Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

 

)

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

)

)

Appellant

)

)

Case No. 17-1381

v.

)

)

US BANK NA, et al

)

)

Defendants/Appellees

)

)

REPLY TO APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION RE: MOTION TO SUSPEND APPEAL

After reviewing the Appellees/Defendants Opposition, the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar

respectfully disagrees, and necessarily files with the Court this REPLY based on the following:

1. Appellant’s VALID Reasons to Stay Appeal First, ALL Appellees/Defendants are

FULLY aware that ANY claims against the United States must be initiated in a separate

claim, and by law CANNOT be addressed by the Court with other Defendants in the

same complaint EVEN IF it involves related issues. Appellees/Defendants state that

there has been NO legal basis concluding that the Judge’s orders are somehow VOID,

and Appellees have not located any support for that position. The Appellant clearly

disagrees - The Court needs to look no further than the record of this Appeal, the

related lower Court Docket, and within the Judicial Misconduct Petition to

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

recognize the legal basis rendering the Judges related orders VOID following

recusal. The attempt made here by Appellees/Defendants is interpreted as a collective act

of desperation to avoid accountability and reinforces evidenced efforts to deceive this

Court. IF SOMEHOW, this Court requires additional information or clarification to

support the relationship of the Judges recusal to this Appeal and related lower

Court docket - the Appellant is happy to provide upon request.

The Appellant respectfully states that ANY failure by this Court to recognize the

relationship of Judge Burroughsrecusal to this matter will show cause to bring

incremental judicial misconduct claims here against the presiding judges of this

Appeal.

2.

Motion to Vacate Judgement, Pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(4) has been filed with the

District Court in the related complaint, Harihar v. The United States (Docket No. 17-cv-

11109). 1

3.

Deceptive Tactics Re-affirm Necessity to Assist with Appointment of Counsel The

increasing complexity of the issues at hand, coupled with the evidenced efforts by

Appellees/Defendants to deceive this Court, only STRENGTHENS the argument to

assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel.

1 See Attachment A, Motion to VOID Related Orders following RECUSAL, filed with District Court on July 17, 2017.

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

The Appellant respectfully states that ANY failure by this Court to take

CORRECTIVE ACTION and finally assist the Appellant with the appointment of

counsel will show cause to bring incremental judicial misconduct claims against the

presiding judges of this Appeal.

4. Expanded FRAUD ON THE COURT Claims, Pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) - The

continued deceptive efforts by Appellees/Defendants suggesting there is NO

relationship to Judge Burroughsrecusal, shows cause to further expand upon FRAUD

ON THE COURT claims CLEARLY EVIDENCED in the lower Court Docket and

earlier in this Appeal. The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court, that the evidenced

Fraud on the Court claims against Appellees/Defendants stand as UNOPPOSED.

EVEN IF Appellee/Defendant Briefs were to be filed, there is NO DEFENSE which can

be presented, and redirection back to the lower court presents no different circumstance

to consider. Therefore, there is FULL EXPECTATION for this Court to uphold the

law, recognizing evidenced Fraud on the Court Claims against ALL

Appellees/Defendants, thus finding IN FAVOR of the Appellant, Mohan A.

Harihar, WITH PREJUDICE.

The Appellant respectfully states that ANY failure to UPHOLD Federal Rules of

Civil procedure will show cause to bring incremental judicial misconduct claims

against the presiding judges of this Appeal.

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 4

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

5. Appellees/Defendants Refusal to Seek Agreement The Appellant has been

CONSIDERATE enough, offering perhaps TOO MANY opportunities throughout the

history of this litigation to seek mutual agreement. Now, it would appear (at least on its

surface) that the opposition filed here by Defendant David E. Fialkow represents the

collective position of ALL Appellees/Defendants, NOT to seek mutual agreement.

Therefore, the Appellant retracts his offer to do so, and fully expects this Court to award

him maximum civil damages allowed by law.

