IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. MOHAN A. HARIHAR, Plaintift/Appellant, Case No. 17-1381 US BANK, et al Defendants/Appellees. REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGEMENT COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who hereby requests the Clerk enter a DEFAULT against Appellees ~ David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson, on the basis that the record in this case demonstrates that there has been a failure to timely file a notice of appearance, as mandated by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure: Local Rule 12(a)Representation Statement, Appearance. A representation statement must take the form of an appearance, in a form prescribed by this court. Attorneys for both appellant and appellee must file appearance forms within 14 days after the case is docketed in the court of appeals. The record indicates that the notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2017. Therefore, the 14-day timeline to file an appearance expired on May 2, 2017. While the record does show a filedappearance by Attorney Fialkow, itis strictly on behalf of Appellees ~ US Bank NA, Wells Fargo NA, K&L Gates LLP, and RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-I ONLY. Additional Contributing Factors: 1. Jurisdiction ~ For the many evidenced reasons articulated in the Appellant’s Judicial Misconduct Petition, Judge Allison D. Burroughs is believed to have been disqualified by law to rule in the referenced litigation. All related orders issued by Judge Burroughs ~ (the Dismissal order and all those prior) are considered VOID. ‘That includes orders related to Fialkow and Patterson’s Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement. Even if there was still a question regarding jurisdiction, it does not excuse Appellees from filing a noti of appearance here. 2. Both Appellees — Fialkow and Patterson are experienced attomeys working for a GLOBAL law firm. They certainly SHOULD have known better. Attorney Fialkow receives electronic notification via the court’s ECF/PACER system. Legal Assistant, Stephanie Mastrocola (K&L Gates) is also listed as receiving ECF notifications. Fialkow and Patterson are both employed by K&L Gates. Both work out of the same Boston Office. There can be NO DOUBT, that a Notice of Appeal was filed. If it was the intention of the Appellees to have David E. Fialkow as the representing attorney (as in the District Court), the notice of appearance filed on April 21, 2017, SHOULD have indicated so. It did not, and there has been no additional filing on behalf of Appellees — Fialkow or Patterson. 3. Appellee K&L Gates LLP — is the law firm that employs Appellees — David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson. Legal action is brought by the Appellant against all three parties‘as separate entities. Therefore, the Notice of Appearance filed on April 21, 2017 does not apply to Appellees Fialkow or Patterson. 4. Danger of Prejudice to the Appellant — failure to hold Appellees Fialkow and Patterson accountable for filing requirements will certainly add to an already lengthy list of evidenced prejudice claims made by the Appellant against US District Court Judge — Alllison D. Burroughs and the United States.' Additional concerns have also been raised regarding the initial opinions of Chief Justice Howard ~ which, if left uncorrected, shows cause to expand upon prejudice/bad faith claims against the Unit 5. Length of Delay and its Impact on Judicial Proceedings ~ The Appellant has already lost nearly two (2) years of his States. fe due to unnecessary judicial delay exemplified in the lower US District court alone. Evidenced Fraud on the Court violations? AND Lack of Jurisdiction are just two (2) of the contributing factors to this damaging delay. If the Court were to disregard the local rule here, it would show cause to expand upon existing claims alleging Bad Faith by the United States. 6. Reason for the Delay ~ Appellees Fialkow and Patterson have provided no reason that would prohibit them from timely filing a notice of appearance with this Court. 7. Whether the Delay was in Reasonable Control of the Appellee ~ If it was intended that Attorney Fialkow would be the representing attomey, as in the lower court, notice of appearance certainly could have been filed on April 21, 2017, along with the existing notice on record. If however, different counsel was intended to represent Appellees ! The Court is aware that a Judicial Misconduct Petition is still pending before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit ? Fraud on the Court claims are alleged by the Appellant against ALL Defendant/Appellees and also Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.Fialkow and Patterson at the Appellate level, there has been NO reason provided that would allow a delay for filing a notice of appearance. 8. Whether the Appellees acted in Good Faith ~ The Appellant brings evidenced allegations that include (but are not limited to) - Fraud on the Court violations, pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3). The Appellant has clearly shown that ALL defendants/appellces INCLUDING David E. Fialkow AND Jeffrey S. Patterson were aware that clear title did not exist with the Plaintiff's property and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud him of his HOMESTEAD. A thorough review and VALIDATION of the historical record will reveal that neither David E. Fialkow nor Jeffrey S. Patterson have acted in Good Faith, and there should be no allowance for this excusable neglect (Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 07 U.S. 380, 113 S, Ct., 123 L. Ed. 2d 74 (1993), 9. With the evidenced Fraud on the Court and associated criminal allegations, immunity and/or protections under the 5" Amendment are considered unavailable. Furthermore, the District Court record will show that NO APPELLEE, including David E. Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson - not even the Commonwealth has made a single effort to DISPUTE or DENY referenced fraud on the court allegations. 10. This latest development adds to increased legal complexity of this case, further warranting the Court’s assistance with the appointment of counsel. 11. The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that ALL APPELLEES, including David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson have been afforded numerous opportunities by the Appellant to reach a mutual agreement, all of which have been ignored or declined. * Reference Document No. 117 of the lower court record, filed July 3, 2016,CONCLUSION Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Court: 1. Find the Appellees ~ David E. Fialkow and Jefffey S. Patterson in DEFAULT for failure to file a notice of appearance; 2. Issue a Summary Judgement IN FAVOR of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar vs. Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jefirey S. Patterson; 3. Assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel to determine, along with the Court, the appropriate portion of civil damages assessed to Appellees Fialkow and Patterson; 4. Assess appropriate licensure penalties including but not limited to disbarment for conduct unbecoming and to inform the appropriate BAR associations; 5. Criminal charges against Appellees — David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson are expected to follow, once the DOJ assigns a Federal/Special Prosecutor; a federal grand Jury has been assembled; and a full criminal investigation has concluded. Respectfully submitted this 3rd Day of May, 2017. Appellant 7124 Avalon Drive ‘Acton, MA 01720 Me rihar@ gmail.comCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that on May 3, 2017 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 CMIECF 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