$42B Lawsuit - Harihar V US Bank Brings Allegations Against 5 Federal Judges and Separate Lawsuit Against United States

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576
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 RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL ORDER, DOCUMENT NO. 117163010, AND

CALL FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION, AND NEW COMPLAINT FILED
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully files with this Court a
RESPONSE to the referenced order issued June 5, 2017, DENYING several of the
Appellants filed motions. The referenced order, in its entirety, reads as follows:
The appellant's motions for appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are
denied. The defendants' request for costs and fees incurred in opposing the motion for entry
of default is denied.1
1
See Attachment A, to view a copy of the referenced order, denying the Appellants filed
motions.
After reviewing this order, and the historical record of this litigation, it becomes increasingly
clear that parties acting on behalf of the United States, INTEND to prevent this pro se Appellant
from reaching a JUST RESOLUTION, even at the risk of severe legal consequence.
"No man is above the law and no man below it."
Theodore Roosevelt
First, the Court is respectfully reminded that the foundation of the Appellants complaint
pertains primarily to two (2) components: 1.) The individual damages suffered as a result of his
ALREADY IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, and 2.) Damages to the Economic
model and the Intellectual Property Rights owned solely by the Appellant. This Economic
Model, known as the HARIHAR FCS MODEL, is conservatively estimated to be worth $5T
(US Dollars),2 with supporting merits having reached as far as the Executive Office of the
President (EOP) under the prior Obama administration.
Now, in the infancy stages of this appeal process, and considering the IRREFUTABLE
arguments for EACH these referenced motions, the Courts decision(s) to deny ALL of them
without ANY CLARIFICATION whatsoever raises a number of serious issues. Respectfully,
these issues must first be addressed before moving forward with the Appeal process. Left
uncorrected, the order reveals a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by
officers of the Court, with the CLEAR INTENT to UNDERMINE, and CRITICALLY
DAMAGE the legal efforts of this Appellant, and ultimately harming the United States as a
2
The Appellant has initially set damages at $42B, which is considered less than one percent of
the estimated value of his referenced Intellectual Property. The Appellant has also reserved the
right to adjust damages up to one-hundred percent, and does not account for treble damages.
whole. By these acts, this continued pattern of corrupt conduct clearly evidenced within the
record(s) is now alleged against multiple officers of the court acting on behalf of the United
States BEGINNING with the evidenced allegations brought against lower District Court
Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; NEXT, with the STILL UNCORRECTED OPINION of
Chief Justice Howard; and NOW with this referenced order issued by Circuit Judges -
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron.
The Appellant respectfully makes clear, that due the severity of these growing issues which
include (but are not limited to) multiple counts of TREASON to the CONSTITUTION, the
following offices/agencies/committees will be provided copies of the original motions, the
referenced order, and this filed response3:
1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);
2. The US Inspector General Michael Horowitz;
3. The US DOJ/Attorney General Jeff Sessions;
4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
5. The House Judiciary Committee
By denying the referenced motions filed by the Appellant, additional serious issues are now
raised, calling for:
1. A thorough CLARIFICATION of the referenced order;
2. RECONSIDERATION of the Appellants requests prior to moving forward in the
legal process;
3
Since multiple parties, including the President of the United States, are necessarily receiving
copies of this filed response, the referenced order, along with the originally filed motions are
attached as reference. See Attachments A thru D.
3. EXPANDED Fraud on the Court claims (Judicial);
4. Additional JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT complaints;
5. An ANSWER to Pending requests submitted to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of
government, regarding ALL RELATED CRIMINAL CLAIMS and the Appellants
intent to pursue criminal charges;
6. Expanded CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES that now include (but are
not limited to) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, pursuant to 18 USC Chapter 73;
7. FILING an official complaint against the United States under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, pursuant to (at minimum) 28 U.S. Code 1346;
8. A TRANSFER of venue is warranted, considering the evidenced claims against
referenced officers of the court including (but not limited to) Treason, Judicial Fraud,
Economic Espionage and resulting damages to the Intellectual property rights of the
Appellant. The resulting impact to jurisdiction, Intellectual Property claims and
overall pursuit of justice, weigh in favor of transfer.
I. CLARIFICATION
A. Denial to Assist the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel Considering the
substantial list of FACTS supporting the Courts assistance with the appointment of
counsel, denial here without ANY explanation shows cause to question the INTENT of
the Circuit Judges, and expand upon existing judicial misconduct claims. A copy of the
original motion is attached as referenced (See Attachment B). The Appellant respectfully
requests that Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron provide clarification for
the record as it pertains to EACH of the following contributing factors:

1. The Court has recognized the Appellant as having NO LEGAL
BACKGROUND, and has (at minimum) brought evidenced claims of both civil
and criminal misconduct requiring legal expertise in the following areas:
a. Treason allegations, and potential impact to National Security;
b.Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony);
c. Fraud on the Court (Judicial and Defendant);
d.Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic
Espionage;
e. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;
f. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential
Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure
Crisis;
g. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law;
h. Litigation involving State and Federal Government;
i. US District Court Trial Court Litigation;
j. US Appellate Court Litigation;
k. Judicial Misconduct;
l. Violations to Due Process;
m. Color of Law Violations;
n. Civil Conspiracy Claims;
o. Federal Tort Claims
Is the Court stating for the record that these evidenced claims requiring legal
expertise, do not exist? Also, is the Court stating that this referenced list
requiring legal expertise DOES NOT warrant leaning IN FAVOR of
assisting this pro se litigant with the assignment of counsel? If this case does
not exemplify a textbook case to assist with appointing counsel, where then
has the bar been set? Respectfully, please clarify and articulate for the
record exactly how the Court reached its conclusions here.
2. When the Commonwealth (AND the United States) are in reality two (2) of
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.
Since the Commonwealth AND the United States are in fact two (2) of the
opposing parties, please clarify and articulate for the record exactly how the
Court reached its decision to deny assistance with appointed counsel.
3. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim(s) Please clarify the courts denial;
4. Position to investigate crucial facts Please clarify the courts denial;
5. 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
Please clarify the courts denial;
6. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of appeals 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. Please clarify the courts denial;

7. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s)
raises. 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. Please clarify the courts denial.
B. Denial to Issue a STAY order First, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that
it has, along with the lower District Court already recognized the indigence of the
Appellant. The Appellants request here as indicated, was for a TEMPORARY STAY
while legal matters proceed, to avoid certain increased hardship. The Motion was filed
pursuant to FRAP Rule 8a (2), A(ii); also referencing the lower Court docket, which
clearly shows that the Plaintiff/Appellant satisfied requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
65(d)(2), as well as the Four-Factor test. Left uncorrected, this denial (at minimum)
indicates the failure to uphold Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and shows
cause to bring a new judicial misconduct claim(s) of (at minimum) Fraud on the
Court. The denial also unnecessarily ensures an increased hardship to the Appellant
while legal matters proceed.
Please clarify and articulate for the record exactly how the Court arrived at its conclusion
denying the requested STAY order.
C. IGNORING Evidenced Fraud on the Court Claims as is CLEARLY
EVIDENCED within the lower Court docket against Defendants David E. Fialkow,
Jeffrey S. Patterson ALL Appellees, and the Judicial Fraud on the Court claim
against Judge Burroughs. This Court has ALSO seemingly ignored NEW Fraud on the
Court claims against ALL parties, referencing the filed Notice of Inaccuracies by
Defendants and Appellees. Left uncorrected, ANY decision ignoring the referenced fraud
on the court claims shows cause to file a NEW judicial misconduct complaint(s), and
expand upon existing claims against the United States. Please clarify and articulate for
the record exactly how the Court failed to acknowledge these evidenced allegations.
D. Denial to Reimburse the Appellant for Associated Costs and Legal Fees There are
several issues to address here beginning with the Courts apparent failure to acknowledge
the evidenced judicial misconduct claims against US District Court Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, which at minimum, impacts jurisdiction. After fully reviewing the Appellants
supported arguments from the lower court docket, please articulate and clarify for the
record, exactly how this Court arrived at its conclusion to deny reimbursement. Left
uncorrected, this Court will have unnecessarily contributed to the INCREASED
HARDSHIP of the Appellant; Also preventing him from having the financial means to
pay the required $500 filing fee for this appeal, AND the required $400 filing fee for the
referenced NEW complaint against the United States. The interpretation also suggests
that the Appellants time spent for over two (2) years to necessarily represent
himself, and having to learn related Federal rules and procedures of the Court(s) is
somehow considered LESS VALUABLE than that of opposing counsel.
II. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Appellant respectfully requests that this Court RECONSIDER its decisions and take
CORRECTIVE action(s), as it pertains to the Appellants motions AND with regard to
the prior OPINION of Chief Justice Howard. Left uncorrected, these decisions now show
cause to file NEW judicial misconduct complaints against the presiding Circuit Judges
and the Chief Justice. Failure to take corrective action will also warrant an expansion
of existing claims against the United States.
III. PENDING ACTION BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH RE: RELATED CRIMINAL
CLAIMS;
The historical record reveals numerous civil/criminal claims brought by the Appellant
against Appellees/Defendants and also against an Officer of the Court. The criminal
components to these claims are severe, revealing EVIDENCED ACTS including (but
not limited to) FRAUD, and even TREASON to the CONSTITUTION. This Court is
aware that official requests have been filed directly with the DOJ and the Executive
Office of the President (EOP), requesting:
A. The ASSIGNMENT of a Federal Prosecutor;
B. The ASSEMBLY of a Grand Jury; and
C. The START of a FULL-CRIMINAL investigation.
This Court (at least on its surface) APPEARS to be IGNORING these pending requests
to the Executive Branch, and its potential impact to this litigation. Decisions to move
forward with the Appeal process BEFORE these referenced criminal (and other)
components are addressed, is certainly considered premature, and shows cause to expand
upon existing claims against the United States.
IV. EXPANDED CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Since filing the SF-95 (Claim for Damage) form with ALL THREE (3) branches of
government on September 13, 2016,4 the documented record of both the lower District
4
See Attachment E, to view a copy of the filed SF-95 form, in its entirety.
Court and also this First Circuit Court of Appeals, shows cause to expand upon/add to
existing misconduct claims. The expanded and/or new claims brought against the United
States will include (but will not be limited to):
A. Evidenced TREASON allegations pursuant to ARTICLE III;
B. OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE pursuant to 18 USC Chapter 73;
C. Judicial Misconduct Complaints filed (at minimum) against five (5) Officers of the
Court, acting on behalf of the United States.5
D. An expansion of Due process, Color of Law and RICO claims;
E. An expansion of Unnecessary Judicial Delay claims;
F. Ignoring the continued concerns expressed by the Appellant, regarding personal
safety and security.
V. NEW COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE UNITED STATES
Since filing the SF-95 (Claim for Damage) form with ALL THREE (3) branches of
government on September 13, 2017, the Appellant has (on record) made multiple
efforts, requesting that the Court (or appropriate US designate) provide an update on
behalf of the United States regarding its intentions, and whether there is interest in
reaching a mutual agreement. As the record will show, these efforts have consistently
been ignored and is now past the six-month timeline still with no response.
THEREFORE, with filing of this response, the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar,
5
Judicial Misconduct Complaints refers to existing claims against US District Court Judge
Allison Dale Burroughs, still pending before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit; Also,
NEW Judicial Misconduct Complaints currently being drafted against Chief Justice Howard
(First Circuit) and the presiding Circuit Judges to this Appeal - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron.
respectfully files with the US District Court, a NEW civil complaint against the United
States for evidenced allegations as stated in the SF-95 form, including any NEW
and/or expanded allegations, as evidenced within the record(s).
VI. CALL FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
SHOULD it become necessary to move forward with this Appeal, the Appellant believes
that a Transfer of Venue MAY be necessary, considering (at minimum):
A. The evidenced allegations brought against five (5) officers of the Court acting on
behalf of the United States is alarming, and irrefutably shows the INTENT to
cause irreparable harm to this Appellant and to the country for which they
serve. It additionally reveals that the INTEGRITY of the US District Court (MA)
and the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has been COMPRIMISED;
B. The subject matter involving the Intellectual Property Rights of the Appellant and its
design to assist with the repair and growth of this Nations Economy warrants
transfer to a more suitable venue (i.e., The United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit).
VII. CONCLUSION
Based on the severity of issues as stated within, the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar
respectfully calls for the following action(s):
A. That the Court reconsider its decision and ASSIST the Appellant with the
appointment of counsel;
B. That the Court reconsider its decision and GRANT an injunction to STAY
collection actions against the Appellant while legal matters proceed;
C. That the Court reconsider its decision and REIMBURSE the Appellant for related
COSTS and LEGAL FEES as filed;
D. With the filing of this response, the Appellant additionally files a NEW complaint
against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, pursuant to 28 U.S.
Code 1346. This new complaint will detail the evidenced allegations expressed in
the filed SF-95 form, along with the expanded allegation as referenced here,
including (but not limited to) judicial misconduct. Should the presiding Circuit
Judges decide to rightfully initiate corrective action, the Appellant will consider
amending the FTCA complaint as needed hopefully WITH the necessary
assistance of experienced legal counsel. Corrective action by this Court MAY also
lead to amending and/or the withdrawal of new judicial misconduct complaints.
The Appellant remains hopeful, that corrective action will now be initiated by the Court.
Restating that copies of this response are necessarily delivered (via US Mail, Email, and/or
Social Media) to previously mentioned Offices/Agencies/Committees, and also out of concerns
for personal safety and security. A copy will also be made available to the Public.
Respectfully submitted this 11th Day of June, 2017.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
Attachment B

