Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)
The Appellant respectfully prefaces this EMERGENCY MOTION with the following
Disclosure: The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal, its lower court docket
no. 15-cv-11880, and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited to) evidenced
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
1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the
Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally
informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for
personal safety/security.
AFTER REVIEWING the Summary Judgment issued January 17, 2018 by Circuit Judges -
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar disagrees, revealing a list
of obvious errors warranting summary reversal under 1ST CIR. LOC. R. 27.0(c) and the timely
request for re-hearing under FRAP Rule 40. Since the record reveals evidenced claims
request is made for an EN BANC re-hearing pursuant to FRAP RULE 35.2 The concern here
however, is that evidenced judicial misconduct claims have been brought against FIVE (5)
out of ELEVEN (11) circuit judges (45%), including Chief Justice Howard. The Appellant
has made clear through multiple evidenced arguments of record, indicating that the
INTEGRITY of this First Circuit Appeals Court is compromised, and that a just decision
here is unlikely.
The list of evidenced errors associated with this judgment is lengthy, certainly egregious, and
includes (but is not limited to) EVIDENCED claims of TREASON under ARTICLE III,
2
The proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must
be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of
exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the
authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.
The Petition length is considered compliant with Rules 35 and 40 (excluding footnotes,
attachments, headers and signature lines.
1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
with the filing of this motion, the DEMAND for Congressional intervention is (again)
necessarily made.3 A further, detailed explanation of judicial error(s) is detailed in the following:
The Appellant first addresses judicial errors made by both the lower court AND this
U.S.C. §1915. The Appellant has clearly articulated through multiple motions and in his
DENIED without valid cause. The record also reveals that despite repeated demands for
Local Rule 27(c) Summary Disposition. At any time, on such notice as the court may
order, on motion of appellee or sua sponte, the court may dismiss the appeal or other
request for relief or affirm and enforce the judgment or order below if the court lacks
of obvious error the court may, similarly, reverse. Motions for such relief should be
Such is the case here. The repeated failure(s) to exercise judicial discretion supporting
28 U.S.C. §1915 – throughout this litigation shows (at minimum): 1.) the INTENT to
3
Copies of this emergency motion will be delivered to US Senator – Elizabeth Warren (D-
MA) and US Congresswoman -Niki Tsongas (D-MA) requesting their assistance to bring these
evidenced claims of judicial misconduct including TREASON before Congress. Please note -
ANY FAILURE to bring this matter to the attention of Congress will (at minimum) be considered
MISPRISION OF TREASON, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382.
2
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
2.) the INTENT to PREVENT PRECEDENT from being set – impacting at least 4.2M
other parties nationwide (see additional explanation below). These obvious errors
The continued refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel also shows cause to
expand upon existing DUE PROCESS, CONSPIRACY (and other) claims against the
United States in the related complaint, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Appeal
Justice and Federal Bank Regulators. For example - If you have 4.2M potential
lawsuits which now can rely on precedent, each suit averaging $1M, total legal risk
becomes $4.2T. Now imagine if precedent is additionally set with the appointment of
motion to vacate dismissal w/ damages was filed on 12/23/17 in the related Appeal –
reading the judgment order, it appears (at least on its surface) that Circuit Judges -
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron, have wrongfully DENIED this EMERGENCY motion,
4
See Attachment A – provided as reference for the President, members of Congress, DOJ,
and the American Public.
3
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
to determine exactly HOW these referenced judges could possibly have arrived at
their conclusion considering the valid arguments provided by this Appellant, AND the
unopposed motion of The United States. The DEMAND is once again respectfully
made for a separate hearing with the presence of an independent court reporter to
is clear and irrefutable. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is
required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's
that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis
added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994). Without going any further, these
evidenced facts alone reinforce the Appellant’s consistent claims that Circuit Judges -
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron are DISQUALIFIED by law to rule in this, or ANY
related litigation. Their conscious decision to then issue judgment here WITHOUT
Since initially bringing evidenced judicial misconduct claims dating back to August
2016, the Appellant has raised jurisdiction issues documented in NO LESS THAN
4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Appellant’s Brief.5 NOT EVEN ONCE, has this Federal Judiciary addressed the
Appellant’s issues pertaining to jurisdiction. EVEN NOW, upon reading through this
summary judgment, Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron make only a
“We bypass the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellees regarding the scope of the
appeal. See United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59, 64 n.5 (1st Cir.) (noting that "[t]he defects
in the notice of appeal do not bear upon Article III subject matter jurisdiction")”
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron are DISQUALIFIED by law to rule in this, or ANY
related litigation. These judicial failures only add to evidenced arguments supporting
This Court is respectfully reminded that ALL evidenced judicial misconduct claims
previously filed by the Appellant against ALL TEN (10) referenced court officers
UNOPPOSED.
These obvious errors pertaining to JURISDICTION alone warrant reversal under Local
Rule 27(c).
5
Reference is collectively made to filings within: 1.) this Appeal No. 17-1381, 2.) the lower
court Docket No. 15-cv-11880; 3.) the related Appeal No. 17-2074 (Harihar v. The United
States); 4.) the lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109; 5.) the Judicial Misconduct complaints
filed with Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard; and 6.) the Judicial Misconduct Petitions filed with
the First Circuit Executive and the Judicial Council.
