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 )

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE/MOTION FILED PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(4):

(1) RE-AFFIRMS EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT; (2) TREASON UNDER
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3; (3) CAUSE FOR AMENDMENT; AND
(4) CAUSE FOR TRANSFER

After reviewing the Order1 issued by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O.

Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A.

HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees as this INFERIOR replacement Circuit

Panel has NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE SUCH AN ORDER. Furthermore, it is believed

that this Panel has intentionally MISCONSTRUED the Appellant’s RESPONSE, filed

September 19, 2018.2 The result is an ever-repeating PATTERN OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT – that appears to be led by the CHIEF JUDGE – JEFFREY R. HOWARD.

1
See Exhibit 1, p. 12 to view the ORDER issued October 5, 2018 in its entirety.
2
See Exhibit 2, p. 15 to view the Appellant’s RESPONSE to the Oder issued on September 7, 2018, by
INFERIOR Circuit Judges - Jeffrey R. Howard (Chief Judge), O. Rogeriee Thompson and Kermit V Lipez.
Once again, this INFERIOR Circuit Panel refuses to even acknowledge JURISDICTION and

the lengthy list of UNRESOLVED ISSUES – which as a matter of record, have already been

acknowledged by SCOTUS3; thereby failing to uphold the Constitution, Federal Rules and their

Judicial Oath. Instead, these judicial officers have AGAIN consciously chosen to issue an

incremental order when they CLEARLY LACK THE JURISDICTION to do so.

Respectfully, what should be clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, is that Chief Judge –

Jeffrey R. Howard (who is likely the influencer of this REPLACEMENT panel) has LOST

COMPLETE CONTROL of this First Circuit Court. As a respectful reminder:

1. EIGHT (8) out of TEN (10) Circuit judges are now DISQUALIFIED from ruling in

this and ALL RELATED litigation4;

2. A combined total of FOURTEEN (14) District and Circuit Judges are now

DISQUALIFIED from ruling in this and ALL RELATED litigation;

3. There are now EIGHT (8) RECUSALS associated with this litigation; and

4. There are now NINE (9) Judicial officers associated with this litigation who stand

accused of TREASON for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION; including CHIEF

JUDGE – Jeffrey R. Howard.

3
The Appellant references Supreme Court Application No. 17A-1359, and the timeline extension granted by
Supreme Court Justice - Stephen Breyer, who acknowledged the list of EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES/ UNRESOLVED ISSUES warranting such an extension. A summary of these issues is
further described in this filed response.
4
The only two (2) remaining First Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction are: (1) Circuit
Judge Bruce M. Selya and (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin. However, EVEN IF the Court intended to select a
SECOND replacement panel, it lacks a third qualified circuit judge to do so, re-affirming the Appellant’s
cause for TRANSFER. Related litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-
2074; and (2) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
The Appellant continues to identify what collectively is considered an UNPRECEDENTED

and certainly egregious level of judicial misconduct evidenced by this Federal Judiciary.

Please be advised, the severity of issues brought by Mr. Harihar - including (but not limited to)

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3, mandate notifying (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS;

(3) OIG; (4) House and Senate Judiciary Committees; (5) DOJ; and (6) the FBI. This latest

example of JUDICIAL ABUSE – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, adds incrementally to

an already lengthy list of evidenced claims; showing cause for TRANSFER before either: (1) a

Congressional panel; or (2) SCOTUS. A summary of this latest development is described as

follows:

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.5A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,

will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).6A 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.”7Only when the jurisdictional error is

“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.8A judgment may also be void under Rule

60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process.9Specifically, inadequate

5
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431 F.3d at 412.
6
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
7
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).
8
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
9
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
notice or failure to provide notice or service of process may result in a lack of due process

rendering a judgment void.10

A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be made “within a reasonable time.”11 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.12 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.13

I. EGRIGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY THE REPLACEMENT CIRCUIT

PANEL - The VOID order issued on OCTOBER 5, 2018, by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R.

Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V.

Lipez continues to reinforce the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct claims including

(but not limited to) the following STILL UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

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 issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

10
Id. at 853-54, citing In re Chess, 268 B.R. 150, 155 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2001).
11
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.”
12
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).
13
In re Missouri Prop. Ltd., 211 B.R. 914, 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1996).
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.

As with the prior Circuit panel, the Appellant has CLEARLY shown just cause to attack and

VOID ALL ORDERS associated with this Appeal and in the related federal litigation – and

the record shows that Mr. Harihar has done just that; with NO VALID rebuttal of record

from ANY Appellee/Defendant or accused Officer of the Court.

