Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, necessarily files with the Court a motion to
supplement the record based on the recent RECUSAL of Judge Allison D. Burroughs from the
related complaint - HARIHAR v The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Docket No. 17-cv-
11109. This recusal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is based ENTIRELY on the evidenced
claims addressed by the Appellant in this Appeal, initiated within the lower court docket. This
Court is aware of the Appellants two (2) prior requests for Judge Burroughs recusal pursuant to
Therefore, the recusal here re-affirms the Plaintiffs consistent claims, bearing impact to this
Appeal, and to the lower Court docket, warranting (at minimum) the following action(s):
I. RECOGNIZING that ALL RELATED ORDERS issued by Judge Allison D.
A. The Order of Dismissal, Motions to Dismiss, etc. (Document No.s 139 and
B. The Order Denying Reimbursement for Costs and Legal Fees 2nd request
C. The Order Denying Injunctive Relief (Document No. 133, entered 11/28/16);
D. The Order Denying Reimbursement for Costs and Legal Fees (Document No.
States, and Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 125,
entered 9/6/16);
F. The Order RE: Motion for Recusal (Document No. 122, entered 8/17/16);
G. The Order Denying Emergency Injunctive Relief (Document No. 120, entered
8/11/16);
and Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 118, entered
7/5/16). This is also the Order which ignored FRAUD ON THE COURT
I. The Order Denying Motion to Amend (Document No. 116, entered 6/23/16);
J. The Order Denying Motion to Amend including the addition of Civil RICO
K. The order Denying Default Judgement (Document No. 99, entered 5/27/16);
L. The order Denying Motion for Default (Document No. 90, entered5/24/16);
M. The Order Denying Motion to Amend (Document No. 81, entered 5/19/16);
O. The Order Granting Motion(s) to Dismiss, etc. (Document No. 43, entered
4/27/16);
P. The Order Failing to Acknowledge Color of Law and Due Process Violations
entered 9/15/15);
Q. The order Denying Plaintiff to File In Forma Pauperis (IFP), Assistance with
the Appointment of Counsel, and Injunctive Relief (Document No. 12, entered
7/15/15.
STATES of AMERICA. The Appellant respectfully states that any failure to take
made by officers of the Court acting on behalf of the United States, to purposefully
taking corrective action and REIMBURSING the Appellant for Costs and Legal fees
With a VOID Dismissal Order, this civil complaint SHOULD be re-directed back to
the lower (District) court. However, based on the historical record, there remains
serious concern(s) regarding the INTEGRITY of both this First Circuit Appeals
Court, and the lower, District Court. EVEN BEFORE considering redirection, this
Judicial). Therefore (unless there is a jurisdiction issue), there SHOULD NOW exist
PREJUDICE.
The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court of his intention to seek maximum civil,
criminal, and professional penalties against ALL responsible parties. SHOULD this
Court decide to rightfully take corrective action and finally assist with the
1
The Court is respectfully reminded that referenced costs and legal fees continue to accrue. As
of July 8, 2017, the updated payment due to the Appellant for referenced costs and legal fees is
$13,709,420. Timely payment by the Treasury Department to the Appellant is respectfully
requested on or before this date.
2
The First Circuits Civil Appeals Management Plan
The Appellant will certainly take into consideration ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION initiated
by this Court, and will plan to make legal adjustments accordingly moving forward in this
appeal, with referenced judicial misconduct complaints, and with the related complaint against
Due to the severity of these collective civil/criminal claims, for documentation purposes, and
also out of concerns for personal safety/security, copies of this filed Motion are sent via email
and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector - General
Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, the House Judiciary Committee, and to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the Public.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions
Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a
judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice
and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also
Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.
The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law
extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be
rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla,
357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.
A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely
disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.
It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding
force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All
proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur
Judgments '' 44, 45.
Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question
involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question.
Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.
No Opportunity to Be Heard
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not
a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S
Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.
"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void
state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed
370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed.
861:
"A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment
roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be
lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am.
St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority
to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order
is forever void.
Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any
proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v.
Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565;
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93
US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.
"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its
judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is no
judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir.
1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v.
Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).
A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void
state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed
370. Federal judges issued orders permanently barring
Stich from filing any papers in federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen
corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich's assets, Judge Jones issued an
unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation.
I hereby certify that on June 29, 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