COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT

) Case No. 11-04499

MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO NA, et al. )
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF REPLY TO DEFENDANT OPPOSITION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND

RESTORE CASE, PURSUANT TO MASS. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3)

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files this REPLY in accordance of

MA Superior Court Rule 9A, along with the following Disclosure(s):

1. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the referenced Motion against the

Defendants is directly related to ongoing Federal litigation in the First Circuit Court of

Appeals.1 This related Federal litigation includes (but is not limited to): a.) Evidenced

allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and b.)

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, - believed to impact matters of

National Security. Therefore, copies of this related Reply are sent via email, social

1
The related Federal litigation references: 1.) HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
cv-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).
 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

Committee, House Oversight Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI). Copies are similarly delivered to Massachusetts State Legislators, to the direct

attention of Governor - Charley Baker (R-MA) and MA Attorney General - Maura

Healey. A copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL

AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for

documentation purposes, and out of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal

safety/security.

2. The TREASON claims referenced above pertain to evidenced judicial misconduct claims

now alleged against SEVEN (7) Federal (District and Circuit) judges – INCLUDING

Chief Justice – Jeffrey R. Howard, for ruling WITHOUT jurisdiction. The Plaintiff

has necessarily brought judicial misconduct complaints against TEN (10) Officers of the

(Federal) Court,2 for their collective failures to uphold Federal Law(s) and the judicial

machinery of the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand upon by amendment, the

list of Defendants that allegedly bear some responsibility and have contributed (at least in

part) to the damages and increased hardships of the Plaintiff. Additional Defendants may

include (but would not be limited to) related officers of the Court (State and Federal) who

have failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, as evidenced by the record(s).

2
The referenced TEN (10) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judge’s - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr.,
David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard and District Court
Judge Denise J. Casper.
3. In the referenced Federal litigation – HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, the evidenced

judicial misconduct claims of record brought against the initial presiding US District

Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs eventually led to her RECUSAL from

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. This recusal: 1.) re-affirms ALL judicial

claims – including (but not limited to) six (6) counts of TREASON for ruling

WITHOUT Jurisdiction; 2.) shows cause for the Plaintiff to attack ALL related orders;

3.) mandates that the District Court VOID ALL related orders, including the dismissal

order.

4. On May 18, 2018, the First Circuit Appeals Court announced the RECUSAL of a

SECOND Federal Judge from the referenced litigation – Circuit Judge David Barron,

who apparently has “Just Discovered” having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with

Defendant/Appellee WELLS FARGO.

5. The evidenced PATTERN(S) OF CORRUPT CONDUCT alleged against the Federal

Judiciary is IDENTICAL and/or resembles similar patterns of corrupt conduct evidenced

by related judgments here in this Commonwealth. This Court is respectfully reminded

that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and former Attorney General – Martha

Coakley are Appellees in the related federal litigation, with evidenced allegations that

include (but are not limited to): 1.) RICO (Civil/Criminal) Violations, 2.) Fraud on the

Court claims, 3.) Due Process Violations, 4.) Color of Law Violations, 5.) Misprision

claims 6.) Conspiracy claims 7.) Perjury and other violations. The SEVEN (7) year

historical record(s) of this litigation shows an obvious cause for concern and

questions whether this referenced pattern of corrupt conduct will continue here.

While there certainly is concern, the Plaintiff has FULL expectation that this Court will
 uphold the law and correct any past erred judgments of record. Respectfully, any

perceived failure to do so will be in full public view and will (at minimum) warrant filing

incremental Judicial misconduct complaints.

6. Although Federal litigation is ongoing, the evidenced record3 shows cause to restore this

case, correct erred judgments and seek damages. The Plaintiff makes clear that once this

case is restored and his complaint amended, it is not intended to duplicate damages

sought in the related Federal litigation. At the conclusion of this litigation, any relief

awarded to the Plaintiff here will be appropriately deducted from relief sought in the

referenced Appeal(s), to avoid duplication.

