You are on page 1of 11

Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731



Plaintiff/Appellant )
) Case No. 17-2074
v. )
Defendant/Appellee )


PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915

Disclosure Statement of the Appellant - The Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully

prefaces this NOTICE with the following Disclosure statement:

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the Civil Complaint against THE UNITED

STATES, this associated Appeal, and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited

to) evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution,

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832 and are believed to impact matters of

National Security. Therefore, copies of this filed MOTION are sent via email, social media

and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector

General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, members of the US

Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight

The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-cv-1381 (Also,
lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made

available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve as WITNESS to these

evidenced acts of misconduct (alleged). Parties are additionally informed for documentation

purposes, and out of the Appellants continued concerns for his personal safety/security.

JURISDICTION here remains an issue This Court is respectfully reminded that evidenced

(and UNOPPOSED) judicial misconduct claims stand against TEN (10) officers of the First

Circuit Court (both the District and Appellate Courts). Here in the US Court of Appeals, the

evidenced record indicates that the following Circuit Judges are DISQUALIFIED BY LAW to

rule in this, or ANY RELATED legal matter:

1. Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard;

2. Judge Juan R. Torruella;

3. Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.;

4. Judge David J. Barron; and

5. Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson.

Please be advised should there be a ruling on this motion by any one of the referenced judges,

it will be interpreted as ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION, and an INCREMENTAL act of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The Constitution. ALREADY, Treason claims

(one count each) stand unopposed against Chief Justice Howard and Judge Kayatta. It should

also be noted that the filed judicial misconduct complaints in part, were filed due to the

DISTRICT AND APPELLATE Courts failure(s) to properly exercise legal discretion in

assisting Mr. Harihar with the appointment of counsel. Once jurisdiction has been re-established,

the presiding Circuit Judges should be familiar with the totality of legal issues warranting

such a motion both here in this complaint against The United States, AND in the related
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

complaint, HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No, 17-1381, Lower Court Docket No. 15-


COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests the

Courts assistance with the appointment of counsel, based (at minimum) on the following


1. The Appellant has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND and does not have the financial means

to retain counsel. Both of these FACTS have been recognized by the US District Court

and this US Appeals Court.

2. Based on the claims listed in the submitted SF-95 form and the additional/expanded

allegations raised against the United States since, legal expertise is required (at

minimum) in the following areas:

a. Violations to the Due Process Clause;

b. Color of Law Violations;

c. Civil/Criminal RICO Violations;

d. Federal Tort Claims;

e. Treason to the Constitution;

f. Fraud on the Court (Judicial);

g. Judicial Misconduct;

h. Evidenced Acts made in BAD FAITH;

i. Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony);

j. Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Espionage;

k. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;

l. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential

Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis;

m. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law;

n. Litigation involving State and Federal Government;

o. US District and Appellate Court Litigation;

p. Civil Conspiracy Claims

q. Obstruction of Justice Claims.

3. When THE UNITED STATES is the OPPOSING PARTY (as is 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.

4. Evidenced Merits of the Appellants consistent claims;

5. Position to investigate crucial facts;

6. 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;

7. Capability of the Appellant 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


8. The Court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s) raises. When
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

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.

9. While the Appellant understands that assistance with the appointment of counsel is rare,

it SHOULD be recognized that the Courts assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 is

clearly warranted here, in what many would certainly consider as a TEXTBOOK case


It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that if the Appellant 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 STILL be in the lower court, well past the Discovery phase,

potentially with additional claims, and on a TIMELY AND CONSTRUCTIVE path to a

just resolution. It is also entirely plausible, that by now a settlement agreement between

Mr. Harihar and THE UNITED STATES, would have been reached.2

10. By thus far refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not only

caused increased hardship to the Appellant, but has also WASTED (collectively) over two

(2) years of the litigants and the Courts time. The Appellants time should be considered

no less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly evidenced FACTS

demonstrate ACT(S) of BAD FAITH, made by the United States against this Appellant.

The Appellant has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the reimbursement for

COSTS and FEES (Reference Document No. 16), and has yet to receive a timely

It should be noted, that in the lower court, The United States DID NOT file opposition to the
Plaintiffs request(s) for assistance with the appointment of Counsel.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

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;

b. The Appellant is able to secure legal counsel on his own; or

c. A MUTUAL AGREEMENT has been reached between Mr. Harihar and The

United States.

11. Appellants Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own For over six (6) years,

the Appellant has reached out to a countless number of law firms, in an effort to secure and

retain legal counsel. These efforts have been unsuccessful, not because the claims lack

merit, but primarily for the following reasons:

a. Conflict of interest;

b. Unwilling to consider a contingency agreement;

c. Not equipped to handle a case of this magnitude;

d. Fear of negative repercussion The Appellants complaint(s) is tied to what many

(worldwide) consider the largest case of FRAUD in US history, and exposes

corruption at a very high level. EVEN WITH A WELL-SUPPORTED $42B

COMPLAINT THAT HAS MERIT - The Appellant has found that many law

firms are fearful that if they choose to represent him, they are CERTAIN to face

some form of negative repercussion - and likely career ending.

12. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon

existing claims against the United States. The Appellants filed complaint brings multiple

claims against the United States. The Court is aware that ALL three (3) branches of

government previously received notice of the Appellants legal intentions, including the

required SF-95 form. The Appellant (through related litigation) previously offered the
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

United States opportunities to seek agreement, with multiple efforts (unsuccessful) through

the District court to get a response. Counsel is needed to assist with addressing these issues,

whether it is in reaching a mutual agreement, or continued legal action(s). Refusing to assist

the Appellant with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing

(and potentially new) claims against the United States.

Based on the reasons stated within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by

this Court:

1. That this Appellate Court exercise warranted judicial discretion and ASSIST the

Appellant with the appointment of counsel. The Appellant is certainly willing to consider

entering into a contingency agreement with eligible law firms;

2. VALIDATE the referenced Act(s) of Bad Faith by the lower Court, denying assistance

with appointment of counsel and also IGNORING the Appellants demand(s) for a

clarification hearing;

3. Upon validation, APPROVING the reimbursement of accruing COSTS and FEES owed

to the Appellant, and notifying the Treasury Department to TIMELY issue payment to the


For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this document to the President, the email

from The White House confirming receipt is attached (See Attachment A) with the filed Court

copy. If this Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the

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

hearing and with the presence of an independent court reporter.

Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

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 Motion: (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.

Respectfully submitted this 8th Day of November, 2017.

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731

Attachment A
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731


I hereby certify that on November 8, 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 CM/ECF users:

Dina Michael Chaitowitz

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720