IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING, CLARIFICATION AND

INJUNCTION

The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this request for an

EMERGENCY HEARING, NO LATER THAN Tuesday, July 17, 2018, as there appears to

be an UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL DELAY to RESOLVE EXISTING ISSUES, bringing

with it severe detriment and increased hardship to Mr. Harihar. This Court is well-aware that the

Appellant’s (extended) timeline for filing his petition for Writ of Certiorari is fast-

approaching on August 11, 2018. At the requested hearing, the Appellant wishes to (at

minimum) address the following:

I. PENDING MOTIONS AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES – Since the recusal of Circuit

Judge David Barron on May 18, 2018, there has been no action taken by this Court (here)

in nearly TWO (2) months. This Court did however, timely issue an order back on June 14,
 2018, withdrawing the Mandate and vacating Judgment in two (2) related cases.1 After

filing a timely response to Judge Barron’s recusal on June 4, 2018; followed by the

6/26/18 NOTICE addressing the related 6/14/18 order, it is unclear what is causing

further delay to withdraw the mandate and vacate judgment here.

Next, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that the - Fraud on the Court, Rule

60(b)(3) Motion, filed on June 20, 2018 – AGAIN has gone UNOPPOSED.2 It is unclear as

to what exactly is causing the delay to initiate corrective action including (but not limited to)

a DEFAULT judgment w/ prejudice, in favor of the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR.

The list of UNRESOLVED ISSUES before this Court, as recognized by SCOTUS, also

includes (but is not limited to) the following:

A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues3;

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;

1
References Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al, Appeal No. 15-2421 and Hayden, et al v.
HSBC Bank USA. N.A., et al, Appeal No. 16-2274.
2
Reference the Filed July 2, 2018 REPLY, pursuant to FRAP Rule 27.
3
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.
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;

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.

II. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

On June 6, 2018, the Appellant filed a Motion with SCOTUS requesting an extension of

time for filing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. On June 8, 2018, The Supreme Court

granted a 60-day extension to file the petition based on the (UNOPPOSED) list of

EXTRORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES listed above. It

should be clear to this Court and to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER that these issues bear

critical impact to the content of the Appellant’s Certiorari petition. Thirty-Five (35) days

have elapsed since SCOTUS granted the Appellant’s timeline extension. The deadline for

filing the Certiorari Petition is fast approaching on August 11, 2018. It is unclear what is

causing such a delay to resolve these issues; doing so without explanation shows cause to

question this Court’s impartiality and certainly brings an argument showing the intention to

damage Mr. Harihar’s Petition.

III. CLARIFICATION FROM THE DOJ RE: CRIMINAL CHARGES

The Appellant has made very clear, his intentions to enjoin this civil action(s) with Criminal

charges against ALL responsible parties,4 through the assistance of Federal Prosecutors.

This Court is aware that the Executive Branch of Government – including POTUS, the

DOJ and FBI, have been regularly copied on ALL related Court filings since the

Discovery of evidenced Treason claims under Article III. As a matter of record, criminal

complaints have long been filed with the FBI for the purpose of bringing criminal charges. It

remains unclear as to what is causing a delay for the Executive Branch to officially respond.

With the assistance of the Court, the Appellant now seeks clarification from the Executive

Branch to reveal a timeline for Federal Prosecutors to enjoin the Appellant’s civil efforts and

bring criminal charges against ALL referenced parties. The Court is respectfully reminded

that Assistant US Attorneys – Mary Murrane and Dina Chaitowitz (MA Boston Office),

have personally witnessed much (if not all) of the referenced criminal claims of record.

IV. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CLAIMS

A primary component of the Appellant’s complaint(s) pertains to his Intellectual Property,

which by definition is considered a TRADE SECRET protected under the ECONOMIC

ESPIONAGE ACT of 1996, 18 U.S. Code § 1831. The Appellant has made abundantly

clear in ALL of his supported arguments, that the misappropriation of this trade secret is

perceived to impact this Nation’s Security. However, a review of the record shows that

neither this Federal Judiciary, nor ANY of the Appellees/Defendants ever acknowledge the

words – Trade Secret, Economic Espionage or National Security, as if by design. This

4
Including (but not limited) to the named Appellees/Defendants and referenced Officers of the
Court.
 should be alarming to ALL Americans and the Appellant seeks both acknowledgment and

clarification from this judiciary, as well as from the Appellees/Defendants for the

record.

V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

This Appellant has endured an UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP since before this litigation

began – over SEVEN (7) years ago. Despite multiple efforts through the years, NEVER

ONCE, has this Federal Judiciary granted injunctive relief even though it was warranted;

and the record shows that there has NEVER been a VALID explanation that indicates

WHY. The Appellant now seeks an immediate injunction which AT MINIMUM

addresses HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION HARDSHIPS.

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this EMERGENCY MOTION to the

attention of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 1) with the filed Court

copy. A copy will also be made available 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 information upon request. For

documentation purposes, the presence of an independent court reporter is requested. Mr.

Harihar is grateful for the Court’s consideration to initiate corrective action in this matter.

Respectfully submitted this 13th Day of July, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 13, 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