7. The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that he additionally seeks CRIMINAL

CHARGES (State AND Federal) and PROFESSIONAL PENALTIES (where it is

warranted) against ALL Defendants (and ALL responsible parties still to be named) for

the criminal components associated with this litigation including (but not limited to)

FRAUD. Aside from this motion, the Plaintiff has necessarily filed incremental

criminal complaints with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office and the FBI.4The

Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that it is his intention to enjoin this complaint (once

restored) with criminal charges against ALL responsible parties, including NEW

Defendants to be named in this motion. Copies of this motion and the referenced

criminal complaint(s) have necessarily been delivered to the direct attention of MA

3
The evidenced record includes (but is not limited to) the argument and sworn testimony by
Fraud Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak, representing The United States in the related case:
0:2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL. The Fraud Expert’s testimony
conclusively shows that the referenced Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS) Trust –
CMLTI 2006-AR1 is considered VOID, and therefore has NO LEGAL STANDING to the
Plaintiff’s property located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852.
4
As referenced in the original motion.
 Attorney General – Maura Healey, Governor Charley Baker (R-MA), and the FBI

via e-mail communication.5 ANY continued failures by State and/or Federal

Prosecutors to bring criminal charges against referenced parties will be in full public

view and will (at minimum) show cause to expand upon (or bring new) claims against the

Commonwealth and/or The United States.

8. A review of the historical record shows that EVERY State and Federal Court associated

with this litigation has been made aware that the referenced property in question has been

identified as an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE by: 1.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 2.) Federal Bank Regulators, and 3.) The Massachusetts Office of the

Attorney General (AGO).

9. Plaintiff has also filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, to provide

incremental supporting evidence HERE before a trial jury.

AFTER REVIEWING Opposition filed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.

HARIHAR, respectfully disagrees with their overall assessment and issues the following

REPLY:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Here, in the Defendants opposition, there are multiple clarifications to be made. First, the

collective details related to the four (4) year history of this litigation - initiated in MA State

Courts, collectively showed cause to file a NEW complaint in the Federal Court and

INCLUDE the Commonwealth of Massachusetts AND its former Attorney General –

Martha Coakley, as Defendants. A PORTION of these documented claims includes (but is

5
As referenced in the original motion
 not limited to): (1) An evidenced PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT exemplified by

this State Judiciary; (2) Evidenced RICO/COLLUSION claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code

§ 1964 (UNOPPOSED) between the MA Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s

Office (MA) and attorneys representing Bank Defendants – WELLS FARGO and US BANK

(UNOPPOSED)6; (3) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE under 18 U.S.C. § 1832

(UNOPPOSED) and (4) FRAUD ON THE COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)

(UNOPPOSED).

While the defendants attempt to (inaccurately) regurgitate the entire history of this litigation,

it is the FACTS of Federal record which show cause to re-store this case, as ALL related

judgments of state and federal record lie in question.7 It would behoove this court to

thoroughly review what has transpired since the referenced judgment was issued here, and

certainly prior to even considering any pre-mature dispositive position of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s intention is to CORRECT what are considered erred judgments by this

Commonwealth. Doing so MAY allow for consideration moving forward as it pertains to the

referenced Federal litigation. Conversely, any failure to initiate corrective action here will

certainly compound legal issues for the Commonwealth (and other Defendants) moving

forward.

Second, the Plaintiff respectfully reminds this Court that EVIDENCED CRIMINAL

COMPLAINTS are filed with the FBI and MA AGO against these Defendants (also their

6
See Exhibit 1
7
The Plaintiff references judgments from: (1) The Northeast Housing Court; (2) The Middlesex
Superior Court; (3) The MA Appeals Court and (4) The MA Supreme Court.
 representing attorneys, and Defendants/parties still to be named). This Court is aware that

Massachusetts Attorney General – Maura Healey has been regularly updated on this

collective litigation, and it is the Plaintiff’s FULL INTENTION to enjoin this case, once

restored, with criminal charges brought by State Prosecutors. Attempts by ANY party to

prevent such action will certainly show cause to (at minimum) expand upon (or file NEW)

Color of Law, Due Process and other claims.

Third, the referenced federal litigation has now forced three (3) RECUSALS. The most

recent was the announced recusal of presiding Circuit Judge David Barron on MAY 18,

2018, who disclosed that he has a FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE APPELLEE/

DEFENDANT – WELLS FARGO.8 As recent as June 8, 2018, The United States

Supreme Court GRANTED the Petitioner – Mohan A. Harihar an extension of time to

file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari, considering the EXTRAORDINARY list of

UNRESOLVED issues remaining in the lower Court(s).9 The Defendants’ failure to include

these FACTS in their opposition adds incrementally to the Plaintiff’s Fraud on the Court

claim(s) HERE.

