Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
)
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files with this Court a
RESPONSE to the referenced order issued June 5, 2017, DENYING several of the
Appellants filed motions. The referenced order, in its entirety, reads as follows:
The appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are
denied. The defendants' request for costs and fees incurred in opposing the motion for entry
of default is denied.1
1
See Attachment A, to view a copy of the referenced order, denying the Appellants filed
motions.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
After reviewing this order, and the historical record of this litigation, it becomes increasingly
clear that parties acting on behalf of the United States, INTEND to prevent this pro se Appellant
from reaching a JUST RESOLUTION, even at the risk of severe legal consequence.
Theodore Roosevelt
First, the Court is respectfully reminded that the foundation of the Appellants complaint
pertains primarily to two (2) components: 1.) The individual damages suffered as a result of his
model and the Intellectual Property Rights owned solely by the Appellant. This Economic
Model, known as the HARIHAR FCS MODEL, is conservatively estimated to be worth $5T
(US Dollars),2 with supporting merits having reached as far as the Executive Office of the
Now, in the infancy stages of this appeal process, and considering the IRREFUTABLE
arguments for EACH these referenced motions, the Courts decision(s) to deny ALL of them
these issues must first be addressed before moving forward with the Appeal process. Left
officers of the Court, with the CLEAR INTENT to UNDERMINE, and CRITICALLY
DAMAGE the legal efforts of this Appellant, and ultimately harming the United States as a
2
The Appellant has initially set damages at $42B, which is considered less than one percent of
the estimated value of his referenced Intellectual Property. The Appellant has also reserved the
right to adjust damages up to one-hundred percent, and does not account for treble damages.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
whole. By these acts, this continued pattern of corrupt conduct clearly evidenced within the
record(s) is now alleged against multiple officers of the court acting on behalf of the United
States BEGINNING with the evidenced allegations brought against lower District Court
Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; NEXT, with the STILL UNCORRECTED OPINION of
Chief Justice Howard; and NOW with this referenced order issued by Circuit Judges -
The Appellant respectfully makes clear, that due the severity of these growing issues which
include (but are not limited to) multiple counts of TREASON to the CONSTITUTION, the
By denying the referenced motions filed by the Appellant, additional serious issues are now
legal process;
3
Since multiple parties, including the President of the United States, are necessarily receiving
copies of this filed response, the referenced order, along with the originally filed motions are
attached as reference. See Attachments A thru D.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
6. Expanded CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES that now include (but are
7. FILING an official complaint against the United States under the Federal Tort
referenced officers of the court including (but not limited to) Treason, Judicial Fraud,
Economic Espionage and resulting damages to the Intellectual property rights of the
I. CLARIFICATION
A. Denial to Assist the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel Considering the
substantial list of FACTS supporting the Courts assistance with the appointment of
counsel, denial here without ANY explanation shows cause to question the INTENT of
the Circuit Judges, and expand upon existing judicial misconduct claims. A copy of the
original motion is attached as referenced (See Attachment B). The Appellant respectfully
requests that Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron provide clarification for
BACKGROUND, and has (at minimum) brought evidenced claims of both civil
Espionage;
Crisis;
k. Judicial Misconduct;
Is the Court stating for the record that these evidenced claims requiring legal
expertise, do not exist? Also, is the Court stating that this referenced list
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
assisting this pro se litigant with the assignment of counsel? If this case does
not exemplify a textbook case to assist with appointing counsel, where then
has the bar been set? Respectfully, please clarify and articulate for the
2. When the Commonwealth (AND the United States) are in reality two (2) of
the opposing parties (as is the case here) and when the interests of the indigent
litigant, although not involving his personal liberty, are fundamental and
of appointed counsel.
