You are on page 1of 46

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752


Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
10:33 AM
To: Laurie Wood <lwood@supremecourt.gov>, sharris@supremecourt.gov
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, "Constituent.services@state.ma.us"
<constituent.services@state.ma.us>, elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov,
Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov,
ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, chairmanoffice@sec.gov,
CommissionerStein@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov,
CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us,
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, "Murphy, Matthew T." <mmurphy@casneredwards.com>,
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, david fialkow
<david.fialkow@klgates.com>

Dear Clerk Harris and Deputy Clerk Wood,

I have received via US Priority Mail postmarked May 28, 2019, returned court documents
which were intended to be recorded on the docket associated with Certiorari Petition No.
18-7752, HARIHAR v US BANK et al (See attached photo below). After reviewing Mr.
Harris' correspondence (See Attached photo below) explaining the reason for returning
these documents, there appears to be some confusion. To be clear, the document WAS
NOT a Petition for Rehearing. It was a Formal NOTICE to Inform the Court that the
Certiorari decision associated with the referenced Petition was issued AFTER
JURISDICTION was LOST and is therefore, VOID. This Notice was also to inform the
Court of evidenced crimes committed by Justices of the US Supreme Court that
include JUDICIAL TREASON under ARTICLE III. As a matter of record, the Petitioner
previously filed two (2) supplements to his Certiorari Petition, informing the Court of multiple
unresolved issues impacting jurisdiction. The Panel consciously chose to IGNORE these
unresolved issues and subsequently, jurisdiction was LOST. Therefore, reference to Rule
44 is NOT applicable - and if left uncorrected, will be interpreted as a continued pattern of
corrupt/deceptive conduct by judicial officers, intending to reach a corrupt and pre-
determined outcome. Even if the 25-day timeline associated with Rule 44 was applicable
(which it isn't), the Court was formally made aware of these evidenced crimes just days
after the void decision was published. As required by Federal Law (and included as
attachments to the Notice), the Petitioner timely delivered the following communications:

1. A formal letter delivered to Chief Justice John Roberts, informing him of the
referenced allegations. The letter was sent via email communication to Deputy
Clerk Laurie Wood on April 19, 2019. The email also included a formal criminal
complaint filed with the FBI against all nine (9) Supreme Court Justices;
2. A formal letter informing POTUS of evidenced Treason claims as required under
ARTICLE III, delivered via www.whitehouse.gov on April 25, 2019;
3. A formal letter delivered to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), for the purpose
of informing Congress, as these evidenced judicial abuses of power show cause
for removal from the bench and potential impeachment under ARTICLE'S II & III -
delivered via email communication on April 29, 2019
(elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, attached below). Deputy Clerk Wood was
copied on the referenced email to Senator Warren.

There's been no return communication from the Court, stating their intentions to address
these publicly evidenced crimes. Based on the Petitioner's interpretation of the law, you are
respectfully reminded that as Clerks of the Court - you, along with the named Respondents
and their counsel of record serve as witnesses to these evidenced crimes, including
Treason. Any failure to acknowledge these crimes shows cause (at minimum) to bring
incremental MISPRISION of TREASON claims, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382.

I will again respectfully call for the Clerk's Office to formally docket the referenced Notice as
part of the record. While I understand this may be an unprecedented scenario, I am not
aware of any Supreme Court Rule which states that a litigant is not allowed to report
judicial crimes, especially when it has impacted jurisdiction and the Court's legal
authority to issue a decision. A copy of the Formal Notice is again attached as reference.
If the Court requires the original hardcopy to be mailed again, please advise, along with the
requested number of copies.

Please be advised, a NEW complaint against The United States is now being prepared for
filing with the US Court of Federal Claims. IF: (1) the Clerk of the Court again decides
NOT to record the formal Notice; and (2) The United States Supreme Court does not
initiate corrective action regarding the Petitioner's evidenced claims of record, it will be
noted in the new complaint and will further evidence egregious judicial abuses of power in
full view of the American Public. Ms. Wood - Please confirm the email address for Clerk -
Scott S. Harris is correct. If the email address for Mr. Harris is incorrect, please advise and
forward this email to him.

Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal Law, and considering a portion


of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers;
(2) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) Criminal SEC violations; and (4)
matters believed to impact National/Homeland Security, copies of this Notice are
necessarily delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media) to:

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov);


2. US Secret Service - Director Randolph D. Alles;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)

1
Copies will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide out
of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and security. If this Court has
questions regarding any portion of this Notice, or requires additional information, the
Petitioner is happy to provide upon request. Thank you for your attention to this very
serious matter.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

2
[Quoted text hidden]

2 attachments
4-29-19 Letter to Sen Warren RE Systemic Judicial Abuses.pdf
1257K
NOTICE re VOID Cert Decision and Treason.pdf
771K

3
No. 18-7752

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States


____________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Petitioner
v.

US BANK NA, et al
Respondents
____________

Formal Notice of Void Certiorari Decision and


Filed Treason Claims under Article III
_______________

DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR.


CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_______________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR*
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
*Petitioner, Pro Se Mo.harihar@gmail.com

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Authorities……………………………………….. 2
Opinions below................................................................ 3
Jurisdiction...................................................................... 3
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved........ 5
Formal Notice of Void Order and Filed
Treason Claims under Article III................................... 6
Conclusion ..................................................................... 10
Notice Appendix ……………………..……………………. 13
Proof of Service…………………………….…………….... 38

5
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) …………………5


Levine v The United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct.
1038 (1960) ……………………………..……………7
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct.
11,13 (1954) ………………………………………….7
Harihar v The United States
(1st Circuit 2017) …………………………………5, 6
Harihar v Howard, et al
(1st Circuit, 2018) …………………………...…..7,11
Harihar v Wells Fargo, et al
(MA Land Court, 2018) ……………..…….…….7, 9
Harihar v Wells Fargo, et al
(MA Middlesex Superior Court, 2018) ….…….7, 9

Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ..........................................................6,7
18 U.S.C. § 1831 ................................................6,8,11,12
28 U.S.C. §455(a)…………………………….….….………8
28 U.S.C. § 144 …………………………….….………....…8
18 U.S.C. § 242………………………………………..….…8
18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 ………………….……………….….8
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) …………………………………...……3

Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) ................................................7,9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) ................................................7,9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) ………………………......……...8,9
Fed. R. App. P. 33………….…….…………...………….…9
Local Rule 33………………………………….………….…9

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:


Article II………………………………………………….….5
Article III, Section 3……………………………...……5,6,8

Other:
48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86……………….………11

6
OPINIONS BELOW
The order list: 586 U.S. (published February 19,
2019) shows an unpublished decision which
improperly denied STAY Application No 18A554.1
The order list: 587 U.S. (published April 15, 2019)
shows that: (1) No corrective action was initiated to
the order associated with Application No. 18A554;
and (2) The order denying Certiorari Petition 18-
7752 was therefore issued after jurisdiction had
been impacted and lost.2

JURISDICTION

Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the law, the


jurisdiction of this Supreme Court panel is impacted
(and ultimately removed) based on the following:

First, the Petitioner – a pro se litigant with no legal


experience, initially believed the jurisdiction of this
Court was invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). However,
as described in STAY Application No. 18A554 and
Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752, this Court was
informed of (no less than) twenty-three (23) unresolved
issues from the (lower) First Circuit Appeals Court.
This lengthy list of unresolved issues was (twice)
acknowledged by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.3
Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the law and

1 Reference both supplements to Certiorari Petition 18-7752 (filed 03/09/2019 and


04/10/2019) to review evidenced arguments that conclude the denial of STAY Application
18A-554 (See Exhibit 1) is an erred judgement.
2
See Exhibit 2
3 The Petitioner references two (2) separate timeline extension requests for filing his

Certiorari Petition. Each of the timeline requests were granted by Justice Breyer based on
these twenty-three (23) unresolved issues. Upon receiving each of these extensions, the
Petitioner returned to the First Circuit in an effort to resolve these issues – prior to filing
his Petition for Certiorari. However, the inferior replacement Circuit Panel, led by First
Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard, refused to do so, also refused to recuse and instead
- issued a void order and prohibited the Petitioner from any future filings. The Petitioner
then updated: (1) the First Circuit Executive; (2) the Administrative Office of US Courts
(specifically, Director James C. Duff); (3) POTUS; (4) the DOJ; (5) members of Congress;
and (6) this Supreme Court. However, as a matter of record, no corrective action has been
initiated.

7
rules of procedure, a litigant is not allowed to appeal to
a higher court until all existing issues have been
resolved. However, as a matter of record, the
Replacement (and as evidenced, Inferior) First Circuit
Panel refused to resolve these evidenced issues and
instead, issued a (void) order: (1) dismissing the appeal;
and (2) prohibiting any future filings by the Petitioner.
This Court is aware that the Petitioner’s efforts to
address evidenced judicial misconduct claims have
conclusively revealed a failed process in the First
Circuit, which include: (1) the Chief Judge - the Hon.
Jeffrey R. Howard4; (2) the First Circuit Judicial
Council; and (3) the Office of the First Circuit
Executive. This Court is also aware that collectively,
these systemic failures and judicial abuses were
brought to the attention of the Administrative Office of
US Courts – specifically to the attention of Director
James C. Duff. However, Director Duff has thus far
failed to initiate corrective action, indicating that these
identified abuses of judicial power run deep within the
Judicial Branch of government. It should be clear to
any objective observer that the dismissal order
associated with Appeal No. 1381 was issued by a
replacement, inferior Circuit Panel and is therefore
considered void. Subsequently, this Court never had
jurisdiction to proceed under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
However, based on the egregious abuses of judicial
power evidenced against eight (8) First Circuit Judges
– including Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard,5 the Appeal
should have been allowed to be removed to this Court.
Respectfully, the Justices of this Supreme Court should
have recognized jurisdiction and other referenced legal
issues in their review of STAY Application No. 18A554.

Secondly, even if this Court initially had jurisdiction it


was impacted by the denial of Application No. 18A554,

4The Chief Judge is first to review a judicial misconduct complaint.


5Referenced Inferior/Disqualified First Circuit Judges include: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R.
Howard; (2) Juan R. Torruella (Recused); (3) Sandra L. Lynch (Recused); (4) William J.
Kayatta, Jr. (Recused); (5) David J. Barron (Recused); (6) Norman H. Stahl; (7) Kermit V.
Lipez; and (8) O. Rogeriee Thompson.

8
which (at minimum) clearly evidences a failure(s) to: (1)
uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the
Judicial Oath of Office; and (3) the Constitution of The
United States. At that moment, jurisdiction was lost –
and at minimum, shows cause to expand upon (or to file
new) Color of Law and Due Process Violations against
The United States.6 As part of the historical record –
and with the assistance of social media, the Petitioner
has now evidenced in full public view, identical
patterns of corrupt conduct at every level of the
Massachusetts State and Federal judiciary, including
this United States Supreme Court.