5
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
III. THE ATTEMPT TO ISSUE JUDGMENT WITHOUT JURISDICTION
The Appellant first references the RECUSAL of District Court Judge Allison Dale
Burroughs from the related case – HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. The
collective circumstances which ultimately led to the judge’s recusal are IDENTICAL (in
part and/or extremely similar) to the circumstances now involving Circuit Judges -
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron. The evidenced judicial misconduct of record signifies:
1.) disqualification to rule further, and 2.) their conscious decision to continue ruling
The Appellant next references the September 19, 2017 motion filed with this Court that
brings an evidenced claim of treason against Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta for ruling
without jurisdiction. The motion also provides an overview of the evidenced judicial
misconduct claims brought against NINE (9) other Federal Judges – ALL WITHIN
THE FIRST CIRCUIT, and include Circuit judges Torruella and Barron. As
UNOPPOSED.6
NOW, the conscious decisions by Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron to
treason claims. For Judge Kayatta, this is a second count of treason. Since these treason
claims are evidenced within the record, the Appellees/Defendants, their attorneys
and the Appeals Court Clerk – Margaret Carter ALL serve as WITNESS to these
serious crimes. Any failure or refusal to serve as witness to treason against The United
6
Includes (but is not limited to) THREE (3) additional (and UNOPPOSED) TREASON claims
evidenced against: 1.) District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, 2.) District Court Judge
Denise J. Casper and 3.) Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard.
6
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Code § 2382. Already, the Appellees/Defendants, their attorneys and three (3) officers of
the court7 stand accused of Misprision of Treason (three counts each). Refusal by any
party to serve here as witness to treason will necessarily bring incremental claims of
misprision.
By Federal law, the Appellant necessarily informs The President of The United
States of these evidenced acts of Treason, by delivering a copy of this motion to his
These obvious errors pertaining to TREASON alone warrant reversal (at minimum)
As explained throughout the record, ONE (1) of the main factors that removed
jurisdiction from District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs and ultimately contributed
to her RECUSAL, was her conscious decision to IGNORE Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) –
FRAUD ON THE COURT claims. In addition, these claims of record stand against
on the court was never scheduled, and the District Court FAILED to issue a DEFAULT
7
Misprision of Treason claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 are filed against Circuit Clerk –
ROBERT M. FARRELL, Circuit Clerk MARGARET CLARK and Deputy Clerk –
MATTHEW A. PAINE
8
The filed court copy of this motion will include proof of delivery (and receipt) from the White
House (See Attachment C). The Department of Justice, members of Congress, House Judiciary
Committee, and the FBI will similarly receive copies of this motion.
7
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
On Appeal, Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta, Barron and Chief Justice Howard
P. 60(b)(3) claims.9 The record shows multiple efforts where the Appellant respectfully
for clarification were wrongfully denied without cause, and the Appellant had no
alternative but to file his brief with a shortened timeline and without the assistance of
counsel.
EVEN IF Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron still had jurisdiction, their
conscious decision to now DENY the Appellant’s Rule 60(b) claims WITHOUT EVER
judicial machinery of the Court. This refusal to uphold Federal law in itself disqualifies
referenced judges from ruling further in this litigation, and was a primary factor in
bringing a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. In their
“The appellees have moved for summary disposition on the grounds that Harihar has
It is unclear exactly how Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron could possibly
have reached such a conclusion. In his brief, the Appellant addresses a number of
substantial questions BEGINNING WITH the UNOPPOSED Rule 60(b) claims, AND
9
There are two (2) errors here: 1.) The failure to identify errors made by the District Court, and
2.) Ignoring the incremental 60(b) claims brought against Defendant/Appellees on Appeal.
8
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
the Judge Burroughs’ failure to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court. As reference,
Mr. Harihar attaches a copy of his filed Appellant Brief for the President, other
“Harihar has offered no argument in his opening brief to suggest reversible error in the
district court's two decisions granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. Harihar has
thus waived any challenge to the district court's disposition of the merits of his claims.
See Best Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v. Universal Ins. Grp., 875 F.3d 733, 737 (1st Cir. 2017)
(affirming merits decision on waiver grounds where appellants failed to address the
It is again unclear how Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron could possibly
have reached such a conclusion. A review of the Appellant’s brief (See Statement of
Issues, p. 8) raises six (6) issues, each with irrefutable arguments suggesting reversible
error:
1. Whether the District Court failed to assist the Appellant with the appointment of
Claims?
10See Attachment B, Pages 33-71, provided as reference for the President, members of
Congress, DOJ, and the American Public.
9
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
3. Whether the District Court failed to (at minimum) correctly address the
4. Whether the District Court failed to address the Appellant’s claims regarding
“The Appellant Brief addresses PRIMARILY, the evidenced Fraud on the Court
documented within the record), they are also interpreted as MOOT, based on the
unopposed Rule 60(b)(3) claim, and what by law MUST result in a default
judgement. Should it become necessary to provide the Court with additional facts
supporting appeal, the Appellant will (at minimum) require an extended timeline to
do so, restating his request for assistance to appoint counsel, and the Court’s
The assertion that, “Harihar has thus waived any challenge to the district court's
disposition of the merits of his claims” - is certainly incorrect, and the associated case
reference is therefore improperly applied. What does become increasingly clear is that
10
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron continue their efforts to: 1.) cause
additional harm to the Appellant and 2.) purposefully deceive this Court.11
These obvious errors exemplifying judicial fraud on the court warrant judgment
“We have reviewed the other claims of error identified in Harihar's opening brief and
conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court in
The Appellant calls for clarification here AND for the record, to identify specifically,
which “other claims of error” are referred to here, AND EXACTLY HOW– EVEN IF
there was jurisdiction, Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron could possibly have
reached their conclusion(s). As outlined NOT ONLY in the Appellant’s brief, but also in the
recently filed MOTION TO VACATE W/DAMAGES,12 the Appellant has raised no less
BOTH the District and Appeals Court. It SHOULD be noted that with the DUPLICATE
MOTION filed with THE RELATED APPEAL NO. 17-2074, THE UNITED STATES,
B).
11
With the filing of this motion, the Appellant necessarily files a supplemental judicial
misconduct complaint with the Circuit Executive.
12
Duplicate motions were filed – here on December 24, 2017 and previously on December 23,
2017 in the related Appeal No. 17-2074, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES.
11
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Considering the severity (and totality) of these evidenced claims, this VAGUE
description by Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron gives the appearance
impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface), that elements of corruption may
exist here; and that an effort is being made – by these officers of the Court, to brush
aside all evidenced arguments in order to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome.