Since the Commonwealth AND the United States are in fact two (2) of the
opposing parties, please clarify and articulate for the record exactly how the
5. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented
6. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of appeals quoted
Gordon v. Leeke, "If it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a
colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it, the district court should
7. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s)
raises. When the law is so clearly settled that counsel will serve no purpose, the
court should deny a request for counsel. When, however, the law is not clear,
justice will be better served if both sides are represented by persons trained
B. Denial to Issue a STAY order First, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that
it has, along with the lower District Court already recognized the indigence of the
Appellant. The Appellants request here as indicated, was for a TEMPORARY STAY
while legal matters proceed, to avoid certain increased hardship. The Motion was filed
pursuant to FRAP Rule 8a (2), A(ii); also referencing the lower Court docket, which
clearly shows that the Plaintiff/Appellant satisfied requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
65(d)(2), as well as the Four-Factor test. Left uncorrected, this denial (at minimum)
indicates the failure to uphold Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and shows
cause to bring a new judicial misconduct claim(s) of (at minimum) Fraud on the
Court. The denial also unnecessarily ensures an increased hardship to the Appellant
Please clarify and articulate for the record exactly how the Court arrived at its conclusion
EVIDENCED within the lower Court docket against Defendants David E. Fialkow,
Jeffrey S. Patterson ALL Appellees, and the Judicial Fraud on the Court claim
against Judge Burroughs. This Court has ALSO seemingly ignored NEW Fraud on the
Court claims against ALL parties, referencing the filed Notice of Inaccuracies by
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Defendants and Appellees. Left uncorrected, ANY decision ignoring the referenced fraud
on the court claims shows cause to file a NEW judicial misconduct complaint(s), and
expand upon existing claims against the United States. Please clarify and articulate for
the record exactly how the Court failed to acknowledge these evidenced allegations.
D. Denial to Reimburse the Appellant for Associated Costs and Legal Fees There are
several issues to address here beginning with the Courts apparent failure to acknowledge
the evidenced judicial misconduct claims against US District Court Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, which at minimum, impacts jurisdiction. After fully reviewing the Appellants
supported arguments from the lower court docket, please articulate and clarify for the
record, exactly how this Court arrived at its conclusion to deny reimbursement. Left
HARDSHIP of the Appellant; Also preventing him from having the financial means to
pay the required $500 filing fee for this appeal, AND the required $400 filing fee for the
referenced NEW complaint against the United States. The interpretation also suggests
that the Appellants time spent for over two (2) years to necessarily represent
himself, and having to learn related Federal rules and procedures of the Court(s) is
The Appellant respectfully requests that this Court RECONSIDER its decisions and take
the prior OPINION of Chief Justice Howard. Left uncorrected, these decisions now show
cause to file NEW judicial misconduct complaints against the presiding Circuit Judges
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
and the Chief Justice. Failure to take corrective action will also warrant an expansion
CLAIMS;
The historical record reveals numerous civil/criminal claims brought by the Appellant
against Appellees/Defendants and also against an Officer of the Court. The criminal
components to these claims are severe, revealing EVIDENCED ACTS including (but
not limited to) FRAUD, and even TREASON to the CONSTITUTION. This Court is
aware that official requests have been filed directly with the DOJ and the Executive
This Court (at least on its surface) APPEARS to be IGNORING these pending requests
to the Executive Branch, and its potential impact to this litigation. Decisions to move
forward with the Appeal process BEFORE these referenced criminal (and other)
components are addressed, is certainly considered premature, and shows cause to expand
Since filing the SF-95 (Claim for Damage) form with ALL THREE (3) branches of
government on September 13, 2016,4 the documented record of both the lower District
4
See Attachment E, to view a copy of the filed SF-95 form, in its entirety.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Court and also this First Circuit Court of Appeals, shows cause to expand upon/add to
existing misconduct claims. The expanded and/or new claims brought against the United
C. Judicial Misconduct Complaints filed (at minimum) against five (5) Officers of the
Since filing the SF-95 (Claim for Damage) form with ALL THREE (3) branches of
government on September 13, 2017, the Appellant has (on record) made multiple
efforts, requesting that the Court (or appropriate US designate) provide an update on
behalf of the United States regarding its intentions, and whether there is interest in
reaching a mutual agreement. As the record will show, these efforts have consistently
been ignored and is now past the six-month timeline still with no response.
5
Judicial Misconduct Complaints refers to existing claims against US District Court Judge
Allison Dale Burroughs, still pending before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit; Also,
NEW Judicial Misconduct Complaints currently being drafted against Chief Justice Howard
(First Circuit) and the presiding Circuit Judges to this Appeal - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
respectfully files with the US District Court, a NEW civil complaint against the United
States for evidenced allegations as stated in the SF-95 form, including any NEW
SHOULD it become necessary to move forward with this Appeal, the Appellant believes
A. The evidenced allegations brought against five (5) officers of the Court acting on
behalf of the United States is alarming, and irrefutably shows the INTENT to
cause irreparable harm to this Appellant and to the country for which they
serve. It additionally reveals that the INTEGRITY of the US District Court (MA)
and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has been COMPRIMISED;
B. The subject matter involving the Intellectual Property Rights of the Appellant and its
design to assist with the repair and growth of this Nations Economy warrants
transfer to a more suitable venue (i.e., The United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit).