By issuing an order on Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752


without jurisdiction, all nine (9) Supreme Court
Justices have now, by definition – “Warred against the
Constitution of The United States”, which is considered
an act of Treason under Article III, Section 3. Based on
these evidenced judicial failures and as required by
Federal law, it became necessary for the Petitioner to
inform both the White House and Congress under
ARTICLES II and III.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY


PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the


U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor
state governments may deprive any person “of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.” A similar
due process provision was found in the Magna Charta, as
well as early state constitutions. Chief Justice William
Howard Taft explained the purpose behind the clauses in
Truax v. Corrigan (1921) as follows: “The due process
clause requires that every man shall have the protection
of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a
law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not

6 The Petitioner references the related civil complaint – HARIHAR v THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074. Please note, the dismissal order associated with this Appeal
(as well as the lower Court dismissal order) was issued by an inferior Circuit Panel and is
considered void.

9
arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold
his life, liberty, property and immunities under the
protection of the general rules which govern society. It, of
course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it
makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s
right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or
the Legislature may not withhold.”

This Court was previously informed that additional


Constitutional and Statutory Provisions also apply,
considering the interpreted matters pertaining to
National Security, Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. §
1831, Treason – ARTICLE III and other evidenced
claims. The Petitioner respectfully restates that the
enormity of complex legal issues associated with this
litigation (at minimum) certainly calls into question this
(as well as the lower) Court’s failure/refusal to assist him
with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915.

Formal Notice of Void Order and


Filed Treason Claims under Article III

The denial of Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752 and


previously STAY Application 18A554 brings an
unprecedented scenario, as the Petitioner has now
collectively evidenced systemic abuses of judicial power
at every level of the Federal (and MA State) judiciary,
including this United States Supreme Court. Through
the assistance of social media and the internet, the
Petitioner has publicly evidenced these judicial failures
to the Nation throughout the eight (8) year history of
this litigation. As a matter of record: (1) legislative
leaders in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; (2)
members of Congress; (3) Federal and State Prosecutors;
(4) The White House; and (5) The Administrative Office
of US Courts have all been regularly updated as well.
HARIHAR v US BANK et al (including related
complaints)7 is now becoming recognized nationwide as

7 Related complaints include: (1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;
(2) HARIHAR v HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134; and (3) all related
Massachusetts State litigation.

10
the most egregious abuse of judicial power in the history
of The United States.
The denial of STAY Application No. 18A554 and
Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752, now shows that all nine
(9) Justices of this Supreme Court have exemplified the
same, identical pattern of corrupt conduct evidenced by
fifteen (15) identified lower court judges – all within the
First Circuit. This does not include the same systemic
abuses first discovered in the Massachusetts State
Judiciary.
In the eyes of the American Public, this United States
Supreme Court has (at minimum) clearly failed one of
its core principles, “justice must satisfy the appearance
of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80
S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348
U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11,13 (1954). The entire Nation has
now witnessed this systemic abuse of judicial power that
at minimum, includes the following evidenced claims:
1. Failure to address, clarify and correct jurisdiction
issues;
2. Failure to acknowledge an unprecedented nine (9)
Federal recusals impacting this litigation;
3. Failure to uphold 28 U.S.C. §1915;
4. Failure to address and re-establish the clearly
evidenced imbalance of hardships;
5. Failure to acknowledge and uphold Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) – new evidence, most recently including (but
not limited to) the March 12, 2019 sworn testimony
of the Respondent – WELLS FARGO (Specifically, its
former CEO Tim Sloan), before the House Financial
Services Committee;
6. Failure to uphold UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court
claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – evidenced
against both the Respondents as well as identified
judicial officers;
7. Failure to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) – egregious
judicial misconduct;
8. Failure to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 1964 – Civil RICO
claims evidenced against: (1) Bank Respondents; (2)
the US Attorney’s Office (MA); and (3) the

11
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. The
referenced systemic judicial abuses now show cause
to include judicial officers with this claim, as the
failure to even acknowledge the evidenced collusion
strengthens the argument(s) that irrefutably show
presiding judges are determined to arrive at a
corrupt and predetermined outcome;
9. Failure to uphold 18 U.S.C. § 1831 – Economic
Espionage and the Respondents Trade
Secret/Intellectual Property Rights;
10. Failure to uphold 28 U.S.C. §455(a), and 28 U.S.C. §
144;
11. Failure to uphold ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The
United States Constitution, including evidenced
claims of Treason raised against identified judicial
officers;
12. Failure to uphold Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 -
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;
13. Failure to uphold Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights;
14. Failure to uphold Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001
Fraud and False Statements;
15. Failure to uphold Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for
Deprivation of Rights;
16. Failure to acknowledge the lower Court’s refusal to
clarify referenced Judgments/Mandates;
17. Failure to acknowledge the lower Court’s refusal of a
trial by jury, including requests for a grand jury;
18. Failure to acknowledge the lower Court’s refusal to
allow discovery and premature moves for dismissal;
19. Failure to acknowledge the lower Court’s refusal to
seek clarification (at the Petitioner’s request) from
the DOJ – regarding their intention to bring criminal
indictments for evidenced criminal claims related to
this civil complaint;
20. Failure to acknowledge incremental misconduct by:
(1) Bank Respondents; (2) Respondent David E.
Fialkow, Esq.; and (3) Respondents – Jeffrey/
Isabelle Perkins in the Middlesex Superior Court8

8References the Middlesex Superior Court (MA) Docket No. 1981-CV-00050 and 1181-CV-
04499.

