02-15-2022 Appellant Motion Re Jurisdiction New Discoveries & Appoinment of Counsel

Case: 21-1953 Document: 00117843041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Entry ID: 6477363
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Appeal No. 21-1953
v. )
)
JEANNE D’ARC CREDIT UNION, et al )
)
Appellees )
APPELLANT RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY MOTION RE: (1) JURISDICTION

VIOLATIONS EVIDENCED IN 01-26-2022 ORDER ISSUED BY RECUSED CIRCUIT
JUDGE – HON. WILLIAM J. KAYATTA JR.; (2) NEWLY DISCOVERED CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST/ PRIOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT VIOLATIONS OF RECORD; AND
(3) REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
BACKGROUND
The Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant with no legal experience, respectfully files
this Emergency Motion to address documented judicial failures and patterns of corrupt conduct
that continue to be evidenced (and thus far blatantly ignored) in the First Circuit: (1) most
recently discovered in this appeal; (2) in the lower court docket; (3) and in all related litigation,
impacting jurisdiction and again showing cause to question the integrity of both the US District
and this US Court of Appeals. It’s important to note that in recent months, evidenced judicial
misconduct/criminal violations – believed (at least in part) to include First Circuit Judges, has
appeared in national headline news, referencing the September 2021 Wall Street Journal
(WSJ) Investigative Report that identified 131 Federal Judges who failed to disclose
Conflicts of Interest in cases they were presiding over.1 The WSJ report was then addressed
by: (1) The Administrative Office of US Courts - October 2021 Memorandum addressing
Judicial Code of Conduct, Conflict of Interest Screening, Ethics Training, etc.2; (2) US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)/ US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in a letter to US
Supreme Court Chief Justice – Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr.3; and (3) US Supreme Court
Chief Justice – Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. in his 2021 End of Year Report on the Federal
Judiciary.4
The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that this Appeal is related to other litigation that
remains ongoing in the US District Court and includes a considerable list of evidenced judicial/
administrative failures that remain uncorrected, dating as far back as 2015. Reference is made to
the following related Civil Complaints of record:
1. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880 – includes the sua sponte recusal
of US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs on June 19, 2017, which
came only after judicial misconduct had been evidenced for the record.5 Nearly five (5)
1
The referenced WSJ Investigative report can be viewed online in its entirety on the WSJ website at the following
location: https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-
financial-interest-11632834421?fbclid=IwAR17veisSou0tQJdrn4VM9Ssvk_JYFqCY-
Foselbnkb1SsNx2ia1Fji1GAQ
2
See Exhibit 1, or click on the following link to view the October 13, 2021 Memorandum (Additional Guidance
on Conflict Screening – IMPORTANT INFORMATION) from Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf – Director,
Administrative Office of United States Courts: 10132021judiciary_conflicts.pdf (thomsonreuters.com)
3
See Exhibit 2, or click on the following link to view the October 14, 2021 letter delivered from US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)/ US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) to US Supreme Court Chief Justice
– Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. on Judicial Ethics 2021.10.14 Letter to Chief Justice on Judicial Ethics.pdf
(senate.gov)
4
Click on the following link to view the 2021 End of Year Report on the Federal Judiciary, delivered by US
Supreme Court Chief Justice – Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. 2021year-endreport.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
5
See Exhibit 3, to view the sua sponte recusal order from US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs
issued on June 19, 2017.
years later, the US District Court has yet to void/vacate all orders/judgements related
Judge Burroughs’ recusal and jurisdiction has yet to be restored. Even more disturbing is
that Judge Burroughs has continued to issue orders after her recusal and without
jurisdiction, constituting (at minimum) violations to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code §
2381 – Judicial Treason, for “Warring against the Constitution of the United States”.
US District Court clerks stand accused of Misprision of Treason under 18 U.S. Code §
2382, after witnessing an act of Treason and failed (or refused) to report this serious
crime, as required under Federal law. Instead, clerks are continuing to follow void orders
issued by a recused judge – which includes (but is not limited to) refusing to docket the
Plaintiff’s filed documents. In the past year, it was also discovered that Judge
Burroughs failed to disclose a Conflict of Interest that shows - she holds a mortgage
with Bank Defendant – US BANK.
2. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 18-cv-11109 – is directly related to
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, but is necessarily brought as a separate complaint as
required by Federal law, since the Federal government cannot be included with other
Defendants. As a matter of record, the presiding US District Court Judge – Hon.
Denise J. Casper, exemplified the same egregious judicial abuses of power as judge
Burroughs – However, despite evidence of judicial disqualification, Judge Casper
refused to recuse and continued to issue orders without jurisdiction. The Court has yet to
initiate corrective action, beginning with restoring jurisdiction; and
3. HARIHAR v HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134 – This civil complaint was filed
against recused/disqualified judges, court clerks/administrative personnel and named
Defense attorneys to recoup civil damages for the evidenced judicial/administrative

failures that are well documented in the above-referenced litigation. As previously stated,
all Sovereign Immunity, Judicial Immunity and Litigation Privilege is considered
waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court (UNOPPOSED claims of
record). As a general rule, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done
in the exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter
how erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).
HOWEVER, if an INFERIOR judge – (for example, resulting from Recusal/
Disqualification) acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur liability - as is the case here
(Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509). In the referenced litigation, the record
conclusively shows what can only be described as egregious patterns of corrupt conduct,
where presiding judges have all blatantly refused to uphold Federal laws, brushing aside
all Plaintiff/Appellant claims in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.
Examples of this misconduct include (but are not limited to) the following:
a. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. § 1915 – Assistance with the Appointment of

Counsel;
b. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court;
c. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;
d. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 1832 – Misappropriation of Trade
Secrets/Economic Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;
e. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;
f. Ignoring or failing to address Plaintiff/Appellant’s repeated concerns for personal
safety and security;
g. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 2382; Misprision of Treason;
h. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code § 4; Misprision of a Felony;
i. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III and 18
U.S. Code § 2381;
j. Ignoring evidenced claims believed to impact matters of National Security;
k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC § 2671, 28 USC § 2674 and
28 USC § 1346;
l. Color of Law/Due Process violations, (at minimum) pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 242;
m. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1964
n. Ignoring the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from Docket
No. 17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES and its impact to related
dockets;
o. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;
p. Refusing to RECUSE;
q. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to Plaintiff/Appellant, Mohan
A. Harihar by unjustly tipping the Scales of Justice heavily in favor of the Defendants;
r. False Statements; and others.
As evidenced by the Plaintiff, the presiding judge in HARIHAR v HOWARD et al – Hon.
William G. Young, also exemplified identical patterns of misconduct, by brushing aside all
evidenced claims and denying assistance with the appointment of legal counsel - in order to
arrive at the same corrupt and pre-determined outcome. As with the related cases, the
Plaintiff has clearly shown cause for the COURT, to void/vacate all orders/judgements tied
to recusal/disqualification and to re-establish jurisdiction, without any further unnecessary
delay.
Unfortunately, the lower court docket for this appeal – HARIHAR v JEANNE D’ARC CREDIT
UNION et al, Docket No. 20-cv-12293 has been no different, where despite clear evidence of
disqualification – and considering the severity of legal issues, the presiding US District Court –
Hon. Indira Talwani has (at minimum):
1. Failed to disclose conflicts of interests with Bank Defendants in the related litigation;
2. Refused to clarify jurisdiction;
3. Refused to recuse;
4. Refused to assist the Plaintiff with the appointment of legal counsel under 28 U.S. Code
§ 1915;
5. Refused the Plaintiff’s right to Discovery;
6. Brushed aside the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments and request for a trial by jury;
7. Refused to recognize the related recusals/disqualifications of record, including (at
minimum) evidenced violations to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Judicial
Treason and its impact to jurisdiction, which has yet to be restored (Ex. HARIHAR v US
BANK et al);
8. Continued to issue orders – including a Dismissal order, after judicial disqualification
was clearly evidenced, in the same identical manner evidenced in HARIHAR v US BANK
et al.
On Monday, December 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion – respectfully reminding this
Appeals Court that there remain unresolved issues in the lower court, which was originally
stated stated on the Appellant’s filed Civil Cover sheet. However, the cover sheet has
apparently been altered by the Clerk of the US District Court – Robert M. Farrell.6 The
Appellant’s original Civil Cover Sheet informed this Court that: (1) motions were still pending
in the lower court; (2) there were NO sealed documents; and (3) SHOULD HAVE included the
entire transcript from the lower court. Any objective observer that reviews the Appellant’s filed
Notice of Appeal (Attached) or the lower court transcript in its entirety will clearly conclude that
that are multiple issues that remain unresolved in the lower court. By altering the Appellant’s
filed cover sheet, Clerk Farrell and Deputy Clerk – Matthew A. Paine have (at minimum)
evidenced incremental acts of Bad Faith and Federal Tampering violations under 18 U.S.
Code § 1512(c)(1), (2) – showing cause to amend the original complaint against the Federal
Government (Ref. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES) and warrants the attention of the
Department of Justice (DOJ). Additionally, please be advised that a criminal complaint was
previously filed with the FBI (and separately, with the DOJ) against Clerk Farrell and other
Clerks of the lower court for evidenced Federal Tampering and Mail Fraud violations – that
STILL remain unaddressed.7
6
See Exhibit 4, to view the Appellant’s ALTERED Civil Cover Sheet (Highlighted), followed by the Appellant’s
filed Notice of Appeal.
7
Click on the following link to view the FBI Criminal Complaint filed with the FBI on June 4, 2020 against: US
District Court Clerks: (1) Robert M. Farrell; (2) Karen Folan; (3) Christina McDonagh; (4) Christine Bono; and (5)
Taylor Halley.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fRFdZYmqhMTL0RtDgtCr0AWY0wyznumP/view?usp=sharing
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022, an order was issued without jurisdiction on the Appellant’s
motion by Circuit Judge – Hon. William Kayatta, Jr.8, who as a matter of record, previously
RECUSED himself from BOTH related appeals: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No.
17-1381 on July 17, 20189; and (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074
on September 7, 2018.10 Based on this pro se litigant’s interpretation of the law, by consciously
deciding to issue an order without jurisdiction, Judge Kayatta has (again, at minimum)
committed a violation to ARTICLE III and 18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Judicial Treason. The 01-
26-2022 VOID order by Circuit Judge Kayatta is the latest example of egregious and systemic
judicial abuses that continue to be evidenced in the First Circuit.
Moving forward, the Appellant respectfully states that - forcing a pro se litigant, with no legal
experience to deal with ALL of these judicial failures – on top the complexity of legal issues in
the complaint(s) itself, is completely unrealistic and shows the intention to unfairly tip the scales
of justice, heavily in favor of the Defendants/Appellees. Not only are there too many serious
legal issues that remain unresolved, but it should be abundantly clear to any objective observer
that neither this Appeals Court, nor the lower District Court have any intention of correcting
these egregious and certainly abusive judicial failures of record. Any objective observer who has
8
See Exhibit 5, to view the General Docket of this Appeal, which shows the 01-26-2022 VOID order, issued
without jurisdiction by recused Circuit Judge – William J Kayatta, Jr.
9
See Exhibit 6, to view the July 17, 2018 recusal order of Circuit Judges Torruella and Kayatta from HARIHAR
v US BANK et al (Ref. Appeal No. 17-1381), which came after the recusal of Circuit Judge – Hon. David J.
Barron, who acknowledged having a Conflict of Interest with Bank Defendant – WELLS FARGO. Judge
Barron’s recusal also came after judicial misconduct claims were brought against the entire panel. It’s recently been
discovered that Judge Kayatta also had Conflicts of Interest with Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO and
CITIBANK. HOWEVER, these Conflicts of Interest were never disclosed by either Circuit Judge.
10
See Exhibit 7, to view the September 7, 2018 order, regarding the recusal of Circuit Judges Kayatta and Barron
(Ref. Appeal No. 17-2074).
thoroughly reviewed the decade-long history of this litigation would agree (Federal and MA
State).
The Appellant also shows cause to fear for his safety and security, since the record shows his
Civil/Due Process rights as an America-born Citizen appear to be irrelevant - at least in the
eyes of this First Circuit. The Appellant restates that he has repeatedly shown cause for
assistance with the appointment of counsel, only to be denied – over and over again by
recused/disqualified Judges. With all due respect to the Court itself, these legal proceedings
have increasingly become a complete legal mess - and is being recognized nationwide as, “the
most egregious abuse of judicial power ever recorded in US history.”
THEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests the following:
1. That this Court should clarify its jurisdiction, considering the legal issues that have yet to
be resolved in the lower court;
2. That this Court should clarify how Circuit Judge - Hon. William Kayatta, Jr. could
possibly have been allowed to issue an order after recusal, without jurisdiction and
undisclosed conflicts of interest.11 To be clear, the Appellant has now evidenced for the
record that out of the NINE (9) First Circuit Judges - the following SEVEN (7) Circuit
Judges have either recused (after judicial misconduct was evidenced) or shown
cause for disqualification – refusing to recuse and continuing to issue orders without
jurisdiction:
a. Chief Judge – Hon. Jeffrey R. Howard;
11
See Exhibit 8, to view Judge Kayatta’s 2011 Financial Disclosure, which shows a Financial Investment with
Bank Defendant – WELLS FARGO on page 5 (Highlighted). Judge Kayatta’s 2013 Financial Disclosure shows
a Financial Investment with Bank Defendant – CITIBANK.
b. Circuit Judge – Hon. Norman H. Stahl;

c. Circuit Judge – Hon. Sandra L. Lynch;
d. Circuit Judge – Hon. Kermit V. Lipez;
e. Circuit Judge – Hon. O. Rogeriee Thompson;
f. Circuit Judge – Hon. William J. Kayatta, Jr.; and
g. Circuit Judge – Hon. David J. Barron
Based on the Appellants interpretation of the law, the only two (2) remaining Circuit
judges who are believed to still have jurisdiction are:
a. Circuit Judge - Hon. Bruce M. Selya; and

b. Circuit Judge - Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpi (who replaced recused Circuit Judge
– Hon. Juan R. Torruella, who passed away on October 26, 2020).
3. Void/Vacate the 01-26-2022 order issued without jurisdiction by Judge Kayatta;
4. Vacate the Appellant’s Briefing Schedule that was delivered on 01-28-2022 and is
curretly set for 03-09-2022, since unresolved issues remain in the lower court and it is
unclear if an appeal will be necessary once these legal issues are justly resolved;
5. Assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S. Code § 1915 since
clearly, all requirements warranting the Court’s assistance (both here and in the lower
Court) have long been satisfied. Unless the Appellant is somehow able to secure legal
counsel on his own – which thus far has not been an option, the Court’s continued refusal
to properly exercise its discretion under 28 U.S. Code § 1915 – at minimum, shows cause
to amend the related civil complaint against The United States;
6. Remand this case back to the lower District Court to resolve the existing legal issues,
beginning with jurisdiction.
Please be advised, due to the severity and totality of unresolved legal issues – including matters
perceived to impact national security and evidenced judicial failures that have gone uncorrected
since 2015, the Appellant has little confidence in this First Circuit’s willingness to initiate
corrective (and just) legal action. Upon filing this motion with the Court, copies of this
Emergency Motion will be delivered via email communication to the following government
offices/agencies including (but not limited to):
1. The United States Supreme Court Chief Justice – Hon. John G. Roberts, Jr. (via
Clerk of the US Supreme Court – Scott S. Harris);
2. The Administrative Office of United States Courts – specifically, Deputy Director -
Dan Jackson;
3. US Senator – Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
4. US Congresswoman – Lori Trahan (D-MA);
5. US Congresswoman – Pramila Jayapal (D-WA);
6. The Office of Governor Charlie Baker (D-MA);
7. The White House – specifically, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) via
www.whitehouse.gov;
8. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) – specifically Assistant AG – Kristen Clarke
(Civil Rights Division);
9. The US Attorney’s Office (MA); and
10. First Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg
The Public and Media sources nationwide will also receive copies of this motion for
documentation purposes and out of continued concerns for the Appellant’s personal safety and
security. If the Court has any questions or needs additional information, the Appellant is happy
to provide upon request. The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of February, 2022.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 20-cv-12293
v. )
)
JEANNE D’ARC CREDIT UNION, et al )
)
Defendants )
PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND CONTINUED ACTS OF BAD FAITH

EVIDENCED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SHOWS CAUSE FOR
AMENDMENT TO RELATED DOCKETS: (1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES;
AND (2) HARIHAR v HOWARD ET AL, UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2)(3) & (6)
Notice is hereby given by Mohan A. Harihar, Plaintiff in the above-named matter and also a
pro se litigant with no legal experience, who appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, after a VOID judicial order was issued by disqualified US District Court Judge
– Hon. Indira Talwani, who consciously brushed aside all of the Plaintiff’s evidenced
arguments impacting jurisdiction and the Judicial Code of Conduct - and entered a VOID
action on Tuesday, November 2, 2021 [Ref. ECF No. 25]. As required by Federal law, the
Plaintiff filed a RESPONSE to the void judicial action on Tuesday, November 9, 2021,
informing the Court that Judge Talwani had (at minimum) violated ARTICLE III and 18 U.S.
CODE § 2381 – judicial treason, for continuing to rule on the Docket without jurisdiction after
disqualification was clearly evidenced [Ref. ECF No. 26]. The White House and
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Office were also notified as required under
ARTICLE III - when an act of Treason against the US Constitution has been witnessed.
Since this is a very serious criminal violation by a judicial officer, the US Department of
Justice (DOJ) was copied on the legal communication to Governor Baker. Multiple
Congressional leaders were also copied on the legal communication, since the severity of the
evidenced crime(s) warrants removal from the Bench.
As of this morning – Sunday, November 21, 2021, there has been no corrective action by the
US District Court. This is yet again another very serious legal issue that evidences systemic
failures within this judiciary and the blatant abuse of judicial power. The Nation is already aware
of what is considered the most egregious example of these judicial failures. Reference is made to
the related civil complaint – HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880 and
RECUSED US District Court Judge – Hon. Allison Dale Burroughs; the first of an
unprecedented ELEVEN (11) judges to recuse from the Plaintiff’s litigation (9 Federal, 2 MA
State), who consciously has continued to issue orders without jurisdiction - and without any
legal accountability thus far. Collectively – and based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the
law, the systemic failures that continue to be evidenced by this judiciary has severely damaged
this Court’s integrity. The decade-long history of this litigation is becoming recognized
Nationwide as “the most egregious abuse of judicial power ever recorded in US history.”
Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law, the plethora of evidenced judicial failures
exemplifies continued acts of BAD FAITH by the Federal Government and at minimum,
shows cause to amend the following civil complaints under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3), and
(6):
1. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109;
2. HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134

Finally, the Plaintiff makes clear that he is in GOOD FAITH – and in the interest of judicial
economy, willing to have/resume legal settlement discussions with all named Defendants on this
Docket and in all related Dockets, including the Federal Government and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. It remains my sincere hope that all parties will come together to justly resolve
the existing legal issues; and that this Court will finally address these egregious abuses of
judicial power and initiate corrective action. The Plaintiff respectfully thanks the Court for its
attention to this very serious and sensitive legal matter.
Certification and Closing
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my
knowledge, information, and belief that this Plaintiff NOTICE: (1) is not being presented for an
improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,
modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery; and (4) the Notice otherwise complies with the requirements
of Rule 11.
Respectfully submitted this 21st Day of November, 2021.
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8

02-15-2022 Appellant Motion Re Jurisdiction New Discoveries &amp; Appoinment of Counsel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02-15-2022 Appellant Motion Re Jurisdiction New Discoveries &amp; Appoinment of Counsel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 21-1953 Document: 00117843041 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2022 Entry ID: 6477363

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY MOTION RE: (1) JURISDICTION

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)/ US Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) in a letter to US

the following related Civil Complaints of record:

with Bank Defendant – US BANK.

2. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 18-cv-11109 – is directly related to

HARIHAR v US BANK et al, but is necessarily brought as a separate complaint as

Defendants. As a matter of record, the presiding US District Court Judge – Hon.

Burroughs – However, despite evidence of judicial disqualification, Judge Casper

initiate corrective action, beginning with restoring jurisdiction; and

against recused/disqualified judges, court clerks/administrative personnel and named

Defense attorneys to recoup civil damages for the evidenced judicial/administrative

all Sovereign Immunity, Judicial Immunity and Litigation Privilege is considered

HOWEVER, if an INFERIOR judge – (for example, resulting from Recusal/

all Plaintiff/Appellant claims in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.

a. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. § 1915 – Assistance with the Appointment of

As evidenced by the Plaintiff, the presiding judge in HARIHAR v HOWARD et al – Hon.

to recusal/disqualification and to re-establish jurisdiction, without any further unnecessary

Hon. Indira Talwani has (at minimum):

STILL remain unaddressed.7

judicial abuses that continue to be evidenced in the First Circuit.

Civil/Due Process rights as an America-born Citizen appear to be irrelevant - at least in the

most egregious abuse of judicial power ever recorded in US history.”

THEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests the following:

be resolved in the lower court;

a. Chief Judge – Hon. Jeffrey R. Howard;

b. Circuit Judge – Hon. Norman H. Stahl;

judges who are believed to still have jurisdiction are:

a. Circuit Judge - Hon. Bruce M. Selya; and

3. Void/Vacate the 01-26-2022 order issued without jurisdiction by Judge Kayatta;

to amend the related civil complaint against The United States;

beginning with jurisdiction.

offices/agencies including (but not limited to):

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of February, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND CONTINUED ACTS OF BAD FAITH

evidenced crime(s) warrants removal from the Bench.

1. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109;

2. HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134

attention to this very serious and sensitive legal matter.

Certification and Closing

litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,

Respectfully submitted this 21st Day of November, 2021.

You might also like

02-15-2022 Appellant Motion Re Jurisdiction New Discoveries & Appoinment of Counsel

02-15-2022 Appellant Motion Re Jurisdiction New Discoveries & Appoinment of Counsel