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 and who is NOT A LEGAL
CORRUPT CONDUCT continues to be exemplified by this Federal Judiciary. The most recent
example, evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW is the August 7, 2018 attempt to re-issue a
JUDGEMENT ORDER,1 when Two (2) of Three (3) NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Judges
LACK JURISDICTION. Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee
Thompson have BOTH previously been identified as INFERIOR JUDGES - for their
collective failures to uphold the Constitution, numerous Federal Law(s), and their Judicial
Oath. A thorough review of the historical record will reveal a very clear and articulated
explanation of how the Appellant arrived at these conclusions. Neither Chief Judge Howard
1 See Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
nor Judge Thompson have ever once denied or even attempted to argue, a single judicial
misconduct claim against them – including acts of TREASON. “When a judge knows that he
lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of
jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller
continued judicial effort - NOW by this NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Panel to brush aside
OUTCOME.
This First Circuit Court has continuously failed to address (and correct) judicial misconduct
claims which have long been evidenced in full public view. As a result, the INTEGRITY of this
Appeals (and the District) Court is severely damaged and the APPEARANCE OF
Federal Law, the conscious decision by this newly assigned Circuit panel to CONTINUE
IGNORING: (1) JURISDICTION; and (2) the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct
claims - and instead issue an invalid judgment (at minimum) raises the following issues and
A. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is
VOID, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
B. A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked
however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).3 A party
seeking to void the judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting
subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s
power.”4 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the
judgment as void.5 A judgment may also be void under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered
The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments
HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) exemplifies what
MAY be collectively considered one of the largest, and certainly most egregious
certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to
be a set agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A.
2
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
3
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
4
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v.
Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).
5
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
related litigation.
C. 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
(1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L
ed 608.
D. "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).
E. 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.
F. "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper
office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to
rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir.
1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization
Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and
previously in the lower Court), as recognized by SCOTUS.6 This Court ALSO recognized
the ENTIRE list of unresolved issues (Below), following the recusal of Judge Barron, after
review of the record will show that the Appellant has repeatedly brought this list of
exist – EVEN NOW, as indicated by the attempt to issue a (VOID) judgment order. As a
6
Following the January 17, 2018 judgment issued by the initial panel, the Appellant filed a
motion with the Supreme Court requesting a timeline extension for filing his Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. On June 8, 2018, SCOTUS granted the motion, acknowledging the list extraordinary/
unresolved issues warranting such an extension.
7
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant has requested additional disclosures
regarding the judge’s improper relationship, however, no information has been provided.
8
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National
Security;
delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with
COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial
10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,
Mandate and Vacating Judgment. After reviewing this NEW Panel’s explanation (below),
brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome:
The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is denied.
See United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against judge separate from
the case under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic recusal can be obtained by
the simple act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000)
(similar); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not
disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him[.]").
Suggesting that automatic recusal is based solely on the act of suing a judge is a complete
misrepresentation of the facts and the associated case references (above) are therefore
improperly applied. The significance of tying the separate lawsuit to necessary recusal
comes from the Appellant’s evidenced arguments of record that irrefutably define the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
referenced judges as INFERIOR. Any objective observer who reads through the Judgment
and compares it to the Appellant’s motion (and historical record) will undoubtedly agree:9
It is the failure(s) to uphold their Judicial Oath, the Constitution and Federal Law that: (1)
irrefutably disqualifies Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson; and (2) Voids the
Judgment. The civil and criminal complaints filed against them personally are secondary
contributing factors where collectively, the totality of these issues MUST result in their
disqualification. Any failure by this Court to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Thompson will further expose and re-affirm the failure to show impartiality.
II. DEMAND TO VALIDATE 28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before
performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon
me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars
against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a
judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124
U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of
9
See Exhibit 2, to view the Appellant’s Motion to Remove Inferior Circuit Judges, in its
entirety, filed July 29, 2018. Please note, the Appellant’s Motion has previously been made
available to the Public.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
By issuing the August 7, 2018 Judgement Order (and for reasons stated within and
and CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ have consciously disregarded their Judicial Oath of Office.
Therefore, the Appellant shows just cause for their removal from the Bench and
Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, it has been evidenced that Chief
respectfully requesting clarification for their actions, these judges have refused to do so.
Instead, they have continued to rule in the absence of jurisdiction - as if some form of
exemption has allowed them to ignore their judicial oath, the Constitution and Federal
Law(s). The Appellant is NOT AWARE of any such exemption. Any judge who does not
comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that
Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not
fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200
(1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S.