EACH ONE (1) of the TWENTY-TWO (22) obvious errors identified both in the
Appellant’s Brief AND his Emergency Motion to Vacate w/ Damages warrant reversal under
“We deny Harihar's remaining pending motions as repetitive of previous requests for
The vagueness of this statement again by Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron
warrants clarification for the record. The Plaintiff has clearly provided the Court(s) with
valid, irrefutable arguments for ALL requested relief where – EVEN THE UNITED
STATES, as an Appellee in the related Appeal does not oppose awarding Mr. Harihar
MAXIMUM damages. If there has been any repetition, it is ONLY due to UNNECESSARY
appear (at least on its surface), that elements of corruption may exist here; and that an
effort is being made – by these officers of the Court, to brush aside all motions in order
12
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome. These obvious errors warrant reversal
As with the identified deceptive techniques by Judge Burroughs that contributed to her
5. Ignoring Issues;
explanation whatsoever;
10. Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct;
EACH ONE of these DECEPTIVE TACTICS detailed within the record constitute
13
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
It bears repeating that referenced judges in both the District and Appeals Court HAVE
infractions to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832. This
conscious decision to IGNORE federal law and evidenced threats to our Nation show not
only a failure to uphold the judicial machinery of the court, but (at minimum) brings
Barron. CLEARLY, these obvious errors warrant reversal under Local Rule 27(c).
The record shows that despite bringing to the direct attention of the DOJ and FBI -
Similarly, since the infancy stages of this litigation nearly seven (7) years ago, US Senator
Elizabeth Warren and US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas have been regularly informed of
evidenced judicial misconduct and perceived threats to our Nation’s security warranting
Congressional intervention. Despite multiple follow-up efforts to BOTH offices, it would appear
(at least on its surface) that Senator Warren and Congresswoman Tsongas have IGNORED
these evidenced claims, and HAVE NOT brought these serious matters to the attention of
Congressional Judiciary Committees (House and Senate). The Appellant respectfully restates
that Senator Warren and Congresswoman Tsongas will again be updated and receive a copy of
14
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 16 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
CONCLUSION
COURT and others go UNANSWERED AND IGNORED for a year and a half, there is just
cause to (at minimum): 1.) Attack the Court’s integrity; 2.) Vacate impacted Judgement(s),
and considering the severity of issues 3.) Bring these matters to the attention of the President,
While the Appellant realized that undertaking this MONUMENTAL legal battle would
likely be a long road, NEVER did he anticipate the level of corruption so blatantly
evidenced by this judiciary. The Appellant makes clear that – based on the historical record, he
has understandably LOST ALL FAITH in Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron to
uphold the law, and is certain that ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would reach the same
WHEREFORE, for the collective reasons exemplifying obvious errors, the Appellant calls for the
following:
including Chief Justice Howard are considered DISQUALIFIED by law to rule further;
15
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 17 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
3. Provide extensive clarification of issued orders, as requested. Even if orders are
forward.
4. The obvious complexity of issues continues to warrant assisting the Appellant with the
incomplete. Once the Appellant is rightfully appointed counsel, he reserves the right to
5. The Appellant clearly states that any attempt by Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta
and Barron to rule further will be interpreted as incremental acts of Treason under
ARTICLE III.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The President,
confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment C) with the filed Court copy. If there is a
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
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
16
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 18 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Attachment A
17
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 19 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)
The Appellant respectfully prefaces this EMERGENCY MOTION with the following
Disclosure statement:
The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal, its lower court docket no. 15-cv-
11880, and in the RELATED Appeal,13 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
13
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
18
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 20 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee and to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL
AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for documentation
purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for personal safety/security.
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who collectively for over two (2) years is STILL
wrongfully forced to represent himself as a PRO SE litigant, respectfully files this DEMAND to
JUDICIAL DELAY. The historical record(s) reveals that the Appellant has repeatedly raised
jurisdiction issues dating back to at least AUGUST 2016, only to be IGNORED over and over
again. This is evidenced: 1.) Here, in this appeal; 2.) In the lower court docket no. 15-cv-
11880; 3.) In the related appeal no. 17-2074, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES; and 4.)
In its related lower court docket no. 17-cv-11109. If there is a jurisdictional failing
appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacating with damages,
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): “Silence can
only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry
14
The Appellant calls reference to the Dismissal orders associated with Docket No.’s 17-cv-
11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also 15-cv-11880, HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al. which are considered issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, as evidenced by the
historical record.
19
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 21 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be
The lengthy (and still growing) list of evidenced claims identifying jurisdiction (and other) issues
has necessarily led to bringing Judicial Misconduct claims (all of which stand as
UNOPPOSED) against TEN (10) Federal (Circuit and District) Court Judges, and includes
misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (6 counts,
including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
20
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 22 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
8. US Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (US District Court (NH), serving as a member of
the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 90033);
9. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI), serving as a
member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033);
10. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME), serving as a
member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033);
VACATE JUDGEMENTS
These UNRESOLVED issues, evidenced by the historical record(s) include (but are not limited
The US Constitution alleged against FOUR (4) Federal (Circuit and District) Judges,
PURSUANT to 18 U.S. Code § 2382, brought against three (3) additional officers of
the Court15 and twenty-one (21) parties in this litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al;
Misprision of Treason claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 are filed against Circuit Clerk –
15
delaying WITHOUT CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to Assist with the
COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial Code
of Conduct;
9. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of
Law;
10. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
11. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
12. Failing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
13. Failing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal
14. Failing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as
Jurisdiction;
16
The Appellant draws reference from MULTIPLE instances in this litigation where the Court
(Both District and Appellate) repeatedly failed to acknowledge the CLEARLY EVIDENCED
and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar. By Federal Law, a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan A.
