).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

A. A Failure to First Initiate Corrective Action with Application

No. 18A554 and Ultimately Grant Certiorari (if it even
becomes necessary) will Undoubtedly Confirm a Systemic
Breakdown within Every Level of the Federal Judiciary –
Including this United States Supreme Court.

The Court is respectfully reminded that number one (1) reason

for granting Certiorari is the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The record shows that this
irrefutable fact has been completely ignored by every presiding
judge, dating back to the District Court and which ultimately
led to the recusal of inferior Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It
remains unclear as to why the District Court never voided the
Dismissal (and every other) order, following Judge Burroughs’
recusal.

Even if: (1) Application No. 18A554 is granted; (2) the

Petitioner is assigned counsel; and (3) all parties enter in to
mediation under Fed. R. App. P. 33 – it is the Petitioner’s
understanding that he is still under no obligation to reach an
agreement, considering the unopposed Fraud on the Court
claim(s) and what must result in a Default judgement in favor
of the Petitioner, with prejudice. However, the Petitioner is
aware that in a $42B lawsuit, a default judgement stands to
bring severe financial consequences to all Respondents. The
Petitioner makes clear that it has never been his intention to
bankrupt the Commonwealth or to potentially disrupt financial

13See Exhibit 3 to view the evidenced improper relationship, "After the Bubble Bursts"
that justifies the RICO claim (Following the 02/17/2019 email to Gov. Charlie Baker (R-
MA).

12
 markets. In fact, the Petitioner has evidenced that his IP/Trade
Secret was created to accomplish just the opposite – ultimately
providing a beneficial solution for: (1) all parties; (2) the
government; (3) this Nation’s Economy; and (4) illegally
foreclosed homeowners Nationwide. As a sign of his continued
Good Faith, Mr. Harihar MAY be willing to consider entering
into an agreement on the civil portions of this complaint.14

However, if ultimately a mutual agreement is not reached

through the CAMP program, this Court must grant Certiorari.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should first: (1) provide
the requested Clarification for the record; (2) Re-establish
jurisdiction for the record, recognizing grounds for recusal and
potentially, removal under ARTICLE II, where applicable; (3)
Once jurisdiction has been re-established, this Court should re-
consider its decision and grant Application No. 18A554; (4)
Once the STAY of judgement is initiated and the Petitioner has
successfully been appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915,
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.

If efforts to reach a mutual agreement through the CAMP

program prove to be unsuccessful, the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari should be granted – at minimum, based on the
unopposed Fraud on the Court claims(s) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3).

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

Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims
pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers;
(2) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) Criminal SEC

14The Court and the Respondents are reminded that if the parties are unable to reach a
mutual agreement, the dollar amount for damages is currently set at one percent (1%) of
the estimated value of the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, $42B.

13
violations; and (4) matters believed to impact National/
Homeland Security, copies of this Certiorari Petition are
necessarily delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media)
to:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director Randolph D. Alles;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C.
Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Senate
Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House
Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)
A copy will also be made available to the Public and to
media outlets nationwide out of continued concerns for
the Petitioner’s safety and security. If this Court has
questions regarding any portion of this Petition, or
requires additional information, the Petitioner is happy
to provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted.

Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner - Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

14
SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX
Supplement Petition for Certiorari
HARIHAR v US BANK, et al
Petition N. 18-7752

15
 SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit 1, Denial Order 18A554, 02/19/2019……………………................... 22

Exhibit 2, List of Unresolved Issues.................... 6
Exhibit 3, Email to Gov. Charlie Baker (R-MA), 02/17/2019....................... 27
Addendum 1 Federal (and Local) Rule of Appellate Procedure 33……....... 30
Addendum 2 Article II………………………………………..…………………... 32

*Please note, all other Constitutional and Statutory references can be found
in Appendix B.

16
Exhibit 1

17
18
Exhibit 2

19
List of Twenty-Three (23) Extraordinary, Unresolved
Issues Acknowledged by Justice Stephen Breyer

1. Continued refusal to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues;

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: (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;

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), (4) and

(6);

20
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 and re-establish 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 promptly reimburse accruing legal (and

other) fees due to the Appellant, as stated within the record;

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

with the presence of an independent court reporter;

21
19. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact,

refusing discovery and prematurely moving for Dismissal;

20. Failing to address the Petitioner’s request(s) to Clarify

the DOJ’s intention to enjoin the civil complaint with

criminal indictments;

21. Failing to identifying for the record impacted (Federal

and State) litigation;

22. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s good faith

opportunity(s) to reach a mutual agreement; and

23. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s repeated

concerns for his personal safety and security.

