Sie sind auf Seite 1von 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 18-cv-11134
v. )
)
CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al )
)
Defendants )

PLAINTIFF MOTION FILED UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4): (1) RE-AFFIRMS


EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT; (2) TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III,
SECTION 3; (3) SHOWS CAUSE FOR AMENDMENT; (4) WARRANTS TRANSFER

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)

A judgment is VOID under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.1A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,

will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).2A 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 exercise of jurisdiction over the claim

amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial power.”3Only when the jurisdictional error is

“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.4A judgment may also be void under Rule

1
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431 F.3d at 412.
2
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
3
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).
4
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process.5Specifically, inadequate

notice or failure to provide notice or service of process may result in a lack of due process

rendering a judgment void.6

A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be made “within a reasonable time.”7 However, courts have

held that a motion to vacate a judgment as void may be brought at any time, regardless of the

statute of limitations and other deadlines.8 In addition, a court, on its own motion, may set aside

a judgment as void provided notice is given of the contemplated action and an opportunity to be

heard.9

After reviewing the Order10 issued by US District Court Judge William G. Young, the

Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees and identifies what

collectively is considered an UNPRECEDENTED and certainly egregious level of judicial

misconduct evidenced by this Federal (District and Appeals Court) Judiciary. Please be

advised, the severity of issues brought by the Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) TREASON

under ARTICLE III, Section 3, mandates notifying (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS; (3) OIG; (4)

House and Senate Judiciary Committees; (5) DOJ; and (6) the FBI. This latest example of

5
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
6
Id. at 853-54, citing In re Chess, 268 B.R. 150, 155 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2001).
7
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). A motion under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (3) must be made “no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.”
8
See Hacienda Hearing & Cooling Inc. v. United Artist Theatre Co., 406 B.R. 643, 648 (Bankr. Del. 2009) citing
United States v. One Toshiba Color TV, 213 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting is final judgment is void, “no
passage of time can transmute [it] into a binding judgment” and further stating that “a court may always take
cognizance of a judgment’s void status whenever a Rule 60(b) motion is brought.”); In re Ruehle, 296 B.R. 146,
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003).
9
In re Missouri Prop. Ltd., 211 B.R. 914, 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1996).
10
See Exhibit 1 to view the ELECTRONIC ORDER which DENIED the Plaintiff’s RESPONSE and Motion for
CLARIFICATION and RECONSIDERATION. Please note – the Plaintiff, who was DENIED ECF access, has
not received ANY communication from the Clerk’s Office. It is by CHANCE that the Plaintiff was able to view
the decision on PACER which is accessible by the public. After viewing the order, a copy of the Plaintiff’s
RESPONSE to Judge Young’s 8/20/18 Dismissal Order is attached to view in its entirety.
judicial misconduct – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, identifies the FOURTEENTH

(14th) Federal judge who is now considered both DISQUALIFIED and INFERIOR. A

summary of this latest development is described as follows:

I. EGRIGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY JUDGE WILLIAM G. YOUNG - The

order issued by Judge Young on September 24, 2018, exemplifies (at minimum):

A. A REFUSAL to further clarify his dismissal order;

B. A REFUSAL to correct erred judgments that have been evidenced as part of the

record;

C. A REFUSAL to uphold the Constitution and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

D. A FAILURE to show impartiality;

E. CAUSE to file a judicial complaint;

F. CAUSE to file a CRIMINAL complaint;

G. CAUSE to AMEND this complaint and to INCLUDE Judge William G. Young as a

DEFENDANT;

H. CAUSE for Disqualification and Removal from the bench;

I. The INTENTION to continue issuing orders after losing jurisdiction;

J. An Egregious Pattern of Corrupt Conduct – Identical to that exemplified by judicial

officers appearing as Defendants here;

K. An Act of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3

BY THESE EVIDENCED ACTIONS OF RECORD - US District Court Judge William

G. Young becomes the FOURTEENTH (14th) Federal judge considered DISQUALIFIED

from this (and any related) litigation. Judge Young is now also identified as an INFERIOR
judge; and is added to the following list of Disqualified/Inferior judges associated with this

litigation:

1. Defendant - US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

2. Defendant - US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

3. Defendant - US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit);

4. Defendant - US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. Defendant - US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. Defendant - US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. Defendant - US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez;

9. Defendant - US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch;

10. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;

11. Defendant - US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);

12. Defendant - US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court

(RI);