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendant/Appellee.
MOTION TO REQUEST ASSISTANCE WITH APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests the
Courts assistance with the appointment of counsel, based on the following reasons:
1. First, the appellant respectfully reminds the Court that a Judicial Misconduct petition is still
pending before the Judicial Counsel. The substantial list of evidenced allegations against
US District Court Judge - Allison Dale Burroughs is believed to (at minimum) impact
jurisdiction. Addressing legal issues associated with the judicial misconduct allegations
IN ITSELF warrants the assistance of experienced counsel. The Appellants interpretation
of the law is that Judge Burroughs has lost jurisdiction to rule in the referenced litigation.
Therefore, the dismissal order IS NOT VALID, and also ALL prior orders related to the
Docket. Since August 2016, Judge Burroughs has made no effort to ADDRESS, DEFEND or
DENY the lengthy list of evidenced allegations now before the Judicial Council. Furthermore,
NO defendant/appellee, including the Commonwealth and its former Attorney General, has
made a single effort to challenge or even question ANY of the evidenced judicial misconduct
allegations. The appellant respectfully recommends that the Court review the record in its
entirety, including the Judicial Misconduct Petition and its two (2) necessarily filed
supplements for a greater understanding of the issues at hand, and scope of misconduct
allegations. The Appellant fully expects that the validation of evidenced allegations by this
Court will find the referenced dismissal order is indeed VOID, and that this matter should be
re-directed back to the District Court.
2. A PORTION of the evidenced allegations against the Defendants/Appellees and/or the United
States includes (but is not limited to): Treason, Economic Espionage/Infringement to
Intellectual Property Rights, Fraud on the Court, Conspiracy Claims, RICO violations,
Due Process violations, Color of Law violations and others. The severity of these claims
has shown cause to request an official criminal investigation, assembly of a grand jury, and the
assignment of a special prosecutor. The Plaintiff/Appellant has officially made such requests,
included in a second supplement of the Judicial Misconduct Petition recently filed against
Judge Burroughs. Since it is the Executive Branch of government that decides these
assignments, certified copies of the Plaintiffs requests were delivered to the direct attention
of: President Donald J. Trump/EOP, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions (DOJ), US
Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the FBI (Boston field office). The second
supplement was received by the Judicial Council on April 19, 2017. Additional parties
receiving certified copies of the Judicial Misconduct petition include: Governor Charles
Baker and the House Judiciary Committee.
Based on the evidenced CRIMINAL SCOPE of these allegations, there can be NO question,
that in addition to assistance with the appointment of counsel, it is necessary for the Executive
Branch to - assign a federal/special prosecutor, assemble a grand jury, and open an official
criminal investigation. Any failure to do so shows cause to expand upon existing claims against
the United States.
3. Lower Courts prior refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel, pursuant to Title
28 U.S.C. 1915 In the lower Court, the Appellant/Plaintiff consistently made clear that he
is not an attorney and has no legal background. The factually supported issues involved are
CLEARLY too complex for the Plaintiff to present entirely without the assistance of
experienced legal counsel. Experienced legal expertise is required in a number of areas
including (at minimum):
a. Treason allegations, and potential impact to National Security;
b. Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony);
c. Fraud on the Court (Judicial and Defendant);
d. Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Espionage;
e. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;
f. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential
Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis;
g. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law
h. Litigation involving State and Federal Government
i. US District Court Trial Court Litigation
j. Appellate Court Litigation
k. Judicial Misconduct
l. Violations to Due Process
m. Color of Law Violations