II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

First, Defendants ARE NOT allowed to even present an argument, even if they wanted to. A

thorough review of Federal record will reveal that AFTER dispositive motions were filed by

Defendants, the Plaintiff filed Fraud on the Court claims, detailing an evidenced, deceptive

8
The other two (2) recusals are in reference to: (1) US District Court Judge (MA) – Allison
Dale Burroughs and First Circuit Judge – Sandra Lynch.
9
See Exhibit 2 – Appellant Response, III. UNRESOLVED ISSUES, A – T (Highlighted).
 scheme to deceive the Court. There is NO argument of record opposing these Plaintiff

claims. Therefore, Defendants have NO LEGAL STANDING to do so now.

Second, EVEN IF Defendants were allowed an argument, their assessment again is

incorrect. Regarding timeline, the Court is reminded that litigation has been ongoing since

judgment was rendered in this Court, where the Plaintiff’s evidenced Federal argument(s)

has shown cause to question this Court’s judgment. Also, Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff

did not Appeal his judgments from State Courts, when in fact, state records reveal Appeals to

the MA Appeals Court and MA Supreme Court.10 It was only after a judgment from the MA

Supreme Court, that the Plaintiff filed a (timely) NEW complaint with the US District Court

(MA). Therefore, any questions regarding timeline should be satisfied.

In the Plaintiff’s Motion, there is a clear articulation of his Fraud on the Court argument –

detailing securitization failure, lack of standing, sworn testimony from a Nationally

recognized Fraud expert, and case references that include The United States.11 After

reviewing the Defendant’s opposition, aside from reciting the definition of Rule 60(b) and

giving case references, there is NOT A SINGLE reference to the Plaintiff’s actual

argument. This is consistent with Federal record(s) which STILL shows the Plaintiff’s

Fraud on the Court argument as UNOPPOSED. The Court SHOULD view this latest tactic

by Defendants (unnecessarily accompanied by 450 pages of attachments) as an

INCREMENTAL effort to distract and deceive this Court.

10
References the following MA Appeal No.’s: 12-P-1515, 13-P-0671 and 13-P-1829.
11
Reference is made to Fraud Expert – Lynn Syzmoniak.
 Third, “Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances.” Clearly, as recently re-affirmed by The United States

Supreme Court, the Plaintiff has shown such exceptional circumstances. If after reviewing all

of these referenced circumstances of record(s) this Court fails to similarly reach the same

conclusion, the Plaintiff will show cause to further question this Court’s impartiality.

III. CONCLUSION

Upon filing this Rule 9A package, and for the reasons set forth above (and in the original

motion), the Plaintiff respectfully maintains his request for the Court to: (1) Grant the

Plaintiff’s Motion to restore this case; (2) recognize the Defendant’s latest effort to deceive

this Court and (3) issue such other and further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the motion to the attention of The

President, confirmation from the White House is attached (See Exhibit 3) with the filed Court

copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide additional supporting information upon request. The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted this 13th Day of June, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
 My CLE Knowledge
Welcome Search Catalog State Requirements Content Partners
CenterSM

RSS Feeds | Test Your Computer | Help | Shopping Cart | Contact Us | Sign In

OnePass Sign-in Program Details

After the Bubble-Bursts:

SIGN IN Mortgage and Foreclosure
Issues in Criminal and Civil
Litigation Price: $140.00*
New User Registration
Member Price: $115.00
Forgot Username/Password
Video Help This program is no
longer available.
Content
Partner: Boston
Bar Association

Browse Programs

* Applicable Membership or Subscription discounts E-mail a

will be added in your shopping cart colleague about
CLE
this program.
Description:
Accredited For Accreditation:
Specialty Credits Criminal and civil litigation in mortgage and foreclosure
State-Specific Law cases is an area in which legal issues are rapidly
Practice Areas evolving, stakes are high and uncertainty is rampant. AK, AR, AZ, CA,
Content Partners As a result, a variety of different areas of practice CO, CPE-NASBA,
overlap for many clients and practitioners. FL, ME, MO, MT,
ND, NJ, NY-
Core Business and This program will focus on criminal and regulatory EXPER, OK, PA,
Professional Skills issues emerging from the collapse of the national real RI, VI, VT, WV
estate and secondary mortgage markets. Among the
Paralegal Studies topics to be explored are: the uncovering of widespread Alaska
fraud in the origination of mortgages prior to the
Subscriptions collapse, and the priorities of state and federal Total Credits: 2.5
authorities in prosecuting such cases; civil and criminal Specialty Credits:
Thomson Reuters Product authorities’ priorities in confronting fraud in connection Status: Reciprocal
Trainings with post-collapse “foreclosure rescue” transactions; Credit Available
and criminal and regulatory issues relating to banking Expiration: N/A
RSS Feeds and foreclosure practices in connection with mortgages Training
held in “pooled” investment vehicles. Type: Online

