IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT RESPONSE TO APPELLEES MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

UNDER LOCAL RULE 27.0 (c)

After reviewing the Appellees' Motion for summary disposition, the Appellant respectfully

disagrees, and due to the increasing severity of issues, prefaces this opposition with the

following disclosure statement:

Appellant Disclosure Statement

1. The Appellant makes clear that, based on the evidenced record of judicial misconduct

within this First Circuit, a fair and impartial appeal here is unlikely. ANY objective

observer would agree. As previously stated, the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar has now

filed with the Circuit Executive of the Appeals Court, eight (8) incremental judicial

1
 misconduct complaints (nine total), all of which are related to this litigation.1 These filed

judicial misconduct complaints include evidenced allegations against presiding Circuit

Judges - Torruella, Kayatta, and Barron. The same circumstances pertain to Judge

Thompson and Chief Justice Howard. It is the Appellants interpretation of the law

that these five (5) judges are considered disqualified by law and have lost jurisdiction

to rule further in this litigation. Any attempt to rule further without jurisdiction is

therefore considered an ACT OF TREASON, under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The

United States Constitution. The Court is respectfully reminded that the sua sponte

RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs in the related Docket No. 17-cv-11109,

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES was in part, a result of similarly evidenced

misconduct on record with THIS LOWER COURT DOCKET NO. 15-cv-11880. As

with the claims against Judge Burroughs, there has been NO ATTEMPT to ADDRESS,

DEFEND, or DENY these evidenced claims removing jurisdiction from referenced

Appellate Court Judges, including Chief Justice Howard.

2. On August 31, 2017, despite these evidenced claims of judicial misconduct, Chief

Justice Howard made a conscious decision to issue an order WITHOUT

JURISDICTION. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the

Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the

Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he

is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in criminal acts

1
The referenced NINE (9) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judges - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta,
Jr., David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee Thompson and Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard.
2
 of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate

commerce. Therefore, based on the Appellants interpretation of the law, under

ARTICLE III Section 3 of The UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, a claim of

TREASON to the Constitution is necessarily brought against Chief Justice Jeffrey

R. Howard. Please note, the Appellees, Defendants, their Attorneys and the presiding

Circuit Judges ALL serve as witness to this evidenced claim of treason. Any failure to

acknowledge this evidenced claim will (at minimum) be considered MISPRISION of

TREASON, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 2382. The issued order associated with this

claim allowing a 30-day stay for the Appellees - Commonwealth and former Attorney

General Coakley is thus considered VOID.

3. Violation(s) to Due Process The decision made by Chief Justice Howard not to

disqualify himself, brings an incremental violation of the Due Process Clause of the

U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right

to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due

Process Clause."). By not disqualifying himself as required by law, the judge has given

another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, shows cause for

further disqualification.

4. In addition to NEW treason claims, the gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this

Appeal include evidenced allegations of Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

1832 and is believed to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies of this

filed RESPONSE are sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to: The

Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector - General Michael

Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, members of the US Senate and

3
 House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, and to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the Public.

THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve as WITNESS to these evidenced acts of

misconduct (alleged). Parties are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and

out of the Plaintiffs continued concerns for personal safety/security.

5. Congressional Intervention and National Security Concerns The Appellant has

clearly demonstrated for the record, that the integrity of this First Circuit Appeals Court

and the lower District Court is severely compromised. The extent of evidenced judicial

misconduct claims against nine (9), and potentially ten (10) Federal Judges (ALL within

the First Circuit), suggests that elements of both CORRUPTION and CONSPIRACY

exist, and include issues believed to impact National Security. Official communication

has been delivered to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Congresswoman

Niki Tsongas (D-MA) to now bring this urgent matter to the attention of Congress, the

House Judiciary Committee, and The President.2

6. Unnecessary Judicial Delay to Vacate Orders Following Recusal Following the

June 19, 2017 RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs in the RELATED

complaint, Harihar v. The United States, Docket No. 17-cv-11109, the District Court

has yet to implement corrective action to address, and VACATE/VOID any related

orders/judgements here following recusal including the dismissal (and ALL

related) order(s) associated with this Appeal. The Appellant believes this is NO

ACCIDENT, suggesting INTENT to (at minimum) wrongfully impact this Appeal, and

shows clear prejudice against this Appellant. If left uncorrected, there will be just cause

2 See Attachment A
4
 to bring a 10th judicial misconduct complaint against the presiding judge - Judge Casper.

The sua sponte recusal of Judge Burroughs NOT ONLY voids the dismissal (and all

related) order(s) associated with this appeal, but also reinforces the judicial

misconduct claims brought by the Appellant against her, INCLUDING TREASON.