13. Defendant - US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME);

14. Defendant – US District Court Judge William G. Young.

II. TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

The record shows that Judge Young was given the opportunity to correct his judicial errors –

and consciously chose not to do so; a decision that compromises his impartiality and MUST

result in his disqualification. By issuing the order on September 24, 2018 WITHOUT

JURISDICTION, Judge Young has now committed an ACT of TREASON under


ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution. Since this EVIDENCED claim of Treason

has occurred ON THE RECORD, it is witnessed by: (1) The Clerk’s Office; (2) The

PUBLIC (referencing public access to PACER); and (3) The Defendants themselves. As

required by Federal law, Mr. Harihar necessarily brings this evidenced claim of

Treason to the attention of POTUS. As a reminder Judge Young becomes the NINTH (9th)

Federal Judge associated with this litigation who stands accused of Treason, following:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

3. US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit);

4. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

5. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta;

6. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron;

7. US First Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez (NEW Claim)11;

9. US District Court Judge William G. Young.

As a respectful reminder (and as a matter of record), the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar has

collectively evidenced AN UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT claims against referenced judges (including, but not limited to):

11
The appellant also brings a NEW claim of Treason, under ARTICLE III, Section 3 against
Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez, as part of the REPLACEMENT Circuit Panel associated with
Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al. As a matter of record, this panel
continued to ignore the Appellant’s judicial misconduct claims and proceeded to issue an
order/judgment after LOSING JURISDICTION. The Appellant, Court Clerk – Margaret
Carter, Appellees and their retained counsel ALL serve as WITNESS to this Treason claim(s).
1. Refusing to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE;

5. Continuing to SIX (6) issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH

constituting acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the

Constitution;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

7. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist

with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the

COURT claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

9. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on

the COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the

Judicial Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but

not limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;


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;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

The Plaintiff has CLEARLY shown just cause to attack and VOID ALL ORDERS

associated with the referenced federal litigation – and the record shows that Mr. Harihar has

done just that, with NO VALID rebuttal of record from ANY Defendant or accused Officer

of the Court (referenced above).

III. CAUSE TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Based upon the recent events as described above, the Plaintiff shows cause to amend his

original complaint including (but not limited to) the following:

A. Add the following judicial officers as Defendants to this complaint:


1. US District Court Judge William G. Young;

2. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez;

3. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;

B. Incremental Treason Claims Brought Against Defendants – Chief Judge

Howard and Circuit Judge Thompson

A review of Appeal No’s 17-1381 (HARIHAR v US BANK et al) and 17-2074

(HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES) reveals that both Circuit panels have

recused and have been replaced. HOWEVER, in EACH of the replacement judicial

panels – 2 OUT OF 3 Circuit Judges have ALREADY BEEN DISQUALIFIED: (1)

Defendant – CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD; and (2) CIRCUIT

JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON. The record shows that despite the

Plaintiff/Appellant’s efforts to raise these issues, they were ignored by BOTH panels.

Instead, these judicial officers made the conscious decision to (AGAIN) continue

ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION. Aside from the Plaintiff, these evidenced

crimes of record were witnessed by: (1) the Appeals court Clerk’s Office; (2)

listed Appellees and (3) their attorneys INCLUDING the US Attorney’s Office

(MA). Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to bring as an amendment (or by separate

legal action) incremental claims of Treason against the accused judicial officers

under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

IV. CAUSE FOR TRANSFER

The Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that he is a pro se litigant – WITH NO LEGAL

EXPERIENCE. Considering the severity of legal issues listed before this Court, it bears

repeating to ask WHY the Plaintiff was DENIED counsel under Title 28 U.S.C. §1915? It
should be CLEAR to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER that this US District Court AND

First Circuit Appeals Court SHOW ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION to UPHOLD the

law in these proceedings; and are instead DETERMINED TO REACH A CORRUPT

AND PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME. THEREFORE, the Plaintiff shows cause to

transfer this (and the related Appeals) to either: (1) SCOTUS; or (2) A Congressional

Panel.

CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has followed the law to the best of his ability as a pro

se litigant and has been respectful to this and EVERY Court. The nearly FOUR (4) year

historical record of this Federal litigation has conclusively shown that this judiciary is plagued

by an EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER that must be stopped. Based on the

Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal Law and the Judicial Oath of Office, these FOURTEEN

(14) Federal Judges have DISCRACED the COURT and this NATION. Based on the severity

of issues and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) the Plaintiff respectfully calls for:

1. The Dismissal (and all related) order(s) to be considered VOID;

2. A MOTION to be filed with BOTH: (a) SCOTUS and the (b) HOUSE/SENATE

JUDICIARY COMMITTEES to determine the next legal steps as it pertains to this

Docket and the related Appeals;

3. The Court to allow the Plaintiff to Amend his original complaint for reasons as

described within;

4. Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §1915.