Harihar SHOULD HAVE already been issued.
22
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 24 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
17. Failing to address repeated requests to TIMELY VALIDATE the referenced Dismissal
Order(s);
recognition;
19. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the presence
20. REFUSAL(S) to RECUSE by both Circuit and District Court judges. It is important to
note, that while US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs refused to recuse
IMMEDIATE RECUSAL for the EXACT SAME REASONS when assigned to the
certainly recognized;
22. Failing to address the well evidenced and continued PATTERN of CORRUPT
A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.17A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,
will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).18 A party seeking to void the
judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting subject-matter jurisdiction over
the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claim
17
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
18
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
23
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 25 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial power.”19 Only when the jurisdictional error is
“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.20 A judgment may also be void under
The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments IN
EACH of the issues listed in the prior section. ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would
suggest that VALIDATING JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is
certainly appropriate. HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) thus
far exemplifies what MAY be collectively considered the largest, and certainly most
certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to be a set
agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar DOES
When considering other reasons besides jurisdiction that justify relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)
is also considered applicable - referencing: 1.) The list of issues from the prior section, and 2.)
The Appellants meritorious arguments of record which speak to his Intellectual Property/Trade
Secret protected under The Economic Espionage Act, and its perceived impact to National
Security.
IV. MOTIVE
arguments are certainly made to show an intention to prevent precedent(s) from being set, as
19
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v.
Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).
20
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
24
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 26 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
it pertains to illegal foreclosure accountability, and EVEN with assistance in appointing
counsel. A just resolution in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant would (at minimum) set
and Federal Bank Regulators. For example - If you have 4.2M potential lawsuits which now
can rely on precedent, each suit averaging $1M, total legal risk becomes $4.2T. Now
U.S.C. §1915.
And that’s JUST the beginning… The historical record shows that EVERY PRESIDING
JUDGE (along with Defendants/Appellees) associated with this litigation has failed to even
mention or reference the words Economic Espionage, National Security, or the Appellant’s
deliver $5T in Economic growth to the United States. As a matter of record, the Court, and
ALL parties are well-aware of meritorious presentations the Appellant has made to
numerous government offices including (but not limited to): the Congressional offices of
Deputy Chief Counsel (former) of the House Financial Services Committee – Gail Laster,
and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) (under the Obama Administration) – per
While further investigation is certainly warranted, the argument for MOTIVE can again be
made, where Officers of the Court have conspired to damage the Appellant’s Intellectual
25
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 27 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Nevertheless, whatever the motive, there is NO justification for their misconduct. To the
extent that referenced District and Circuit judges have so egregiously abused their authority,
the Court should certainly vacate the judgements in both affected cases21 and award maximum
Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise
from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In
regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of
some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided
Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not
show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have
existed.”
the above quotes. Therefore, the meaning of fraud should be noted: Fraud. An intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some
valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter
of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to
deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added) –Black’s
21
Reference is made to this case, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also to
HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
26
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 28 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally v. U.S.,
483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its elementary
common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material information in
a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public… and if he
V. CONCLUSION
COURT and others go UNANSWERED AND IGNORED for a year and a half, there is just
cause to (at minimum): 1.) Attack the Court’s integrity; 2.) Vacate impacted Judgement(s),
and considering the severity of issues 3.) Bring these matters to the attention of the President,
While the Appellant realized that undertaking this MONUMENTAL legal battle would
likely be a long road, NEVER did he anticipate the level of corruption so blatantly
evidenced by this judiciary. The Appellant makes clear that – based on the historical record, he
has understandably LOST ALL FAITH in this FEDERAL JUDICIARY to uphold the law, and
is certain that ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would reach the same conclusion.
THEREFORE, for the reasons stated within and by the evidenced record(s), the Appellant –
Mohan A. Harihar respectfully calls for a Court - WITH JURISDICTION to: 1.) VACATE
27
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 29 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
referenced judgements which are considered VOID, and 2.) AWARD the Appellant the
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-2074) it is clear that there is only one
(1) party – the Appellee, that bears responsibility. However, in this case, HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), the argument can be made that while the record reveals
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, such egregious abuse evidenced by this Federal Judiciary MAY
either: 1.) Supersede the referenced DEFAULT, or 2.) Proportionately assess damages payable
by Appellees/Defendants AND the United States. There is also CLEAR EXPECTATION for
the Court to assess professional licensure penalties (including, but not limited to disbarment)
against referenced Defendants/Appellees where it is warranted and for the Department of Justice
(DOJ) to TIMELY provide an update with regard to the Appellants RELATED CRIMINAL
complaints of record.
Finally, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully states that once these referenced
judgements have been appropriately vacated and damages have been rightfully awarded as stated,
the intention remains to align with The United States for the purpose of implementing the
paving the way to historical economic growth and prosperity for our great Nation.
Please be advised, a duplicate copy of this motion has already been filed under Appeal No. 17-
2074 on December 23, 2017, as it is directly related to this litigation. For documentation
28
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 30 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The President, confirmation of its
receipt is attached (See Attachment A) with the filed Court copy. If there is a 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.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
29
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 31 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Attachment A
30
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 32 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
31
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 33 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
32
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 34 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Attachment B
33
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 35 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
No. 17-1381
v.
Defendants, Appellees,
Defendants.
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Mohan A. Harihar
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Dated: August 14, 2017
34
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 36 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully makes the
following disclosures:
Kayatta, Barron; Judge Thompson, and Chief Justice Howard have refused
to clarify why it is necessary for the Appellant to even file his Brief.
consistent claims on Appeal (as documented within the record), they are
necessary to provide the Court with additional facts supporting appeal, the
stating his request for assistance to appoint counsel, and the Court’s
35
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 37 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
3. The Appellant necessarily files this Appellate brief by the court ordered
deadline of August 14, 2017, and still as a pro se litigant, despite providing
U.S.C. §1915. This refusal to assist the Appellant with the appointment of
counsel shows a failure to uphold Title 28 U.S.C. §1915 and the judicial
Thompson, and Chief Justice Howard have all denied to clarify their
counsel.
