You are on page 1of 42

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )

APPELLANT RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW EVIDENCE/INFORMATION;


(2) VALIDATE JUDICIAL OATH; (3) ADDRESS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RE
JURISDICTION; AND (4) PETITION FOR RE-HEARING/TRANSFER

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se and who is NOT A LEGAL

EXPERT, respectfully files this RESPONSE, as an EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF

CORRUPT CONDUCT continues to be exemplified by this Federal Judiciary. The most recent

example, evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW is the August 7, 2018 attempt to re-issue a

JUDGEMENT ORDER,1 when Two (2) of Three (3) NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Judges

LACK JURISDICTION. Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee

Thompson have BOTH previously been identified as INFERIOR JUDGES - for their

collective failures to uphold the Constitution, numerous Federal Law(s), and their Judicial

Oath. A thorough review of the historical record will reveal a very clear and articulated

explanation of how the Appellant arrived at these conclusions. Neither Chief Judge Howard

1 See Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

nor Judge Thompson have ever once denied or even attempted to argue, a single judicial

misconduct claim against them – including acts of TREASON. “When a judge knows that he

lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of

jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller

v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

What is clear to this Appellant (and should be to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER), is a

continued judicial effort - NOW by this NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Panel to brush aside

ALL Appellant motions in order to reach a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED

OUTCOME.

This First Circuit Court has continuously failed to address (and correct) judicial misconduct

claims which have long been evidenced in full public view. As a result, the INTEGRITY of this

Appeals (and the District) Court is severely damaged and the APPEARANCE OF

IMPARTIALITY has long been compromised. Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of

Federal Law, the conscious decision by this newly assigned Circuit panel to CONTINUE

IGNORING: (1) JURISDICTION; and (2) the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct

claims - and instead issue an invalid judgment (at minimum) raises the following issues and

necessitates the following actions:

I. THE JUDGEMENT IS VOID

A. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is

VOID, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

B. A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.2A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).3 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 amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial

power.”4 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the

judgment as void.5 A judgment may also be void under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered

in a manner inconsistent with due process.

The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments

IN EACH of the IDENTIFIED – EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES

(See Below). 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) exemplifies what

MAY be collectively considered one of the largest, and certainly most egregious

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY by a Federal Judiciary in US history. The argument can

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.

2
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
3
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
4
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).
5
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Harihar, DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST RESOLUTION here, or in any

related litigation.

C. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any

proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See

Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24

L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh

(1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L

ed 608.

D. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its

judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is

no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710

(6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."

(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).

E. A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing

void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343,

84 L ed 370.

F. "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper

office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to

rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir.

1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization

Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and

Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

LACK OF JURISDICTION is just ONE (1) of (at least) TWENTY (20)

EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES associated with this Appeal (and

previously in the lower Court), as recognized by SCOTUS.6 This Court ALSO recognized

the ENTIRE list of unresolved issues (Below), following the recusal of Judge Barron, after

he disclosed having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO.7 A

review of the record will show that the Appellant has repeatedly brought this list of

extraordinary/unresolved issues before the Court, only to be IGNORED as if they do not

exist – EVEN NOW, as indicated by the attempt to issue a (VOID) judgment order. As a

respectful reminder and for documentation purposes, the list of extraordinary/unresolved

issues includes (but is not limited to) the following:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues8;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

6
Following the January 17, 2018 judgment issued by the initial panel, the Appellant filed a
motion with the Supreme Court requesting a timeline extension for filing his Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. On June 8, 2018, SCOTUS granted the motion, acknowledging the list extraordinary/
unresolved issues warranting such an extension.
7
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant has requested additional disclosures
regarding the judge’s improper relationship, however, no information has been provided.
8
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

7. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with

the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

9. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial

Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,

as stated within the record;


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

It is a COMBINATION of these factors – RECUSAL AND THIS LIST OF

EXTRAORDINARY/UNRESOLVED ISSUES which initially led to withdrawing the

Mandate and Vacating Judgment. After reviewing this NEW Panel’s explanation (below),

there is now an INCREMENTAL EXAMPLE OF RECORD that shows a continued

INTENT to IGNORE the referenced list of extraordinary circumstances; and instead

brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome:

The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is denied.
See United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against judge separate from
the case under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic recusal can be obtained by
the simple act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000)
(similar); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not
disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him[.]").

Suggesting that automatic recusal is based solely on the act of suing a judge is a complete

misrepresentation of the facts and the associated case references (above) are therefore

improperly applied. The significance of tying the separate lawsuit to necessary recusal

comes from the Appellant’s evidenced arguments of record that irrefutably define the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

referenced judges as INFERIOR. Any objective observer who reads through the Judgment

and compares it to the Appellant’s motion (and historical record) will undoubtedly agree:9

It is the failure(s) to uphold their Judicial Oath, the Constitution and Federal Law that: (1)

irrefutably disqualifies Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson; and (2) Voids the

Judgment. The civil and criminal complaints filed against them personally are secondary

contributing factors where collectively, the totality of these issues MUST result in their

disqualification. Any failure by this Court to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge

Thompson will further expose and re-affirm the failure to show impartiality.

II. DEMAND TO VALIDATE 28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before
performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon
me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars

against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a

judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124

U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of

treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

9
See Exhibit 2, to view the Appellant’s Motion to Remove Inferior Circuit Judges, in its
entirety, filed July 29, 2018. Please note, the Appellant’s Motion has previously been made
available to the Public.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

By issuing the August 7, 2018 Judgement Order (and for reasons stated within and

throughout the record), CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMPSON

and CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ have consciously disregarded their Judicial Oath of Office.

Therefore, the Appellant shows just cause for their removal from the Bench and

potential impeachment, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453.

III. INCREMENTAL Act of TREASON Under ARTICLE III

Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, it has been evidenced that Chief

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - LACK

JURISDICTION to rule in this litigation. Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant

respectfully requesting clarification for their actions, these judges have refused to do so.

Instead, they have continued to rule in the absence of jurisdiction - as if some form of

exemption has allowed them to ignore their judicial oath, the Constitution and Federal

Law(s). The Appellant is NOT AWARE of any such exemption. Any judge who does not

comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that

Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not

fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200

(1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S.

v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia:

“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to
usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
Constitution.” See Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.

THEREFORE, by consciously issuing the JUDGEMENT order WITHOUT

JURISDICTION on August 7th, 2018, it is interpreted that Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Thompson have committed an INCREMENTAL act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,

Section 3 of the US Constitution. Serving as WITNESS to these incremental acts of

Treason, aside from the Appellant, are the following parties:

1. The Circuit Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter;

2. ALL Appellees/Defendants; and

3. Representing counsel to the Appellees/Defendants;

For the record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court - Any party (referenced above)

who refuses to serve as witness to these (NEW) evidenced claims of Treason will incur the

following incremental claims against them: 1.) MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S.

Code § 2382; 2.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud

United States; and 3.) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S.

Code § 1831.

IV. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS of the CIRCUIT CLERK/CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

The law clerks’ duty of confidentiality ends when a clerk believes a federal judge(s) has done

something wrong outside of the deliberative process. The confidentiality guidelines for law

clerks are intended to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The fundamental goal of the

confidentiality guidelines would be subverted if the rules forced law clerks to be silent about

judicial misconduct. WHEN A JUDGE engages in illegal activities or inappropriate

behavior (as is the case here), that’s clearly NOT what’s intended to be confidential.

Therefore, there (AGAIN) is a clear expectation for Clerk Margaret Carter to similarly

acknowledge referenced jurisdiction (and other) issues, including the VOID judgement. A

Mandate CANNOT legally be issued when the judgement is considered void. Clerk Carter is
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

also expected to inform the Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg, of this latest development.

The Circuit Executive then must update the Administrative Office of US Courts,

considering the gravity of judicial misconduct issues.

Please be advised, EVEN BEFORE the referenced judgment and as a matter of record, these

referenced officers of the court personally witnessed prior act(s) of Treason under Article III,

and failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report

Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct contributes to existing

CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or

lack thereof), the Appellant has necessarily filed criminal complaints with the FBI and

states that these facts establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following

crimes have occurred: MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code §

371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; and ECONOMIC

ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831. Aside from criminal

accountability, Clerk Carter and Circuit Executive Goldberg are listed as DEFENDANTS in

the Appellant’s recently filed civil lawsuit – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, et

al., Docket No. 18-cv-11134. Professional complaints have also been filed with the

Administrative Office of US Courts, to the specific attention of Director James C. Duff.

Any continued failure(s) by the Circuit Clerk and/or the Circuit Executive to acknowledge

and report evidenced judicial misconduct shows cause to file new, or to expand upon existing

civil/criminal/professional claims.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

V. DOJ OBLIGATIONS RE: EVIDENCED CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT

The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS are already

filed with the FBI against CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD and CIRCUIT

JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON. Judges DO NOT have immunity from criminal

prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant clearly expects the DOJ to bring criminal charges

against ALL responsible parties, including referenced officers of the Court for the

evidenced criminal claims of record. Any CONTINUED failure by the DOJ to do so

shows cause to expand upon existing claims against The United States including (but

not limited to) Color of Law and Due Process violations.

VI. NEW JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS AGAINST CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ

By affirming the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s complaint, Circuit Judge Kermit V.

Lipez now similarly stands accused of judicial misconduct for his evidenced failure to uphold

his Judicial Oath, the Constitution and numerous Federal laws. As with the other accused

judicial officers, Judge Lipez is respectfully given the opportunity to initiate corrective

action, by (at the very least) informing the Court IF his was a minority opinion that disagreed

with the judgment order.

Respectfully, any failure by Judge Lipez to initiate corrective action will necessarily show

cause to: (1) File a NEW Judicial Misconduct complaint; (2) File a Criminal Complaint with

the FBI; (3) Amend the existing civil complaint against The United States (HARIHAR v.

THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

(4) Amend the existing civil complaint – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.

HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.

VII. NEW INFORMATION RE: APPELLANT – WELLS FARGO

Over the past two (2) weeks the Appellee – WELLS FARGO, has made National Headlines

on three (3) separate occasions, each of which bare impact to this litigation:

A. ADMISSION OF GUILT - In a regulatory filing, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a

“technical error” kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan modification.

“During the course of an internal review, we determined that an automated calculation


error may have affected the decision on whether or not to offer or approve some
mortgage modifications between April 13, 2010 and Oct. 20, 2015, when the error was
corrected,” the bank said in a statement. “We’re very sorry that this error occurred and
are providing remediation to the approximately 625 customers who may have been
impacted.”

This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing
financial difficulties.

“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already
from their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure
and mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family
and to have gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel
if that happened to me.”

This admission by Appellee – Wells Fargo is IDENTICAL to the Appellant’s original

Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

From the beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the

Appellant articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO

BE DENIED SIX (6) SEPARATE TIMES. AFTER REVEIVING EACH DENIAL

LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as

to WHY his loan modification was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

“CALCULATION ERROR MADE BY WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH

TIME, after learning of this “calculation error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo

could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve the loan modification. EACH TIME

(on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22) months), the Appellee – WELLS

FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but

you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through

his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO

ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an intentional act designed to ultimately (and

illegally) foreclose on the Appellant.

These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the

Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and Appellee – WELLS FARGO were

recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the

Appellant/Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has

consistently DENIED THEIR DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE. Now, by this

admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his original

complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3)

Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee – WELLS FARGO has

purposefully tried to deceive this Court.

B. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications - On

August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by

homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them permanent

mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable Modification

Program (HAMP) to offer loan modifications to borrowers who demonstrated their

eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit

Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). “Miscalculations in loans modification reviews were

common before and during the financial crisis. And they remain an issue today” - Alys

Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Consumers should not

have to waive their legal rights and that way they can accept the payment and then

figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That was standard several years ago

when the regulators found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up

the independent foreclosure review process. Claims were not waived.”

This Court is respectfully reminded that as part of the record (paraphrasing):

1. The Appellant submitted as evidence a letter he received from a Vice President

for Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check was a reimbursement

(with interest) to the Appellant for his “Good Faith” payment that he was

INSTRUCTED to make in order to qualify for the loan modification – which he

never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years

AFTER the ILLEGAL Foreclosure, issued an apology for its FAILURE(S) to

modify Mr. Harihar’s mortgage;

2. The Appellant’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in two (2) separate

lawsuits. The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AG’s against Defendants that

included the Appellee – WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement, the

Appellant received approximately $1200. The second lawsuit was brought by


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Federal Bank Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification

reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B

settlement, the Appellant received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the

Appellant reserved the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell

short of the damages incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved

the right to pursue criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil

litigation is to recover the substantial remaining balance of damages rightfully due

to the Appellant.

C. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – This Court is respectfully

reminded of the Notice filed with this Court on August 3, 2018 after being informed of a

recent Press Release from the DOJ on Wednesday, August 1, 2018. This announcement

by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED LITIGATION

(paraphrasing):

1. RE-AFFIRMS the Appellant’s ALREADY-SUPPORTED argument(s)

pertaining to RMBS abuses/failures;

2. RE-AFFIRMS a history of MORTGAGE ABUSES by Appellee – WELLS

FARGO;

3. Recognizes the THREAT of PROSECUTION and IMPACT to RELATED

CIVIL LITIGATION;

4. Calls for DOJ CLARIFICATION and questions the UNNECESSARY DELAY

to bring CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS HERE; and


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

5. This Court is reminded of EVIDENCED record demonstrating COLLUSION

BETWEEN BANK ATTORNEYS, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (MA) and MA-

AGO10

The Court is respectfully reminded that this new information CONTRIBUTES to the existing

and UNOPPOSED – Fraud on the Court Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), that articulates

that the related RMBS securitized Trust is VOID. This latest information re-affirms the

Appellee’s clear intent to deceive this Court.

VIII. CAUSE FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION – There is now a level of legal

concern, where a fair and just legal remedy is no longer thought to be possible – at least

through this First Circuit Judiciary. The Appellant has now evidenced for the record – IN

FULL PUBLIC VIEW, judicial misconduct by ELEVEN (11) Federal (District and Circuit)

Judges. There are ONLY THREE (3) remaining First Circuit Judges who are believed to be

qualified to rule in this litigation. Accused Officers of the Court HAVE NOT DENIED A

SINGLE MISCONDUCT CLAIM against them and the Appellant’s numerous requests for

TRANSFER have been DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE. Even with the list of

EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES acknowledged by SCOTUS and this

Appeals Court, it seems clear that this newly assigned Panel of Judges has NO INTENTION

TO INITIATE CORECTIVE ACTION.

NOW, with APPELLEE – WELLS FARGO’S recent admission of guilt making National

Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-

10 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman Brian Schatz

(D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo over the issue, but

Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells Fargo and said that he

expects answers by the end of the month:

1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?

What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that

time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?

2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who

applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When

will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company

does not yet know?

3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells

Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received

this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted

customers are aware that they were harmed?

4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate

the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers

need to do to receive compensation?

5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be

accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?

6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to

remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those

determinations.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

7. What terms will Wells Fargo require impacted customers to agree to as a

condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an

impacted customer to waive any legal rights?

8. Through HAMP, the Treasury Department provided financial incentives to

participating institutions who modified eligible troubled borrowers’ mortgages.

Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by

the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial

incentives to the Treasury?

9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be

directly or indirectly related to Wells Fargo’s errors to credit reporting agencies?

If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to

remove these entries from borrowers’ credit reports?

10. Please provide information about the disposition of impacted customers’

foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo

plan to reconnect families to their homes?

11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common

stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please

explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder

returns ahead of other uses, such as increasing consumer remedies or investing in

improving internal investigations and controls. How much is Wells Fargo

currently investing or planning to invest in improving internal controls and

consumer protection?
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and

disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,

why not?

13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells

Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to

prevent violations of law and consumer abuses?

These questions (and others) must now be answered here as well, as the Appellant has

evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has not been entirely truthful with

its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized, will be severe.

The gravity of this Discovery shows cause for removal and transfer before a

Congressional Panel.

IX. PETITION for WRIT of MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI – Collectively, the list of

extraordinary circumstances is unprecedented at the Circuit level, where JURISDICTION

issues alone will show cause to grant Mandamus/Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Based on his interpretation of Federal law, the Appellant believes he has exhausted all

possible avenues for legal remedy within this Court. However, the evidenced judicial failures

of record will ultimately show cause for SCOTUS to grant a Writ of Mandamus and/or a

Writ of Certiorari.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has

CONCLUSIVELY evidenced as a matter of court record, a number of legal claims requiring (at

minimum) the following next steps:

1. Before anything else – JURISDICTION must be re-established, either: (a) in this Court

(if still a legal option), (b) by TRANSFER to another Circuit with jurisdiction, (c) by

REMOVAL to SCOTUS, or (d) by removal to a Congressional panel;

2. The ADMISSION OF GUILT by Appellee – WELLS FARGO re-affirms the

Appellant’s consistent claims and adds incrementally to his Fraud on the Court

claim(s). Therefore, the Court should bring a DEFAULT JUDGMENT, pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), in favor of the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, with

prejudice and AWARD the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is

allowed by law;

3. The Appellant has also demonstrated that a Court with jurisdiction should ultimately

VACATE the referenced judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and AWARD

the Appellant the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is allowed by

law (It is unclear whether Conclusion #2 or Conclusion #3 has legal precedence);

4. That this Court should consider the existing Circuit Panel as INFERIOR Judges who are

WITHOUT JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED from ruling further in this, or

any related litigation;

5. That a Court with jurisdiction should finally acknowledge the COMPLEXITY OF

LEGAL ISSUES that warrant the Court’s assistance with the ASSIGNMENT of

LEGAL COUNSEL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

6. Since the judgment is considered VOID, there are several MOTIONS which are still

pending, BEGINNING WITH the Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Injunction

and to re-establish a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.;

7. The Appellant also requests timely clarification regarding his right to file a Petition

for re-hearing, pursuant to FRAP Rule 40. Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of

Federal law, filing the petition at this time is NOT believed to be necessary, since the

referenced judgment is considered VOID. If somehow it is determined that filing a

petition for re-hearing becomes necessary, the Appellant respectfully requests that this

response ALSO serve as said petition; also requesting that the Court accept this oversized

petition as compliant with FRAP Rule 40(b), considering the number and severity of

issues. Re-stating that the ever-increasing complexity of legal issues warrants the Court’s

assistance with the assignment of Counsel;

8. A Court with jurisdiction should assess maximum professional penalties against ALL

Appellees (where applicable), including (but not limited to) disbarment.

9. With regard to the related CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS of record, the Appellant

requests an official update for the record - from the DOJ stating their timeline for

bringing criminal indictments against ALL responsible parties.

10. With regard to the Appellant’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, Mr. Harihar had

previously requested a formal meeting with POTUS for the purpose of potentially

implementing a program designed to bring substantial economic benefit to The United

States. A scheduling update from the Executive Branch is respectfully requested.

11. With regard to the Appellant’s ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED PROPERTY, Mr.

Harihar should be allowed to (at minimum) establish a free and clear Quiet Title in his
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

name ONLY. Appellees – JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS should be given a

48-hour timeline to vacate the premises, under the supervision of the Middlesex County

Sherriff’s Department.

12. Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR should be allowed to legally return to

HIS HOME, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852, without any further

unnecessary delay.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration and attention to these very serious

matters. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE/MOTION to the

attention of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 4) with the filed Court

copy. A copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC

out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a

question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional

supporting information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 16th Day of August, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Exhibit 2
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )

APPELLANT MOTION FOR RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF INFERIOR/DISQUALIFIED


CIRCUIT JUDGES – CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this MOTION,

following the Court’s July 26, 2018 NOTICE11, which informed the parties of: (1) a newly

assigned Circuit panel of judges; and (2) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that the case will be

submitted on the briefs without oral argument. The Appellant objects to both the panel selection

(at least in part) and a pre-mature submission without oral argument, as a number of critical (new

and previously identified) issues remain:

I. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges Assigned to Panel are Inferior/ Disqualified

On July 26, 2018, the Court’s NOTICE, delivered to ALL parties via E-mail communication,

identified the NEW panel of Circuit Judges as: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2)

11
See Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez.

HOWEVER, based on the historical record of this litigation, BOTH Chief Judge Howard

AND Judge Thompson are considered as INFERIOR JUDGES – having been previously

DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or any related litigation. The Appellant has clearly

evidenced as part of the record, numerous judicial infractions indicating (at minimum): (1) a

failure to show impartiality; (2) a failure to uphold Federal Law(s) and their judicial

oath; and (3) a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT revealing an

intention to further harm the Appellant, and collectively this Nation. As a respectful

reminder, this Court has recently VACATED the judgment associated with this Appeal based

on the RECUSAL of Judge Barron AND this PARTIAL LIST of judicial infractions by

referenced Federal Judges:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues12;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

12
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

7. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with

the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

9. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial

Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,

as stated within the record;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

Please be advised, a thorough review of the record will show that neither Chief Judge

Howard nor Judge Thompson have DENIED or REFUTED a single one (1) of the claims

listed above. It remains unclear as to HOW this Court could possibly have approved the

selection of this panel, considering its recent ACKNOWLEDGMENT of JURISDICTION

and list of other extraordinary issues.

THEREFORE, the Appellant calls for Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson to

RECUSE themselves; and for the Court to re-assign/replace the panel vacancies with Circuit

Judges who are considered to have jurisdiction (if applicable). As a matter of record, the

Appellant has now brought EVIDENCED claims of judicial misconduct against TEN (10)

Federal (District and Circuit) judges associated with this litigation – IN FULL PUBLIC

VIEW. SIX (6) out of TEN (10) First Circuit Judges are considered WITHOUT

JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY related litigation: (1)

Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella (RECUSED)13; (3)

Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)14; (4) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee

Thompson; (5) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta (RECUSED), Jr.; (6) Circuit Judge

David J. Barron (RECUSED). Please be advised, the Appellant has previously requested

13
Following the recusal of Judge David Barron, Judges Torruella and Kayatta
removed/recused from the initial panel for reasons which include (but are not limited to) the
list of extraordinary circumstances listed above.
14
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

and is still waiting for additional details and DISCLOSURES regarding the IMPROPER

FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP between Judge Barron and the Appellee – WELLS

FARGO. It is also unclear as to whether additional and/or similar improper relationships exist

within this First Circuit Judiciary. The current re-assignment of this panel continues to

critically damage the INTEGRITY of this Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Appellant will

show further cause to: (1) Transfer this Appeal to another Circuit with jurisdiction; or (2)

Considering the severity of issues (including the perceived impact to National Security),

transfer to a Congressional panel.

II. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges are DEFENDANTS in a Separate, Civil Complaint

filed by the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF)

This Court is aware that there is related (Federal) litigation, aside from this Appeal:

A. HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court

Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and

B. HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-

11134.

CLEARLY, there exists a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when TWO (2) of the newly

assigned panel judges (Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson) are DEFENDANTS

in a separate lawsuit brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The

Appellant requests for clarification as to HOW this conflict could possibly have been

overlooked.

III. Two (2) of Three Circuit Judges Stand Accused of TREASON Under ARTICLE III

This Court (and the AMERICAN PUBLIC) is well aware that as a matter of record,

evidenced TREASON claims have now been brought against SEVEN (7) Federal (District
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 32 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

and Circuit) Judges for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. These accused officers of

the Court include Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson.

NOT ONE (1) accused officer of the Court has denied a single Treason claim, and

POTUS has been regularly copied on ALL Court filings (as is required by Federal Law)

since the evidenced Discovery of Treason claims in August 2015.

IV. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges have CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the

FBI against them.

The evidenced Treason and other serious criminal claims alleged against Chief Judge

Howard and Judge Thompson have shown cause for the Appellant to file Criminal

Complaints with the FBI and the DOJ. CLEARLY, this contributes further to a

CONFLICT OF INTEREST in being assigned as a panel member to this Appeal.

V. CONTINUED JURISDICTION ISSUES

The record shows that the Appellant has filed well over FIFTY (50) + court documents

which raise a JURISDICTION issue(s), ALL of which have been IGNORED by

referenced Federal (District and Circuit) Judges. The referenced July 26, 2018 email

communication and NOTICE issued by the Court signifies that JURISDICTION STILL

HAS NOT BEEN RE-ESTABLISHED. It remains UNCLEAR as to whether this First

Circuit can legally re-establish jurisdiction. Ignoring jurisdiction issues (at minimum) shows

cause to transfer this Appeal to another Circuit.

VI. Remaining Circuit Judges WITH Jurisdiction

The remaining Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction here are

believed to include: (1) Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya; (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin;

(3) Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl; and (4) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. After the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 33 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

recusal/removal of Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson, the Appellant believes that the

list of Circuit Judges (above) are the ONLY REMAINING First Circuit Judges who MAY

be legally eligible to serve on a panel in this Appeal. With the filing of this Motion, the

Appellant respectfully calls for the Court to clarify for the record the selection process for its

assignment of Circuit Judges.

VII. DEMAND for INJUNCTION

The July 26, 2018 Notice issued by the Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter, states the

following,

“This is to advise you, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that this case will be submitted on

the briefs without oral argument.”

It would appear (at least on its surface) that in addition to jurisdiction issues, an effort is

being made by this First Circuit Court to IGNORE the Appellant’s motion(s) for an

Injunction and issues associated with recently vacated orders. As previously stated, the

Appellant respectfully calls for a new panel (with jurisdiction) to address these legal matters

PRIOR to moving forward with this Appeal. Since the Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and

has NO LEGAL background, one of the first issues to address (once jurisdiction has been

established) is ASSISTING MR. HARIHAR with the APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and re-establishing a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.

Finally, the Appellant reminds the Court of his filed response to the July 17, 2018 order, which

included a GOOD FAITH OPPORTUNITY to REACH AGREEMENT with ALL

PARTIES. The Appellant respectfully expects a documented ANSWER from ALL Appellees

NO LATER THAN this Friday, August 3, 2018.


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 34 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE to the attention of

POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A

copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC out of

the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a question

regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting

information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 29th Day of July, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 35 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Exhibit 3
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 36 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 37 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 38 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 39 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

Exhibit 4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 40 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 41 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 42 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 16, 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