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the severity of issues as stated within, the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar
A. That the Court reconsider its decision and ASSIST the Appellant with the
appointment of counsel;
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
B. That the Court reconsider its decision and GRANT an injunction to STAY
C. That the Court reconsider its decision and REIMBURSE the Appellant for related
D. With the filing of this response, the Appellant additionally files a NEW complaint
against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.
Code 1346. This new complaint will detail the evidenced allegations expressed in
the filed SF-95 form, along with the expanded allegation as referenced here,
including (but not limited to) judicial misconduct. Should the presiding Circuit
Judges decide to rightfully initiate corrective action, the Appellant will consider
assistance of experienced legal counsel. Corrective action by this Court MAY also
The Appellant remains hopeful, that corrective action will now be initiated by the Court.
Restating that copies of this response are necessarily delivered (via US Mail, Email, and/or
for personal safety and security. A copy will also be made available to the Public.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment A
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment B
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendant/Appellee.
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests the
Courts assistance with the appointment of counsel, based on the following reasons:
1. First, the appellant respectfully reminds the Court that a Judicial Misconduct petition is still
pending before the Judicial Counsel. The substantial list of evidenced allegations against
US District Court Judge - Allison Dale Burroughs is believed to (at minimum) impact
jurisdiction. Addressing legal issues associated with the judicial misconduct allegations
of the law is that Judge Burroughs has lost jurisdiction to rule in the referenced litigation.
Therefore, the dismissal order IS NOT VALID, and also ALL prior orders related to the
Docket. Since August 2016, Judge Burroughs has made no effort to ADDRESS, DEFEND or
DENY the lengthy list of evidenced allegations now before the Judicial Council. Furthermore,
NO defendant/appellee, including the Commonwealth and its former Attorney General, has
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
made a single effort to challenge or even question ANY of the evidenced judicial misconduct
allegations. The appellant respectfully recommends that the Court review the record in its
entirety, including the Judicial Misconduct Petition and its two (2) necessarily filed
supplements for a greater understanding of the issues at hand, and scope of misconduct
allegations. The Appellant fully expects that the validation of evidenced allegations by this
Court will find the referenced dismissal order is indeed VOID, and that this matter should be
2. A PORTION of the evidenced allegations against the Defendants/Appellees and/or the United
Intellectual Property Rights, Fraud on the Court, Conspiracy Claims, RICO violations,
Due Process violations, Color of Law violations and others. The severity of these claims
has shown cause to request an official criminal investigation, assembly of a grand jury, and the
assignment of a special prosecutor. The Plaintiff/Appellant has officially made such requests,
included in a second supplement of the Judicial Misconduct Petition recently filed against
Judge Burroughs. Since it is the Executive Branch of government that decides these
assignments, certified copies of the Plaintiffs requests were delivered to the direct attention
Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the FBI (Boston field office). The second
supplement was received by the Judicial Council on April 19, 2017. Additional parties
receiving certified copies of the Judicial Misconduct petition include: Governor Charles
Based on the evidenced CRIMINAL SCOPE of these allegations, there can be NO question,
that in addition to assistance with the appointment of counsel, it is necessary for the Executive
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 18 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Branch to - assign a federal/special prosecutor, assemble a grand jury, and open an official
criminal investigation. Any failure to do so shows cause to expand upon existing claims against
3. Lower Courts prior refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel, pursuant to Title
28 U.S.C. 1915 In the lower Court, the Appellant/Plaintiff consistently made clear that he
is not an attorney and has no legal background. The factually supported issues involved are
CLEARLY too complex for the Plaintiff to present entirely without the assistance of
k. Judicial Misconduct
It is completely UNREALISTIC to expect ANY pro se litigant to successfully litigate this matter
in its entirety, considering the number of complex subjects requiring legal expertise. Also, when
the Commonwealth (AND the United States)6 are in reality two (2) of the opposing parties
(as is the case here) and when the interests of the indigent litigant, although not involving his
personal liberty, are fundamental and compelling, due process and fundamental fairness
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that under 28 U.S.C.