4. Evidenced claims by the Appellant are believed to include (but are not
minimum) ignored the Appellant’s Fraud on the Court claims, they are
7. The Appellant firmly believes, based on the record alone, that a deep-
impossible within this First Circuit. It would appear (at least on its surface),
that elements of corruption may exist; and that efforts have been made thus
far – by NINE (9) Federal judges, to brush aside all motions in order to
would certainly agree, and giving the Appellant no choice but to proceed
ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 17
38
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 40 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
V. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED THE
APPELLANT’S COMPLAINT…………………………………27
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
39
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 41 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Cox v. Burke,
706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) …………………………...……….10
Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) …………………………………………….19
STATUTES:
RULES:
40
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 42 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
ALTERNATIVE but to represent himself pro se, respectfully calls for this Court
to recognize the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims evidenced against ALL
60(b)(3).
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The record of this Appeal reveals that the presiding Judges - Torruella,
Kayatta, and Barron have previously failed to (at minimum) address Fraud on the
Court Claims, referenced in the lower court docket, and with the expanded claims
documented earlier in this Appeal. Since the beginning of the Appeal process, five
(5) additional Federal Judges (nine in total), including Chief Justice Howard have
also either ignored these Rule 60(b) claims or suggested, without cause that they are
frivolous. When asked to clarify their decisions, these referenced judges have refused
to do so. Motions for recusal have been either DENIED or IGNORED, including
the respectful DEMAND for TRANSFER of the Appeal to another Circuit. This
clear failure to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court is irrefutable, on record,
and certainly impacts jurisdiction here (at minimum) under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. With
the filing of the Appellant Brief, eight (8) incremental judicial misconduct
complaints will necessarily be filed with the Clerk of the Court. The extent of
41
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 43 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
evidenced judicial misconduct claims against nine (9) Federal Judges (ALL within
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the District Court failed to assist the Appellant with the
Court Claims?
3. Whether the District Court failed to (at minimum) correctly address the
22
The referenced NINE (9) officers of the Court include: US District Court
Judge’s - Allison Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge
John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges
- Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr., David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee
Thompson and Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard.
42
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 44 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1832, and its resulting impact to
National Security?
complaint?
Orders/Judgements?
discretion and wrongful dismissal of his complaint seeking: (1) Damages resulting
from his identified illegal foreclosure, including the recovery of his property, (2)
considered a Trade Secret(s) protected under the Economic Espionage Act, (3)
Professional accountability including (but not limited to) licensure revocation and
disbarment, where applicable, and (4) Criminal accountability for related criminal
On July 3, 2016, the Appellant filed with District Court a motion which
included Fraud on the Court claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) against ALL
Appellees/Defendants. NO opposition by ANY party was ever filed, and the judge’s
order of denial failed to even address the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) claim. Since that
43
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 45 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
time, requests for Judge Burroughs’ recusal per 28 U.S.C. §455(a), AND 28 U.S.C.
§ 144 were denied (twice), and repeated efforts to address Fraud on the Court Claims
continued to be ignored. If there was ANY question regarding the validity of the
Rule 60(b) claim, Appellees and Defendants had nearly one year to ADDRESS,
DEFEND, or DENY such claims. They DID NOT, as is clearly reflected within the
record.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of
The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As
set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):
The requisite fraud on the court occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and
convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme
23
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
44
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 46 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,
misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL fourteen (14)
Appellees/Defendants were aware that clear title did not exist with Mr. Harihar’s
HOMESTEAD. The Court is well aware that this is not an isolated incident. The
scheme, as described by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal
Bank Regulators.
A summary overview of the scheme begins with the RMBS Trust which, as detailed
in the Appellant’s filed opposition, has no legal standing to Mr. Harihar’s property.
detailed, ALL Appellees/Defendants have benefited from the alleged scheme against
the Mr. Harihar, either personally or financially; Litigation privilege should not
apply when there is no legal standing, nor should sovereign immunity. The
Defendant Trust, Bank Defendants, attorney and law firm Defendants, Defendant
Real Estate Brokers and Defendant Homebuyers have benefitted financially from the
alleged scheme – when they had no legal standing to do so; resulting in severe
45
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 47 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Department of Justice, and the Federal Judiciary have refused to prosecute and
correct erred judgments (at minimum) out of fear of setting a precedent for the
prejudice because it more clearly and directly subverts the judicial process (Bulloch
v. United States). The Appellant/Plaintiff had respectfully called for the District
Court to schedule the required evidentiary hearing to determine whether the conduct
forming the basis for Defendant default was willful or done in bad faith or was
deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the court’s authority. Not a single piece
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
While the PRIMARY argument of the Appellant’s brief focuses on the Fraud on the
Court Claim(s), the collective pieces of the EVIDENCED argument portray a far
greater scheme (alleged). The Court is respectfully reminded, that the Appellant’s
Foreclosure, is one (1) of 4.2M illegal foreclosures associated with this Nation’s
OF THE UNITED STATES. The financial risk associated with the crisis has been
estimated as high as $60T (Trillion). Although there have been National Settlements
– ex. The $25B National Mortgage Settlement (in conjunction with 49 State
Attorneys’ General), the $8B settlement involving Federal Bank Regulators, and
others, those who have been damaged most – THE ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED
LESS THAN $2000, after losing their home, and much more. While these foreclosed
(including this Appellant) do not have the financial resources to retain counsel –
never mind for an indefinite period of time. The majority also do not have the legal
For those who attempt to do so, it is widely considered an IMPOSSIBLE (or highly
improbable) task. The Banking industry knows it, the Government knows it, Real
Estate Professionals know it, and most Americans know it. IF EVER, there were to
be a case that helps to better close the gap in damages to the illegally foreclosed
homeowner, that precedent would have substantial impact to this Nation. For
example, if you have a pool of 4.2M illegally foreclosed homeowners, and each of
likely be an increased trend of new legal actions filed in both state and federal courts.