“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to
usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
Constitution.” See Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.
JURISDICTION on August 7th, 2018, it is interpreted that Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
For the record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court - Any party (referenced above)
who refuses to serve as witness to these (NEW) evidenced claims of Treason will incur the
Code § 2382; 2.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
United States; and 3.) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S.
Code § 1831.
The law clerks’ duty of confidentiality ends when a clerk believes a federal judge(s) has done
something wrong outside of the deliberative process. The confidentiality guidelines for law
clerks are intended to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The fundamental goal of the
confidentiality guidelines would be subverted if the rules forced law clerks to be silent about
behavior (as is the case here), that’s clearly NOT what’s intended to be confidential.
Therefore, there (AGAIN) is a clear expectation for Clerk Margaret Carter to similarly
acknowledge referenced jurisdiction (and other) issues, including the VOID judgement. A
Mandate CANNOT legally be issued when the judgement is considered void. Clerk Carter is
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
also expected to inform the Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg, of this latest development.
The Circuit Executive then must update the Administrative Office of US Courts,
Please be advised, EVEN BEFORE the referenced judgment and as a matter of record, these
referenced officers of the court personally witnessed prior act(s) of Treason under Article III,
and failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report
CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or
lack thereof), the Appellant has necessarily filed criminal complaints with the FBI and
states that these facts establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following
crimes have occurred: MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code §
ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831. Aside from criminal
accountability, Clerk Carter and Circuit Executive Goldberg are listed as DEFENDANTS in
the Appellant’s recently filed civil lawsuit – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, et
al., Docket No. 18-cv-11134. Professional complaints have also been filed with the
Any continued failure(s) by the Circuit Clerk and/or the Circuit Executive to acknowledge
and report evidenced judicial misconduct shows cause to file new, or to expand upon existing
civil/criminal/professional claims.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS are already
filed with the FBI against CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD and CIRCUIT
prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant clearly expects the DOJ to bring criminal charges
against ALL responsible parties, including referenced officers of the Court for the
shows cause to expand upon existing claims against The United States including (but
By affirming the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s complaint, Circuit Judge Kermit V.
Lipez now similarly stands accused of judicial misconduct for his evidenced failure to uphold
his Judicial Oath, the Constitution and numerous Federal laws. As with the other accused
judicial officers, Judge Lipez is respectfully given the opportunity to initiate corrective
action, by (at the very least) informing the Court IF his was a minority opinion that disagreed
Respectfully, any failure by Judge Lipez to initiate corrective action will necessarily show
cause to: (1) File a NEW Judicial Misconduct complaint; (2) File a Criminal Complaint with
the FBI; (3) Amend the existing civil complaint against The United States (HARIHAR v.
THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
(4) Amend the existing civil complaint – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
Over the past two (2) weeks the Appellee – WELLS FARGO, has made National Headlines
on three (3) separate occasions, each of which bare impact to this litigation:
A. ADMISSION OF GUILT - In a regulatory filing, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a
“technical error” kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan modification.
This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing
financial difficulties.
“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already
from their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure
and mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family
and to have gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel
if that happened to me.”
Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
From the beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the
LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as
to WHY his loan modification was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
TIME, after learning of this “calculation error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo
could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve the loan modification. EACH TIME
(on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22) months), the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but
you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through
his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO
These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the
recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the
Appellant/Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has
admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his original
complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3)
Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee – WELLS FARGO has
B. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications - On
August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by
homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them permanent
mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable Modification
eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit
common before and during the financial crisis. And they remain an issue today” - Alys
Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Consumers should not
have to waive their legal rights and that way they can accept the payment and then
figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That was standard several years ago
when the regulators found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up
for Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check was a reimbursement
(with interest) to the Appellant for his “Good Faith” payment that he was
never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years
lawsuits. The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AG’s against Defendants that
included the Appellee – WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement, the
reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B
Appellant reserved the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell
short of the damages incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved
the right to pursue criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil
to the Appellant.
C. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – This Court is respectfully
reminded of the Notice filed with this Court on August 3, 2018 after being informed of a
recent Press Release from the DOJ on Wednesday, August 1, 2018. This announcement
by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED LITIGATION
(paraphrasing):
FARGO;
CIVIL LITIGATION;
AGO10
The Court is respectfully reminded that this new information CONTRIBUTES to the existing
and UNOPPOSED – Fraud on the Court Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), that articulates
that the related RMBS securitized Trust is VOID. This latest information re-affirms the
concern, where a fair and just legal remedy is no longer thought to be possible – at least
through this First Circuit Judiciary. The Appellant has now evidenced for the record – IN
FULL PUBLIC VIEW, judicial misconduct by ELEVEN (11) Federal (District and Circuit)
Judges. There are ONLY THREE (3) remaining First Circuit Judges who are believed to be
qualified to rule in this litigation. Accused Officers of the Court HAVE NOT DENIED A
SINGLE MISCONDUCT CLAIM against them and the Appellant’s numerous requests for
TRANSFER have been DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE. Even with the list of
Appeals Court, it seems clear that this newly assigned Panel of Judges has NO INTENTION
NOW, with APPELLEE – WELLS FARGO’S recent admission of guilt making National
Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-
10 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman Brian Schatz
(D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo over the issue, but
Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells Fargo and said that he
1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?
What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that
time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?
2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who
applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When
will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company
3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells
Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received
this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted
4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate
the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers
5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be
accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?
6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to
remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those
determinations.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an
Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by
the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial
9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be
If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to
foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo
11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common
stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please
explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder
consumer protection?
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and
disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,
why not?
13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells
Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to
These questions (and others) must now be answered here as well, as the Appellant has
evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has not been entirely truthful with
its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized, will be severe.
The gravity of this Discovery shows cause for removal and transfer before a
Congressional Panel.
issues alone will show cause to grant Mandamus/Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Based on his interpretation of Federal law, the Appellant believes he has exhausted all
possible avenues for legal remedy within this Court. However, the evidenced judicial failures
of record will ultimately show cause for SCOTUS to grant a Writ of Mandamus and/or a
Writ of Certiorari.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has
CONCLUSIVELY evidenced as a matter of court record, a number of legal claims requiring (at
1. Before anything else – JURISDICTION must be re-established, either: (a) in this Court
(if still a legal option), (b) by TRANSFER to another Circuit with jurisdiction, (c) by
Appellant’s consistent claims and adds incrementally to his Fraud on the Court
prejudice and AWARD the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is
allowed by law;
3. The Appellant has also demonstrated that a Court with jurisdiction should ultimately
VACATE the referenced judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and AWARD
the Appellant the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is allowed by
4. That this Court should consider the existing Circuit Panel as INFERIOR Judges who are
LEGAL ISSUES that warrant the Court’s assistance with the ASSIGNMENT of
6. Since the judgment is considered VOID, there are several MOTIONS which are still
7. The Appellant also requests timely clarification regarding his right to file a Petition
for re-hearing, pursuant to FRAP Rule 40. Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of
Federal law, filing the petition at this time is NOT believed to be necessary, since the
petition for re-hearing becomes necessary, the Appellant respectfully requests that this
response ALSO serve as said petition; also requesting that the Court accept this oversized
petition as compliant with FRAP Rule 40(b), considering the number and severity of
issues. Re-stating that the ever-increasing complexity of legal issues warrants the Court’s
8. A Court with jurisdiction should assess maximum professional penalties against ALL
requests an official update for the record - from the DOJ stating their timeline for
10. With regard to the Appellant’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, Mr. Harihar had
previously requested a formal meeting with POTUS for the purpose of potentially
Harihar should be allowed to (at minimum) establish a free and clear Quiet Title in his
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
48-hour timeline to vacate the premises, under the supervision of the Middlesex County
Sherriff’s Department.
12. Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR should be allowed to legally return to
HIS HOME, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852, without any further
unnecessary delay.
The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration and attention to these very serious
matters. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE/MOTION to the
attention of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 4) with the filed Court
copy. A copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC
out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a
question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Exhibit 2
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
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 this MOTION,
following the Court’s July 26, 2018 NOTICE11, which informed the parties of: (1) a newly
assigned Circuit panel of judges; and (2) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that the case will be
submitted on the briefs without oral argument. The Appellant objects to both the panel selection
(at least in part) and a pre-mature submission without oral argument, as a number of critical (new
I. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges Assigned to Panel are Inferior/ Disqualified
On July 26, 2018, the Court’s NOTICE, delivered to ALL parties via E-mail communication,
identified the NEW panel of Circuit Judges as: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2)
11
See Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez.