WHAT EXISTS NOW IS PERCEIVED AS AN UNPRECEDENTED LIST OF

FOURTEEN (14) Federal (Circuit and District Court) judges who have been

DISQUALIFIED from ruling in this (and any related) litigation. The disqualified judicial

officers making up this list include the 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;

9. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch;

10. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;

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

12. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);

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

14. US District Court Judge William G. Young.

II. TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of The Constitution - by issuing the order on

October 5, 2018 WITHOUT JURISDICTION, this replacement Circuit panel has now

committed an INCREMENTAL ACT of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3.

Since this EVIDENCED claim of Treason has occurred ON THE RECORD, it is witnessed

by: (1) Circuit Clerk – Maria R. Hamilton; (2) The PUBLIC (referencing public access to

PACER); and (3) ALL Appellants and their respective counsel of record. As witnesses, any

failure to acknowledge this (and all prior reported) act(s) of Treason will be interpreted as

MISPRISION OF TREASON - 18 U.S. Code § 2382. As required by Federal law, Mr.

Harihar necessarily brings this (incremental) evidenced claim of Treason to the

attention of: (1) POTUS; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) this Court. As a

reminder, there are NINE (9) Federal Judges associated with this litigation who thus far

stand accused of Treason against The Constitution. They include:

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);

9. US District Court Judge William G. Young.

III. CAUSE FOR AMENDMENT

Based upon this Circuit Panel’s incremental act(s) of judicial abuse, the Appellant shows

cause to expand upon his existing claims and amend his two (2) related complaints: (1)

HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (2) HARIHAR v

CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No 18-cv-11134. Mr. Harihar also

chows cause to expand upon his criminal complaints filed with the FBI.

IV. CAUSE FOR TRANSFER

The Appellant 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 for the record exactly HOW Mr. Harihar could possibly have been

DENIED counsel under Title 28 U.S.C. §1915? It should seem CLEAR to ANY

OBJECTIVE OBSERVER that when the record shows that 80% of the First Circuit Judges

have committed evidenced acts of misconduct, there appears to be ABSOLUTELY NO

INTENTION to UPHOLD the law. There exists instead the INTENT TO REACH A
 CORRUPT AND PRE-DETERMINED OUTCOME. ALSO, with only TWO (2)

remaining eligible replacement judges, it is not legally possible for a second replacement

panel within this Circuit. THEREFORE, combined with the evidenced level of

egregiousness, the Appellant shows cause for removal/transfer of this Appeal (and the related

litigation) to either: (1) SCOTUS; or (2) A Congressional Panel.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant – 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 Federal 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, this Circuit

Panel and collectively - ALL FOURTEEN (14) Federal Judges have DISCRACED the

COURT and this NATION. This is an unprecedented series of events at the Circuit level that in

the Appellant’s opinion, at minimum warrants:

1. Certiorari to ultimately be granted by the U.S. Supreme Court;

2. MA Congressional leaders to bring these evidenced claims of judicial abuse to the

attention of the House/Senate Judiciary Committees;

3. The involvement of the Executive Branch – specifically DOJ and Federal

Prosecutors to bring indictments associated with criminal complaints filed by the

Appellant;

4. The Dismissal (and all related) order(s) to be considered VOID, pursuant (at

minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and (4);

What remains unclear is how to proceed AFTER filing this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(4), considering the lack of available First Circuit Judges with jurisdiction. Since the

Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and has NO LEGAL EXPERIENCE:

1. A MOTION will next be filed with SCOTUS to inform the Court and determine the

next legal steps as it pertains to this Docket and the related litigation;

2. Mr. Harihar awaits an ANSWER from Congressional Leaders: (1) US Senator

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (2) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and (3) US

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) regarding their progress in bringing this matter

to the attention of Congress14;

3. Mr. Harihar awaits notification from the DOJ – specifically from Attorney General –

Jeff Sessions and US Attorney (MA) Andrew Lelling regarding referenced criminal

indictments and alignment with the Appellant’s civil litigation. The Court is respectfully

reminded that Assistant US Attorneys (MA) – Mary Murrane and Cynthia Young

have also witnessed these judicial abuses FIRSTHAND, as they are representing

counsel in the related litigation, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No.

17-2074.

4. Before proceeding further, Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §1915 is clearly warranted, considering the TEXTBOOK set of

circumstances before this Court.

