Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

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 )
)

APPELLANT REPLY TO APPELLEES OPPOSITION TO DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

Disclosure Statement of the Plaintiff - The Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this REPLY with the

following Disclosure statement:

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal and in the RELATED complaint

against The United States,1 include (but are not limited to) evidenced allegations of TREASON

under ARTICLE III Section 3 of the Constitution, Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

1832 and is believed to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies of this filed

REPLY are sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the

President (EOP), the US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff

Sessions, members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary

1
The related complaint references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-
11109.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

Committee, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made

available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve as WITNESS to these

evidenced acts of misconduct (alleged). Parties are additionally informed for documentation

purposes, and out of the Appellants continued concerns for personal safety/security.

After reviewing three (3) separate documents filed by Appellees/Defendants opposing a Default

Judgement2, the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully disagrees, and necessarily files this

REPLY based on the following:

First, the Appellant identifies common factors with ALL three (3) pieces of opposition which

only RE-AFFIRM the move to a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT:

1. ALL Appellees/Defendants CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE PRIMARY FACTOR

OF FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) evidenced

BOTH in the lower court docket AND AGAIN here in THIS APPEAL. These

evidenced claims are well articulated within the record(s), and irrefutable. It would

appear (at least on its surface) that Appellees/ Defendants expect this Court to similarly

ignore Federal Rules, and what MUST result in a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT and

PERMANENT INJUNCTION, IN FAVOR of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar. By

2
On September 17, 2017, Opposition to Default Judgement was filed by 1.) Appellees/
Defendants David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson and 2.) Appellees/Defendants Wells
Fargo Bank., N.A. (Wells Fargo), U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee for
CMLTI 2006 AR-11 (U.S. Bank), and K&L Gates LLP together with Appellees Jeffrey
Perkins and Isabelle Perkins, Mary Daher, Ken Daher, Daher Companies, Peter Haley, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Harmon Law Offices, P.C., and Kurt R. McHugh. On
September 21, 2017, a third Opposition was filed by Appellee/Defendants Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and Martha Coakley.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

Federal law, NO other reason to bring a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT WITH

PREJUDICE is even needed here. ANY FAILURE by this Court to uphold Federal

Law will continue to (at minimum): 1.) RE-AFFIRM the documented

JURISDICTION concerns of the Appellant, 2.) Show additional cause for TRANSFER

and 3.) CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION.

2. ALL Appellees/Defendants CONTINUE to reference orders which are CLEARLY

considered VOID, based on the RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the

RELATED complaint, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-

11109. For reasons clearly articulated within the record, the Appellant RE-STATES that

the dismissal order (and ALL OTHER ORDERS) related to THIS APPEAL, by law

are considered VOID. Appellees/ Defendants have failed to provide a VALID

ARGUMENT that shows otherwise, and their continued efforts to reference these void

orders should be stricken from the record. Furthermore, the INACTION thus far by both

the District Court AND this Appeals Court to address the referenced recusal continues to

demonstrate: 1.) UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL DELAY, 2.) JURISDICTION

concerns, 3.) calls for RECUSAL, and 4.) the INTERVENTION of Congress.

3. NO PARTY has filed APPELLEE BRIEF by the Courts assigned timeline of

September 13, 2017. The Appellant has clearly articulated as part of the record - the

evidenced (AND UNOPPOSED) judicial misconduct claims removing jurisdiction from

Chief Justice Howard and Judge Kayatta. Therefore, the orders referenced by Appellees

granting an extension of time to file their briefs are considered VOID. NO VALID

ARGUMENT has been provided to show otherwise, and the Court is respectfully

reminded that judicial misconduct claims against referenced judges include TREASON
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

under ARTICLE III and evidenced claims of MISPRISION of TREASON pursuant

to 18 U.S. Code 2382 against ALL Appellees/Defendants.

Therefore, the applications of Fed. R. App. P. 31 (c) and 1st Cir. R. 45.0 (b) are

considered properly applied, where an Appellee who fails to file a brief will not be heard

at oral argument unless the court (with jurisdiction) grants permission.