n. Civil Conspiracy Claims
o. Federal Tort Claims
It is completely UNREALISTIC to expect ANY pro se litigant to successfully litigate this matter
in its entirety, considering the number of complex subjects requiring legal expertise. Also, when
the Commonwealth (AND the United States)6 are in reality two (2) of 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.
The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning heavily towards the necessary
appointment of counsel:
1. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim;
2. Position to investigate crucial facts;
3. 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;
6
The Complainant has already taken the legal steps to inform the United States of his intention
to file suit either separately or through an amendment of the existing complaint. The
Complainant has additionally offered an opportunity to the United States to seek
agreement, and awaits a decision.
4. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of appeals 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.;
5. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s) raises. 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.
While the Plaintiff understands that assistance with the appointment of counsel is rare, it
SHOULD be recognized that the Courts assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 is clearly
warranted at the District Court level, and even more so at the Appellate level. By refusing to
assist the Plaintiff with the appointment of counsel, the presiding judge exemplified (at
minimum) Prejudice and an Act of Bad Faith against this Plaintiff (28 U.S. Code 144),
choosing NOT to support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality, and
conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely. The Plaintiff/Appellant respectfully
disagreed with the lower courts decision, questioning where exactly the bar has been set to
assist with the appointment of counsel, AND exactly how Judge Burroughs could possibly
have arrived at her conclusions. The Plaintiffs requests for clarification was repeatedly
IGNORED/DENIED.
6. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that if the Complainant had experienced legal counsel
representing him from the beginning whether with, or without the assistance of the Court,
this litigation would be in the position it finds itself in now. It is FAR MORE LIKELY that
by now, the process would STILL be in the lower court, well past the Discovery phase,
potentially with additional claims, and on a TIMELY path to a jury trial. It is also entirely
plausible, that by now a settlement agreement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the
UNITED STATES, would have been reached.7
7. By refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not only caused
increased hardship to the Plaintiff/Appellant, but has also WASTED nearly two (2) years of
the litigants (Plaintiff and Defendants) and the Courts time. The Plaintiffs time should be
considered no less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly evidenced FACTS
demonstrate ACT(S) of BAD FAITH, made by the United States against this
Plaintiff/Complainant. The Plaintiff has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the
reimbursement for COSTS and FEES, and has yet to receive a timely payment from the
United States Treasury Department. The United States has respectfully been informed, that
(at minimum) the referenced legal fees will continue to accrue until either:
a. The Court RIGHTFULLY assists with the appointment of counsel; or
b. The Plaintiff is able to secure legal counsel on his own.
8. Plaintiffs Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own For nearly six (6) years,
the Appellant/Plaintiff has reached out to a countless number of law firms, in an effort to secure
and retain legal counsel. These efforts have been unsuccessful, not because the claims lack
merit, but primarily for the following reasons:
a. Conflict of interest (Usually with one of the Bank defendants, or the government);
b. Unwilling to consider a contingency agreement;
c. Not equipped to handle a case of this magnitude;
7
It should be noted, that in the lower court, no defendant filed a single opposition to the
Plaintiffs request(s) for assistance with the appointment of Counsel.
d. Fear of negative repercussion The Plaintiffs complaint is tied to what many
(worldwide) consider the largest case of FRAUD in US history, and exposes corruption
at a very high level. The Plaintiff has found that many law firms are fearful that if they
choose to represent him, they are likely to face some form of negative repercussion.
9. Failure to acknowledge the safety and security of the Plaintiff the allegations brought
forth by the Plaintiff exposes a level of corruption - within government and Wall Street, of
historic proportion. Efforts to seek Whistleblower protection have been thus far ignored. Color
of Law allegations have been clearly evidenced, and also ignored. Under the prior (Obama)
administration, the Department of Justice (and also the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney
General) is on record as stating that they WILL NOT PROTECT this Plaintiff, an
AMERICAN-BORN CITIZEN, from the criminal misconduct committed against him. It has
yet to be determined if the new (Trump) administration will take corrective action here. Based
on these safety and security concerns, assistance with the appointment of counsel is certainly
warranted.
10. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing
claims against the United States. The Court is aware that the Plaintiff has brought multiple
claims against the United States. The Plaintiff intends to pursue these claims against the United
States either by amending his existing complaint or by separate legal action. The Court is aware
that ALL three (3) branches of government have received notice of the Plaintiffs legal
intentions, including the required SF-95 form. The Plaintiff has offered the United states an
opportunity to seek agreement, and has made multiple efforts (unsuccessfully) through the
lower court to get a response. The lower court has ignored the Plaintiffs allegations against
the United States and his efforts to seek agreement as if they were never mentioned. Counsel
is needed to assist with addressing these issues involving the United States, whether it is in
reaching a mutual agreement, or continued legal action(s). Refusing to assist the
Plaintiff/Appellant with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing
(and potentially new) claims against the United States.
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by
this Court:
1. That this Appellate Court OVERTURN the decision of the lower court and ASSIST the
Appellant with the appointment of counsel. The Appellant is certainly willing to consider
entering into a contingency agreement with eligible law firms;
2. VALIDATE the referenced Act of Bad Faith by the lower Court, denying assistance with
appointment of counsel;
3. Upon validation, APPROVING the reimbursement of accruing COSTS and FEES owed
to the Appellant/Plaintiff, and notifying the Treasury Department to timely issue payment
to the Appellant;
If the Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant
is happy to answer and provide additional support upon request.
Respectfully submitted this 25th Day of April, 2017.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Attachment C

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendants/Appellees.
MOTION FOR STAY, PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE,