If the average lawsuit seeks $1M in damages, the total risk becomes $4.2T(Trillion).
47
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 49 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Now comes the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who after spending over 4 years
addressing this matter at the state level, brings a new complaint (with merit) to the
US District Court, and an argument that warrants the Court’s the assistance with the
that does not happen, to the extent of breaking their judicial oath to do so, including
acts of treason, as evidenced. Along with denying counsel, other injunctive relief is
Appellant brings evidenced Fraud on the Court claims, where not only is there no
opposition filed, but the Court ignores the claim(s) as if never mentioned, suggesting
60(b)(3), ALL parties – the District Court, and this Appeals Court have completely
Adding now to the substantive nature of the Appellant’s claim is the damage to his
48
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 50 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
States and Illegally Foreclosed Homeowners with repairing damages suffered from
the US Foreclosure Crisis. The IP, referred to as the HARIHAR FCS Model, has
merit, having been successfully presented to multiple parties (including, but not
limited to) the Congressional offices of both US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-
24
MA) , US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA)25, Deputy Chief Counsel
(former) of the House Financial Services Committee – Gail Laster (D-MA), and
the Executive Office of the President (EOP) (under the Obama Administration)
– per the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden. Successfully implemented,
the FCS model is designed to conservatively deliver over $5T of economic growth
to the US, without the need of ANY new legislation, or a single US tax dollar to
implement. It will additionally help to bring substantial assistance to those who have
Appellee/Defendant Brief.
24
The FCS Model was successfully presented to Senior Economic Advisor – Bruno
Freitas.
25
The FCS Model was successfully presented to Director (former) – Brian Martin.
49
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 51 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
For the reasons exemplified here in this summary, in the rest of this Appellant Brief
and throughout the record, there are numerous examples that show specifically how
the District Court improperly dismissed the Appellant’s complaint. Now, in the
related filed complaint – HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-
11109, the same presiding Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs, has recently RECUSED
herself for the SAME EXACT REASONS that warranted recusal here. Her recusal
now certainly impacts ALL related orders/judgments, rendering them VOID, and
thus certainly impacting this Appeal. There is now heightened concern regarding
unnecessary judicial delay within the District Court to initiate corrective action
following recusal.
historic growth to this Nation (CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen). Evidenced concern
extends beyond the Federal Judiciary. – Legislators who have been outspoken about
the corruption within Wall Street, have been silent here, and the DOJ is on record
as saying they will not prosecute evidenced crimes committed against this
that’s UNACCEPTABLE.
50
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 52 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the integrity of our judicial system, and discourage the type of egregious and
fraud on the court, the non-offending party must establish by clear and convincing
evidence that the offending “party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the
fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action”
*14 [SD N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999, No. 96 CIV. 2815(JFK) ] affd 2000 WL 145465, *1
[SD N.Y. Feb. 9, 2000). A court must be persuaded that the fraudulent conduct,
documents concerns “issues that are central to the truth-finding process” (McMunn,
191 F Supp 2d at 445). Essentially, fraud upon the court requires a showing that a
finding of fraud on the court may warrant termination of the proceedings in the non-
51
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 53 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
offending party's favor (see e.g. McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at 462 [“[defendant]
*11 [same]; DAG Jewish Directories, 2010 WL 3219292, at *5 [same] ). For “when
a party lies to the court and [its] adversary intentionally, repeatedly, and about issues
central to the truth-finding process, it can fairly be said that [the party] has forfeited
[the] right to have [the] claim decided on the merits” (McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at
445). Therefore, once a court concludes that clear and convincing evidence
establishes fraud on the court, it may strike a pleading and enter a default judgment .
ARGUMENT
In the lower Court, the Appellant consistently made clear that he is not an attorney
and has no legal background. The factually supported issues involved are CLEARLY
too complex for the Appellant to present entirely without the assistance of
b. Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony), 18 U.S. Code § 2382, 18 U.S. Code
§4
52
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 54 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
c. Fraud on the Court (Judicial and Defendant);
Crisis;
k. Judicial Misconduct
litigate this matter in its entirety, considering the number of complex subjects
requiring legal expertise. Also, when the Commonwealth (AND the United States)
are in reality – two (2) of the opposing parties (as is the case here) and when the
interests of the indigent litigant, although not involving his personal liberty, are
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
The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning heavily towards the
3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented
4. 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
5. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the
claim(s) 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.
54
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 56 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
While the Appellant 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 at the District Court level, and even more so at the Appellate
level. By refusing to assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel, the
presiding judge exemplified (at minimum) Prejudice and an Act of Bad Faith against
this Appellant (28 U.S. Code § 144), choosing NOT to support or uphold the Judicial
questions about the judge's impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial
hearing is unlikely. The Appellant respectfully disagreed with the lower court’s
decision, questioning 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. The Appellant’s requests for clarification was repeatedly
IGNORED/DENIED.
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 path to a jury trial. It is also entirely plausible, that by now a settlement
agreement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the UNITED STATES, would have
been reached.
55
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 57 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
7. By refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not
only caused increased hardship to the Appellant, but has also WASTED over two
(2) years of the litigants (Appellant and Appellees/Defendants) and the Court’s time.
The Appellant’s time should be considered no less important than that of opposing
made by the United States against Mr. Harihar. The Appellant has submitted to both
the District Court and the Appeals 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:
8. Appellant’s Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own – For nearly
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:
government);
many (worldwide) consider the largest case of FRAUD in US history, and exposes
56
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 58 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
corruption at a very high level. The Appellant has found that many law firms are
fearful that if they choose to represent him, they are likely to face some form of
negative repercussion.
