You are on page 1of 25

Mohan A.

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

Date

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky
Administrative Attorney
United States Courts For The First Circuit
1 Courthouse Way Suite 3700
Boston, MA 02210

RE: Supplement to Petition under Review of Judicial
Misconduct Complaint No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:
Since filing the referenced Judicial Misconduct Petition with the
Judicial Council (received February 14, 2017), there have been two
(2) actions that now warrant this supplement to the original
judicial misconduct petition.

First, an additional act of judicial misconduct is now alleged. The
judicial order, issued March 15, 2017 and associated with Document
No. 1371 of the referenced litigation, brings an incremental
allegation of TREASON to the Constitution against Judge Allison Dale
Burroughs.

The conscious decision made here AGAIN - to issue an order WITHOUT
JURISDICTION, reveals a BLATANT DISREGARD for the CONSTITUTION, and
the JUDICIAL MACHINERY that Judge Burroughs has sworn to uphold.
This continued PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT by a Federal District
Court Judge shows cause to now bring a FOURTH(4th) allegation of
Treason to the Constitution against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It
is the Plaintiff’s interpretation, that these evidenced offenses are
considered criminal in nature, and also provide grounds for
IMPEACHMENT.

By now, it SHOULD be clearly evident to ANY objective observer, that
NOT ONLY is a fair and impartial trial UNLIKELY, but it becomes
ABSOLUTELY clear that - a United States District Court Judge is
willing to commit multiple acts of Treason to prevent this Plaintiff

1 See Attachment A, Judicial Order associated with Document No. 137.
from ever arriving at a jury trial. As with prior orders called into
question, the Complainant respectfully filed a REPLY to the order
associated with Document No. 137.2 It would seem (at least on its
surface) that the District Court has AGAIN ignored the Plaintiff’s
REPLY. The Complainant also respectfully reminds this Council that
this litigation, initiated in MAY 2015, is now approaching ten (10)
months WITHOUT a move to the Discovery phase. Unnecessary judicial
delay is irrefutable.

Second, EVEN IF there was jurisdiction, the decision to issue the
referenced order DENYING REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS AND FEES is
considered an incremental ACT of BAD FAITH, committed by the United
States against this Plaintiff.

These evidenced actions by an officer of the Court show a deliberate
effort – by the UNITED STATES to ensure that a continued, and
increasing HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff continues. The Court SHOULD
have directed the Treasury Department to issue the requested
reimbursement on or before January 14, 2017. The Complainant, whom
the Court acknowledged as indigent, intended to use a portion of the
reimbursement to address variables responsible for the increased
hardship – i.e. repaying overdue taxes due to the United States and
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Instead, the Complainant has now
been made aware that TAX LIENS have been filed against him, by the
United States and the Commonwealth.

The Complainant understands that his filed Judicial Misconduct
Petition is currently under review with the Judicial Council. While
the Complainant certainly respects the legal process and the MANY
issues to address, the continued Acts of Bad Faith clearly evidenced
by Judge Burroughs, warrant (at minimum) the following IMMEDIATE
actions by this Council:

1. VALIDATE - this referenced, and continued Act of Bad Faith as
it applies to Document No. 137 and the Reimbursement of Costs
and Fees due to the Plaintiff;
2. AUTHORIZE - the Department of the Treasury (either directly or
via the District Court) to issue timely payment to the
Plaintiff/Complainant in the amount of $11,949,420 for the
referenced costs and fees on or before April 1, 2017.3

2 See Attachment B, Document No. 138, REPLY to Judicial Order Denying
Reimbursement…
3 If no payment is received by April 1, 2017, the updated

reimbursement due AFTER April 1, 2017 but before April 8, 2017, will
be $12,069,420. After April 8, 2017, any portion of reimbursement
still considered due to the Plaintiff/Complainant will be assessed
late fees and interest charges, similar in process to penalties
applied by the Internal Revenue Service.
Page 2
3. PROVIDE – the Complainant with an ANSWER, as to whether or not
the United States has interest in reaching a mutual agreement
in this legal matter.

Acknowledging this act of Bad Faith and taking the requested
corrective action will AT LEAST cease an increased hardship that has
unnecessarily burdened this Plaintiff/Complainant for nearly two (2)
years.

Finally, the Complainant has made clear - the increasing concerns
for HIS safety and security, and also concerns regarding
accountability for the criminal allegations associated with the
Judicial Misconduct Petition. There also remain grave concerns
related to the opinion(s) of Chief Justice Howard, who has yet to
take corrective action here. These collective actions (alleged) only
add to (at minimum) the Conspiracy, and Color of Law Claims brought
against the United States. For these reasons, copies of this
supplemental complaint will be delivered/made available to:

1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);
2. The House Judiciary Committee;
3. The Office of US Inspector General;
4. The Department of Justice;
5. The Public.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Council’s time and
consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

Complainant/Plaintiff

Page 3
Attachment A

Page 4
Page 5
Attachment B

Page 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

REPLY TO JUDICIAL ORDER DENYING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND FEES,

DOCUMENT NO. 137

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files

this REPLY to the judicial order, Document No. 137, issued on March

15, 2017 by Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The order comes one (1) day

after the Plaintiff filed a NOTICE (See Document No. 136) informing

the United States of OVERDUE COSTS and FEES owed to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the order, the Plaintiff respectfully disagrees with

Judge Burroughs’s decision, identifying the following serious issues

that now respectfully DEMAND immediate attention from a higher

authority:

I. The Judicial Order (Document No. 137) is considered VOID

First, it is the Plaintiff’s CLEAR INTERPRETATION of the LAW,

that the presiding judge – Allison D. Burroughs, has been

Page 7
DISQUALIFIED by law, and no longer has jurisdiction to rule in

this litigation. Therefore, the Order associated with Document

No. 137 (and ALL those prior) are considered VOID. The record

makes it abundantly clear as to how this interpretation of the

law has been made, with irrefutable evidence to support EVERY

portion of the Plaintiff’s claim(s). The Court is also aware

that the Plaintiff has filed a JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT(S)

against Judge Burroughs. A 118-page Judicial Misconduct

Petition is currently under review by the Judicial Council of

the First Circuit Appellate Court.4

II. FOURTH (4th) Allegation of TREASON to the Constitution

Since August 2016, the Plaintiff has brought multiple claims of

judicial misconduct, including three (3) separate allegations

of TREASON against Judge Allison D. Burroughs. These fully-

supported allegations are irrefutable, and are clearly

articulated - both within the record and also in the referenced

Judicial Misconduct Petition. The record additionally shows

that Judge Burroughs STILL, since August 2016 – has made NO

effort to DENY, DEFEND, or even ADDRESS these serious

allegations. The conscious decision made here again - to issue

an order WITHOUT JURISDICTION, reveals a BLATANT DISREGARD for

the CONSTITUTION, and the JUDICIAL MACHINERY that Judge

Burroughs has sworn to uphold. This continued PATTERN OF

4 The Judicial Misconduct Petition was officially received by the
Judicial Council of the First Circuit on February 14, 2017.
Page 8
CORRUPT CONDUCT by a Federal District Court Judge shows cause

to now bring a FOURTH(4th) allegation of Treason to the

Constitution against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It is the

Plaintiff’s interpretation, that these evidenced offenses are

considered criminal in nature, and also provide grounds for

IMPEACHMENT.

By now, it SHOULD be clearly evident to ANY objective observer,

that NOT ONLY is a fair and impartial trial UNLIKELY, but it

becomes ABSOLUTELY clear that a United States District Court

Judge is willing to commit multiple acts of Treason to prevent

this Plaintiff from ever arriving at a jury trial.

III. Refusal to Acknowledge Acts of BAD FAITH

A review of the record will clearly reveal the Plaintiff’s

evidenced claim(s) of BAD FAITH ACTS, committed against him by

the United States. Collectively, these referenced Acts of Bad

Faith articulated both in the record, and in the referenced

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PETITION include (but are not limited to):

i) Judicial Prejudice/Bias

ii) Judicial Fraud on the Court

iii) Treason to the Constitution (3 allegations)

iv) Refusal to Recuse (2 allegations)

v) Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel

vi) Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff

vii) Unnecessary Judicial Delay

Page 9
viii) Color of Law violations

ix) Conspiracy Claims

Here, in the issued order (Document No. 137)5, the previously

referenced order (Document No. 129)6, OR ANYWHERE for that

matter, Judge Burroughs fails to make a single reference to, or

take responsibility for, ANY act made by the United States in

BAD FAITH.

The record will ALSO show that the Plaintiff filed a REPLY to

the Order associated with Document No. 129, that appears (at

least on its surface) to have been completely ignored by Judge

Burroughs (See Document No. 131). In his REPLY to the Document

No. 129 Order, the Plaintiff states the following: “It is

important to RE-STATE, that the Plaintiff relief sought at this

point in the litigation, stems from BAD FAITH ACTIONS caused by

the UNITED STATES and JUDGE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS. Document No.

129 makes NO MENTION of Bad Faith acts, appearing to avoid

accountability and resulting harm to this Plaintiff. If these

referenced BAD FAITH acts had not been committed by the United

States, AT MINIMUM, the Plaintiff would not be suffering

increased hardships; there would likely be experienced legal

counsel representing the Plaintiff; and this litigation would

likely be constructively farther along than it is now. If 28

5 See Attachment A, Document No. 137
6 See Attachment B, Document No. 129
Page 10
U.S. Code § 2412 (c)(2)7 is not the appropriate legal reference

for addressing ACTIONS MADE IN BAD FAITH, it further

underscores the need for the COURT to assist the Plaintiff with

retaining (already requested) legal counsel.”

THEREFORE, EVEN IF Judge Burroughs still had jurisdiction,

neither order addresses the primary issues that include Acts of

Bad Faith. There appears only – the intention of reaching a

pre-determined disposition to DENY the Plaintiff’s motion(s).

With regard to the reimbursement of Costs and Fees, the ONLY

argument that MAY remain is whether the United States bears

full responsibility for the reimbursement to the Plaintiff, OR

if the Defendants SHOULD share proportionate responsibility.

IV. Re-affirmation that the Court’s assistance with the appointment

of Counsel is warranted, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1915

The Plaintiff respectfully acknowledges that for reasons stated

in the Document No. 137 Order, 45 C.F.R. 30.11 MAY not be the

correct legal reference, and that the original reference to 28

U.S. Code § 2412 (c)(2) is believed to be appropriate. Judge

Burroughs’s clarification of the order is yet another example

7Per 28 U.S. Code § 2412 (c)(2) - Any judgment against the United
States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in
his or her official capacity for fees and expenses of attorneys
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid as provided in sections
2414 and 2517 of this title, except that if the basis for the award
is a finding that the United States acted in BAD FAITH, then the
award shall be paid by any agency found to have acted in bad faith
and shall be in addition to any relief provided in the judgment.

Page 11
which re-affirms – that the Court’s assistance with the

appointment of Counsel is clearly warranted.

The Plaintiff has consistently made clear that he is not an

attorney and has no legal background. The Factually supported

issues involved are too complex for the Plaintiff to present

entirely without the assistance of experienced legal counsel.

Experienced legal expertise is required in a number of areas

including (at minimum): Real Estate/ Foreclosure Law,

Intellectual Property Rights associated with a National

Economic Plan, Litigation involving State and Federal

Government, Federal Trial Court Litigation, The US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis, Judicial Misconduct, Violations

to Due Process, Color of Law Violations, Civil Conspiracy

Claims and Federal Tort Claims.

The Plaintiff has repeatedly questioned where exactly the bar

has been set to assist with the appointment of counsel, AND

exactly how Judge Burroughs could possibly have arrived at her

conclusions – NO CLARIFICATION HAS EVER BEEN PROVIDED, EVEN

WHEN REQUESTED. Here, it is completely unrealistic to expect

ANY pro se litigant to successfully litigate this matter in its

entirety, considering the number of complex subjects requiring

legal expertise. Also, when the Commonwealth (AND the United

States)8 are in reality – two (2) of the opposing parties (as is

8 The Complainant has already taken the legal steps to inform the
United States of his intention to file suit either separately or
through an amendment of the existing complaint. The Complainant has
Page 12
the case here) and when the interests of the indigent litigant,

although not involving his personal liberty, are fundamental

and compelling, due process and fundamental fairness require a

presumption in favor of appointed counsel.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

acknowledged that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) the district court

has broad discretion to appoint counsel and that the denial of

counsel "will not be overturned unless it would result in

fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights.” The

court said that the district court's decision must "rest upon

the court's careful consideration of all the circumstances of

the case, with particular emphasis upon certain factors that

have been recognized as highly relevant to a request for

counsel.”

The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning

heavily towards the necessary appointment of counsel:

1. Merits of the Plaintiff’s Claim;

2. Position to investigate crucial facts;

3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both

sides are represented by persons trained in the presentation

of evidence and in cross-examination;

additionally offered an opportunity to the United States to seek
agreement, and awaits a decision.
Page 13
4. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of

appeals quoted Gordon v. Leeke, "If it is apparent to the

district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim

but lacks the capacity to present it, the district court

should appoint counsel to assist him.”;

5. The district court should consider the complexity of the

legal issues the claim raises. When the law is so clearly

settled that counsel will serve no purpose, the court should

deny a request for counsel. When, however, the law is not

clear, justice will be better served if both sides are

represented by persons trained in legal analysis.

While the Plaintiff understands that assistance with the

appointment of counsel is rare, it SHOULD be recognized that

the Court’s assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. §1915 is clearly

warranted here. By refusing to assist the Plaintiff with the

appointment of counsel, Judge Burroughs has exemplified

Prejudice and an incremental Act of Bad Faith against this

Plaintiff (28 U.S. Code § 144), and has chosen NOT to support

or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective

observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's

impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is

unlikely.

Page 14
It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that if the Plaintiff had experienced

legal counsel representing him from the beginning – whether

with, or without the assistance of the Court, this litigation

would be in the position it finds itself in now. It is FAR MORE

LIKELY that by now, the process would be well past the

Discovery phase, potentially with additional claims, and on a

TIMELY path to a jury trial. It is also entirely plausible,

that by now a settlement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the

UNITED STATES, would have been reached.

In the meantime, the Plaintiff’s time should be considered no

less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly

evidenced FACTS demonstrate an ACT of BAD FAITH, made by the

United States against this Plaintiff/ Complainant. The

Plaintiff has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the

reimbursement for COSTS and FEES, and has yet to receive a

TIMELY payment from the United States Treasury Department. The

United States has respectfully been informed, that (at minimum)

the referenced legal fees will continue to accrue until either:

A. The Court RIGHTFULLY assists with the appointment of

counsel; or

B. The Plaintiff is able to secure legal counsel on his own.

Legal Fees will continue to accrue at an hourly rate of $1000

per hour, and will remain capped at 40 hours per week. The

TOTAL updated accrual due to the Plaintiff thru week ending

Page 15
March 25, 2017 is $3,943,140 (includes previously reported

Transportation, Housing and Legal costs). The evidenced Act of

Bad Faith warrants treble costs bringing the updated total to

$11,829,420.

V. Congressional Intervention, Criminal Investigation(s) now

warranted

Due to the severity of Civil AND Criminal allegations within

the Plaintiff’s complaint including (but not limited to)

conspiracy claims, judicial misconduct, etc…, Congressional

intervention and criminal investigations are certainly

warranted. Therefore, a copy of this filed REPLY will

additionally be delivered to the following

Offices/Agencies/Courts:

A. The Judicial Council of the First Circuit Appellate Court

B. The Executive Office of the President (EOP)

C. The Office of the United States Inspector General

D. The House Judiciary Committee

E. Members of Congress

F. The Department of Justice

VI. Fear for Personal Safety

The Plaintiff’s complaint addresses civil and criminal issues

related to US Foreclosure Crisis. Many Americans consider this

Foreclosure Crisis to be “The largest case of FRAUD” in US

history. It is believed by many, to involve elements of

corruption at a very high level. The Department of Justice

Page 16
(DOJ)9 AND the MA Attorney General’s Office (MA-AGO) are BOTH on

record as stating that they WILL NOT protect this Plaintiff –

AN AMERICAN BORN CITIZEN, from the EVIDENCED CRIMINAL

MISCONDUCT committed against him. The Plaintiff NO LONGER FEELS

SAFE walking down the street or in his own apartment. Now, the

judicial misconduct allegations involving Judge Burroughs and

only heighten these safety concerns.

For safety and security reasons, and also to inform the

millions of Americans who stand to be negatively impacted by

these acts (alleged) – the Plaintiff has, and will continue to

make these evidenced FACTS available to the PUBLIC, including

this REPLY to the judicial order associated with Document No.

137.

The 4.2M parties who were similarly harmed and incurred damages

from an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE certainly should be forewarned that

– if they so choose to legally seek damages resulting from an

illegal foreclosure, they are likely to face similar elements

of misconduct, including (but not limited to) government

corruption, as exemplified throughout this litigation.

VII. CONCLUSION

Based on collective Facts as described here, within Document

No. 135 and throughout the record, it becomes necessary for

this Court to initiate CORRECTIVE action PRIOR to moving

forward. Corrective action SHOULD include (at minimum):

9 Department of Justice, as led under the Obama Administration.
Page 17
A. A Conclusion that the existing argument(s)/circumstances DOES

IN FACT warrant immediate relief to this Plaintiff, as

described. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court

direct the Treasury Department to issue the referenced

reimbursement of costs and fees due to the Plaintiff. The

updated reimbursement through week ending March 25, 2017 is

$11,829,420. To avoid additional LATE FEES and INTEREST added

to the principle balance, it is again requested that the

COURT authorize the Treasury Department to TIMELY issue

payment, payable to the Plaintiff for the referenced amount

due, on or before March 25, 2017.10 Efforts made by ANY party

to prevent the Plaintiff from rightfully receiving this

reimbursement will be interpreted as an attempt to cause

further harm and damage(s) to the Plaintiff;

B. Initiating next steps with the appropriate

Court/Committees/Agencies (i.e. The Judicial Council of the

First Circuit, The House Judiciary Committee and the

Department of Justice), in addressing the criminal

allegations brought forth against Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs;

C. The Court’s assignment of a District Court Judge that HAS

jurisdiction to rule in the referenced litigation;

D. The Court’s assistance with the assignment of counsel;

Should it become necessary to assess late fees and interest to the
10

principle balance, the Plaintiff will reference procedures used by
the IRS, MA-DOR and other creditors for calculating these variables.
Page 18
E. Provide the Plaintiff with a definitive ANSWER, whether or

not the United States has interest in reaching a MUTUAL

AGREEMENT.

VIII. 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.

.

If the Court has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional

information or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon

request.

Page 19
Respectfully Submitted,

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

Page 20
Attachment A

Page 21
Page 22
Attachment B

Page 23
Page 24
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mohan A. Harihar, Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day,
March 19, 2017, served the foregoing document upon all parties, by
electronically filing to all ECF registered parties (Includes ALL
Defendants).

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

Page 25