For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the MOTION to the attention of The

President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A

copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources nationwide, out

of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a

question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional

supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an

independent court reporter.

Certification and Closing

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.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
EXIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 18-cv-11134
v. )
)
CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al )
)
Defendants )

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO (VOID) DISMISSAL ORDER FILED AUGUST 20, 2018

After reviewing the Final Order of Dismissal issued by US District Court Judge William G.

Young, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees. Based on

the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal law, the conscious decision by Judge Young to

prematurely (and certainly in error) dismiss this complaint now raises (at minimum) the

following issues: (1) The Order reveals a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT, similarly evidenced in related Federal litigation involving the same judicial officers

listed as Defendants here12; (2) If left uncorrected, the Plaintiff shows cause to file a judicial

misconduct complaint against Judge Young; (3) If left uncorrected, Judge Young will be

considered WITHOUT JURISDICTION to rule further in this, or ANY related litigation; and

(4) Collectively, the Plaintiff has evidenced an EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF POWER that

continues to plague this Federal Judiciary and which CLEARLY warrants removal of this

12
Related Federal litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381
(Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); and (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES,
Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
complaint to SCOTUS, or before a Congressional panel. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER

who has thoroughly reviewed the nearly EIGHT (8) year historical record associated with this

litigation will certainly agree. The Plaintiff provides further explanation of how he reached these

conclusions, based on the following:

I. UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL DELAY

First, it becomes necessary to acknowledge that the original complaint was filed with the

Court on Wednesday, May 30, 2018. It is unclear as to why it took until Friday, August

11, 2018 – over TEN (10) weeks to rule on THREE (3) motions: (A) a motion to file

electronically (ECF); (B) a motion requesting the Court’s assistance with the

Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915; and (C) a motion to proceed IN

FORMA PAUPERIS:

A. Motion to File Electronically (ECF) - The Court is well-aware that the Mr. Harihar has

previously been GRANTED permission to file electronically by BOTH this US District

Court as well as the Fist Circuit Appeals Court. After reviewing Judge Young’s

Memorandum and Order, there is NO EXPLANATION for denying the Plaintiff’s

motion to file electronically. Based on the collective judicial abuses associated with the

historical record, the Plaintiff has reason to believe that: (1) this unnecessary judicial

delay and denial to file electronically is a deceptive tactic to (at minimum) negatively

impact/impair the Plaintiff’s response time. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that

Judge Young provide clarification for the record, as to how he arrived at his

decision to DENY Mr. Harihar permission to file and receive court communications

electronically;
B. Motion Requesting the Court’s Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel,

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 – In his issued order, Judge Young states:

“the plaintiff has not shown that extraordinary circumstances exist that would

warrant the appointment of counsel. The motion for counsel is therefore denied.”

However, this opinion differs from a recent acknowledgment by SCOTUS, who on June

8, 2018, GRANTED a timeline extension for filing his petition for Writ of Certiorari,

based on the following (partial) list of EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,

which SCOTUS has acknowledged and now shows cause for further clarification from

Judge Young:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues13 - Is Judge

Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID

NOT refuse Mr. Harihar’s repeated requests to address JURISDICTION issues

in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as

recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the

record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this

conclusion;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal Judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse Mr.

Harihar’s repeated requests to CLARIFY their judgments in the related

litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as

13
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over SIXTY (60) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced
Defendants/Federal (District and Circuit) Judges.
an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly

which documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal judges and the Court Clerk – Defendant Margaret Carter

(listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse Mr. Harihar’s requests to

CLARIFY their reasons for issuing the MANDATE in the related litigation? Is

Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an

extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which

documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized) - Is Judge Young

stating that referenced Federal Judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT

refuse Mr. Harihar’s repeated calls for RECUSAL in the related litigation? Is

Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an

extraordinary circumstance? Also, is Judge Young aware that thus far, there

have been no less than FIVE (5) RECUSALS in the related Federal

litigation?14 If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were

reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH

constituting acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the

Constitution - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as

14
The following FIVE (5) Defendants have ALL RECUSED from the referenced, related
litigation: (1) US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; (2) First Circuit Judge
David Barron; (3) First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella; (4) First Circuit Judge William J.
Kayatta, Jr.; and (5) First Circuit Judge Sandra J. Lynch.
Defendants here) DID NOT continue issuing orders after LOSING

JURISDICTION in the related litigation? Is Judge Young stating for the record

that ruling without jurisdiction DOES NOT constitute an act of TREASON

under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the US Constitution? Is Judge Young in

disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary

circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were

reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact

National Security - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed

as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address or even acknowledge: a.) the

Appellant’s Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC

ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to

impact National Security in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in

disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary

circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were

reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

7. FAILING to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or

unnecessarily delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for

the Court to assist with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915 - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as

Defendants here) DID NOT FAIL to exercise judicial discretion with regard to
assistance with the appointment of counsel in the related litigation? Is Judge

Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary

circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were

reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the

COURT claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT

COMPLETELY IGNORE Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) in the related litigation? Is

Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an

extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which

documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

9. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD

on the COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to

the Judicial Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address

evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the COURT and

clear violations to the Judicial Code of Conduct/Judicial Oath in the related

litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as

an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly

which documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including

(but not limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to


address: (a) DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS and (b) TRIAL BY JURY

requests in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS

as recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for

the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this

conclusion;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY - Is Judge Young stating that

referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address

Mr. Harihar’s requests for a GRAND JURY in the related litigation? Is Judge

Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary

circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were

reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS -

Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here)

DID NOT refuse to address the CLEARLY EVIDENCED IMBALANCE OF

HARDSHIPS in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with

SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please

clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach

this conclusion;

13. Refusing to address Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as

Defendants here) DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr. Harihar’s EVIDENCED

claims pertaining to: Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with


SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please

clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach

this conclusion;

14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights -

Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here)

DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr. Harihar’s EVIDENCED claims pertaining

to: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights in the related

litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as

an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly

which documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

15. Refusing to address Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False

Statements - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as

Defendants here) DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr. Harihar’s EVIDENCED

claims pertaining to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements

in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as

recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the

record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this

conclusion;

16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights

- Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants

here) DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr. Harihar’s EVIDENCED claims

pertaining to Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights in the

related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing


this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record

exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY - Is Judge Young stating that referenced

Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr.

Harihar’s REPEATED concerns for his personal SAFETY AND SECURITY

in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as

recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the

record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this

conclusion;

18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record - Is Judge Young stating that referenced

Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT FAIL to reimburse

accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant in the related litigation?

Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an

extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which

documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with

the presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER - Is Judge Young

stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT

refuse to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER in the related litigation?

Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as an


extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which

documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal - Is Judge Young

stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT fail

to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for dismissal in the related

litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with SCOTUS as recognizing this as

an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly

which documents were reviewed in order to reach this conclusion.

21. Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges ARE NOT considered

INFERIOR in the related litigation? Is Judge Young in disagreement with

SCOTUS as recognizing this as an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please

clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach

this conclusion;

22. Please provide clarification for the record as to HOW Judge Young came to

DISAGREE with the following: “When JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THE

COURT and other licensed attorneys are 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 require a presumption in favor of appointed counsel.

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 that have been recognized as highly relevant to a request

for counsel.”

23. Please provide clarification for the record which documents were reviewed that

would discredit ANY Merits of the Plaintiff’s EVIDENCED Claims;

24. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW this Court has

interpreted the Plaintiff’s Position to investigate ALL crucial facts;

25. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young

DISAGREED with the following (as it pertains to the Plaintiff’s request for

counsel): “Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are

represented by persons trained in the presentation of evidence and in cross-

examination”;

26. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young

interpreted the Plaintiff’s Capability to present his case; DISAGREEING with

The Court of Appeals who 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.”;

27. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young chose to

consciously DISCARD the complexity of the legal issues raised by the Plaintiff’s

claims: 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 in

legal analysis;

28. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young came to

DISAGREE with exercising judicial discretion in what many would consider a

TEXTBOOK case example under Title 28 U.S.C. §1915;

29. Based on the Plaintiff’s supported claims as evidenced by the record, please

provide further clarification as to HOW Judge Young associated pleading

deficiencies and impediments with this lawsuit?

II. BACKGROUND – Additional Clarification Necessary

While the Plaintiff understands that this section of Judge Young’s Memorandum is an

overview, it lacks key points that if read by an objective observer, would certainly impact

their perspective:

A. FIVE (5) Federal (District and Circuit) Judges listed as Defendants here have

RECUSED themselves from the related litigation;

B. There’s NO mention of any acknowledgment by SCOTUS;

C. There are numerous orders which are considered VOID, not just a singular order

from the Appeals Court. Either by recusal, or by the PLETHORA of evidenced

judicial misconduct claims impacting jurisdiction, the Plaintiff has shown cause to

attack a substantial list of orders associated with this litigation.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW – Additional Clarification Requested

After reviewing Judge Young’s Memorandum, there is reference to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2),

suggesting the action or appeal:


A. is frivolous or malicious;

B. fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or

C. seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

Based on the historical record, original complaint and this response, the Plaintiff has clearly

identified multiple judicial errors which negate the judge’s arguments and show that

the associated case references have been improperly applied.

IV. DISCUSSION – Additional Clarification Requested

After reviewing section IV of Judge Young’s Memorandum, it would appear (at least on

its surface) that your Honor has “missed” or has failed to read a section(s) of the Plaintiff’s

complaint – as it pertains to Judicial/Sovereign immunity. Very clearly, in Section II of the

Plaintiff’s complaint – JURISDICTIONAL BASIS, the Plaintiff states the following:

“Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the
jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S. Code § 1331 - Federal
question. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Title 28 U.S. Code §1331 is
also considered an appropriate basis for jurisdiction in this action against referenced
federal judicial officers, for claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights
guaranteed in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)."

Please be advised, since evidenced claims against named Defendants include: 1.)
Fraud on the Court, 2.) Judicial Fraud on the Court, 3.) Treason and other
civil/criminal claims of record – Litigation Privilege, Judicial Immunity, Sovereign
(or any other form of) Immunity is considered WAIVED. The Plaintiff seeks
criminal charges against ALL parties with the assistance of Federal Prosecutors and
respectfully wishes to enjoin this civil complaint with a criminal complaint and
associated criminal charges. Evidenced misconduct is also grounds for professional
accountability, including (but not limited to) disbarment and removal from the
bench, where applicable. This Court is respectfully reminded that for all
misconduct claims related to the referenced litigation, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) has served as witness (either directly or indirectly) through the US
Attorney’s Office (MA), specifically, Assistant US Attorneys - Mary Murrane and
Dina M. Chaitowitz.
While initiating this Complaint in this District Court is considered proper, TRANSFER
to a different Circuit, or perhaps even REMOVAL to the US Supreme Court MAY
likely be necessary, considering: 1.) The severity of these evidenced allegations and 2.)
TEN (10) Federal (District and Circuit) Court judges, ALL from this First Circuit, are
named Defendants. By filing this complaint, the Plaintiff also shows INCREMENTAL
cause for RECUSAL(S) in the related litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al
(Appeal No. 17-1381) and HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-
2084).”

Judge Young also speaks to absolute judicial immunity to claims brought against them in

their personal capacities. But again, it appears that has failed to read (or acknowledge) the

following from the Plaintiff’s complaint:

“As a general rule, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done in the
exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter how
erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).
HOWEVER, if an INFERIOR judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur
liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509. In the referenced litigation, the
record CONCLUSIVELY shows what can only be described as an egregious
PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT, where presiding judges have ALL blatantly
refused to uphold Federal laws, brushing aside all claims in order to reach a corrupt and
pre-determined outcome.”

THEREFORE, the content of section IV (Discussion) is ENTIRELY INNACURATE

including case references which are improperly applied; resembling judicial patterns of

record associated with claims against Defendant Judicial Officers. For Judge Young to

either: (1) “miss”; (2) ignore; or (3) mis-state ANY portion of the Plaintiff’s complaint – for

whatever reason, certainly shows cause for CONTINUED concern moving forward in this

litigation.

V. RICO - To be clear, and based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal Law, Mr.

Harihar has brought evidenced arguments that clearly support his CIVIL RICO claims under

18 U.S.C. § 1864, NOT CRIMINAL RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1862. The Plaintiff DOES

however, seek to enjoin his civil complaint with criminal indictments, brought by Federal
Prosecutors and which are expected to include CRIMINAL RICO indictments under 18

U.S.C. § 1862.

VI. NEW EVIDENCE – FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2) - Since filing the initial complaint in May

2018, there have been INCREMENTAL incidents of record by the Defendants AND other

judicial officers (to be named); showing cause for the Plaintiff to amend his original

complaint and (at minimum) update: (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS; (3) CONGRESS; and (4)

the DOJ. These new/incremental incidents include (but are not limited to) the following:

A. Additional RECUSALS – by Defendants – (1) Circuit Judge David Barron; (2)

Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella; (3) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta; showing

cause to legally attack and VOID ALL RELATED ORDERS. This Court is

respectfully reminded that – AS EVIDENCED BY THE RECORD, these

Defendants stand accused of TREASON under ARTICLE III for ruling

WITHOUT JURISDICTION. The historical record now shows FIVE (5)

FEDERAL RECUSALS associated with this litigation;

B. INCREMENTAL ACTS OF TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III SECTION 3

The Plaintiff has evidenced for the record – presiding Federal Judges who STILL

REFUSE to address JURISDICTION ISSUES and CONTINUE TO RULE when

it is clear that they are DISQUALIFIED from doing so. The most recent examples

include (but are not limited to) the following:

1. JUDGEMENT ORDER Issued September 11, 2018 (Appeal No. 17-2074)

– by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Norman H.

Stahl; and (3) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. For Chief Judge

Howard and Judge Thompson, this is an incremental act of Treason for


continuing to rule without jurisdiction. The Plaintiff/Appellant also shows

cause to file a NEW judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Stahl and

to include him as a (NEW) defendant here;

2. JUDGEMENT ORDER Issued August 7, 2018 (Appeal No. 17-1381) –

by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Kermit V.

Lipez; and (3) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. This order comes

after the initial judgment and mandate were RECALLED/VOIDED

(including ALL associated orders) and the panel was RECUSED. The

replacement panel (referenced above) IGNORED identified jurisdiction (and

other) issues, as if somehow by an allowed exemption; and proceeded to issue

the referenced judgment order;

3. Order Issued September 7, 2018 – which DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE

the APPELLANT’S EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO 8/29/18 ORDER

IDENTIFIES UNPRECENTED ABUSE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY,

RE-AFFIRMING CAUSE TO PETITION FOR REMOVAL/

IMPEACHMENT UNDER ARTICLE II SECTION 4;

4. Order Issued August 29, 2018 – which DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE THE

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW

EVIDENCE/INFORMATION; (2) VALIDATE JUDICIAL OATH; (3)

ADDRESS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RE JURISDICTION; AND (4)

PETITION FOR RE-HEARING/TRANSFER


Please be advised, as required by Federal law, the Plaintiff has necessarily

informed: (1) POTUS and (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) of these (and ALL

other) evidenced acts of Treason.

C. INCREMENTAL ACTS OF MISPRISION - 18 U.S. Code § 2382

These orders (referenced above) which are considered to have issued WITHOUT

JURISDICTION have ALSO been witnessed by Defendants15 listed in this

complaint. Therefore, per Federal law, the Plaintiff shows cause to bring

NEW/INCREMENTAL claims of MISPRISION of TREASON, pursuant to 18

U.S. Code § 2382 before this Court.

CONCLUSION

Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of Federal Law, the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments bring

what is considered an UNPRECEDENTED legal scenario that (at minimum):

1. Exposes what is arguably considered as the LARGEST case of JUDICIAL

CORRUPTION in US HISTORY;

2. Contributes to the Plaintiff/Appellant claims associated with the related Federal

litigation:

a. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074; and

b. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381.

3. Shows cause to update the following Offices/Agencies/Courts:

a. POTUS;

15
Refers here to Defendant - attorneys and non-judicial court officers associated with this
complaint.
b. SCOTUS;

c. House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

d. The Administrative Office of US Courts, specifically – Director James C.

Duff;

e. OIG – specifically, US Inspector General Michael Horowitz;

f. DOJ – specifically, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions; and

g. FBI;

There can be NO QUESTION that there have been multiple JUDICIAL ERRORS with regard

to decisions made here be Judge Young. The Plaintiff has shown cause to NOT ONLY attack

this order, but to consider it VOID. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would certainly agree. As

with EVERY Judicial Officer listed as a Defendant here – and out of respect for Judge Young

and this Court, the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully requests that your Honor

RECONSIDER his decision(s) here and CORRECT JUDICIAL ERRORS that have been

identified (and any others), BEGINNING WITH REVERSING the premature dismissal order

and GRANTING the referenced motions of the Plaintiff. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation

of Federal law, ANY failure by Judge Young to initiate corrective action will (at minimum)

show cause for the following:

1. Judicial Disqualification and immediate RECUSAL;

2. Filing a JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT complaint against US District Court Judge

William G. Young;

3. Amending the original complaint, adding Judge William G. Young as a DEFENDANT;

4. Removal of this complaint to either SCOTUS or before a Congressional panel;


For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the RESPONSE to the attention of The

President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 1) with the filed Court copy. A

copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources nationwide, out

of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a

question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional

supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an

independent court reporter.

Certification and Closing

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.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
EXIBIT 2