22
Exhibit 3

23
 Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS - HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No.

1981CV00050

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 2:37 PM

To: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>

Cc: lwood@supremecourt.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig

<dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov,
Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us,
igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us,
chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov,
CommissionerStein@sec.gov, Susan Goldberg <susan_goldberg@ca1.uscourts.gov>

Dear Governor Baker,

It again becomes necessary to bring to your attention the evidenced failure(s) of MA

Attorney General MAURA HEALEY - to bring criminal indictments against named
Defendants in the above referenced litigation proceeding in the Middlesex Superior
Court. Respectfully, you are aware that this is nothing new, as I have regularly brought this
INACTION to your attention (as a matter of record) and previously to the attention of
Governor Patrick's administration over the past EIGHT (8) years. You are also aware that it
is this continued failure that has shown cause (at least in part) to include the
Commonwealth (and former AG Martha Coakley) as Defendants in the related Federal
Litigation now before SCOTUS (Reference HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Certiorari
Petition 18-7752). You are respectfully reminded that aside from evidenced Color of Law,
Due Process and (Unopposed) Fraud on the Court claims, I have evidenced RICO
claims involving: (1) the Massachusetts AGO; (2) the US Attorney's Office (MA); and (3) the
(former) representing law firm for Bank Defendants - US BANK and WELLS FARGO
(Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP). Click on the attachment below to view the
evidenced RICO claim - "After the Bubble Bursts". This TEXTBOOK case of
COLLUSION identifies an IMPROPER relationship that - at least in part, provides an
irrefutable argument as to WHY criminal indictments have NEVER been brought by the MA
AGO.

24
And then there's the judicial misconduct that has been irrefutably evidenced by both the
Federal and MA State judiciaries - now TWICE acknowledged by the United States
Supreme Court. This includes formal TREASON claims under ARTICLE III, brought
against NINE (9) Federal judges. As required by Federal Law, I have notified you directly
following each violation, yet your office remains silent.

It has NEVER been my intention to expose such historic levels of corruption between
BANKING and GOVERNMENT. Evidenced failures in all three (3) branches of state and
federal government is the reason why we're in this legal position now. I've also never
intended to BANKRUPT this Commonwealth - considering if there is no agreement and the
law is actually upheld, the Commonwealth will be responsible for its portion of $42B
(excluding treble damages for evidenced RICO claims). Again, these evidenced
government failures bring us to where we are today. My legal intentions from the beginning
have been quite clear:

1. To recoup damages from MY ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE - as identified by the MA

AGO, DOJ and Federal Bank Regulators;
2. To recoup damages for MY Intellectual Property/Trade Secret known as the
"HARIHAR FCS MODEL"; and
3. To reach an agreement with the Commonwealth and the Federal Government to
potentially implement this Economic Model - helping all those negatively
impacted by illegal foreclosure while generating historic economic growth for
this Commonwealth and the Nation.

Please be advised, the Middlesex Superior Court has an opportunity now to correct some
of its past erred judgments and I'm now respectfully calling for the MA AGO to TIMELY
bring criminal indictments against ALL named Defendants in the referenced Docket
No. 1981CV00050. Should the Commonwealth initiate such corrective action, I will plan to
notify/update SCOTUS via a supplement to Petition No. 18-7752. Conversely, should this
collective pattern of corrupt conduct continue, SCOTUS will similarly be notified of this
NEW evidenced government failure, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

For documentation purposes, a copy of this email will be filed with the Middlesex Superior
Court. Copies will also be made available to: (1) POTUS

(via www.whitehouse.gov); (2) the US Secret Service/ Department of Homeland Security;

(3) the DOJ; (4) members of Congress; (5) the Public; and (6) to media outlets nationwide
out of continued concerns for my personal safety and security. If you have any questions
regarding any portion of this email, or require additional information, please
advise. Governor Baker, thank you for your attention to this very serious and sensitive
matter. I look forward to your response.

GOD BLESS THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA!

25
Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

7124 Avalon Drive

Acton, MA 01720

617.921.2526

Mo.harihar@gmail.com

After the Bubble Bursts.pdf

251K

26
27
28
29
Addendum 1

Rule 33. Appeal Conferences

The court may direct the attorneys—and, when appropriate, the parties—to
participate in one or more conferences to address any matter that may aid in
disposing of the proceedings, including simplifying the issues and discussing
settlement. A judge or other person designated by the court may preside over
the conference, which may be conducted in person or by telephone. Before a
settlement conference, the attorneys must consult with their clients and
obtain as much authority as feasible to settle the case. The court may, as a
result of the conference, enter an order controlling the course of the
proceedings or implementing any settlement agreement.

Local Rule 33.0. Civil Appeals Management Plan

Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit adopts the following plan to
establish a Civil Appeals Management Program, said Program to have the
force and effect of a local rule.

(a) Pre-Argument Filing; Ordering Transcript. Upon receipt of the Notice of

Appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals shall notify
Settlement Counsel of the appeal. Within 14 days after the case is docketed
in the Court of Appeals, appellant shall file with the Clerk of the Court of
Appeals, and serve on all other parties a statement, in the form of the
Docketing Statement required by Local Rule 3.0(a), detailing information
needed for the prompt disposition of an appeal. The Parties shall provide
Settlement Counsel with such additional information about the appeal as
Settlement Counsel may reasonably request.

(b) Pre-Argument Conference; Pre-Argument Conference Order.

(1) In cases where he may deem this desirable, the Settlement Counsel,
who shall be appointed by the Court of Appeals, may direct the
attorneys, and in certain cases the clients, to attend a pre-argument
conference to be held as soon as practicable before him or a judge
designated by the Chief Judge to consider the possibility of settlement,
the simplification of the issues, and any other matters which the
Settlement Counsel determines may aid in the handling or the
disposition of the proceeding.

30
 (2) At the conclusion of the conference, the Settlement Counsel shall
consult with the Clerk concerning the Clerk’s entry of a Conference
Order which shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding.

(c) Confidentiality. The Settlement Counsel shall not disclose the substance
of the Pre-argument Conference, nor report on the same, to any person or
persons whomsoever (including, but not limited to, any judge). The attorneys
are likewise prohibited from disclosing any substantive information
emanating from the conference to anyone other than their clients or co-
counsel; and then only upon receiving due assurance that the recipients will
honor the confidentiality of the information. See In re Lake Utopia Paper
Ltd., 608 F.2d 928 (2nd Cir. 1979). The fact of the conference having taken
place, and the bare result thereof (e.g., “settled,” “not settled,” “continued”),
including any resulting Conference Order, shall not be considered to be
confidential.

(d) Non-Compliance Sanctions.

(1) If the appellant has not taken each of the actions set forth in section
(a) of this Program, or in the Conference Order, within the time therein
specified, the appeal may be dismissed by the Clerk without further
notice.

(2) Upon the failure of a party or attorney to comply with the provisions
of this rule or the provisions of the court's notice of settlement
conference, the court may assess reasonable expenses caused by the
failure, including attorney's fees; assess all or a portion of the appellate
costs; dismiss the appeal; or take such other appropriate action as the
circumstances may warrant.

(e) Grievances. Any grievances as to the handling of any case under the
Program will be addressed by the Court of Appeals, and should be sent to the
Circuit Executive, One Courthouse Way, Suite 3700, Boston, MA 02210, who
will hold them confidential on behalf of the Court of Appeals unless release
is authorized by the complainant.

(f) Scope of Program. The Program will include all civil appeals and review
of administrative orders, except the following: It will not include original
proceedings (such as petitions for mandamus), prisoner petitions, habeas
corpus petitions, summary enforcement actions of the National Labor
Relations Board, social security appeals, petitions for review from orders of
the Board of Immigration Appeals, or any pro se cases. Nothing herein shall
prevent any judge or panel, upon motion or sua sponte, from referring any
matter to the Settlement Counsel at any time.

31
 The foregoing Civil Appeals Management Program shall be applicable to all
such cases as set forth above, arising from the District Courts in the Districts
of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, in which the
Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals on or after January 1,
1992; and all such cases arising from the District Court in the District of
Puerto Rico, in which the Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals
on or after January 1, 1993.

Addendum 2

Article II, Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

32
 IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

____________
No. 18-7752
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Petitioner,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
____________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, do swear or declare that on

this date, March 8, 2019 , as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I
have served the enclosed SUPPLEMENT PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that
party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by
depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United
States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class
postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier
for delivery within 3 calendar days.:

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.

33
 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.

34
Solicitor General of the United States
Attn: Solicitor General - Noel Francisco
Department of Justice, Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
202.514.2203

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

35