Now, with respect to the Appellees motion for Summary Judgment, the Appellant respectfully

files opposition based on the following:

I. Appellant Clarification The Appellant makes clear that his Appeal addresses a

long list of issues where the lower court has erred, ASIDE from the dismissal order,

and only STRENGTHENING the argument to assist with the appointment of counsel

here. A thorough review of the lower court docket will support that position. A

PARTIAL LIST of additional issues to address on appeal that re-affirm erred

judgments by the lower court include (but are not limited to) the following:

A. Refusing to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel. It is important to note

IF the Court (both District AND Appeals) had properly exercised their legal

discretion to assist with the appointment of counsel, additional issues

exemplifying erred judgments/issues would likely be identified beyond this list;

B. Failing to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including (but not limited

to) Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court. THIS COURT IS RESPECTFULLY

REMINDED that INCREMENTAL Fraud on the Court claims have been

evidenced against ALL Appellees/Defendants in THIS APPEAL. The record

clearly shows that these evidenced claims ALSO STAND AS UNOPPOSED

5
 AND SIMILARLY HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE COURT adding

incrementally to referenced judicial misconduct claims, calls for RECUSAL, and

the notification of Congress;

C. Ignoring the identification of the Appellants ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE

by the DOJ, Federal Bank Regulators and the MA Attorney General;

D. Ignoring Economic Espionage claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832

E. Refusing to allow a third amended complaint - The recusal of Judge Burroughs

in the related docket bears considerable impact here. Re-stating that ALL related

orders MUST be considered VOID. That includes the erred judgment which

denied the Appellants Third Amended Complaint.3 ALL

Appellees/Defendants have failed to mention any portion of the proposed third

amended complaint, noting that if the Court had rightfully assisted with the

appointment of counsel, this version would LIKELY have been filed first

saving the Courts time, and the litigants. Similarly, if the third amended

complaint had been allowed, a much different scenario would likely exist here. A

portion of the third amended complaint includes new information, added case

references and the following Amended Causes of Action including:

1. Deceptive Trade Practices Laws in Massachusetts (Count I);

2. FDCPA and MCDCA (Count II) - 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(6);

3. Civil Conspiracy and Abuse of Process (Counts III and IV);

4. For Damages and Declaratory relief under 18 U.S.C. 1961, 18 U.S.C.

1962, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(Count V);

3
See Attachment B
6
 5. Prospective injunctive relief against the Commonwealth under 1983,

see Stone v. Caswell, 963 F. Supp. 2d 32, 37 (D. Mass. 2013), (Count

VI);

6. ADDITION OF CIVIL RICO CLAIMS (18 U.S.C. 1962), Count VII

& VIII);

7. HAMP and False Claims Violations (COUNT IX);

8. Tampering allegations, per 18 U.S. Code 1519) (COUNT X)

F. Failing to accept Appellants claims as FACT, prior to DISCOVERY;

G. Premature dismissal without a move to DISCOVERY;

H. Refusing to clarify decisions when requested;

I. Ignoring supporting case references and NEW Evidence;

J. Refusing to RECUSE (twice), only to do so in the related complaint Harihar v.

The United States, for the same reasons;

K. Committing six (6) evidenced acts of TREASON against the Constitution

(alleged), by issuing orders WITHOUT Jurisdiction;

L. Failing to maintain a balance of hardships;

M. Denying warranted injunctive relief without valid cause;

N. Committing acts of prejudice/bias against the Appellant;

O. Failing to correct erred judgments when addressed by the Appellant;

P. Ignoring Conspiracy Claims the Appellant has maintained throughout, that

ALL Appellees/Defendants, including the Commonwealth and its former

Attorney General KNEW there was no legal standing to his property, and still,

collectively conspired to defraud him of his homestead;

7
 Based on the content of the Appellees motion, there seems to be a level of expectation,

that these issues (and others) should be IGNORED. The Appellant clearly disagrees.

Suggesting that this appeal does not present a substantial legal question is clearly

incorrect, and is perceived as an act of desperation to avoid a certain DEFAULT

judgment.

The Appellant respectfully restates that as it pertains to the Appellees, this

SUBSTANTIAL list of evidenced issues is interpreted as moot, based on the

unopposed Rule 60(b)(3) claim, and what by law MUST result in a default

judgement. As stated in his brief - Should it become necessary to address the

incremental issues supporting this appeal, the Appellant will (at minimum) require an

extended timeline to do so, re-stating his request for assistance to appoint counsel, and

the Courts approval to exceed the Certificate of Compliance limits as needed.

II. The Appellees CANNOT Initiate a NEW Argument on Appeal The Appellees

had over a year to address the Fraud on the Court claims, and chose NOT to. By law

they CANNOT initiate a new argument here when the lower court record reveals an

unopposed motion(s). It is likely that the Appellees never expected to find

themselves in this position of imminent DEFAULT. Now, four (4) months into the

appeal and only AFTER the Appellants Brief has been accepted comes this

desperation attempt to UNLAWFULLY begin a new argument when there is NO

STANDING, in an apparent hope to deflect away from a default judgment. This

alone shows cause to DENY the Appellees motion.

8
This Court is respectfully reminded that NOT ONLY were the Fraud on the Court

claims unopposed, but they were completely IGNORED by the presiding Judge

Allison Dale Burroughs. No evidentiary hearing was ever scheduled as mandated

by Federal law, and the Appellants continued efforts to address the matter

throughout the course of the following year were also ignored. This Court should

concur that the Appellees default was willful or executed in bad faith or was

deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the courts authority, and shows intent to

ultimately harm not only the Appellant, but The United States as a whole.

EVEN IF Appellees were allowed an argument, they are incorrect with their

assessments, and based on the content of the motion, theres question as to whether

Appellees have even read the entire Appellant Brief. Just as articulated in the

lower Court docket, the Appellant Brief provides specific detail as to how a Fraud on

the Court claim under Federal Rule 60(b)(3) by ALL Appellees was reached, backed

by the sworn testimony of a Fraud Expert that represented the United States in a

referenced similar case. Appellees have NOT ONLY ignored the details of the Fraud

on the Court claim in the lower court, but do so AGAIN HERE. The securitization

failure associated with RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1 irrefutably shows that Appellees

HAD NO LEGAL STANDING TO THE APPELLANTS PROPERTY. This Court is

respectfully reminded that the United States and the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts have BOTH (at least in part) historically used the SAME argument as

it pertains to the Securitization Failure of mortgages. This argument was a primary

component to the $25B National Mortgage Settlement between the DOJ and Bank

9
 Defendants that included Appellees Wells Fargo and US Bank. In that settlement, the

Commonwealth received $318M, of which, illegally foreclosed homeowners received

roughly $2000.The Same is true as it pertained to the $8B settlement with Federal

Bank Regulators, and additional litigation where the Commonwealth secured millions

more from bank Defendants that included Appellee Wells Fargo. For Appellees to

suggest that an Appellate argument does not exist is simply false.

III. Res Judicata - The United States Supreme Court has stated for at least ninety years

that only in the absence of fraud or collusion does a judgment from a court with

jurisdiction operate as res judicata (Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218, 225 (1929)).

BOTH FRAUD AND COLLUSION/CONSPIRACY are clearly articulated in the

Appellants evidenced claims. Therefore, res judicata DOES NOT apply here.

IV. Judicial Misconduct Claims In their motion, the Appellees, in a general statement,

say that the Appellant has made unsupported accusations against federal judges. The

Appellant disagrees NOT ONLY does the record provide absolute clarity regarding

every judicial misconduct claim, but the RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs re-affirms

ALL claims against her, including acts of TREASON. If there is a specific question

by APPELLEES OR BY THIS COURT, challenging ANY portion of the Judicial

Misconduct complaints against the remaining eight (8) judges, the Appellant is happy

to address for the record in a separate hearing and in the presence of a court reporter.

Otherwise, there is FULL EXPECTATION that this CONTINUED PATTERN

OF CORRUPT CONDUCT will be brought by US Senator ELIZABETH

WARREN and US Congresswoman NIKI TSONGAS to the immediate attention

of Congress, The House Judiciary Committee and The President.

10
V. DEMAND for the COURTS CLARIFICATION, Prior to Addressing any Local

27.0 Motion

Before this matter is presented before Congress, for documentation purposes, and

certainly before addressing any Summary Disposition Motion, the Appellant

respectfully re-states his demand for a HEARING, including the presence of a court

reporter, to provide thorough clarification with regard to the following:

A. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel, considering the enormity

of legal issues, including (in part) the government as an opposing party. This

motion alone continues to exemplify the Courts erred judgments, showing a

conscious decision NOT to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915 so as to avoid setting

precedent, thus demonstrating a clear failure to exercise legally required

discretion;

B. Why exactly it was necessary to file an Appellate brief considering the unopposed

Fraud on the Court claim(s);

C. Why a final judgment of permanent injunction IN FAVOR of the Appellant

has not already been issued;

D. Why matters having potential impact to NATIONAL SECURITY including

evidenced TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims are being

completely ignored by ALL Appellees/Defendants including the

Commonwealth, its former attorney general, and also by this Federal Judiciary.

VI. Appellant Offers Appellees an Opportunity to Seek Agreement

While under NO OBLIGATION to do so - as a GOOD FAITH measure, and

ONLY if allowed by law, the Appellant MAY be willing to consider reaching a

11
 mutual agreement on the civil portions of this complaint. SHOULD the Appellees

refuse this opportunity, there will not be another. Appellees are given a deadline of

Friday, September 16, 2017 to provide a written response for the record.

VII. Conclusion

The Appellant respectfully states that:

1. There is a CLEAR EXPECTATION for the presiding Circuit Judges -

Torruella, Kayatta, and Barron also Chief Justice Howard and Judge

Thompson to RECUSE themselves, sua sponte. Any failure to recuse and

continue ruling in this litigation will necessarily bring INCREMENTAL claims of

TREASON under ARTICLE III.

2. The Appellant will now necessarily continue with bringing to the attention of

Congress and The President - evidenced Treason claims against BOTH Judge

Allison Dale Burroughs and Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard;

3. Once JURISDICTION has been re-established, this motion for summary

disposition MUST be denied for the reasons stated within;

4. The Court now schedule a hearing for the requested clarification, and with the

presence of a court reporter;

5. That the Court confirm as a matter of record whether Appellees are willing to

consider discussion to reach a mutual agreement.

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

additional supporting information upon request.

12
Respectfully submitted this 8th Day of September, 2017.

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

13
Attachment A

14
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM
Subject: 2nd Request for Congressional Intervention RE: Judicial Misconduct Claims within the First
Circuit US Courts
To: "elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov" <elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov>,
"june.black@mail.house.gov" <june.black@mail.house.gov>
Cc: president@whitehouse.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>,
Press@usdoj.gov, "christina.sterling@usdoj.gov" <christina.sterling@usdoj.gov>,
usama.webmaster@usdoj.gov, "mark_bayer@markey.senate.gov" <mark_bayer@markey.senate.gov>,
"Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>, washington.field@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Senator Warren and Congresswoman Tsongas,

On August 4, 2017, I - Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully delivered to your attention the attached email
(below), addressing evidenced judicial misconduct claims against five (5) Federal Judges within the First
Circuit. As of today, August 21, 2017, despite follow-up phone calls to both offices, I have yet to receive
a return phone call (or email communication) regarding this serious matter. The evidenced claims are
now brought against a total of Nine (9) Federal Judges, ALL within the First Circuit, and include Chief
Justice Howard, and members of the Judicial Council who failed to hold accountable evidenced
misconduct claims against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.

These EVIDENCED allegations collectively include (but are not limited to):

1. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915 Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel;

2. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court;

3. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;

4. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 1832 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets/Economic

Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;

5. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;

6. Ignoring or failing to address the litigant's repeated concerns for personal safety and security;

7. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 2382; Misprision of Treason;

8. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 4; Misprision of a Felony;

15
 9. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III, Section 3, of the
United States Constitution;

10. Ignoring EVIDENCED claims believed to impact matters of National Security;

11. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC 2671, 28 USC 2674 and 28 USC
1346;

12. Color of Law violations, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 242;

13. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1964;

14. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from Docket
No. 17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES;

15. Evidence within the record demonstrating Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

16. Refusal to RECUSE;

17. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to Plaintiff/Appellant/Complainant, Mohan

A. Harihar;

18. False Statements; and others.

As a reminder, my legal intentions remain unchanged: (1) To hold parties accountable for damages
resulting from MY IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, and (2) Ultimately gain agreement with The
United States regarding the Intellectual Property (IP)/Trade Secret known as The HARIHAR FCS Model.
Numerous opportunities have been afforded to ALL parties in the referenced litigation - INCLUDING THE
UNITED STATES, to seek MUTUAL AGREEMENT. It appears (at least on its surface), rather than do so, an
evidenced effort is made (in part) to prevent a precedent from being set, and to ensure that the
IP/Trade Secret is damaged permanently.

This PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT within the Federal Judiciary CAN NOT be allowed to continue
without legal consequence. Doing so threatens the MORAL FABRIC of this great Nation. As one (1) of
your constituents, I again respectfully request your assistance in bringing this urgent matter to the
attention of Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, and to the attention of The President. Any
FAILURE to do so will show cause to question whether this pattern of corrupt conduct extends BEYOND
the Federal Judiciary to the Legislative branch of government.

Attached for reference are two (2) additional documents:

1. A copy of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint - filed today via US Mail with the Circuit Executive
of The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals;

16
 2. The Appellant Brief, filed with the US Court of Appeals on Monday, August 14, 2017. This brief
will assist in providing an updated summary of the litigation associated with HARIHAR v. US
BANK, et al, Appeal No. 17-1381.

A RESPONSE from both offices is respectfully requested on or before this Friday, August 25th, 2017. For
documentation purposes, and out of concerns for my personal safety and security, the following parties
(referenced below) are copied on this communication, and a copy is necessarily made available to the
public. Separate Notices will also be filed with: (1) the referenced Appeal and (2) the referenced FTCA
complaint against The United States.

Thank you, in advance for your assistance with this urgent matter.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar

7124 Avalon Drive

Acton, MA 01720

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

cc

The Executive Office of The President (EOP)

US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz

US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions

US Senator Ed Markey, (D-MA)

Governor Charley Baker, (D-MA)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

17
 Judicial Council of the First Circuit

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY

To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement of facts
described in item 4 (below). The Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings,
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on what to include
in a complaint (Rule 6), where to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The Rules
are available in federal court clerks= offices, on individual federal courts= websites, and on
www.uscourts.gov.

Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must be legible.
For the number of copies to file, consult the local rules or clerk=s office of the court in which your
complaint is required to be filed. Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked
ACOMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT@ or ACOMPLAINT OF DISABILITY@ and submit it to
the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the name of any judge on the envelope.

1. Name of Complainant: MOHAN A. HARIHAR___________________________

Contact Address: 7124 Avalon Drive_____________________________________
Acton, MA 01720______________________________________
Daytime telephone: (617) 921.2526_________________________________________
2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante___________________________
Court: US District Court (NH), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.____________________________
Court: US District Court (RI), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint
No. 90033
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge John David Levy_________________________________
Court: US District Court (ME), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint
No. 90033_________________________________
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge Juan R. Torruella, Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., Judge
David J. Barron, Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice
Jeffrey R. Howard ____________________________

18
 Court: US Court of Appeals (First Circuit) _______________________
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?
[ X ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit:

Court: US District Court (Boston, MA) _________________________

Case Number: 15-cv-11880_________________________________________
Docket number of any appeal to the 1st Circuit: Appeal No. 17-1381______________
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?
[ X] Party [ ] Lawyer [ ] Neither

If you are (were) a party and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyers name, address, and

telephone number: The Complainant has unfairly been given NO alternative but to

represent himself as a pro se litigant. ________________________________________

4. Statement of Facts

The judicial misconduct claims (alleged) against the eight (8) referenced Federal Judges stem
from documented actions within the records of: Harihar v. US Bank (Docket No. 15-cv-11880),
its related Appeal (Appeal No. 17-1381), and also include the actions (or lack thereof) of the
Judicial Council associated with Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 90033 against Judge
Allison Dale Burroughs. Collectively, these evidenced claims additionally impact the related
complaint filed by Mohan A. Harihar against the United States, Docket No. 17-cv-11109,
showing cause to (at minimum) expand upon existing conspiracy claims. The Complainant
respectfully states that evidenced judicial misconduct includes (but is not limited to) the
following:

a. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915 Assistance with the Appointment of

Counsel;
b. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court;
c. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;
d. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 1832 Misappropriation of Trade
Secrets/Economic Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;
e. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;
f. Ignoring or failing to address Complainants repeated concerns for personal safety and
security;
g. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 2382; Misprision of Treason;
h. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 4; Misprision of a Felony;
i. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III, Section 3, of
the United States Constitution;

19
 j. Ignoring EVIDENCED claims believed to impact matters of National Security;
k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC 2671, 28 USC 2674 and 28
USC 1346;
l. Color of Law violations, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 242;
m. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1964
n. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from
Docket No. 17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES;
o. Evidence within the record demonstrating Unnecessary Judicial Delay;
p. Refusal to RECUSE;
q. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to Plaintiff/Appellant/Complainant,
Mohan A. Harihar;
r. False Statements; and others.

Please be advised, this partial list claims evidenced within the record(s) shows cause to
conclude that the INTEGRITY of both this US District Court and the First Circuit Court of
Appeals is compromised. Jurisdiction is also impacted.

It SHOULD appear clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, that a deep-seated favoritism or

antagonism does exist in the First Circuit, 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 nine (9) Federal Judges, to brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and
predetermined outcome. At this stage, it is unclear whether the referenced judges are part of a
greater conspiracy designed to (in part) ultimately prevent the successful implementation of the
Complainants Intellectual Property/Trade Secret The HARIHAR FCS Model. What does
appear clear is that this matter MUST now be brought to the attention of: (1) The President,
(2) Congress, (3) the House Judiciary Committee, (4) US Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
(5) US Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Therefore, along with filing this complaint
with the Clerk of the Court, the Complainant respectfully seeks the assistance of US: Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA), to bring this
matter to the attention of Congress. Copies of this filed complaint are additionally delivered to
referenced government officials (above) via certified US mail/email communication and/or
social media.

Finally, the Complainant has made clear that by pursuing these evidenced and irrefutable claims,
he has reason to fear for his safety and well-being. It appears (at least on its surface) that these
referenced members of the Federal Judiciary INTEND to cause the Complainant, and
ultimately The United States harm. Therefore, for documentation, safety and security reasons, a
copy of this judicial misconduct complaint is made available to the Public.

5. Declaration and signature:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.

(Signature)__MOHAN A. HARIHAR_____________________ (Date) __8/19/2017________

20
Attachment B

21
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR Docket No: 2015-cv-11880

Plaintiff

v.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND TO INFORM

THE COURT OF A NEW KEY WITNESS

PREFACE

I. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court allow

and accept this filed motion which exceeds the 20-page

limit (per Local Rule 7.1), due to the number of Defendants

listed in the complaint, and the issues which necessarily

had to be addressed with each.

II. The Plaintiff has made clear in his second amended

complaint, that a third amended complaint is necessary. By

now, the Plaintiff FULLY EXPECTED to have secured

experienced legal counsel, either by his own efforts, or

with the assistance of the Court. The Plaintiff also fully

expected to have aligned with a Federal or Special

Prosecutor regarding the related criminal allegations

supported in this complaint. Neither has occurred, leaving

22
 the second amended complaint incomplete and critically

flawed, if the Plaintiff is not allowed to amend. Clearly,

the Causes of Action section of the second amended

complaint must be re-written to align with the historical

facts in a third amended complaint, even if the Plaintiff

is forced to proceed as a pro se litigant. A failure to

allow the filing of a third amended complaint would

unfairly favor ALL listed Defendants (and those still to be

named), and show clear bias and prejudice against this

Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff respectfully files this Motion to allow the filing

of a third amended complaint, additionally based on the

following:

III. A third amended complaint will ensure compliance with FED.

R. CIV. P. 8.

IV. A third amended complaint will necessarily reference a

recent judgment from the Northeast Housing Court dated

6/1/2016, 12H77SP002683 US Bank, NA vs. Milan, Steven L et

al, finding Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendant

homeowners, Karen and Steven Milan. The Plaintiff will draw

similar comparisons to the Milan case, referencing

fraudulent assignments, etc.

23
V. NEW INFORMATION/EVIDENCE that has recently come forth

revealing that the Defendant Wells Fargo NA has ADMITTED

TO FRAUDULENT MISCONDUCT involving thousands of mortgages,

in a $1.2B settlement with the United States Department of

Justice (DOJ). The case is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs.

WELLS FARGO NA and KURT LOFRANO, Docket No: 1:12-cv-07527-

JMF, US District Court, Southern District of New York,

dated April 8, 2016. This ADMISSION TO MORTGAGE FRAUD by

the Defendant WELLS FARGO NA must be added in a third

amended complaint.

In a third amended complaint, additional case references

will additionally include (but not be limited to): Corvello

v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals, No. 11-16234; Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit No. 11-

1423; and Coursen vs. JP Morgan Chase, Docket No: 8:12-cv-

690-T-26EAJ, US District Court, Middle District of Florida,

Tampa Division.

VI. The Preface of a third amended complaint will necessarily

be condensed and re-structured, recognizing and

prioritizing that the ALREADY identified violations to

Federal and State Laws4 in itself should be enough to

4 As identified by the Department of Justice, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and Federal Bank Regulators
24
survive a Rule 12(b) dismissal - it includes enough facts

to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.

Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (dismissing

complaint because plaintiffs had not nudged their claims

across the line from conceivable to plausible). The Court

must view the complaint in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff and accept all of the plaintiffs well- pleaded

facts as true. American United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez,

480 F.3d 1043, 1057 (11 Cir. 2007). While a complaint

attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need

detailed factual allegations, (citations omitted), a

plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his

entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of

a cause of action will not do. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555,

127 S. Ct. at 1964-65. To survive a motion to dismiss

under Twombly, a complaints factual allegations, if

assumed to be true, must be enough to raise the right to

relief above the speculative level.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges that the United States

Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of the

Massachusetts Attorney General (MA AGO), and Federal Bank

25
Regulators have ALL identified the BANK DEFENDANTS to

violations of Federal and State laws regarding the

Plaintiffs Foreclosure after two (2) separate

investigations. The Court should consider the DOJ, MA AGs

Office, and Federal Bank Regulators to be reputable

sources; and their collective findings should be considered

factual, accurate and true. The Plaintiff has ALREADY

provided to the Court substantial supporting documents

revealing that his referenced allegations are related to

misconduct that has occurred on a mass-scale both Statewide

(MA) AND Nationwide:

A. The April 2011 Interagency Review of Foreclosure

Policies and Practices (Federal Reserve, Office of the

Comptroller of the Currency, and Office of Thrift

Supervision);

B. Wall Street and the Financial Collapse; Majority and

Minority Staff Report, Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations, United States Senate;

C. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report - Final Report of

the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial

and Economic Crisis in the United States;

D. Wells Fargo Foreclosure Manual;

E. Southern Essex District Register of Deeds - John

26
 OBrien, 1/18/12 Press Release;

F. Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report - Attorney General Martha

Coakley, Public Document No. 12);

Therefore, the Plaintiff has clearly shown that he has met his

burden under Twombly. Whether Plaintiffs allegations can be

proven is a question of fact that must be determined after

discovery, substantial deposition(s), and subpoenaed testimony

have been acquired and filed with the Court.

VII. CMLTI 2006 AR-1 CAN MAKE NO LEGAL CLAIM TO PLAINTIFFS

PROPERTY - Nationally recognized FRAUD EXPERT - Lynn

Szymoniak has stated under oath in her lawsuit5 that,

Defendants used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal

that over 1400 MBS trusts, each with mortgages valued at

over $1 billion, are missing critical documents, meaning

that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities

are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed securities. Because of

the strict laws governing of these kinds of

securitizations, theres no way to make the assignments

after the fact. Activists have a name for this:

securitization FAIL. The Department of Justice is well

5 Docket No:2013CV00464 USA VS ACE SEC. CORP. ET AL

27
aware of this FACT, as is the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts.