14
See Exhibit 3, p. 31 to view the E-mail communication delivered to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on
October 5, 2018. Copied on the E-mail (and via social media) were the following parties: (1) POTUS (via
www.whitehouse.gov and TWITTER); (2) US Inspector General – Michael Horowitz; (3) Governor Charlie
Baker; (4) US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (5) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (6) The DOJ,
including US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and Asst. US Attorney Mary Murrane (MA); (7) Each
individual member of Congress, including the House and Senate Judiciary Committees (via TWITTER); (8)
MA Attorney General Maura Healey; (9) MA Inspector General Glen Cunha; and (10) the FBI.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the MOTION to the attention of POTUS,

confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See Exhibit 4, p. 36) with the filed

Court copy. A copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources

nationwide, out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If

there is a question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Mr. Harihar is happy to provide

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

independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of October, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
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 VOID ORDER ISSUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018

REVEALS CONTINUED JUDICIAL ABUSE AND RAISES QUESTIONS OF

MENTAL ILLNESS

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues EVIDENCED against judicial officers of the court –

associated with this (and related) Federal litigation,15 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. These evidenced allegations – NOW RAISED (collectively) AGAINST

15
Aside from this Appeal (and its lower Docket No. 15-cv-11880), related Federal litigation
references: (1) HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-2074 (Also, lower
court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and (2) HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
FOURTEEN (14) judicial officers of the Court also include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT.16

Therefore, CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS ALREADY filed with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) will necessarily be updated.17 Copies of this petition are necessarily sent

via email, social media and/or certified mail to the following Federal offices/agencies:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;

3. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

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

5. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

6. House Oversight Committee;

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

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

Program (SIGTARP);

9. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

10. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

11. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

16
Referenced Judicial Officers include: (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 Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella; (5) US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta,
Jr.; (6) US Circuit Judge David J. Barron; (7) US Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; (8)
US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH); (9) US District Court Judge John
J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI); (10) US District Court Judge John David Levy (US
District Court (ME); (11) US Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez; and (12) US District Court Judge
William G. Young; (13) US Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch; and (14) US Circuit Judge
Norman H. Stahl.
17
See Exhibit 1 – Original Criminal Complaints filed with the FBI on March 19, 2018 against
referenced judicial officers (excludes Judges - Lipez, Stahl and Young, who will be added to the
updated criminal complaint).
 12. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

Copies will also be made available to the PUBLIC and to the NATIONAL MEDIA, as this

judiciary’s efforts to “promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,”

have clearly failed. 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.

AFTER REVIEWING the ORDER18 issued September 7, 2018 by Circuit Panel: (1) Chief

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez; and (3) Circuit Judge O.

Rogeriee Thompson, it becomes clear to this Appellant (and should be clear to ANY Objective

Observer), that the BLATANT JUDICIAL ABUSE OF POWER evidenced by this First

Circuit has SPIRALED OUT OF CONTROL.

To be clear, this Order is considered VOID. This latest example shows a Circuit Panel of

Judges that completely REFUSE to address JURISDICTION, and the PLETHORA of legal

issues which – individually and collectively re-affirm their disqualification. This Panel has

instead INSISTED on RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION, brushing aside ALL Appellant

motions – in order to arrive corrupt and pre-determined outcome. The record clearly shows

precisely how the Appellant has arrived at these EVIDENCED conclusions. At the forefront of

this egregious abuse, is CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, who has long been

considered disqualified to rule in this litigation. A thorough review of the record now shows that

18
See Exhibit 2
the Chief Judge has lost complete control of this Court; to the extent that MENTAL ILLNESS

should ONCE AGAIN be considered and investigated. At the VERY LEAST, the argument

can be made where this Chief Judge MAY have influenced other judicial officers to betray their

oath. Collectively, these egregious judicial abuses – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW,

certainly contribute to the Appellant’s concerns for his personal safety and security.

The Appellant believes that: (1) the level of evidenced judicial misconduct here is

UNPRECEDENTED; (2) without the ability to retain counsel, the proper path to a

LEGAL AND JUST remedy is unclear; and (3) there does not appear to be a corrective legal

remedy without the assistance of either (or combination of): (a) SCOTUS; (b) the DOJ; or

(c) REMOVAL to a Congressional Panel. As a matter of record, the Appellant’s documented

efforts to abide by the process and file judicial misconduct complaints have yielded similar

PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by: (1) the Chief Judge; (2) Judicial Council; and

(3) includes multiple documented failures by the Court Clerk19 and Circuit Executive.20 These

documented failures indicate a clearly broken system within the First Circuit. As a matter of

record, the Appellant has necessarily brought this matter to the attention of The Administrative

Office of US Courts – specifically, to the attention of Director James C. Duff.