RULE 8
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests that
the Court grant a stay/injunction that will prevent collection actions against the Appellant while
referenced legal matters proceed. This motion for a stay is filed here in the US Court of Appeals
pursuant to FRAP Rule 8a (2), A(ii), where - a motion having been made in the district court
denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested. The Appellant references Docket No.s
132 thru 134 from the related District Court docket.8 A review of the referenced record will
show that the Plaintiff clearly satisfied requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(d)(2), as well as the
Four-Factor test. Despite bringing these FACTS to the Courts attention in Document No. 134,
the Plaintiffs response was ignored, identifying also a continued pattern of corrupt conduct, and
case references believed to be improperly applied.
8
See Attachment A, Documents 132 thru 134.
The Appellants immediate concerns pertain to three (3) outstanding debts, rightfully owed to:
1. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
2. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue (MA-DOR); and
3. Jeanne DArc Credit Union.
Despite filing the RESPONSE associated with Document No. 134, no corrective action was
taken by the District Court. The Appellant faces debt collection efforts on a regular basis, and it
has been a clear distraction while these legal matters proceed. It also brings increased hardship
AND risk of having wages garnished, etc..., when there is no ability to pay down these accruing
debts. The Appellant simply CANNOT afford to have these threatening distractions continue,
AT LEAST while legal matters proceed. Right now, the MA-DOR is threatening to suspend the
Appellants Drivers License if the past due balance exceeding $11,000.00 is not paid by
April 28, 2017. It is worth noting that NO Defendant/Appellee, including the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts ever filed a single opposition to stay collection actions
while legal matters proceed.
THEREFORE, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Court issue an immediate order to
TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ALL DEBT COLLECTION ACTIVITY against the Appellant
Mohan A. Harihar, while these legal matters proceed, OR until the Appellant is in the financial
position to satisfy the repayment of referenced debts. Repayment MAY be possible to referenced
creditors WHILE legal matters proceed IF this Court approves the reimbursement of costs and
fees as submitted by the Plaintiff/Appellant. Once reimbursement is timely received from the
Treasury Department, the repayment of referenced debts can be made without further delay.
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by
this Court:
4. That this Appellate Court OVERTURN the decision of the lower court and ISSUE a
STAY on ALL Collection activity against the Appellant while legal matters proceed OR
until the Appellant is in the financial position to satisfy the repayment of referenced debts.
If the Court has any questions regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to
answer and provide additional support upon request.
Respectfully submitted this 26th Day of April, 2017.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Attachment A
(Lower Court Docket)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880
Plaintiff
vs.
US BANK NA, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFF MOTION REQUESTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO SUSPEND
DEBT COLLECTIONS, PER FRCP, RULE 65(a)
The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully
seeks a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure - Rule 65(a), suspending ALL debt collection
activity towards the Plaintiff, while legal matters proceed.
This Court has already acknowledged the indigence of the
Plaintiff, who thus far has been forced to continue here as a
pro se litigant. It should come as no surprise that attempting
to successfully litigate this matter requires the FULL-TIME
commitment of a highly-experienced LEGAL TEAM, let alone a
single person with no legal background. Part-time employment as

a bartender has been the Plaintiffs only available source of
employment and income while self-litigating this matter - barely
allowing him to meet basic needs (food, shelter, clothing,
transportation).
The Court is aware of the Plaintiffs immense financial
challenges, which stem from misconduct allegations brought
against these Defendants, and also the United States. The
Plaintiff has substantial, and still-accruing debts which are
owed to multiple creditors, including (but not limited to) the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Massachusetts Department
of Revenue (MADOR). The Plaintiff faces debt collection efforts
on a regular basis, and it has been a clear distraction while
these legal matters proceed. It also brings increased risk of
having wages garnished, etc..., when there is no ability to pay
down these accruing debts. The Plaintiff simply CANNOT afford to
have these threatening distractions continue, AT LEAST while
legal matters proceed.
THEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
issue an immediate order to TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ALL DEBT
COLLECTION ACTIVITY against the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar,
while these legal matters proceed.

The Plaintiff is on record as stating his firm belief that the
presiding judge, Allison D. Burroughs, is disqualified by law to
issue any further rulings in this litigation. IF Judge Burroughs
were to issue a ruling here, doing so would be interpreted as a
THIRD allegation of TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. There
remains the CLEAR EXPECTATION, for Judge Burroughs to either
recuse herself, or be removed by the Judicial Council of the
First Circuit, before litigation proceeds.
IF this Court (once jurisdiction has been established) were to
issue the requested order, and IF during this time, the United
States takes accountability for the supported allegations of
actions made in BAD FAITH, there MAY be opportunity to lift the
suspension, even while litigation proceeds.9
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 Motion: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose,
such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
9 The opportunity to consider lifting such suspension while

litigation is ongoing will depend upon the financial status of
the Plaintiff, and his ability to enter into payment agreements
with referenced creditors, ONLY AFTER - BAD FAITH ACTIONS
alleged against the United States have been addressed (Reference
Document No. 128).
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.
The Plaintiff is grateful for the Courts consideration of this
very TIME-SENSITIVE matter. If the Court has any questions, or
requires additional information or clarification, the Plaintiff
is happy to provide upon request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880
Plaintiff
vs.
US BANK NA, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL ORDER - DOCUMENT NO. 133
After reviewing the judicial order in Document No. 133 issued by
Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar,
acting pro se, identifies a number of troubling issues that
AGAIN warrant her immediate RECUSAL. SHOULD Judge Burroughs
refuse to recuse herself, the Plaintiff will necessarily
initiate next steps in bringing this matter to the attention of
the House Judiciary Committee. The Plaintiff respectfully files
with the Court, and a copy also to the Judicial Council of the
First Circuit the following response:
1. Third (3rd) Act of Treason against the Constitution By
issuing the order associated with Document No. 133 (and