10. The continued refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel shows cause
to expand upon existing claims against the United States in the related complaint,
HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. The Court is aware that ALL three (3)
intentions, including the required SF-95 form. The Appellant has offered the United
(unsuccessfully) through both the lower court and this Appeals Court to get a
response. The lower court has ignored the Appellant’s allegations against the United
States and his efforts to seek agreement as if they were never mentioned. Counsel is
needed to assist with addressing these issues involving the United States, whether it
Appellees are now faced with the reality that IF THE LAW IS UPHELD, their
DEFAULT is IMMINENT, since both the evidenced Fraud on the Court AND
therefore CANNOT address in an Appellee brief and re-direction back to the lower
57
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 59 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Court would provide NO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE. Therefore, based on
these FACTS ALONE, this Court MUST find ALL Appellees in DEFAULT with
EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in her lawsuit that, “Defendants
used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each
with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents,” meaning
securitizations, there’s no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have
a name for this: “securitization FAIL.” The Department of Justice is well aware of
that must take physical possession and control of the trust property on or before the
closing date of the trust. The securitization trustee is the sole and exclusive legal
assignments of mortgage. This transfer of the trust property, the legal res, to the trust
58
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 60 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
First, someone must be the “legal” owner of the mortgage loan. Only the legal owner
of the loan has the legal right to sell mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) to
cash flows that go from the homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS
purchasers are tax exempt. If the trust does not perfect legal title by taking physical
possession of the notes and mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code, specifically 26
U.S.C. § 860G(d)(1), provides for a 100 percent tax penalty on those non-complying
cash flows. Third, the legal ownership of the loans must be “bankruptcy remote”
that is, because bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back and seize assets from
bankrupt entities, the transfer to the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee in
the securitization chain of title can have any cognizable interest in the loans. For
this reason, all securitization trusts are “special purpose vehicles” (“SPVs”) created
for the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans and all securitization
trustees represent and certify to the MBS purchasers that the purchase is a “true sale”
originated from 2001 to 2008 ever obtained legal title or FASB 140 “control” of
THEREFORE – a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can make NO
Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust cannot make a legal
59
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 61 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
claim to the property, it had no right to collect any monies from the Appellant or to
foreclose on the Appellant; c.) If the Trust had no right to foreclose, it also had no
right to re-sell the property, thereby making the foreclosure sale VOID. Despite
Court, US District Court and this US Appeals Court, it has been IGNORED, and
only adds to support (at minimum), the Appellant’s conspiracy and Tort claims.
Similarly, this too, is fairly straightforward. The record clearly shows that Judge
REFUSING to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court. This refusal to uphold
Federal law in itself disqualified Judge Burroughs from ruling further in this
and Economic Espionage under (at minimum) 18 U.S.C. § 1832, the presiding
judge failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, exemplifying yet another
reason why she has been disqualified by law to rule further here. There is obviously
60
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 62 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
increased concern when the Appellant raises issues that MAY impact matters of
National Security, and both the Appellees/Defendants as well as the presiding judge
The Appellant addresses in this brief only a portion of the reasons supporting
the improper dismissal of his complaint. The collective reasons that clearly
evidence judicial misconduct within the record include (but are not limited
to):
A. Judicial Prejudice/Bias;
I. Conspiracy Claims
61
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 63 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Since raising allegations of Judicial Misconduct – including six (6) counts of
On June 19, 2017, three (3) days after being assigned the related case – HARIHAR
v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket no. 17-cv-11109, Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
has RECUSED herself, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), AND 28 U.S.C.
§ 144, for the EXACT reasons that warranted her recusal from Harihar v. US Bank,
et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. Judge Burroughs’ recusal in the related case shows
and all other orders associated with this appeal. Four (4) weeks after recusal, the
District Court had yet to initiate corrective action in addressing related orders, and
the Appellant necessarily filed a Motion to Vacate orders on July 19, 2017. Now,
nearly 8 weeks following recusal, the District Court still has not initiated corrective
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court should OVERTURN the District Court’s
bringing a DEFAULT order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3), and final
62
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 64 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
judgment of permanent injunction – IN FAVOR of the Appellant. The Court should
concur that the default was willful or executed in bad faith or was deliberate and in
contumacious disregard of the court’s authority, and shows intent to ultimately harm
The United States. Therefore, the Court should award the Appellant treble monetary
damages, full reimbursement for all related costs and associated legal fees
throughout this litigation, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. The
Respectfully submitted,
63
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 65 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of
Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because: (1) this brief contains 6264 words excluding
the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii); and (2) this brief
complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(5) and the type
style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared
64
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 66 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
foregoing Brief of the Appellant with the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit by using the CM/ECF System. I certify that the following parties or
their counsel of record are registered as ECF filers and that they will be served by
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
No. 17-1381
65
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 67 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
ADDENDUM
66
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 68 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
ADDENDUM 1
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(d) Appointment of Counsel.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of the Act, counsel furnishing representation under this plan shall
be selected from the panels of attorneys designated or approved by the district courts of the
Eleventh Circuit, which are hereby approved by this court, or from a bar association, legal aid
agency, or federal public defender organization or community defender organization approved
by a district court plan and authorized to furnish representation under the Act. In addition, when
the interests of justice require, any judge of this court may appoint competent counsel not
otherwise
Rev.: 12/09 Addendum Four
included in the preceding categories. In accordance, however, with subsection (a)(3) of the Act
and with the directives of the Judicial Conference of the United States, at least 25% of all such
appointments shall be assigned to members of the private bar. The clerk of this court shall
ensure that the proration guideline is satisfied. All qualified attorneys shall be encouraged to
participate in the furnishing of representation under the Act without regard to race, color,
religion, sex, age, national origin, or disabling condition.