6. Appellant’s Intention to Additionally Pursue Maximum Criminal/Professional

Penalties Since Appellees/Defendants decline to reach a mutual agreement, the

Appellant respectfully re-states his intentions to seek maximum criminal AND

professional penalties against ALL responsible parties. That includes (but is not limited

to) evidenced violations under the ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT, as stated.

Respectfully - ANY failure by the Department of Justice to prosecute referenced criminal

claims will show just cause to expand upon existing claims against The United

States. Similarly - Any failure by this Court to additionally assess the appropriate

professional penalties will similarly warrant an expansion of existing claims against The

United States.

7. Unnecessary Delay and Repayment for Costs and Accruing Legal Fees Once this

Court has ACCURATELY validated the facts, it will be clear that it is the

Appellees/Defendants who have contributed to unnecessary delay both here at a

federal level, and historically in the State Court(s). Therefore, the Appellant believes that

the reimbursement for the associated costs and legal fees should be proportionately

divided between The United States and the Appellees/Defendants. Similarly, the

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 5

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

Appellant additionally requests reimbursement for accrued legal fees incurred for 4+

years during litigation at the State level (Calculated similarly at an hourly rate of $1000

per hour, and capped at 40 hours per week, and assessing triple damages for these acts

committed in BAD FAITH).

CONCLUSION

Based on the reasons stated within, the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar respectfully reaffirms his

position to SUSPEND the deadline for filing the required Appellant Brief. There is also a CLEAR

EXPECTATION,

that

with

reference

to

pending

motions,

this

Court

will

initiate

CORRECTIVE action moving forward. Once decisions have been made on referenced motions

- SHOULD it become necessary to move forward with this appeal, the Appellant respectfully

requests for an appropriately amended timeline for filing his Appellant Brief.

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.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration of this request.

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 6

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Respectfully submitted this 16th Day of July, 2017.

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

Entry ID: 6106210

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 7

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

Attachment A

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 8

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

MOHAN A HARIHAR,

)

)

Plaintiff

)

)

Docket No. 17-cv-11109

v.

)

)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

)

Defendant

)

)

PLAINTIFF MOTION FOLLOWING RECUSAL TO RENDER RELATED ORDERS/JUDGEMENTS VOID, PURSUANT TO FRCP 60

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully calls for this District Court to render

ALL RELATED ORDERS and/or JUDGEMENTS as VOID, Pursuant to FRCP 60,

following the sua sponte RECUSAL here of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. The Judge’s recusal

(at minimum) impacts the following:

1. ALL orders associated with the related District Court (Docket No. 15-cv-11880).

Impacted Orders include (but are not limited to);

a. The Order of Dismissal, Motions to Dismiss, etc. (Document No.’s 139 and 140,

entered 3/31/17);

b. The Order Denying Reimbursement for Costs and Legal Fees 2nd request

(Document No. 137, entered 3/15/17);

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.

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 9

129, entered 10/25/16);

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

e. The Order addressing Judicial Disqualification, Claims Against The United

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);

h. The Order Denying Reconsideration to Allow a Third Amended Complaint 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 CLAIMS,

pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3);

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

claims under 18 USC § 1962 (Document No. 103, entered 5/31/16);

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);

n. The Order Denying Motion to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel

(Document No. 58, entered 5/6/16);

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 (at

minimum) by the Executive Branch of Government (Document No. 20, entered

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

9/15/15);

Page: 10

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Entry ID: 6106210

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.

2. The related Appeal (No. 17-1381),

3. The related Judicial Misconduct Petition pending before the Judicial Council of the First

Circuit, Complaint No. 01-16-90033.

The Plaintiff respectfully states that any failure by the District Court to take these

necessary actions following recusal will show cause to expand upon existing claims against

the United States.

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.

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 11

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

Certification and Closing

Entry ID: 6106210

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief that this 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 Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.

If the Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Plaintiff is

happy to answer and provide additional clarification upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 16 th day of July, 2017.

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

Case: 17-1381

Document: 00117177885

Page: 12

Date Filed: 07/16/2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Entry ID: 6106210

I hereby certify that on July 16, 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