previously with Document No. 129 and Document No. 125), the
Plaintiff brings a third (3rd) allegation of Treason to the
Constitution against Judge Allison D. Burroughs. For the
reasons previously stated and on record with the Court,10
the Plaintiff considers Judge Burroughs disqualified by
law, prohibiting her from issuing ANY further rulings in
this case. The Plaintiffs interpretation of the law is
that Judge Burroughs no longer has jurisdiction to rule on
this Docket. By doing so, the judge has, for a THIRD time,
acted in a personal capacity versus a judicial capacity.
Therefore, the Plaintiff considers the order associated
with Document No. 133 (and ALL those prior) as VOID.11
Furthermore, Judge Burroughs has refused to recuse herself,
and has made no effort to address, dispute or deny any of
the supported allegations exemplifying judicial misconduct,
including Treason.
2. Plaintiffs Creditors Even if Judge Burroughs still had
jurisdiction, it is the Plaintiffs clear belief, that her
10 Reference Document No.s 121 thru 126.

11 A judicial misconduct complaint, and three supplemental
complaints, have been filed against Judge Allison D. Burroughs
where a decision(s) is pending before the Judicial Council of
the First Circuit. A fourth supplemental complaint to the
Judicial Council is now warranted.
actions exemplified in her issued order(s) continue to
display a pattern of corrupt conduct. In her Order,
Document No. 133, Judge Burroughs states, First, Plaintiff
has failed to establish why an injunction can issue against
his multiple creditors. The Plaintiff respectfully
disagrees. The Plaintiff has clearly established the FACTS
which have allegedly led to his indigence, and which the
Court has ALREADY acknowledged. These FACTS include (but
are not limited to) the referenced allegations of
misconduct, against these Defendants (which include the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and ALSO the United States)
which have negatively impacted the Plaintiffs marriage,
family, career, retirement and everyday way of living. The
Court is ALREADY aware that the United States and the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts are two (2) of these
creditors.12 Both the United States and the Commonwealth
have received notice through this litigation, thus
complying with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(d)(2). Furthermore,
neither party (or any other) has filed opposition to this
requested injunction. While additional creditors also
exist, Judge Burroughs SHOULD have AT MINIMUM issued a
12
The Plaintiff owes the United States Federal taxes to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and also to the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue (MADOR).
temporary injunction against the IRS and MADOR, while legal
matters proceed. Allowing the injunction to include
additional creditors, once compliant with Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
65(d)(2), SHOULD also have been considered.
The Plaintiff has CLEARLY established why an injunction
can, and should issue. For Judge Burroughs to state
otherwise, AGAIN clearly suggests one (1) or more of the
following conclusions:
a. Judge Burroughs has ruled on a motion without reading
related filings, thus further questioning the judges
ability to be impartial;
b. Judge Burroughs may have forgotten the actual content of
the Motion and related filings, suggesting that mental
illness may be an issue here;
c. A deep-seated favoritism or antagonism does exist making
fair judgment impossible. It would appear (at least on
its surface), that elements of corruption may exist
here; and that an effort is being made by an officer
of the Court, to brush aside all motions in order to
reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome;
d. A combination of scenarios a, b or c exists.
3. Four-Factor Test Judge Burroughs next states the
following, Here, Plaintiff has failed to make an adequate

showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of any
of his claims, which is the main bearing wall of the four-
factor test that the Court uses to evaluate motions for
preliminary injunctive relief.
Again, the Plaintiff respectfully disagrees, referencing
Document No. 119, filed in August 2016, and previously in
April 2016, where the Plaintiff has ALREADY clearly
articulated his reasoning for each portion of the four-
factor test, including success on the merits. Considering
the FACTS presented to the Court, the generic opinion and
issued order by Judge Burroughs denying relief leads this
Plaintiff to draw the same troubling conclusions as
previously described above (see No. 2).
The Plaintiff also questions ALL THREE (3) case references
believed to be improperly applied by Judge Burroughs: 1.)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20,
(2008); 2.) G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co.,
639 F.2d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 1980); and 3.) Corp. Techs., Inc.
v. Harnett, 731 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 2013). Based on the
totality of FACTS presented by the Plaintiff, it is unclear
exactly how Judge Burroughs could have reached her
conclusions. The vague, and somewhat generic language
pattern of the order(s) calls for further clarification.

The Plaintiff AGAIN respectfully calls for a formal
hearing, so that further clarification can be provided by
Judge Burroughs on this, and several other orders in
question. The Plaintiff also respectfully requests that a
court reporter be present for the scheduled hearing.
4. Pattern of Corrupt Conduct Since filing the initial
complaint with the Court on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff has
necessarily brought a number of judicial misconduct
allegations against the presiding judge Allison D.
Burroughs. These supported allegations are all on record
with this US District Court, and are also before the
Judicial Council of the First Circuit. Evidenced
allegations raised by the Plaintiff include (but are not
limited to):
a. Incidents of prejudice/bias, favoring referenced
Defendants;
b. Refusing to acknowledge/recognize primary issues
within the Plaintiffs complaint including (but not
limited to) the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property
Rights, and the Economic framework designed to assist
the United States with economic recovery/growth from

damages caused by the US Foreclosure/Financial
Crisis.13
c. Failure to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
d. Failing to maintain a fair balance of Hardships;
e. Refusal to assist with the appointment of Counsel;
f. Refusal to schedule a hearing(s) for clarification and
documentation purposes for the record, in the event it
becomes necessary for the Plaintiff to file an appeal;
g. Treason against the Constitution of the United States
(three alleged acts);
h. Refusal to recuse.
i. BAD FAITH Acts
5. BAD FAITH Actions against the Plaintiff - With the order
associated with Document No. 133, the Plaintiff considers
this as an additional ACT MADE IN BAD FAITH, by Judge
Burroughs and the UNITED STATES against this Plaintiff. The
Plaintiff is still waiting for the United States to take
accountability for these acts made in bad faith.
6. Mutual Agreement Opportunity with the United States In
addition to bad faith acts, the Plaintiff still awaits an
13 The Intellectual Property Rights of the Plaintiff include,