HOWEVER, based on the historical record of this litigation, BOTH Chief Judge Howard
AND Judge Thompson are considered as INFERIOR JUDGES – having been previously
DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or any related litigation. The Appellant has clearly
evidenced as part of the record, numerous judicial infractions indicating (at minimum): (1) a
failure to show impartiality; (2) a failure to uphold Federal Law(s) and their judicial
intention to further harm the Appellant, and collectively this Nation. As a respectful
reminder, this Court has recently VACATED the judgment associated with this Appeal based
on the RECUSAL of Judge Barron AND this PARTIAL LIST of judicial infractions by
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National
Security;
12
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with
COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial
10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,
Please be advised, a thorough review of the record will show that neither Chief Judge
Howard nor Judge Thompson have DENIED or REFUTED a single one (1) of the claims
listed above. It remains unclear as to HOW this Court could possibly have approved the
THEREFORE, the Appellant calls for Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson to
RECUSE themselves; and for the Court to re-assign/replace the panel vacancies with Circuit
Judges who are considered to have jurisdiction (if applicable). As a matter of record, the
Appellant has now brought EVIDENCED claims of judicial misconduct against TEN (10)
Federal (District and Circuit) judges associated with this litigation – IN FULL PUBLIC
VIEW. SIX (6) out of TEN (10) First Circuit Judges are considered WITHOUT
JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY related litigation: (1)
Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella (RECUSED)13; (3)
Thompson; (5) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta (RECUSED), Jr.; (6) Circuit Judge
David J. Barron (RECUSED). Please be advised, the Appellant has previously requested
13
Following the recusal of Judge David Barron, Judges Torruella and Kayatta
removed/recused from the initial panel for reasons which include (but are not limited to) the
list of extraordinary circumstances listed above.
14
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
and is still waiting for additional details and DISCLOSURES regarding the IMPROPER
FARGO. It is also unclear as to whether additional and/or similar improper relationships exist
within this First Circuit Judiciary. The current re-assignment of this panel continues to
critically damage the INTEGRITY of this Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Appellant will
show further cause to: (1) Transfer this Appeal to another Circuit with jurisdiction; or (2)
Considering the severity of issues (including the perceived impact to National Security),
II. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges are DEFENDANTS in a Separate, Civil Complaint
This Court is aware that there is related (Federal) litigation, aside from this Appeal:
11134.
CLEARLY, there exists a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when TWO (2) of the newly
assigned panel judges (Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson) are DEFENDANTS
Appellant requests for clarification as to HOW this conflict could possibly have been
overlooked.
III. Two (2) of Three Circuit Judges Stand Accused of TREASON Under ARTICLE III
This Court (and the AMERICAN PUBLIC) is well aware that as a matter of record,
evidenced TREASON claims have now been brought against SEVEN (7) Federal (District
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 32 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
and Circuit) Judges for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. These accused officers of
the Court include Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson.
NOT ONE (1) accused officer of the Court has denied a single Treason claim, and
POTUS has been regularly copied on ALL Court filings (as is required by Federal Law)
IV. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges have CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the
The evidenced Treason and other serious criminal claims alleged against Chief Judge
Howard and Judge Thompson have shown cause for the Appellant to file Criminal
Complaints with the FBI and the DOJ. CLEARLY, this contributes further to a
The record shows that the Appellant has filed well over FIFTY (50) + court documents
referenced Federal (District and Circuit) Judges. The referenced July 26, 2018 email
communication and NOTICE issued by the Court signifies that JURISDICTION STILL
Circuit can legally re-establish jurisdiction. Ignoring jurisdiction issues (at minimum) shows
The remaining Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction here are
believed to include: (1) Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya; (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin;
(3) Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl; and (4) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. After the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 33 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
recusal/removal of Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson, the Appellant believes that the
list of Circuit Judges (above) are the ONLY REMAINING First Circuit Judges who MAY
be legally eligible to serve on a panel in this Appeal. With the filing of this Motion, the
Appellant respectfully calls for the Court to clarify for the record the selection process for its
The July 26, 2018 Notice issued by the Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter, states the
following,
“This is to advise you, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that this case will be submitted on
It would appear (at least on its surface) that in addition to jurisdiction issues, an effort is
being made by this First Circuit Court to IGNORE the Appellant’s motion(s) for an
Injunction and issues associated with recently vacated orders. As previously stated, the
Appellant respectfully calls for a new panel (with jurisdiction) to address these legal matters
PRIOR to moving forward with this Appeal. Since the Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and
has NO LEGAL background, one of the first issues to address (once jurisdiction has been
Finally, the Appellant reminds the Court of his filed response to the July 17, 2018 order, which
PARTIES. The Appellant respectfully expects a documented ANSWER from ALL Appellees
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE to the attention of
POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A
copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC out of
the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a question
regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 35 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Exhibit 3
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 36 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 37 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 38 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 39 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Exhibit 4
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 40 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 41 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 42 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 16, 2018 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