West
Attendees will gain insight into the priorities of leading LegalEdcenter
Live Program Calendar prosecution officials, including the Attorney General
and the United States Attorney in mortgage fraud and
provides
foreclosure cases. Learn about important practical accreditation as
© ‹‹‹ April 2018 ››› issues and valuable strategies for criminal defense described here.
S M T W TH F S attorneys in this area, including the likely impact of new You may be able
regulations at the state and federal level in the area of to self apply for
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 consumer protection in connection with mortgages. credits in states
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Two panels of experts will present some of the latest not listed.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 breaking developments in this area, including the
impact of the SJC’s ground-breaking Ibanez decision. Check your state
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
requirements and
29 30 get contact
Panel I: Post-Crash Criminal Prosecutions
information.
All Programs for This Month
• Property Flips
 • Foreclosure “Rescue” Schemes Speakers:
About Us • Lender and Borrower Misconduct
• Fraud in the Secondary Market
• Defending Real Estate Professionals • James H.
About Us O'Brien -
Assistant
Panel II: The Regulatory Response
Attorney General
CLE Mobile - Massachusetts
• Consumer Fraud Protections in the Dodd Office of the
Frank Act Attorney General
Content Partners • Lender Liability • Paul Levenson -
Assistant US
• Post-Ibanez Litigation
Attorney (Panel I
Moderator) - US
FAQ
Program Co-Chairs: Attorney’s Office
• Jeffrey S.
Press Releases • Juliane Balliro, Esq., Partner, Nelson Mullins Patterson, Esq.
- Nelson Mullins
Riley & Scarborough LLP
Riley &
• Paul G. Levenson, Esq., Assistant U.S. Scarborough
Site Features Attorney, The United States Attorney's Office LLP
District of Massachusetts • Juliane Balliro -
Partner (Panel II
Video Help Moderator) -
Nelson Mullins
Riley &
Criminal Law & Procedure, Real Scarborough
Practice Areas: LLP
Related Programs Estate Law
• James Patrick
Online Media Dowden -
Video
Type: Assistant U.S
Find more programs in same
Attorney - US
practice area(s)
Production Date: 03/28/2011 4:00 PM EDT Attorney's Office
Find more programs from this • Thomas P.
Level: Intermediate Quinn, Esq. -
content partner
Pierce Atwood,
Category: Standard LLP
Duration: 2 Hours, 30 Minutes

Online Format: Live

Click here for information on subscription discounts and

Group Viewing opportunities.

Purchase of this product provides online access for

180 days. If you are purchasing a live webcast, you will
receive complimentary access to the on demand
version for 180 days once it becomes available. Please
note that the on demand and podcast versions may, or
may not be accredited in your state.

If you intend to take a course for CLE credit, please

make sure your state is listed in the "Accreditation"
section to the upper right of the program description.
Accreditation displayed is unique to the purchased
program format (live conference, live webcast, on
demand, podcast). Credit totals listed for live
conferences are the maximum credits available. Credits
issued will be based upon actual time in
attendance. Credit totals for other formats are for
complete programs. Partial credit is not available for
any online or downloadable format.

West LegalEdcenter will not provide accreditation

for states not listed.

This product is intended for individual use by the

named purchaser. Group viewings for online programs
may be arranged for five or more attorneys within the
same organization prior to viewing by emailing
sales@westlegaledcenter.com.

People who bought this program also

bought:
There are no current recommendations

This product is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter

covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or
other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional
person should be sought.

Page Disclaimer

No page disclaimer found.

Home | Search | CLE Requirements | Site Map

Content Partners | Technical Requirements | Help | Contact Us
About Us | Privacy Statement
RSS Feeds
© 2018 Thomson Reuters
(c757qnk.int.thomsonreuters.com)
Exhibit 2
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)

APPELLANT RESPONSE TO THE MAY 18, 2018 RECUSAL OF

CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID BARRON

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal (lower court Docket No. 15-

cv-11880), and in the RELATED Appeal,12 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced

allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and 2.)