(but are not limited) to the Harihar FCS Model an economic
framework recognized by the Executive Office of the President
(EOP), a Senior Officer of the House Financial Services
Committee, a Senior Economic advisor to a sitting US Senator, a
Congressional Office, and others.
ANSWER regarding the respectfully proposed Mutual Agreement
Opportunity, offered to the United States by the Plaintiff.
Conclusion
It becomes necessary here to restate the LEGAL intentions of the
Plaintiff:
1. To hold ALL parties legally responsible for damages caused
by the referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE;
2. To set a legal precedent that would allow the millions of
Americans similarly harmed to rightfully do the same; and
3. Gain alignment with the United States to potentially
implement the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, known as
the Harihar FCS Model, resulting in an estimated $5T (or
greater) of economic growth to the United States.
Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case
will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of
impropriety. Regrettably, neither the Plaintiff, nor ANY
objective person who has followed this litigation can have that
expectation in Judge Burroughs' courtroom. It is the Plaintiffs
ABSOLUTE opinion, that the evidenced acts of judicial misconduct
clearly exemplify malicious intent to (at minimum): 1.)
Critically damage the legal efforts of this Plaintiff; 2.)

Negatively impact the resulting precedent set; and 3.)
Ultimately prevent the implementation of a framework designed to
repair and grow the United States Economy.
[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of rights
by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first
instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of
Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the
Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if
afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and
set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided
into three branches, but that each should watch over the
others and oppose their usurpations?
Thomas Jefferson, 1821
The Plaintiff - Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully repeats the
DEMAND for the immediate recusal of Judge Allison D. Burroughs.
Should Judge Burroughs again refuse to recuse herself, the
Judicial Council will again be updated, and next steps will
commence in addressing this matter with the House Judiciary
Committee and the incoming Presidential Administration. The
Plaintiff additionally requests that the United States take
accountability for the referenced acts made in bad faith, and to

provide an ANSWER regarding the referenced mutual agreement
opportunity, as requested.
If the Court has ANY questions, or requires additional
information or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide
upon request.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Attachment D

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
Defendants/Appellees.
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND JUDGEMENT
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who hereby requests the Clerk
enter a DEFAULT against Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson, on the
basis that the record in this case demonstrates that there has been a failure to timely file a notice
of appearance, as mandated by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:
Local Rule 12(a)Representation Statement, Appearance. A representation statement must take
the form of an appearance, in a form prescribed by this court. Attorneys for both appellant and
appellee must file appearance forms within 14 days after the case is docketed in the court of
appeals.
The record indicates that the notice of appeal was filed on April 18, 2017. Therefore, the 14-day
timeline to file an appearance expired on May 2, 2017. While the record does show a filed
appearance by Attorney Fialkow, it is strictly on behalf of Appellees US Bank NA, Wells
Fargo NA, K&L Gates LLP, and RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1 ONLY.
Additional Contributing Factors:
1. Jurisdiction For the many evidenced reasons articulated in the Appellants Judicial
Misconduct Petition, Judge Allison D. Burroughs is believed to have been disqualified by
law to rule in the referenced litigation. All related orders issued by Judge Burroughs
(the Dismissal order and all those prior) are considered VOID. That includes orders
related to Fialkow and Pattersons Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement. Even if
there was still a question regarding jurisdiction, it does not excuse Appellees from filing
a notice of appearance here.
2. Both Appellees Fialkow and Patterson are experienced attorneys working for a
GLOBAL law firm. They certainly SHOULD have known better. Attorney Fialkow
receives electronic notification via the courts ECF/PACER system. Legal Assistant,
Stephanie Mastrocola (K&L Gates) is also listed as receiving ECF notifications. Fialkow
and Patterson are both employed by K&L Gates. Both work out of the same Boston
Office. There can be NO DOUBT, that a Notice of Appeal was filed. If it was the
intention of the Appellees to have David E. Fialkow as the representing attorney (as in
the District Court), the notice of appearance filed on April 21, 2017, SHOULD have
indicated so. It did not, and there has been no additional filing on behalf of Appellees
Fialkow or Patterson.
3. Appellee K&L Gates LLP is the law firm that employs Appellees David E. Fialkow
and Jeffrey S. Patterson. Legal action is brought by the Appellant against all three parties
as separate entities. Therefore, the Notice of Appearance filed on April 21, 2017 does not
apply to Appellees Fialkow or Patterson.
4. Danger of Prejudice to the Appellant failure to hold Appellees Fialkow and Patterson
accountable for filing requirements will certainly add to an already lengthy list of
evidenced prejudice claims made by the Appellant against US District Court Judge
Allison D. Burroughs and the United States.14 Additional concerns have also been raised
regarding the initial opinions of Chief Justice Howard which, if left uncorrected, shows
cause to expand upon prejudice/bad faith claims against the United States.
5. Length of Delay and its Impact on Judicial Proceedings The Appellant has already
lost nearly two (2) years of his life due to unnecessary judicial delay exemplified in
the lower US District court alone. Evidenced Fraud on the Court violations15 AND Lack
of Jurisdiction are just two (2) of the contributing factors to this damaging delay. If the
Court were to disregard the local rule here, it would show cause to expand upon existing
claims alleging Bad Faith by the United States.
6. Reason for the Delay Appellees Fialkow and Patterson have provided no reason that
would prohibit them from timely filing a notice of appearance with this Court.
7. Whether the Delay was in Reasonable Control of the Appellee If it was intended
that Attorney Fialkow would be the representing attorney, as in the lower court, notice of
14
The Court is aware that a Judicial Misconduct Petition is still pending before the Judicial
Council of the First Circuit.
15 Fraud on the Court claims are alleged by the Appellant against ALL
Defendant/Appellees and also Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.