(2) If a party was represented in the district court by counsel appointed under the Act, such
counsel shall be mindful of the obligation and responsibility to continue representation on appeal
until either successor counsel is appointed under the Act or counsel is relieved by order of this
court. See § (e)(1) below. Retained counsel for a criminal defendant has an obligation to
continue to represent that defendant until successor counsel either enters an appearance or is
67
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 69 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
appointed under the Act, and may not abandon or cease representation of a defendant except
upon order of this court. Unless approved in advance by this court, the district court is not
authorized to appoint counsel on appeal to represent a defendant who was represented in the
district court by retained counsel without first conducting an in camera review of the financial
circumstances of the defendant and of the fee arrangements between the defendant and retained
trial counsel. Appointment of counsel on appeal may be requested in this court by filing an
appropriate motion supported by an affidavit which substantially complies with Form 4 in the
Appendix to the FRAP Rules. Also see § (e)(1) of this plan.
(3) In all classes of cases to which the Act applies (except classes enumerated in subsection
(a)(2)(B) of the Act or arising under 18 U.S.C. § 4245) where an appellant was not represented
by counsel in the court below, the clerk shall notify the appellant of the right to be represented on
appeal by counsel and that an attorney will be appointed as a representative if appellant is
financially unable to obtain representation.
(4) Any person subject to revocation of parole, in custody as a material witness, or seeking relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254 or § 2255, or 18 U.S.C. § 4245 may apply to this court to be
furnished representation. The court may approve such representation on a determination that the
interests of justice so require and that the person is financially unable to obtain representation.
(5) In all cases under the Act in which the party has been found by the district court to be
financially unable to obtain representation, the court of appeals may accept this finding and
appoint an attorney without further proof. Counsel appointed under the Act are under a
continuing duty to disclose to this court any change in defendant’s circumstances which may
render them ineligible for continued representation under the Act.
(6) In all cases appealed by counsel appointed by the district court under the Act, if such counsel
has not previously been relieved by this court, the clerk shall continue trial counsel’s
appointment for purposes of further representation on appeal.
(9) If at any stage of the proceedings on appeal the court finds a party is financially unable to
pay counsel already retained by the party, the court may appoint counsel as provided in
subsection (b) of the Act and authorize payment as provided in subsection (d) of the Act,
pursuant to subsection (c) of the Act.
68
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 70 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
(10) In appeals under the Act involving more than one party, if the court finds the need, because
of conflicting interests of parties or because circumstances otherwise warrant, separate counsel
may be appointed for any one or more of the parties as required for their adequate representation.
(11) The court may at its discretion and in the interest of justice substitute one appointed counsel
for another at any stage of the proceedings on appeal.
(12) The court may at its discretion and where circumstances warrant make appointments of
counsel retroactive so as to include representation furnished prior to appointment, and it may
authorize compensation therefor pursuant to subsections (c) and (d) of the Act.
ADDENDUM 2
Stealing a trade secret is a federal crime when the information relates to a product in interstate or
foreign commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1832 (theft of trade secrets), or when the intended beneficiary is a
foreign power, 18 U.S.C. 1831 (economic espionage). Section 1832 requires that the thief be
aware that the misappropriation will injure the secret’s owner to the benefit of someone else.
Section 1831 requires only that the thief intend to benefit a foreign government or one of its
instrumentalities.
Section 1832 (theft) violations are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or a
fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $5 million for organizations), or both. Section
1831 (espionage) violations by individuals are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15
years, or a fine of the greater of not more than $5 million, or both. Section 1831 violations by
organizations are punishable by a fine of not more than the greater of $10 million or three times
the value of the stolen trade secret. Maximum fines for both individuals and organizations may
be higher when the amount of the gain or loss associated with the offense is substantial. Any
attempt or conspiracy to commit either offense carries the same penalties as the underlying
crime. Offenders must also be ordered to pay restitution. Moreover, property derived from the
offense or used to facilitate its commission is subject to confiscation. The sections reach
violations occurring overseas, if the offender is a United States national or if an act in
furtherance of the crime is committed within the United States.
Depending on the circumstances, misconduct captured in the two sections may be prosecuted
under other federal statutes as well. A defendant charged with stealing trade secrets is often
indictable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the National Stolen Property Act, and/or
the federal wire fraud statute. One indicted on economic espionage charges may often be charged
with acting as an unregistered foreign agent and on occasion with disclosing classified
information or under the general espionage statutes. P.L. 112-269 set the maximum fines
described above. It also instructed the United States Sentencing Commission to examine the
sufficiency of federal sentencing guidelines and policies in the area of stealing trade secrets and
economic espionage. P.L. 112-236 amended the trade secrets prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1832 to
overcome the implications of the Court of Appeals’ Aleynikov decision. That decision held that
the section did not outlaw the theft of computer code designed to facilitate a company’s
69
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 71 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
commercial transactions, because the code did not relate to a product to be placed in the stream
of commerce. This report is available in an abridged version, without footnotes or attribution, as
CRS Report R42682, Stealing Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: An Abridged Overview
of 18 U.S.C. 1831 and 1832.
ADDENDUM 3
28 U.S.C. § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge (a) Any justice, judge, or
magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice
he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced
law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such
lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental
employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning
the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in
controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child
residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party
to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
proceeding; (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of
them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or
trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have
an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the
judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform
himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to
inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in
his household. (d) For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases have the
meaning indicated: * * * (4) “financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest,
however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a
party, except that: (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is
not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the
fund; (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a
“financial interest” in securities held by the organization; (iii) The proprietary interest of a
policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a
similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the
proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest; (iv) Ownership of government
securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could
substantially affect the value of the securities. (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall
accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated
in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver
may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for
disqualification.
70
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 72 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
ADDENDUM 4
ADDENDUM 5
18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 4 - Misprision of felony
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov
ADDENDUM 6
71
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 73 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
Attachment C
72
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 74 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
73
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 75 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
74
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117247000 Page: 76 Date Filed: 01/24/2018 Entry ID: 6145946
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 24, 2018 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:
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
75