1915(d) the district court has broad discretion to appoint counsel and that the denial of counsel
"will not be overturned unless it would result in fundamental unfairness impinging on due
process rights. The court said that the district court's decision must "rest upon the court's careful
consideration of all the circumstances of the case, with particular emphasis upon certain factors
The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning heavily towards the necessary
appointment of counsel:
3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented by persons
6
The Complainant has already taken the legal steps to inform the United States of his intention
to file suit either separately or through an amendment of the existing complaint. The
Complainant has additionally offered an opportunity to the United States to seek
agreement, and awaits a decision.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 20 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
4. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of appeals quoted Gordon v. Leeke,
"If it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but lacks the
capacity to present it, the district court should appoint counsel to assist him.;
5. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s) raises. When
the law is so clearly settled that counsel will serve no purpose, the court should deny a request
for counsel. When, however, the law is not clear, justice will be better served if both sides are
While the Plaintiff understands that assistance with the appointment of counsel is rare, it
SHOULD be recognized that the Courts assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 is clearly
warranted at the District Court level, and even more so at the Appellate level. By refusing to
assist the Plaintiff with the appointment of counsel, the presiding judge exemplified (at
minimum) Prejudice and an Act of Bad Faith against this Plaintiff (28 U.S. Code 144),
choosing NOT to support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality, and
conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully
disagreed with the lower courts decision, questioning where exactly the bar has been set to
assist with the appointment of counsel, AND exactly how Judge Burroughs could possibly
have arrived at her conclusions. The Plaintiffs requests for clarification was repeatedly
IGNORED/DENIED.
representing him from the beginning whether with, or without the assistance of the Court,
this litigation would be in the position it finds itself in now. It is FAR MORE LIKELY that
by now, the process would STILL be in the lower court, well past the Discovery phase,
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 21 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
potentially with additional claims, and on a TIMELY path to a jury trial. It is also entirely
plausible, that by now a settlement agreement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the
7. By refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not only caused
increased hardship to the Plaintiff/Appellant, but has also WASTED nearly two (2) years of
the litigants (Plaintiff and Defendants) and the Courts time. The Plaintiffs time should be
considered no less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly evidenced FACTS
demonstrate ACT(S) of BAD FAITH, made by the United States against this
Plaintiff/Complainant. The Plaintiff has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the
reimbursement for COSTS and FEES, and has yet to receive a timely payment from the
United States Treasury Department. The United States has respectfully been informed, that
(at minimum) the referenced legal fees will continue to accrue until either:
8. Plaintiffs Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own For nearly six (6) years,
the Appellant/Plaintiff has reached out to a countless number of law firms, in an effort to secure
and retain legal counsel. These efforts have been unsuccessful, not because the claims lack
a. Conflict of interest (Usually with one of the Bank defendants, or the government);
7
It should be noted, that in the lower court, no defendant filed a single opposition to the
Plaintiffs request(s) for assistance with the appointment of Counsel.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 22 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
(worldwide) consider the largest case of FRAUD in US history, and exposes corruption
at a very high level. The Plaintiff has found that many law firms are fearful that if they
choose to represent him, they are likely to face some form of negative repercussion.
9. Failure to acknowledge the safety and security of the Plaintiff the allegations brought
forth by the Plaintiff exposes a level of corruption - within government and Wall Street, of
historic proportion. Efforts to seek Whistleblower protection have been thus far ignored. Color
of Law allegations have been clearly evidenced, and also ignored. Under the prior (Obama)
administration, the Department of Justice (and also the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General) is on record as stating that they WILL NOT PROTECT this Plaintiff, an
AMERICAN-BORN CITIZEN, from the criminal misconduct committed against him. It has
yet to be determined if the new (Trump) administration will take corrective action here. Based
on these safety and security concerns, assistance with the appointment of counsel is certainly
warranted.
10. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing
claims against the United States. The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has brought multiple
claims against the United States. The Plaintiff intends to pursue these claims against the United
States either by amending his existing complaint or by separate legal action. The Court is aware
that ALL three (3) branches of government have received notice of the Plaintiffs legal
intentions, including the required SF-95 form. The Plaintiff has offered the United states an
opportunity to seek agreement, and has made multiple efforts (unsuccessfully) through the
lower court to get a response. The lower court has ignored the Plaintiffs allegations against
the United States and his efforts to seek agreement as if they were never mentioned. Counsel
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 23 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
is needed to assist with addressing these issues involving the United States, whether it is in
Plaintiff/Appellant with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by
this Court:
1. That this Appellate Court OVERTURN the decision of the lower court and ASSIST the
Appellant with the appointment of counsel. The Appellant is certainly willing to consider
2. VALIDATE the referenced Act of Bad Faith by the lower Court, denying assistance with
appointment of counsel;
3. Upon validation, APPROVING the reimbursement of accruing COSTS and FEES owed
to the Appellant/Plaintiff, and notifying the Treasury Department to timely issue payment
to the Appellant;
If the Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 24 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment C
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 25 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendants/Appellees.
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests that
the Court grant a stay/injunction that will prevent collection actions against the Appellant while
referenced legal matters proceed. This motion for a stay is filed here in the US Court of Appeals
pursuant to FRAP Rule 8a (2), A(ii), where - a motion having been made in the district court
denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested. The Appellant references Docket No.s
132 thru 134 from the related District Court docket.8 A review of the referenced record will
show that the Plaintiff clearly satisfied requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(d)(2), as well as the
Four-Factor test. Despite bringing these FACTS to the Courts attention in Document No. 134,
the Plaintiffs response was ignored, identifying also a continued pattern of corrupt conduct, and
8
See Attachment A, Documents 132 thru 134.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 26 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
The Appellants immediate concerns pertain to three (3) outstanding debts, rightfully owed to:
Despite filing the RESPONSE associated with Document No. 134, no corrective action was
taken by the District Court. The Appellant faces debt collection efforts on a regular basis, and it
has been a clear distraction while these legal matters proceed. It also brings increased hardship
AND risk of having wages garnished, etc..., when there is no ability to pay down these accruing
debts. The Appellant simply CANNOT afford to have these threatening distractions continue,
AT LEAST while legal matters proceed. Right now, the MA-DOR is threatening to suspend the
Appellants Drivers License if the past due balance exceeding $11,000.00 is not paid by
THEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate order to
Mohan A. Harihar, while these legal matters proceed, OR until the Appellant is in the financial
position to satisfy the repayment of referenced debts. Repayment MAY be possible to referenced
creditors WHILE legal matters proceed IF this Court approves the reimbursement of costs and
fees as submitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant. Once reimbursement is timely received from the
Treasury Department, the repayment of referenced debts can be made without further delay.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 27 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by
this Court:
4. That this Appellate Court OVERTURN the decision of the lower court and ISSUE a
STAY on ALL Collection activity against the Appellant while legal matters proceed OR
until the Appellant is in the financial position to satisfy the repayment of referenced debts.
If the Court has any questions regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 28 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment A
(Lower Court Docket)
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 29 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants
transportation).
issue the requested order, and IF during this time, the United
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 33 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 34 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Plaintiff
vs.
Defendants
with the Court, and a copy also to the Judicial Council of the
previously with Document No. 129 and Document No. 125), the
this Docket. By doing so, the judge has, for a THIRD time,
including Treason.
12
The Plaintiff owes the United States Federal taxes to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and also to the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue (MADOR).
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 37 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
following conclusions:
ability to be impartial;
639 F.2d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 1980); and 3.) Corp. Techs., Inc.
complaint with the Court on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff has
limited to):
Defendants;
Crisis.13
h. Refusal to recuse.
Conclusion
Plaintiff:
objective person who has followed this litigation can have that
set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided
into three branches, but that each should watch over the
opportunity, as requested.
upon request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 44 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment D
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 45 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendants/Appellees.
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who hereby requests the Clerk
enter a DEFAULT against Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson, on the
basis that the record in this case demonstrates that there has been a failure to timely file a notice
the form of an appearance, in a form prescribed by this court. Attorneys for both appellant and
appellee must file appearance forms within 14 days after the case is docketed in the court of
appeals.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 46 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
The record indicates that the notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2017. Therefore, the 14-day
timeline to file an appearance expired on May 2, 2017. While the record does show a filed
Fargo NA, K&L Gates LLP, and RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1 ONLY.