APPPELLANT’S CLOSING STATEMENT

This legal experience is one which NO AMERICAN should EVER have to endure. Based on

the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal law, those Judicial Officers of the Court who stand

19
References Circuit Clerk Margaret Carter.
20
References Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg.
accused of crimes including TREASON, have DISCRACED both the Court AND this Country

for which they have the distinct privilege to serve. There is NOTHING HONORABLE with

these actions; And when the accused are also tied to evidenced claims of ECONOMIC

ESPIONAGE, it is again the Appellant’s interpretation of the Law that they’ve now become

Domestic Enemies of The United States. Therefore, there MUST now be civil, criminal and

professional accountability for these evidenced crimes, including (but not limited to)

IMPEACHMENT under ARTICLE II, Section 4. ANY failure to do so will be IN FULL

PUBLIC VIEW to ALL AMERICANS. Based on the historical record, the Appellant HAS

LOST ALL CONFIDENCE in this First Circuit’s willingness to initiate necessary corrective

action. This INCLUDES the First Circuit Executive and the Court Clerk, who have

personally witnessed these evidenced claims of TREASON and perceived threats to

National Security; but have FAILED/REFUSED to inform their superiors – thus adding to

existing Conspiracy claims.21 The Appellant therefore prays for relief/intervention from a

Court (likely SCOTUS) or Congressional panel with the jurisdiction to address these legal

issues.

Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR states that he has been respectful to this and

EVERY Court and has followed the law to the best of his ability for nearly EIGHT (8) years.

While the many evidenced acts of misconduct have shown just cause to lose faith in government,

it remains my SINCERE HOPE, that the United States will take corrective steps in restoring

21
The Appellant has necessarily brought evidenced Conspiracy claims in the related litigation:
(1) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No.
17-cv-11109; and (2) HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket
No. 18-cv-11134.
that faith. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the RESPONSE to the attention

of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached with the filed Court copy.22 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 submitted this 19th Day of September, 2018

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

22
See Exhibit 3
Exhibit 1
The CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TEXT BOX reads as follows:

I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEFENDANTS: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 Circuit Judge Juan R.
Torruella;5.)US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.; 6.)US Circuit Judge David J. Barron;7.)US
Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;8.)US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District
Court(NH);9.)US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI); 10.) US
District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME).
Contact Information: John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse,1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210, Clerk's Office: 617-748-9057
ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against referenced officers of the
Court have occurred in the timeline associated with the associated litigation: HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); HARIHAR v. THE
UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and actions
related to filed judicial misconduct complaints/petitions.
The evidenced allegations conclusively show that (at minimum) 6 out of 10 referenced officers
of the court have ruled without jurisdiction, constituting an act(s) of Treason under Article III,
Section 3 of the Constitution. The individual and collective actions of these court officers also
show the intentional and collective CONSPIRACY to (at minimum) Misappropriate a Trade
Secret (IP) designed to assist the United States with economic growth/repair associated with
the US Foreclosure Crisis. The complainant believes that upon further investigation, additional
(related) crimes committed by these officers will be evidenced. The Complainant maintains the
right to expand upon/file new claims if deemed necessary.
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The Complainant states that these facts establish probable
cause that (at minimum) the following crimes have occurred: TREASON to the Constitution
under ARTICLE III, Section 3; ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code §
1831; MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to
commit offense or to defraud United States.
Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with the referenced
litigation. Please be advised, since this matter involves evidenced claims of TREASON and
matters perceived to impact National Security, the Complainant (by his interpretation of
Federal Law) has necessarily communicated these claims to the President. Members of
Congress and appropriate agencies. The PUBLIC has also been copied out of concerns for
personal safety and security. Copies of this criminal complaint will be delivered to the
President's attention, filed with the Court and communicated to other referenced parties as
well.
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 3
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:06 PM
Subject: REFUSAL to Bring Evidenced Judicial Misconduct Claims Before Congress
To: <elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>
Cc: <Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov>, <scheduling@warren.senate.gov>,
<Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov>, <sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov>,
<june.black@mail.house.gov>, Constituent.services@state.ma.us
<constituent.services@state.ma.us>, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig
<dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, <andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov>,
<mary.murrane@usdoj.gov>, <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>, <boston@ic.fbi.gov>,
<washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, <emily.rosa@jud.state.ma.us>, <igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us>,
<jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us>, <ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us>,
<maura.healey@state.ma.us>