12
warranting amendment to the original complaint (at
minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3);
21. Failure to acknowledge incremental actions by: (1)
inferior MA Land Court Judge – Hon. Michael Vhay;
and (2) Middlesex Superior Court Judge Kenneth J.
Fishman (MA) warranting amendment to the
original complaint, bringing additional claims
against the Respondent – Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (at minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2), (3) and (4)9;
22. Failure to acknowledge nonfeasance by all three (3)
branches of government (Federal and State) showing
cause to expand upon Due Process/Color of Law
violations against the Commonwealth and separately
against The United States; warranting amendment to
the original complaint and related federal litigation
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3) and (6).

The Petitioner is certain that – considering the


complexity and totality of legal issues involved: (1) if he
had the financial means to retain legal counsel; or (2) if
the lower courts had properly exercised their judicial
discretion and assisted with the appointment of counsel
under 28 U.S.C. §1915, at minimum, the following
would have occurred:
1. There would have been an opportunity to explore the
First Circuit’s Civil Appeals Management Plan
(CAMP), governed by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure and First Circuit Local Rule
33.0. Local Rule 33.0 mandates alternative dispute
resolution of all civil appeals. The purpose of the
CAMP program is to provide a confidential forum in
which to promote settlement where feasible, simplify
the issues on appeal, and address procedural
questions and any other matters that may assist in
the disposition of the proceeding; and
2. If efforts to reach a mutual agreement failed, and the
pattern of judicial abuses continued, the Petitioner’s

9 References MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144

13
legal counsel would likely have identified additional
claims beyond those referenced above.

Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the law, these


evidenced failures irrefutably show (at least in part) the
Supreme Court’s intention to reach a corrupt and pre-
determined outcome. To any objective observer, this is
identical to the evidenced pattern of corrupt conduct
exemplified by the lower courts – indicating systemic
judicial abuses throughout the Federal (and State)
judiciary.
After personally witnessing these judicial failures
including acts of Treason, the Petitioner (as required by
Federal law) has necessarily informed the following
parties:
1. A Formal Letter delivered to the attention of
Chief Justice John Roberts10;
2. Email communication delivered to Deputy Clerk
Laurie Wood, the DOJ and members of
Congress11;
3. A formal letter informing POTUS of evidenced
Treason claims and as required under ARTICLE
III12;
4. A formal letter to US Senator Elizabeth Warren
for the purpose of informing Congress, as the
evidenced judicial misconduct claims show cause
for removal from the bench and potential
impeachment under ARTICLE II & III13;
5. A formal criminal complaint filed with the FBI14.

10 See Exhibit 3
11 See Exhibit 4
12 See Exhibit 5
13 See Exhibit 5
14 See Exhibit 6

14
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the decision associated with


Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752 is considered VOID. If left
uncorrected by this United States Supreme Court – and/or if
the Respondents still refuse to enter into a mutual agreement
discussion, the Petitioner will (at minimum) show cause to
bring a new complaint against The United States in the US
Court of Federal claims. This Court is again respectfully
reminded that this is a $42B lawsuit that includes Intellectual
Property (IP) Rights belonging solely to the Petitioner. As
articulated within the record, this IP is also considered a Trade
Secret - protected under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

A new complaint filed with the US Court of Federal Claims will


conclusively evidence not only: (1) a failed Judicial Branch of
Government; but also (2) a failed Executive Branch as the DOJ
has refused to bring criminal indictments for the Petitioner’s
evidenced criminal complaints of record; and (3) a failed
Legislative Branch that shows nonfeasance by Legislative
leaders who, as a matter of record have been regularly updated
on these systemic issues for over eight (8) years.

Separately, if the referenced judicial failures remain


uncorrected, the Petitioner also shows cause to amend his
original complaint – HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD, et al (Docket No. 18-CV-11134), (at minimum)
bringing new tort claims against all nine (9) Supreme Court
Justices (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86), now considered
inferior.

Respectfully, please be advised, it remains the Petitioner’s


intention – as it has from the beginning, to reach a mutual
agreement that’s beneficial for ALL parties, including The
United States. However:

1. IF Respondents (and separately, The United States) are


unwilling to reach a mutual agreement;
2. IF Judicial Officers blatantly refuse to uphold the
Constitution, Federal/State Laws and their Judicial
Oath;

15
3. IF Federal/State Prosecutors refuse to bring criminal
indictments for evidenced criminal complaints;
4. IF Legislative leaders continue to exemplify nonfeasance;
and
5. IF There is an expectation that collectively, these
evidenced failures should simply be accepted by this
American Citizen,

That will NEVER happen - and it compels me to continue with


this litigation - regardless of timeline, until there is
accountability and corrective action is initiated. Through social
media, I can see the Nation is watching... Over the past 6
months I have over 1000 new followers including: (1) Law
Professors from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Suffolk,
etc...; (2) Dozens of Law Offices/Attorneys; (3) Executive
Producers from ABC News, CBS, NBC, 60 Minutes, Inside
Edition; (4) the Administrative Office of US Courts; (5) the
Executive Office of the President (EOP) etc... Respectfully, no
one has challenged a single one of my evidenced claims.

Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of


Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims
pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers;
(2) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) Criminal SEC
violations; and (4) matters believed to impact National/
Homeland Security, copies of this Notice are necessarily
delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media) to:

1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director Randolph D. Alles;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C.
Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate
Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House
Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);

16
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)

Copies will also be made available to the Public and to media


outlets nationwide out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s
safety and security. The Clerk of the Court is expected to record
this document as part of the record. If this Court has questions
regarding any portion of this Notice, or requires additional
information, the Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted.

Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner - Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

17
NOTICE APPENDIX
Formal Notice of Void Order and
Filed Treason Claims under Article III

18
NOTICE APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit 1, Denial Order STAY Application No. 18A554……………............ 15


Exhibit 2, Denial Order Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752............................. 17
Exhibit 3, 04/19/19 Letter to the Hon. Chief Justice John G. Roberts........ 19
Exhibit 4, 04/19/19 Email to Deputy Clerk Laurie Wood………………....... 26
Exhibit 5, 04/25/19 Letter to POTUS………………………………………..…. 29
Exhibit 6, 04/18/19 Criminal Complaint to FBI……………………………… 35

*Please note, all other Constitutional and Statutory references can be found
in Appendix B.

19
Exhibit 1

20
21
Exhibit 2

22
23
Exhibit 3

24
April 19, 2019

The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.


Chief Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

On Monday, April 15, 2019, the US Supreme Court published an Order List
indicating the denial of Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752 (HARIHAR v US
BANK, et al).15 This decision, issued without clarification, exemplifies what
is considered a continued pattern of corrupt conduct - identical to that
evidenced by the lower (Federal and State) courts. Systemic failures have
now clearly been evidenced within every level of the Judicial Branch of
Government (Federal and State). It appears the intention of the Judicial
Branch is to ultimately arrive at a corrupt and pre-determined outcome. As
an American-born citizen of The United States, this is unacceptable. While
further investigation is certainly necessary, the denial of Petition No. 18-
7752 (at minimum) now strengthens the following arguments:

1. To avoid setting legal precedent for all parties negatively impacted by


illegal foreclosure;
2. To critically damage the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade
Secret, known as the “HARIHAR FCS MODEL” – designed to deliver
substantial economic growth to The United States (including
substantial relief to illegally foreclosed homeowners Nationwide); and

15
See Exhibit 1, to view the Notice of Denial, received April 15, 2019, by US Supreme Court Clerk –
Scott S. Harris.

25
3. To cause greater harm and damages to the Petitioner – Mohan A.
Harihar.

Respectfully your Honor, as articulated in the Petition and its two (2)
supplements, the Court was timely notified of jurisdiction issues
warranting both clarification and correction before proceeding. Neither
occurred, indicating again – the same pattern of corrupt conduct evidenced
by the lower courts. By failing to resolve these issues, the Court lacked the
jurisdiction to Rule on Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752. Based on the
Petitioner’s interpretation of the law, by ruling without establishing
jurisdiction, the Justices of this United States Supreme Court have (at
minimum) collectively, “Warred against the Constitution,” a violation
ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Your Honor, it gives me no pleasure to inform you that formal claims of


TREASON are now brought against you and all nine (9) Justices under
ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381. As required by law, serving as
witnesses to this act(s) of Treason are the following parties:

1. US Supreme Court Clerk – Scott S. Harris;


2. Deputy Clerk of The Supreme Court – Laurie Wood;
3. All representing counsel of record – associated with the referenced
Petition, including the fourteen (14) Respondents themselves.

Wherefore, as further grounds, the Petitioner identifies the following


(partial) list of evidenced (and ignored) claims that now mandate additional
legal action:

1. Ignoring systemic judicial abuses evidenced at every level of the


Federal and State judiciary – including evidenced (and unopposed)
claims against fifteen (15) federal judicial officers associated with this
litigation, and an unprecedented nine (9) Federal recusals;
26
2. Continued refusal to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues;
3. Ignoring evidenced Treason claims under ARTICLE III and 18 U.S.
Code § 2381;
4. Ignoring evidenced Misprision of Treason claims under 18 U.S. Code §
2382;
5. 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;
6. Refusing to address the evidenced (and unopposed) Fraud on the Court
claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4) and (6);
7. 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;
8. Refusing to address or even acknowledge: (1) the Appellant’s
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights; (2) Evidenced Economic Espionage
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832; and (3) matters believed to impact
National Security;
9. Refusing to address identified Due Process Violations, including (but
not limited to) refusing a trial by jury;
10. Ignoring requests for a grand jury;
11. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of
Rights Under Color of Law;
12. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against
Rights;
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False
Statements;
14. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of
Rights;

27
15. Failing to address the Petitioner’s request(s) to Clarify the DOJ’s
intention to enjoin the civil complaint with criminal indictments;
16. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s repeated concerns for his
personal safety and security; and others.

Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal Law – including


ARTICLES II and III, it now becomes necessary to inform the Executive
Branch, specifically – President Trump of these evidenced violations
(Congress will additionally be informed, including both the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees. Criminal complaints also being filed with the
FBI for evidenced criminal claims (referenced above).

Please be advised, based on this latest development and the Petitioner’s


interpretation of the law, Mr. Harihar shows cause to also amend his two
(2) separate complaints: (1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal
No. 17-207416; and (2) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134:

1. The American Public has now witnessed systemic judicial abuses


evidenced at every level of the Federal (and State) Judiciary, including
SCOTUS. Therefore, Mr. Harihar shows cause to amend his original
complaint against The United States;
2. The Judicial abuses now evidenced by Supreme Court Justices also
renders them as Inferior Justices, showing cause to bring a Tort
Claim(s) pursuant to Corpus Juris Secundum 48a via amendment to
HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD (or by filing a
new complaint).

16
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES – Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109 (US District Court, Boston,
MA).

28
The Nation has now witnessed what will ultimately become known as the
most egregious abuse of judicial power in US history. If left uncorrected and
this ruling is allowed to stand - EVERY AMERICAN is at risk - where it
has now been evidenced that EVERY COURT - from the Lowell District
Court to the US Supreme Court has BLATANTLY REFUSED to even
ACKNOWLEDGE the LAW.

".... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide
new Guards for their future security."

- Quoted from The Constitution of The United States

Translation - If there's something wrong, those who have the ability to take
action have the responsibility to take action. I pray that upon receiving this
letter, your Honor will realize these referenced errors and begin to initiate
corrective action in order to repair and rebuild the integrity of the Judicial
Branch.

Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal Law,


and considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1) Criminal
misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. §
1831; (3) Criminal SEC violations; and (4) matters believed to impact
National/ Homeland Security, copies of this letter are necessarily delivered
(via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media) to:

1. POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov)17;


2. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
3. US Secret Service;

17 See Exhibit 2

29
4. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
5. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
6. US Attorney General William Barr;
7. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C. Duff;
8. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
9. Senate Judiciary Committee;
10. House Judiciary Committee;
11. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
12. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
13. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
14. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)

A copy will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets
nationwide out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s personal safety
and security.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

30
Exhibit 4

31
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

Formal Treason Claims Filed Against Judicial Officers of the US


Supreme Court
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 1:51 PM
To: Laurie Wood <lwood@supremecourt.gov>
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, Press@usdoj.gov,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov,
lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, ayanna.pressley@mail.house.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us,
chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerStein@sec.gov,
CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>,
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, "Jeffrey B. Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, "Murphy,
Matthew T." <mmurphy@casneredwards.com>, kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Dear Deputy Clerk Wood,

After reviewing the Order List published Monday, April 15, 2019, the DENIAL of Certiorari
Petition No.18-7752 (HARIHAR v US BANK, et al) indicates a continued PATTERN of
CORRUPT CONDUCT now evidenced at EVERY level of the Federal (and State) Judiciary,
including this US Supreme Court. By failing to address/resolve JURISDICTION (and
other) issues identified in the referenced Petition (including its two supplements), all nine
(9) Supreme Court Justices acted without the proper authority to issue such a decision.
Based on the Petitioner's interpretation of the law, an order issued WITHOUT jurisdiction is
considered by definition as, "Warring Against the Constitution of The United States" -
an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3, and 18 U.S. Code § 2381. As the
Petitioner in this case, I have personally witnessed this act of Treason. Therefore, I am
compelled by Federal Law to report this serious crime directly to the Court and to the
President of The United States. Additionally, please be advised of the following:

1. The referenced decision is considered VOID.


2. As Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court, you are also considered to have
personally witnessed this act of Treason. Additional witnesses include Scott S.
Harris (Clerk), all related Respondents and their respective Counsel of record.
As witnesses, any failure (or refusal) to report this evidenced act of Treason will
warrant bringing MISPRISION of TREASON claims, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code §
2382.
3. Aside from evidenced Treason claims, the severity of issues associated with this
litigation - including (but not limited to), Economic Espionage, RICO, Fraud on
the Court, etc., are perceived to impact matters of National Security. Therefore,
the Department of Homeland Security and the Secret Service will necessarily
be updated.
4. A letter is being delivered via US Mail to the attention of Chief Justice Roberts,
informing him of these evidenced claims (referenced above). A copy of the letter is

32
attached as reference and for the purpose of officially informing the Court (See
Below).
5. Formal criminal complaints are being filed with the FBI and the Department of
Justice (DOJ). US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) will be copied directly on this
email, as will Assistant US Attorney Mary Murrane (Representing counsel in the
related case - HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074). A copy of
the criminal complaint is attached as reference (See Below).
6. Copies of this email and referenced documents will be delivered to the attention of
President Trump (via www.whitehouse.gov and social media).
7. The House/Senate Judiciary Committees will be notified separately as this latest
development is interpreted as grounds for REMOVAL FROM THE BENCH and
potential IMPEACHMENT under ARTICLES II and III.
8. The House Financial Services Committee and additional members of Congress
will be updated - as this recent action is related to evidenced financial crimes
associated with the US FORECLOSURE CRISIS.
9. Legislative leaders in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will be copied directly
on this email. They include: (1) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (2) US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (4) US
Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA); and (5) US Congresswoman Ayanna
Pressley (D-MA).
10. All counsel of record will be copied directly on this email.
11. A copy will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide
out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s personal safety and security.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Mohan a. Harihar

Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

2 attachments
Letter to Chief Justice John G Roberts 4_19_19.pdf
220K
FBI Complaint - Treason Claims - SCOTUS.pdf
181K

33
Exhibit 5

34
A LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

April 25, 2018

President Donald J. Trump


The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

RE: TREASON CLAIMS FILED AGAINST SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Dear Mr. President:

It is with great sadness that I formally bring to your attention (and as required by
Federal Law) - evidenced claims of Treason involving all nine (9) US Supreme Court
Justices, pursuant to ARTICLE III Section 3. Serving as witnesses to these Treason
claims are:
1. US Supreme Court Clerk – Scott S. Harris;
2. Deputy Clerk of The Supreme Court – Laurie Wood;
3. All representing counsel of record – associated with the referenced Petition
(below), including the fourteen (14) Respondents themselves.

On Monday, April 15, 2019, the United States Supreme Court published an Order
List indicating the denial of Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752 (HARIHAR v US
BANK, et al).18 A review of the Petition – including its two (2) supplements,
identifies jurisdiction (and other) issues that clearly required correction before
proceeding further. The Court was respectfully informed that any failure to address,
clarify and correct these legal issues would ultimately impact jurisdiction to issue any

18
See Exhibit 1, to view the Notice of Denial, received April 15, 2019, by US Supreme Court Clerk –
Scott S. Harris.

35
decision. The Court ignored these evidenced issues, choosing instead to rule without
jurisdiction and deny the Petition without cause. This action therefore, is considered
by definition as “Warring against the Constitution” and an act of Treason under
ARTICLE III, Section 3. Aside from this letter, separate communication is
necessarily delivered to members of Congress as this evidenced crime by judicial
officers shows cause for removal from the bench and potential impeachment under
ARTICLE II.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall in 1821 wrote: it is “treason on the
constitution” when a judge “usurps [the jurisdiction] that which is not given” –
which means that if a judge makes up law, and claims power that he does not have, it
is an act of treason, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821). The U.S.
Supreme Court re-iterated this holding in U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980) by
affirming the statement of Chief Justice Marshall and declaring that violation of law
purposely by a judge is unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court judges also decided that it is a “, war on the constitution”
when a judge violates his oath of office to support it [including supporting statutes
of a state = due process], Cooper v. Aaron,358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401(1958).

The Court’s decision exemplifies a continued pattern of corrupt conduct identical to


that evidenced by the lower (Federal and State) courts. As a matter of record, this
litigation has now evidenced – in full public view systemic failures within every
level of the Judicial Branch of Government (Federal and State), including the
Supreme Court. Based on these evidenced systemic failures, HARIHAR v US
BANK is now being recognized nationwide as the most egregious abuse of
judicial power in US history. It appears that collectively, the only intention of the
Judicial Branch has been to ultimately arrive at a corrupt and pre-determined
outcome. Any objective observer would agree. As an American-born citizen of The
United States, this is unacceptable. While further investigation is certainly necessary

36
to determine the cause for these systemic judicial abuses, the denial of Petition No.
18-7752 (at minimum) now strengthens the following arguments:
1. To avoid setting legal precedent for all parties negatively impacted by illegal
foreclosure;
2. To critically damage the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, known
as the “HARIHAR FCS MODEL” – designed to deliver substantial
economic growth to The United States (including substantial relief to illegally
foreclosed homeowners Nationwide); and
3. To cause greater harm and damages to the Petitioner – Mohan A. Harihar.

On April 19, 2019, an email communication was delivered to Deputy Clerk Laurie
Wood officially informing SCOTUS of these Treason claims. The email also
included: (1) a separate letter to the attention of Chief Justice John Roberts; and (2) a
formal criminal complaint delivered to the attention of the FBI and Department of
Justice (DOJ).19

Mr. President, as you know, I have kept your administration regularly updated on this
litigation since you took office.20 Respectfully, you are also aware that the referenced
judicial failures – along with related failures in the Justice Department and Legislative
branch of government, have shown cause to bring an incremental civil complaint
against The United States (Referencing, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES,
Appeal No. 17-2074). Based on this latest (and VOID) decision by SCOTUS, there is
now cause to amend the original complaint against The United States, pursuant to (at
minimum) Fed. R. Civ. P 60(b)(2), including an expansion of Due Process and Color
of Law violations.

Since the infancy stages of this (8yr) litigation, my intentions have been (and remain)
twofold:

19
See Exhibit 2
20
Regular updates have been provided to the Trump Administration via email communication
(www.whitehouse.gov) and social media.

37
1. To recoup damages suffered from my identified illegal foreclosure21; and
2. To ultimately gain alignment with the Federal Government involving my
referenced Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, designed to deliver substantial
economic growth to The United States (including substantial relief to
illegally foreclosed homeowners Nationwide).

Respectfully Mr. President, it was never my intention to evidence corruption at the


highest levels of government and banking. If the law was upheld years ago, I would
still be in my home and/or a mutual (and fair) legal agreement would have likely been
reached between parties. Instead however, the evidenced failures by all three (3)
branches of government bring us to where we are today - and the entire Nation has
been watching. Left uncorrected, a failed judicial system is threat to every
American. It therefore remains my intention to continue the pursuit of civil and
criminal accountability against ALL parties – including judicial officers, regardless of
timeline. It is also incumbent upon the Executive and Legislative Branches to initiate
corrective action under ARTICLES II & III.

Mr. President, as a sign of my continued Good Faith, I am respectfully extending an


opportunity for a discussion to potentially reach a mutual agreement in the referenced
lawsuit – HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074. As part of that
discussion, there MAY be an opportunity to discuss the Intellectual Property Rights to
the Trade Secret known as the HARIHAR FCS MODEL.22 A copy of the original
presentation successfully delivered to former Vice President Joe Biden is attached for
your review.23 Considering the magnitude of illegally securitized mortgages & related

21
The referenced Property belonging to Mohan A. Harihar was identified as an illegal foreclosure by: (1)
The Department of Justice (DOJ); (2) MA Attorney General’s Office; and (3) Federal Bank Regulators.
22
The HARIHAR FCS model has been previously presented with MERIT to: 1.) The EOP (former
Obama Administration) per the specific request of VP Joe Biden; 2.) Deputy Chief Counsel (Former)
– Gail Laster, House Financial Services Committee; 3.) Senior Economic Advisor to US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) – Bruno Freitas; 4.) The Office of former US Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (D-MA); 5.) The State AG offices of MA and NH; and to CEO Larry Rasky (Rasky
Partners, Inc.) who leads one of the largest and most respected independent public relations and public
affairs firms in the nation.
23
See Exhibit 3

38
foreclosures identified by the DOJ and Federal Bank Regulators (4.2M), successful
implementation of the FCS Model is estimated to: (1) deliver $5T in economic growth
to the US; while (2) delivering substantial relief to all those negatively impacted by
illegal foreclosure.

I pray that as the leader of our great Nation and head of the Executive Branch, this
letter will not fall on deaf ears and that ultimately, we can work together towards a
legal solution that benefits both parties.

Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to your response with great anticipation.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Respectfully,

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

39
Exhibit 6

40
(FULL TEXT)

I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

DEFENDANTS: (1) John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States; (2)
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice; (3) Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice; (4)
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice; (5) Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice; (6)
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice; (7) Elena Kagan, Associate Justice; (8) Neil M.
Gorsuch, Associate Justice; (9) Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice

CONTACT INFORMATION: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1


First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20543, 202.479.3000 (Phone).

ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against all nine
(9) Supreme Court Justices have occurred in the timeline associated with the (ongoing)
litigation - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Certiorari Petition No. 18-7752.

The evidenced allegations conclusively show that on April 15, 2019, the Supreme
Court published an Order List which included a decision to deny Certiorari Petition

41
No. 18-7752 (Referenced above). Absent from this decision was any clarification or
corrective action to jurisdiction (and other) issues identified in two (2) separate
supplements to the Petition. The decision itself, issued without jurisdiction is therefore
considered VOID. The Court’s failure to re-establish jurisdiction now exemplifies a
continued and systemic pattern of corrupt conduct that as a matter of record has been
evidenced at every level of the Federal (and State) judiciary. Collectively, these
evidenced claims – for eight (8) years, have been brought to the attention of: (1) the
FBI; (2) DOJ; (3) Congress; (4) The White House; and (5) the American Public. It
remains unclear as to WHY there has yet to be ANY corrective action (including
criminal indictments) for these EVIDENCED crimes.

Based on their 04/15/19 (VOID) decision, all nine (9) Supreme Court Justices stand
formally accused of criminal violations including (but not limited to): (1) Treason
under Article III, Section 3 and 18 U.S. Code § 2381; (2) Conspiracy to commit offense
or to defraud The United States, 18 U.S. Code § 371; (3) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
(Economic Espionage Act), 18 U.S. Code § 1831; (4) RICO violations, 18 U.S. Code
Chapter 96; and (5) Color of Law/Due Process violations.

The complainant believes that the evidenced allegations against referenced judicial
officers show INTENT (at minimum) to: (1) Avoid setting legal precedent for all
parties negatively impacted by illegal foreclosure; (2) Critically damage the Petitioner’s
Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, known as the “HARIHAR FCS MODEL” –
designed to deliver substantial economic growth to The United States (including
substantial relief to illegally foreclosed homeowners Nationwide); and (3) Cause
greater harm and damages to the Petitioner – Mohan A. Harihar. The complainant
believes that upon further investigation, additional claims against the Defendants are
likely and reserves the right to expand upon/file new claims if deemed necessary.

STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The Complainant states that these facts


establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following crimes have
occurred: (1) Treason under Article III, Section 3 and 18 U.S. Code § 2381; (2) 18 U.S.
Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud The United States; (3)
ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831; (4) Color
of Law/Due Process violations; and (5) RICO violations, 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96.
Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with the referenced
litigation.

Please be advised, the severity of these evidenced claims including Treason are
perceived to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies of this
criminal complaint are necessarily delivered to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2)
SCOTUS; (3) The Secret Service/ Department of Homeland Security; (4) Director
James C. Duff (Administrative Offices of US Courts); (5) The DOJ; (6) members
of Congress and other appropriate offices/agencies/committees. The PUBLIC and
media sources nationwide will also receive copies for documentation purposes and
out of continued concerns for the Complainant’s personal safety and security.

42
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States


____________
No. 18-7752
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Petitioner,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
____________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, do swear or declare that on


this date, May 21, 2019 , as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I
have served the enclosed SUPPLEMENT PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or that
party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served, by
depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the United
States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-class
postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial carrier
for delivery within 3 calendar days.:

David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP)


State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 261-3126
david.fialkow@klgates.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E.


Fialkow, Esq. and Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

43
Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney
General)
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of MA and Martha Coakley,


Esq.

Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)


One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 01960
617.217.4720
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Nelson Mullins LLP and Peter Haley, Esq.

Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)


303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
617.426.5900
mmurphy@casneredwards.com

Counsel for Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies)

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)


176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC)


150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
617.558.8435
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Counsel for Harmon Law, PC and Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

44
Solicitor General of the United States
Attn: Solicitor General - Noel Francisco
Department of Justice, Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
202.514.2203

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

45