The Appellant additionally addresses issues within each of the three (3) documents separately:

1. Appellees/Defendants David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson

a. The Appellant has clearly articulated within the record, valid arguments

which confirm that David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson are Appellees to

this Appeal. The continued referencing of orders considered void should be

addressed by the Court and stricken from the record.

b. If anything, the Appellant has OVER-COMMUNICATED in this Appeal

and in the lower Court the list of erred judgments associated with this

litigation, INCLUDING the lower Courts VOID ORDER Dismissing

Attorney Defendants. Any suggestion otherwise is simply FALSE and is

supported by the record.

c. The Court is respectfully reminded that growing list of evidenced civil,

criminal, and professional claims against these two (2) attorneys now includes

MISPRISION of TREASON pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 2382 (two (2)

counts each) and Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832.

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

2. Appellees Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Martha Coakley, Esq.

a. For reasons clearly stated within the record, the August 31, 2017 order by

Chief Justice Howard is considered: 1.) Issued WITHOUT

JURISDICTION, 2.) VOID and 3.) an ACT of TREASON under Article III

of the Constitution. There has been NO ATTEMPT by either Appellee to

dispute, challenge, or question the Appellants claim of the VOID order prior

to the submission deadline of September 13, 2017. Therefore, Appellees

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Martha Coakley are considered in

DEFAULT.

b. In their opposition, Attorney General - MAURA HEALEY, Assistant AG -

JESSE M. BOODOO, and Former AG MARTHA COAKLEY state:

Appellant does not appear to make any other developed arguments in

support of his Demand but, to the extent he has, the Demand should be

denied for the reasons stated in the Commonwealth Defendants previously-

filed Motion for Summary Disposition.

Based on this statement of record, theres reason to question whether

Appellees HAVE EVEN READ the Appellants articulated arguments

supporting his claims, and is perceived as a continued effort to deceive this

Court.

c. The Court is respectfully reminded that aside from UNOPPOSED Fraud on

the Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), The Commonwealth,

Attorney General Maura Healey, Assistant Attorney General Jesse M. Boodoo

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

and former Attorney General Martha Coakley stand accused of

MISPRISION of TREASON pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 2382 (two (2)

counts each) and Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832.

3. All Remaining Appellees in their opposition, Appellees state:

the Appellees have been diligently defending their victory in the district court by

filing a Motion for Summary Disposition, by proactively seeking a first extension of

time well before their brief was due, and by routinely checking in with the clerk

regarding the deadlines and their filings.

Prior to running a victory lap, these Appellees are reminded of the following:

a. The September 19, 2017 order by Judge Kayatta granting a timeline extension

to referenced Appellees is considered: 1.) Issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION,

2.) VOID, and 3.) An ACT of TREASON under ARTICLE III of the

Constitution.

b. Appellees have failed to provide a VALID ARGUMENT that addresses

jurisdiction claims that VOID referenced orders.

c. Despite having a clear opportunity to do so, the Appellees opposition FAILS

AGAIN to even address FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS which in itself

justifies a DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH PREJUDICE.

d. The Court is respectfully reminded that aside from UNOPPOSED Fraud on the

Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), these remaining Appellees

stand accused of MISPRISION of TREASON pursuant to 18 U.S. Code

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

2382 (two (2) counts each) and Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

1832.

Finally, the record clearly shows that ALL Appellees/Defendants have generously been afforded

MULTIPLE opportunities to reach mutual agreement and have refused to do so. Therefore, the

Appellant re-states his intentions to seek MAXIMUM CIVIL, CRIMINAL, and

PROFESSIONAL penalties against ALL PARTIES, in a venue where jurisdiction, and the

ability to reach a JUST outcome is not in question. Therefore, the Appellant clearly stands by his

DEMAND for a DEFAULT JUDGMENT.

If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this REPLY, the Appellant is happy to provide

additional supporting information upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 24th Day of September, 2017.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117204790 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/24/2017 Entry ID: 6121953

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 24, 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