appearance certainly could have been filed on April 21, 2017, along with the existing
notice on record. If however, different counsel was intended to represent Appellees
Fialkow and Patterson at the Appellate level, there has been NO reason provided that
would allow a delay for filing a notice of appearance.
8. Whether the Appellees acted in Good Faith The Appellant brings evidenced
allegations that include (but are not limited to) - Fraud on the Court violations, pursuant
to FRCP 60(b)(3). The Appellant has clearly shown that ALL defendants/appellees
INCLUDING David E. Fialkow AND Jeffrey S. Patterson were aware that clear title did
not exist with the Plaintiffs property and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud
him of his HOMESTEAD.16 A thorough review and VALIDATION of the historical
record will reveal that neither David E. Fialkow nor Jeffrey S. Patterson have acted in
Good Faith, and there should be no allowance for this inexcusable neglect (Pioneer Inv.
Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S. Ct., 123 L. Ed.
2d 74 (1993).
9. With the evidenced Fraud on the Court and associated criminal allegations, immunity
and/or protections under the 5th Amendment are considered unavailable. Furthermore,
the District Court record will show that NO APPELLEE, including David E.
Fialkow, Jeffrey S. Patterson - not even the Commonwealth has made a single effort
to DISPUTE or DENY referenced fraud on the court allegations.
10. This latest development adds to increased legal complexity of this case, further
warranting the Courts assistance with the appointment of counsel.
16
Reference Document No. 117 of the lower court record, filed July 3, 2016.
11. The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that ALL APPELLEES, including David E.
Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson have been afforded numerous opportunities by the
Appellant to reach a mutual agreement, all of which have been ignored or declined.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons states within, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Court:
1. Find the Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson in DEFAULT for failure
to file a notice of appearance;
2. Issue a Summary Judgement IN FAVOR of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar vs.
Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson;
3. Assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel to determine, along with the Court,
the appropriate portion of civil damages assessed to Appellees Fialkow and Patterson;
4. Assess appropriate licensure penalties including but not limited to disbarment for conduct
unbecoming and to inform the appropriate BAR associations;
5. Criminal charges against Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson are
expected to follow, once the DOJ assigns a Federal/Special Prosecutor; a federal grand
jury has been assembled; and a full criminal investigation has concluded.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd Day of May, 2017.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Attachment E
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 11, 2017 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

$42B Lawsuit - Harihar V US Bank Brings Allegations Against 5 Federal Judges and Separate Lawsuit Against United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

$42B Lawsuit - Harihar V US Bank Brings Allegations Against 5 Federal Judges and Separate Lawsuit Against United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117165620 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2017 Entry ID: 6098576

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL ORDER, DOCUMENT NO. 117163010, AND

"No man is above the law and no man below it."

ALREADY IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, and 2.) Damages to the Economic

President (EOP) under the prior Obama administration.

without ANY CLARIFICATION whatsoever raises a number of serious issues. Respectfully,

uncorrected, the order reveals a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by

Torruella, Kayatta and Barron.

following offices/agencies/committees will be provided copies of the original motions, the

referenced order, and this filed response3:

1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The US Inspector General Michael Horowitz;

3. The US DOJ/Attorney General Jeff Sessions;

4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

5. The House Judiciary Committee

raised, calling for:

1. A thorough CLARIFICATION of the referenced order;

2. RECONSIDERATION of the Appellants requests prior to moving forward in the

3. EXPANDED Fraud on the Court claims (Judicial);

4. Additional JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT complaints;

5. An ANSWER to Pending requests submitted to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of

government, regarding ALL RELATED CRIMINAL CLAIMS and the Appellants

intent to pursue criminal charges;

not limited to) OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, pursuant to 18 USC Chapter 73;

Claims Act, pursuant to (at minimum) 28 U.S. Code 1346;

8. A TRANSFER of venue is warranted, considering the evidenced claims against

Appellant. The resulting impact to jurisdiction, Intellectual Property claims and

overall pursuit of justice, weigh in favor of transfer.

the record as it pertains to EACH of the following contributing factors:

1. The Court has recognized the Appellant as having NO LEGAL

and criminal misconduct requiring legal expertise in the following areas:

a. Treason allegations, and potential impact to National Security;

b.Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony);

c. Fraud on the Court (Judicial and Defendant);

d.Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic

e. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;

f. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential

Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure

g. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law;

h. Litigation involving State and Federal Government;

i. US District Court Trial Court Litigation;

j. US Appellate Court Litigation;

l. Violations to Due Process;

m. Color of Law Violations;

n. Civil Conspiracy Claims;

o. Federal Tort Claims

requiring legal expertise DOES NOT warrant leaning IN FAVOR of

record exactly how the Court reached its conclusions here.

compelling, due process and fundamental fairness require a presumption in favor

Court reached its decision to deny assistance with appointed counsel.

3. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim(s) Please clarify the courts denial;

4. Position to investigate crucial facts Please clarify the courts denial;

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

Please clarify the courts denial;

appoint counsel to assist him. Please clarify the courts denial;

in legal analysis. Please clarify the courts denial.

while legal matters proceed.

denying the requested STAY order.

C. IGNORING Evidenced Fraud on the Court Claims as is CLEARLY

uncorrected, this Court will have unnecessarily contributed to the INCREASED

somehow considered LESS VALUABLE than that of opposing counsel.

II. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION