Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 17-cv-11109
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant )
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO AMEND ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, PURSUANT (AT


MINIMUM) TO: (1) ARTICLE III; (2) 18 U.S.C. § 2381; AND (3) FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3)

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant with no legal experience, respectfully files this

MOTION after a RECUSED judicial officer - acting on behalf of The United States issued an

order(s) without jurisdiction. The Plaintiff references US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison

Dale Burroughs, who on June 19, 2017, recused herself from this case.1 As a matter of record,

this recusal came only AFTER the Plaintiff had evidenced judicial misconduct warranting the

judge’s recusal. However, the Court has never taken steps to VOID all related orders, despite

multiple efforts by the Plaintiff to address these evidenced violations with this US District Court,

the First Circuit Court of Appeals and The US Supreme Court. The Court is also aware that as a

matter of record, there has been an unprecedented EIGHT (8) additional Federal recusals

associated with this litigation that have followed since Judge Burroughs’ recusal. There can be

1
See Exhibit 1, to view the RECUSAL Order issued by US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
no confusion in understanding that jurisdiction is lost once a judge has recused themselves from

a case, including ALL related litigation. This Court is well-aware that this docket is directly

related to the following two (2) Federal complaints also filed with this Court:

1. HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Appeal No. 17-1381 and

Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752;

2. HARIHAR v HOWARD, et al (Docket No. 18-cv-11134).

As grounds for amendment, the Plaintiff references recent activity in the related civil complaint,

HARIHAR v US BANK, et al (Referenced above). On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed with

this court a Motion to amend his original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3), and for

removal of a related MA Civil Complaint to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 [ECF No.

156].

On July 29, 2019, US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs issued an order

WITHOUT JURISDICTION, denying the Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 157].2 As a respectful

reminder, the Plaintiff had previously identified SIX (6) identical violations of ruling without

jurisdiction as part of his initially filed judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Burroughs.

As a matter of record, the 7/29/19 order is perceived as a 7th violation to Article III and 18 U.S.

CODE § 2381.

On August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a REPLY to what is irrefutably considered a VOID order

issued without jurisdiction and a clear violation of ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. CODE § 2381 -

JUDICIAL TREASON [ECF No. 158]. EVEN IF jurisdiction was not an issue, the Plaintiff’s

2
See Exhibit 2, to view the VOID 7/29/19 order issued by recused US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
filed REPLY entirely discredits the content of the judge’s 4-page (void) order.

On August 6, 2019, despite being respectfully reminded of her 2017 Recusal, Judge Burroughs

issued another void order - in complete (and continued) disregard of the Constitution, Federal

Law and her judicial oath.3 In this 8th documented violation to Article III and 18 U.S. CODE

§ 2381, Judge Burroughs also threatens the Complainant with potential sanctions.

On August 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a new judicial misconduct complaint, informing the First

Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg of these recent developments.4 Due to the severity of

these evidenced claims that include (but are not limited to) Treason, the Plaintiff – as required by

Federal Law, also notified the White House, the DOJ, members of Congress and Governor

Charlie Baker (R-MA). The complaint also calls for the Circuit Executive to update the

Administrative Office of US Courts – specifically, Director James C. Duff.

Moving forward, these developments bring an increasing number of complex legal issues

impacting all three (3) civil (and related criminal) complaints which must now be addressed. The

Plaintiff first respectfully restates his request for assistance with the appointment of counsel,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 – IF he is still unable to retain counsel on his own. There should be

NO QUESTION that all three (3) civil complaints are TEXTBOOK examples that should

clearly support the Court’s discretion to assist with appointing counsel if needed. Additional

3
See Exhibit 3, to view the VOID 8/5/19 order issued by recused US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
4
See Exhibit 4, to view the Email communication delivered to First Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg on
8/20/19.
legal issues include (but are not limited to) the following:

1. US District Court Judge – Hon. Denise J. Casper has similarly LOST jurisdiction to

rule further in this or ANY related litigation, for the SAME IDENTICAL reasons that

brought the recusal of Judge Burroughs. A review of the historical record shows that the

Plaintiff has clearly articulated the evidenced FACTS that support his position –

including a VOID Dismissal order associated with this complaint. Therefore,

jurisdiction must first be restored before proceeding further in this case.

Respectfully, any attempt by Judge Casper (or any other disqualified judicial officer) to

continue ruling without jurisdiction will (at minimum) show cause to expand upon

Treason, Fraud on the Court and other claims;

2. Cause to Expand Upon Fed. R. Civ P. 60(b)(3) claims – By continuing to rule without

jurisdiction, a Judicial Officer acting on behalf of The United States has exemplified the

intention to continue deceiving this Court. Whether Judge Burroughs’ intention was to

prevent setting legal precedent and/or to ultimately DEFRAUD The United States (or

for ANY other reason), there can be no question that there is clear intention to deceive

this Court. Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to expand upon his Rule 60 claims. To be

clear, if there is no agreement between parties, upholding the evidenced Rule 60

claim must bring a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff – Mohan A.

Harihar, with prejudice.

3. Cause to Expand Upon Economic Espionage Claims - As a reminder, the Plaintiff’s

complaint seeks to recoup damages to his Intellectual Property (IP)/Trade Secret – THE

HARIHAR FCS MODEL© which Mr. Harihar created for the specific purpose of

helping The United States recover from damages associated with the 2008 US
Foreclosure Crisis. By continuing to issue orders without jurisdiction, Judge Burroughs

exemplifies the intent to continue damaging the Plaintiff’s IP/Trade Secret, which is

protected under the Economic Espionage Act - 18 U.S. Code § 1831.

4. Expansion of FTCA Claim(s) against the United States – Typically, the government is

liable for the operations of “federal agencies” and “employees.” Both terms are defined

by statute found at 28 USC § 2671. Federal agencies associated with any of the three

branches of the government are responsible under the act. 28 USC § 2674 states that the

United States shall be liable “in the same manner and to the same extent as a private

individual under like circumstances.” 28 USC § 1346 (b) states the basis for claims as

the “negligent or wrongful act or omission” of any government employee while acting

within the scope of his employment. Consequently, virtually every kind of negligence

action that could be brought against private individuals can be maintained against the

government whether based on misfeasance or nonfeasance. Aside from the numerous

judicial failures of record, there are also continued failures in both the Executive and

Legislative Branched of Government. Federal Prosecutors are still refusing to bring

criminal indictments for the Plaintiff’s evidenced criminal complaints; and

Legislative leaders continue to “Turn a Blind Eye” to systemic failures within the

Judicial Branch of Government. These evidenced historical actions (or lack thereof)

identified in ALL THREE (3) branches of government – individually and collectively

shows (at minimum) an INTENT to damage the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property, and

warrants the expansion of existing Federal Tort, Due Process, and Color of Law

Claims against the United States.


In closing, the Plaintiff makes clear by re-stating that it has ALWAYS been his intention to

ultimately reach mutual agreement(s) with The United States and ALL parties associated with

the related litigation, including (but not limited to) the Defendant - Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and separately, Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO/US BANK (Referencing

Docket No. 15-cv-11880). However, if no agreements are reached and these

judicial/government failures are allowed to continue – the Plaintiff is compelled as an American-

born citizen and by Federal law to continue the pursuit of accountability against all parties.

Therefore, for the reasons stated within (and once jurisdiction has been restored), the Plaintiff

calls for the Court to allow amendment to his original complaint. The Plaintiff also requests that

he be granted permission to file electronically through the Court’s ECF system.

Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief that this Notice: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such

as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported

by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing

law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

Please be advised, the referenced litigation is related to a new complaint now being

prepared for filing in The United States Court of Federal Claims; and includes matters

perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, the following government offices/agencies/


committees will necessarily receive copies of this formal letter (via email, US Mail and/or social

media):

1. President Donald J. Trump (via www.whitehouse.gov)5;


2. US Secret Service;
3. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS);
4. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
5. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
6. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;
7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
8. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;
9. 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. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA);

Copies of this letter will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide for

documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for the Plaintiff’s personal safety and

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

additional information, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for

the Court’s consideration of this very serious, and sensitive matter.

Respectfully submitted this 27th Day of August, 2019

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

5
See Exhibit 5 to review to the email confirmation of receipt from the White House.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs


Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:39 PM
To: Susan Goldberg <susan_goldberg@ca1.uscourts.gov>
Cc: governor.schedule@state.ma.us, "Constituent.services@state.ma.us"
<constituent.services@massmail.state.ma.us>, elizabeth warren
<elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>, Laurie Wood <lwood@supremecourt.gov>, Arthur T
Deguglielmo <arthur.deguglielmo@jud.state.ma.us>, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig
<dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, theresa watson3 <theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov>, andrew lelling
<andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov>, mary murrane <mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, christina sterling
<christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>, Nairoby Gabriel <Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov>, Nora Keefe
<Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov>, sydney levin-epstein <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>,
lori trahan <lori.trahan@mail.house.gov>, ayanna pressley <ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov>,
chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov,
CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us,
maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, "Murphy,
Matthew T." <mmurphy@casneredwards.com>, kmchugh@harmonlaw.com, "Jeffrey B. Loeb"
<JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>

Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant


7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526 (Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

August 20, 2019

Ms. Susan Goldberg


Circuit Executive
United States Courts for the First Circuit
1 Courthouse Way Suite 3700
Boston, MA 02210

RE: Evidenced Violation(s) to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381 by


RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs
Dear Ms. Goldberg:
This letter is urgently delivered to your direct attention to inform: (1) you, as the First Circuit
Executive; (2) the First Circuit Court of Appeals; and (3) the Administrative Office of US Courts
of a recently evidenced criminal violation(s) by RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon.
Allison Dale Burroughs. These violations are evidenced as part of the record associated with
Docket No. 15-cv-11880, HARIHAR v US BANK, et al (Appeal No. 17-1381 and Certiorari
Petition No. 18-7752). As a reminder, Judge Burroughs recused herself from the related civil
complaint – HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109 (Appeal No. 17-
2074) on June 19, 2017, after the Plaintiff/Complainant had evidenced for the record - judicial
misconduct warranting her recusal.6 However, the District Court has never taken steps to VOID
all related orders, despite multiple efforts by the Plaintiff to address these evidenced violations
with the US District Court, the First Circuit Court of Appeals and The US Supreme Court. You
are also aware that as a matter of record, there has been an unprecedented eight (8) additional
Federal recusals associated with this litigation that have followed since Judge Burroughs’
recusal. There can be no confusion in understanding that jurisdiction is lost once a judge has
recused themselves from a case (including ALL related litigation).

On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff/Complainant – Mohan A. Harihar filed with the US District Court
a Motion to amend his original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(3), and for removal of a
related MA Civil Complaint to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 [ECF No. 156].

On July 29, 2019, US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs issued an order
WITHOUT JURISDICTION, denying the Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 157].7 As a respectful
reminder, the Plaintiff/Complainant had previously identified SIX (6) identical violations of
ruling without jurisdiction as part of his initially filed judicial misconduct complaint against
Judge Burroughs. As a matter of record, the 7/29/19 order is perceived as a 7th violation to
Article III and 18 U.S. CODE § 2381.

On August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a REPLY to what is irrefutably considered a VOID order
issued without jurisdiction and a clear violation of ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. CODE § 2381 -
JUDICIAL TREASON [ECF No. 158]. EVEN IF jurisdiction was not an issue, the Plaintiff’s
reply entirely discredits the content of the judge’s 4-page (void) order.

On August 6, 2019, despite being respectfully reminded of her 2017 Recusal, Judge Burroughs
issued another void order - in complete (and continued) disregard of the Constitution, Federal
Law and her judicial oath.8 In this 8th documented violation to Article III and 18 U.S. CODE

6
See Exhibit 1 to view the RECUSAL ORDER issued by US District Court Judge - Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs on June 19, 2017.
7
See Exhibit 2, to view the VOID 7/29/19 order issued by recused US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
Burroughs.
8
See Exhibit 3, to view the VOID 8/5/19 order issued by recused US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale
§ 2381, Judge Burroughs also threatens the Complainant with potential sanctions.

This egregious judicial abuse of power cannot be allowed to continue and considering the
severity of issues - mental illness should not be ruled out. Ms. Goldberg, as Circuit Executive
the Complainant respectfully requests that you bring this matter to the immediate attention of
Director James C. Duff – Administrative Office of US Courts and to the attention of First
Circuit Chief Judge – Jeffrey R. Howard. There is also the clear expectation for the District
Court and the Appeals Court to finally initiate CORRECTIVE action by voiding ALL related
orders issued by Judge Burroughs. Based on my interpretation of the Constitution, the severity
of this evidenced judicial misconduct also warrants updating the Executive and Legislative
Branches under ARTICLES II and III. Please be advised, the White House, US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) have already been
notified of these criminal violations, as required by Federal law.

In closing, the Complainant makes clear by re-stating that it has ALWAYS been his intention to
ultimately reach mutual agreement(s) with ALL parties associated with this litigation – including
the Defendant Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Docket No. 15-cv-11880) and separately in the
related case with the Defendant - The United States (Docket No. 17-cv-11109). In recent days,
five (5) parties have expressed an interest in having a mutual agreement discussion, including:
(1) Bank Defendant – WELLS FARGO; (2) Bank Defendant - US BANK; (3) Defendant -
MERS, Inc.; (4) Defendant - Jeffrey Perkins; and (5) Defendant - Isabelle Perkins.
However, if no agreements are reached and these judicial failures are allowed to continue – the
Complainant is compelled as an American-born citizen and by Federal law to continue the
pursuit of accountability against all parties.

Please be advised, the referenced litigation is related to a new complaint now being
prepared for filing in The United States Court of Federal Claims; and includes matters
perceived to impact National Security. Therefore, the following government
offices/agencies/committees will necessarily receive copies of this formal letter (via email, US
Mail and/or social media):

1. President Donald J. Trump (via www.whitehouse.gov)9;


2. US Secret Service;
3. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS);
4. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
5. Office of the US Inspector General (OIG) - specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
6. Department of Justice (DOJ) - specifically, US Attorney General, William Barr;
7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
8. Administrative Office of US Courts - specifically, Director James C. Duff;
9. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA);

Burroughs.
9
See Exhibit C to review to the email confirmation of receipt from the White House.
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA);
14. US Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-MA);
15. The MA Office of the Inspector General; and
16. MA Attorney General Maura Healey

Copies of this letter will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide for
documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for the Complainant’s personal
safety and security. If you have ANY questions regarding any portion of this letter, or requires
additional information, the Complainant is happy to provide upon request.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted this 20th Day of August, 2019

Mohan A. Harihar
Complainant/Appellant
Exhibit 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 27, 2019, I filed the foregoing Motion with counsel for the
Defendants (listed below) via US Mail and Email Communication:

Mary Murrane
Assistant United States Attorney at U.S. Department of Justice
Chief of the Civil Division
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210
617.748.3100
mary.murrane@usdoj.gov

Andrew Lelling
United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210
617.748.3100
andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov

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