1. Jurisdiction For the many evidenced reasons articulated in the Appellants Judicial
law to rule in the referenced litigation. All related orders issued by Judge Burroughs
(the Dismissal order and all those prior) are considered VOID. That includes orders
related to Fialkow and Pattersons Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement. Even if
there was still a question regarding jurisdiction, it does not excuse Appellees from filing
2. Both Appellees Fialkow and Patterson are experienced attorneys working for a
GLOBAL law firm. They certainly SHOULD have known better. Attorney Fialkow
receives electronic notification via the courts ECF/PACER system. Legal Assistant,
Stephanie Mastrocola (K&L Gates) is also listed as receiving ECF notifications. Fialkow
and Patterson are both employed by K&L Gates. Both work out of the same Boston
Office. There can be NO DOUBT, that a Notice of Appeal was filed. If it was the
intention of the Appellees to have David E. Fialkow as the representing attorney (as in
the District Court), the notice of appearance filed on April 21, 2017, SHOULD have
indicated so. It did not, and there has been no additional filing on behalf of Appellees
Fialkow or Patterson.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 47 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
3. Appellee K&L Gates LLP is the law firm that employs Appellees David E. Fialkow
and Jeffrey S. Patterson. Legal action is brought by the Appellant against all three parties
as separate entities. Therefore, the Notice of Appearance filed on April 21, 2017 does not
4. Danger of Prejudice to the Appellant failure to hold Appellees Fialkow and Patterson
accountable for filing requirements will certainly add to an already lengthy list of
evidenced prejudice claims made by the Appellant against US District Court Judge
Allison D. Burroughs and the United States.14 Additional concerns have also been raised
regarding the initial opinions of Chief Justice Howard which, if left uncorrected, shows
cause to expand upon prejudice/bad faith claims against the United States.
5. Length of Delay and its Impact on Judicial Proceedings The Appellant has already
lost nearly two (2) years of his life due to unnecessary judicial delay exemplified in
the lower US District court alone. Evidenced Fraud on the Court violations15 AND Lack
of Jurisdiction are just two (2) of the contributing factors to this damaging delay. If the
Court were to disregard the local rule here, it would show cause to expand upon existing
6. Reason for the Delay Appellees Fialkow and Patterson have provided no reason that
would prohibit them from timely filing a notice of appearance with this Court.
7. Whether the Delay was in Reasonable Control of the Appellee If it was intended
that Attorney Fialkow would be the representing attorney, as in the lower court, notice of
14
The Court is aware that a Judicial Misconduct Petition is still pending before the Judicial
Council of the First Circuit.
15 Fraud on the Court claims are alleged by the Appellant against ALL
appearance certainly could have been filed on April 21, 2017, along with the existing
Fialkow and Patterson at the Appellate level, there has been NO reason provided that
8. Whether the Appellees acted in Good Faith The Appellant brings evidenced
allegations that include (but are not limited to) - Fraud on the Court violations, pursuant
to FRCP 60(b)(3). The Appellant has clearly shown that ALL defendants/appellees
INCLUDING David E. Fialkow AND Jeffrey S. Patterson were aware that clear title did
not exist with the Plaintiffs property and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud
record will reveal that neither David E. Fialkow nor Jeffrey S. Patterson have acted in
Good Faith, and there should be no allowance for this inexcusable neglect (Pioneer Inv.
Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct., 123 L. Ed.
2d 74 (1993).
9. With the evidenced Fraud on the Court and associated criminal allegations, immunity
and/or protections under the 5th Amendment are considered unavailable. Furthermore,
the District Court record will show that NO APPELLEE, including David E.
Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson - not even the Commonwealth has made a single effort
10. This latest development adds to increased legal complexity of this case, further
16
Reference Document No. 117 of the lower court record, filed July 3, 2016.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 49 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
11. The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that ALL APPELLEES, including David E.
Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson have been afforded numerous opportunities by the
Appellant to reach a mutual agreement, all of which have been ignored or declined.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Find the Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson in DEFAULT for failure
3. Assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel to determine, along with the Court,
the appropriate portion of civil damages assessed to Appellees Fialkow and Patterson;
4. Assess appropriate licensure penalties including but not limited to disbarment for conduct
5. Criminal charges against Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson are
expected to follow, once the DOJ assigns a Federal/Special Prosecutor; a federal grand
jury has been assembled; and a full criminal investigation has concluded.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 50 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Attachment E
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 51 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 52 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 11, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered
CM/ECF users:
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