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, which are believed to impact matters of

National Security. The evidenced allegations against referenced officers of the Court

include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - On March 19, 2018, Criminal Complaints were

filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10) identified Federal

12
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
(Circuit and District) Court Judges. Therefore, copies of this RESPONSE are necessarily sent

via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz (OIG);

4. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

5. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives;

6. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

7. House Oversight Committee;

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

9. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

10. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

11. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

12. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

13. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, as this judiciary’s effort to “promote

public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,” has irrefutably been

compromised. By informing the Public, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties

are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued

concerns for personal safety/security.

COMES NOW the Appellant, who files this timely RESPONSE after being notified on May

18, 2018 of the RECUSAL by Circuit Judge David Barron. The announcement of this recusal

raises a number of issues, including (but not limited to) the following:

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted;

II. This Court MUST Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in similar fashion;

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES;

IV. Impacted Litigation;

V. Impacted Orders;

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

VII. Relief Requested

__________________________________________________________________

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted

After reviewing the referenced 5/18/2018 letter13 announcing the recusal of Judge David

Barron, the explanation provided is considered insufficient, in that far more detail is required

in order to fully understand ALL factors leading up to this recusal. The Appellant

respectfully requests that Judge Barron provide for the record a detailed explanation of

exactly HOW, at this time he came to find out about a Financial interest in the

Appellee/Defendant – Wells Fargo. While the Appellant does not necessarily question the

conflict itself, there is cause to question the timing of its discovery. This Appeal was initiated

13
See Attachment A
 in April 2017 – therefore, further validation is needed to confirm all details related to the

judge’s “newly discovered” financial interest in Appellee, Wells Fargo;

II. This Court MUST NOW Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in Similar Fashion

This Court is aware that the announced recusal of Judge Barron is the THIRD (3rd)

RECUSAL associated with this litigation. On June 19, 2017, the first Judge to recuse was

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the RELATED case – HARIHAR v THE UNITED

STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109. Despite multiple documented efforts by the Appellant,

the record will conclusively reveal multiple failures by BOTH the District and Appellate

Courts to address and remedy the list of resulting conflicts and impacted orders associated

with this recusal.

The second recusal was announced by Chief Judge Howard, who recused Circuit Judge

Sandra Lynch from ruling on the 3/14/2018 decision for reasons UNKNOWN.14

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Aside from the issues related to the referenced recusals, this Court is reminded of the list

of existing issues which, as evidenced by the record, have been IGNORED by this Court

- BEGINNING WITH JURISDICTION ISSUES. This Court AND the American

Public have now witnessed the following acts, EACH of which constitute judicial

misconduct – bringing to this Appellant (and likely to ANY OBJECTIVE

OBSERVER) a heightened state of ALERT and OUTRAGE:

14
The 3/14/18 Order referenced the Appellant’s Petition for re-hearing en banc. Questions are
raised regarding not only the recusal of Judge Lynch, but also regarding the jurisdiction of other
judges issuing the referenced order(s).
 A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues15;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

D. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

E. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

F. 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;

G. 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;

H. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

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

I. 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;

J. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

15
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.
 M. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color

of Law;

N. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

O. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

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

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

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

R. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as

stated within the record;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

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

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

IV. Impacted Litigation

This Court must now address ALL litigation, associated orders and misconduct

complaints impacted by Judge Barron’s recusal, not just Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron

is also a presiding judge in the RELATED APPEAL No. 17-2074 – HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES, and as a member of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL, has contributed to

orders associated with related judicial misconduct complaints.

 This Court is now aware that on May 30, 2018, the Appellant filed a NEW Complaint

with the District Court against multiple Defendants including TEN (10) Officers of the

Court who are considered to be INFERIOR JUDGES (Reference Docket No. 18-cv-

11134, HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al). Judge Barron

is listed here as a Defendant and as an inferior judge. The DEMAND is now respectfully

made to address ALL referenced litigation and judicial misconduct complaints impacted

by recusal.