Dear Senator Warren,

For nearly FOUR (4) years, I have brought to your DIRECT attention (via Email
communication and social media) - EVIDENCED judicial misconduct claims within the US
District Court and US Appeals Court (First Circuit). As you know, I am an ILLEGALLY
FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER who's ONLY legal option has been to fight this battle as a
pro se litigant (Nearing Eight (8) years of litigation, including MA State Courts). You are aware
that this federal litigation includes the following complaints:
1. HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-
11880);
2. HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket
No. 17-cv-11109);
3. HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
You are aware that with EACH evidenced judicial misconduct claim, I have followed the legal
process to the best of my ability (overview):
1. Filing a judicial misconduct complaint(s);
2. Petitioning the Judicial Council;
3. Informing the Administrative Office of US Courts, specifically - Director James C.
Duff;
4. Informing POTUS (as required by Federal law) with regard to evidenced
TREASON claims under ARTICLE III brought against judicial officers who have
CONTINUED TO RULE AFTER LOSING JURISDICTION; and
5. Informing SCOTUS of the list of EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES
(including Treason claims) impacting my ability to file my Petition for Writ of
Certiorari - which SCOTUS has since ACKNOWLEDGED.
You are aware that the referenced federal litigation has resulted in an UNPRECEDENTED
FOURTEEN (14) JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATIONS - ALL evidenced in FULL PUBLIC
VIEW. They include:
 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) - who continues STILL to rule
without jurisdiction, as recent as 10/5/18 (referencing Appeal No. 17-1381);
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 - who continues STILL to rule
without jurisdiction, as recent as 10/5/18 (referencing Appeal No. 17-1381);
8. US First Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez - who continues STILL to rule without
jurisdiction, as recent as 10/5/18 (referencing Appeal No. 17-1381);
9. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch;
10. US Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl;
11. US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);
12. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);
13. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME); and
14. US District Court Judge William G. Young
You are aware that there have now been a total of EIGHT (8) RECUSALS associated with this
litigation, including:
1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs - who recused sua sponte –
WITHOUT CAUSE, just THREE (3) days after being assigned to HARIHAR v THE
UNITED STATES (Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and only AFTER wrongly dismissing
HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880) – again WITHOUT JUST
CAUSE.
2. US First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella – TWO (2) sua sponte recusals from
HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently from
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;
3. US First Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta - TWO (2) sua sponte recusals from
HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently from
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074;
4. US First Circuit Judge David J. Barron - TWO (2) sua sponte recusals from
HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and most recently from
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074. Please be advised, Judge
Barron has also ADMITTED to having a financial relationship with the Appellee –
WELLS FARGO; and
5. US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch - sua sponte recusal from HARIHAR v US
BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), for reasons unknown.
You are aware that TREASON CLAIMS under ARTICLE III Section 3, have necessarily
been Filed against NINE (9) of these Judicial Officers for Continuing to Rule WITHOUT
JURISDICTION:
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;
9. US District Court William G. Young.
You are aware that this litigation includes the RECENT ADMISSION OF GUILT by the
DEFENDANT - WELLS FARGO. It remains UNCLEAR, as to WHY a sitting UNITED
STATES SENATOR who has established a reputation for speaking against WALL STREET
and BIG BANKS would remain silent here with related litigation involving such EGREGIOUS
JUDICIAL ABUSES in her own state. REPEATED demands to bring these evidenced judicial
abuses before Congress appear to have completely fallen ON DEAF EARS.

So - as this Nation awaits the Senate Vote for the Supreme Court, there is cause to question
your motives and intentions, particularly since one of the accused judicial officers - US District
Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs came at YOUR RECOMMENDATION. As YOUR
constituent, I again respectfully ask that you bring this matter to the IMMEDIATE attention of
Congress. Please be advised, the referenced federal litigation also includes (but is not limited to)
evidenced Economic Espionage claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and matters perceived to
impact National Security. Therefore, copies of this email communication will necessarily be
delivered to the following offices/agencies via email and/or social media communication:
1. POTUS;
2. SCOTUS;
3. US Office of the Inspector General (OIG) – specifically, IG Michael Horowitz;
4. The Administrative Office of US Courts – specifically, Director James C. Duff;
5. DOJ – specifically, US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions;
6. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
7. Congressional leaders in MA including (but not limited to): (1) US Senator Ed
Markey (D-MA) and (2) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA);
8. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;
9. House Oversight Committee;
10. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
11. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program
(SIGTARP);
12. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
13. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);
14. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and
15. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

A copy of this email communication will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to
media sources nationwide, out of continued concerns for MY personal safety and security. If
there is a question regarding ANY portion of this email communication, I am happy to provide
additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an
independent court reporter. I am sincerely grateful for your attention to this very serious matter.
GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS!

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Pro se Litigant/Illegally Foreclosed Homeowner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 4
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 10, 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