V. Impacted Orders

The Appellant first addresses the EIGHT (8) impacted orders of Appeal No. 17-1381:

A. ORDER OF COURT Entered: June 5, 2017 - Here, the appellant's motions for

appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are denied. ALL requests

here have been denied WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, even when clarification and

reconsideration had been respectfully requested. With the recusal of Judge Barron

(and the previous RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs), the Appellant shows cause to

attack this order and have it VOIDED by the Court. Before any attempt to re-address

the issues contained in the original motion, the Court is respectfully reminded that

JURISDICTION remains an issue. The remaining TWO (2) presiding Circuit Judges

– Judge Torruella and Judge Kayatta are considered to have ALREADY LOST

JURISDICTION to rule in this or ANY RELATED litigation. Once jurisdiction has

been properly restored, evidenced arguments supporting the Appellant’s motion (at

minimum) SHOULD result in the following:

1. THE COURT SHOULD initiate corrective action for these publicly

evidenced errors, beginning with actions two (2) thru five (5) listed below. IF
 corrective action is initiated here, there MAY be opportunity to amend or

withdraw judicial misconduct (and other) complaints (if allowed by law). Any

failure to initiate corrective action here will certainly contribute to the ongoing

effort calling for their immediate removal from the Bench;

2. An ORDER granting the Appellant assistance with the appointment of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Once experienced legal counsel has been

retained, the Appellant reserves the right to further amend this response as

deemed necessary;

3. An ORDER granting a STAY of ALL collection activity against the

Appellant while litigation is ongoing;

4. VACATING the existing Judgment and Mandate Order.

5. ISSUING a DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR of the APPELLANT –

MOHAN A. HARIHAR with prejudice, based on the PUBLICLY

EVIDENCED AND UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claims under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). There is NO grey area here. Furthermore,

Appellees/Defendants have NO ALLOWABLE ARGUMENT since the

record reveals NO PRIOR ARGUMENT;

B. Once corrective action is initiated (as described above), the remaining orders16

associated with this Appeal No. 17-1381 are perceived as MOOT. The Appellant

restates that he retains the right to amend this response, if only partial corrective action

is initiated or as deemed necessary.

16
Remaining orders impacted by recusal (Appeal No. 17-1381 ONLY) include orders issued on
the following dates: July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14, 2018, April 4, 2018 and April
11, 2018 Orders, as well as the January 17, 2018 Judgment.
VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Based on Judge Barron’s recusal, the reasons stated above and throughout this Appeal,

shows absolute cause to initiate corrective action. Once these critical errors have been

corrected (as described by the Appellant), there will no longer be a need to petition the

US Supreme Court. HOWEVER, until corrective action is initiated, the due date for

filing the Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is fast approaching on June 12,

2018. THEREFORE, with the filing of this response, the Appellant respectfully requests

that the Court issue an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend

the timeline for filing his petition until ALL unresolved issues have been appropriately

addressed.

VII. Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR respectfully requests the

following relief, based on these referenced reasons impacted by recusal:

A. Initiate corrective action by assisting the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

B. Consider ALL referenced orders associated with this Appeal VOID;

C. ISSUE an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend the

timeline for filing his petition with the Supreme Court until ALL unresolved issues

have been appropriately addressed and resolved in this Appeals Court.

D. VACATE the Judgment and Mandate ORDER associated with this Appeal;

E. ISSUE a DEFAULT JUDGMENT - IN FAVOR of the APELLANT, MOHAN A.

HARIHAR with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

 F. Issue an order for additional relief to the Appellant for: 1.) Punitive damages, 2.)

Declaratory relief and 3.) ANY OTHER relief deemed appropriate by the Court;

G. Issue an order for a reimbursement of legal fees (and ALL associated costs) as

previously described by the Appellant;

H. Appropriately address for the record, related issues pertaining to (at minimum)

evidenced CRIMINAL misconduct, Economic Espionage and National Security

and others. This will require the input from the Executive Branch of Government,

including (but not limited to): 1.) The President, 2.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 3.) The FBI, 4.) specific Congressional Committees.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s efforts to address and initiate the referenced corrective

action(s). For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this REPLY to the attention of

The President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 3) with the filed Court copy. If

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

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

independent court reporter.

Respectfully re-submitted this 4th Day of June, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 3
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 13, 2018, and in compliance with Massachusetts Superior Court
Rule 9A, I sent the foregoing REPLY via (USPS) mail to the following counsel of the Defendant
at their last known address:

David E. Fialkow
K&L Gates, LLP
State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111

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