Every securitization requires the creation and funding of

a securitization trust that must take physical possession

and control of the trust property on or before the closing

date of the trust. The securitization trustee is the sole

and exclusive legal title holder of the thousands of

promissory notes, original mortgages and assignments of

mortgage. This transfer of the trust property, the legal

res, to the trust at or around the loan origination is a

necessary condition precedent to a valid securitization. It

is necessary for several reasons.

First, someone must be the legal owner of the mortgage

loan. Only the legal owner of the loan has the legal right

to sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to

investors. Second, actual physical transfer of ownership

is necessary because the cash flows that go from the

homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS

purchasers are tax exempt. If the trust does not perfect

legal title by taking physical possession of the notes and

mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code, specifically 26

U.S.C. 860G(d)(1), provides for a 100 percent tax penalty

on those non-complying cash flows. Third, the legal

28
 ownership of the loans must be bankruptcy remote that is,

because bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back

and seize assets from bankrupt entities, the transfer to

the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee in the

securitization chain of title can have any cognizable

interest in the loans. For this reason, all securitization

trusts are special purpose vehicles (SPVs) created for

the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans

and all securitization trustees represent and certify to

the MBS purchasers that the purchase is a true sale in

accordance with FASB 140.6 But it never happened. No

securitization trustee of any securitized mortgage loan

originated from 2001 to 2008 ever obtained legal title or

FASB 140 control of any securitized loan.

THEREFORE a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can

make NO LEGAL CLAIM to the PLAINTIFFS referenced property

located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since

the Trust cannot make a legal claim to the property, it had

no right to collect any monies from the Plaintiff or to

foreclose on the Plaintiff; c.) If the Trust had no right

to foreclose, it also had no right to re-sell the property,

6 Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140

29
 thereby making the foreclosure sale VOID. Despite bringing

these CRITICAL FACTS to the attention of every related MA

State Court, it has been IGNORED, and adds to support (at

minimum) Plaintiffs conspiracy and Tort claims. The

Passing of MA Legislation - St. 2015, c.141 An Act Clearing

Titles to Foreclosed Properties (Effective December 31,

2015), is further proof by the COMMONWEALTH, confirming

that CLEAR TITLE NEVER EXISTED with the referenced

foreclosure.

A third amended complaint will respectfully call for this

Court to recognize these facts as accurate and true, show

cause to take corrective action and overturn the related

erred judgments made by Massachusetts State Courts, thus

finding in favor of this Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar.

VIII. Adding as a Defendant, Citigroup Global Realty Corp. who

is recognized as the parent company to the RMBS Trust,

Defendant CMLTI 2006 AR-1. A third amended complaint will

draw similar comparison to the case example provided in

Coursen vs. JP Morgan Chase. Plaintiff alleges that

Citigroup Global Realty Corp., collectively with CMLTI 2006

AR-1, and the Bank Defendants, are responsible for

employing the individuals whose illegal acts proximately

caused him to suffer the loss of HIS homestead, and

additional damages resulting from an illegal foreclosure.

30
IX. Revised CAUSES OF ACTION Since filing his second amended

complaint, the Plaintiff has come across a case that in

many ways bears close resemblance to this one. Coursen vs.

JP Morgan Chase, Docket No: 8:12-cv-690-T-26EAJ, US

District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division

(Order per the Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, US District

Judge). A third amended complaint will include (but not be

limited to) the following:

A. Deceptive Trade Practices Laws in Massachusetts (Count I)

As with Coursen vs. JP Morgan, here the Plaintiff

similarly alleges Deceptive Trade Practices under the

Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act M.G.L. 93A 21

against the Bank Defendants and the Defendant Citigroup

Global Realty Corp; Plaintiff is allowed to Bring Suit

(per Ch. 93A 9); Remedies Available Injunction, double

or treble damages, attorney's fees and costs (Ch. 93A

11). These Deceptive Trade Practice allegations are

exemplified (in part) in the recorded conversations

between the Plaintiff and the Mortgage servicer

(Defendant Wells Fargo NA) during the 22-month loan

modification attempt(s). The recorded conversations

between mortgage servicer and the Plaintiff will reveal

(at minimum) that: 1. That the servicer stated a 90-day

default was a requirement to qualify for a loan

31
 modification under HAMP, 2.) That the Plaintiff DID IN

FACT QUALIFY for a loan modification under HAMP

guidelines, as many as six (6) times over a 22-month

period, but was denied due to a calculation error that

could not, or would not be corrected. Court must find

that Plaintiffs allegations present a question of fact

as to whether the Bank Defendants activities violated

Deceptive Trade Practice Laws, and he must be allowed the

opportunity to establish those facts through the course

of discovery.

B. FDCPA and MCDCA (Count II) - 15 U.S.C. 1692(a)(6)

defines the term debt collector to include any person

who uses an instrumentality of interstate commerce or the

mails in any business the principal purpose of which is

the enforcement of security interests. Plaintiff alleges

that Bank Defendants knew that they did not possess the

legal right to collect monies from the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, under 15 U.S.C. 1692f, [a] debt collector

may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or

attempt to collect any debt. Subparagraph (6) of that

section specifically prohibits taking or threatening to

take any non-judicial action to effect dispossession or

disablement of property ... if there is no present right

to possession of the property claimed as collateral

32
through an enforceable security interest. As previously

discussed, Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants

implemented deceptive practices in furtherance of a

conspiracy to unlawfully divest Plaintiff of his

homestead. Consequently, this Court must find that

Plaintiffs allegations present a question of fact as to

whether the Bank Defendants activities violated the

FDCPA, and he must be allowed the opportunity to

establish those facts through the course of discovery.

Questions of fact preclude dismissal of Plaintiffs claim

under the Massachusetts Act at MD COML 14-201-204, as

well, because he plainly alleges that Bank Defendants and

Citigroup Global Realty Corp., knew they did not have the

legal right to collect the alleged debt and created

manufactured evidence, sham pleadings and deceptive

conduct to do so. Massachusetts Statutes provides that

no person shall attempt to collect a debt which is not

owed or is the result of a manufactured default.

Plaintiff will show that Bank Defendants asserted a legal

right that did not exist, with actual knowledge that the

right did not exist. For these reasons, Plaintiffs

allegations in support of his MCDCA claim should be

considered sufficient to overcome a Rule 12(b)(6)

dismissal.

33
C. Civil Conspiracy and Abuse of Process (Counts III and

IV)- In a third amended complaint, the Plaintiff will add

a civil conspiracy claim that proves: (a) the existence

of an agreement between two or more parties; (b) to do an

unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means; (c)

the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the

conspiracy; and (d) damage to Plaintiff as a result of

the acts done under the conspiracy. Olson v. Johnson, 961

So. 2d 356, 359 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007). A cause of

action for abuse of process requires a showing of willful

or intentional misuse of process for some wrongful or

unlawful object, or ulterior purpose not intended by law.

Peckins v. Kaye, 443 So. 2d 1025, 1026 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

App. 1983) (citing Cline v. Flagler Sales Corp., 207 So.

2d 709(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)). Plaintiff should be

able to overcome dismissal of his common law claims for

civil conspiracy and abuse of process at this stage of

the proceedings through his factual allegations that

Defendants (at minimum, Bank Defendants) acted

unlawfully, and in agreement, with the intent to defraud

him through the use of sham documents and fabricated

evidence, and that their actions caused him damages.

D. For Damages and Declaratory relief under 18 U.S.C.

1961, 18 U.S.C. 1962, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(Count V)

34
E. Prospective injunctive relief against the Commonwealth

under 1983, see Stone v. Caswell, 963 F. Supp. 2d 32,

37 (D. Mass. 2013), (Count VI)

F. ADDITION OF CIVIL RICO CLAIMS (18 U.S.C. 1962), Count

VII) - Since Federal Prosecutors have yet to align with

the Plaintiffs complaint, a third amended complaint is

necessary to add CIVIL RICO Claims under 18 U.S.C. 1962

alleging facts that, at least for the purposes of a Rule

12 (b)(6) dismissal, are adequate to support each of the

statutory elements for the predicate acts that allegedly

divested him of his homestead. See Republic of Panama v.

BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) S.A., 119F.3d 935, 949 (11th

Cir. 1997) (holding that in order to survive a motion to

dismiss, a Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to

support each of the statutory elements for at least two

of the pleaded predicate acts) (citing Central Distribs.

Of Beer, Inc. v. Conn, 5 f.3d 181, 183-184 (6th Cir.

1993)). Plaintiff alleges that Bank Defendants, Harmon

Law Offices PC, and Nelson Mullins LLP unlawfully

employed the United States Mail, Massachusetts State

Courts, and perjured and fabricated evidence to divest

him of his homestead. He alleges that Defendants were the

principals of or participated in the operation or

management of the enterprise itself and that the pattern

35
 of racketeering included at least two acts, transmission

through the use of the mail of fake assignments of

Mortgage and fictitious corporate signatures.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs civil RICO claim is not time-

barred inasmuch as Plaintiff asserts that he was

prevented from discovering that he was the victim of

fraud by Defendants concealment of the alleged fraud.

Plaintiff has alleged that Bank Defendants, Harmon Law

Offices PC and Nelson Mullins LLP, fabricated documents

in furtherance of a conspiracy to unlawfully divest him

of HIS homestead. Consequently, this Court MUST find that

the Plaintiffs allegations present a question of FACT as

to whether the Defendants activities violated

Massachusetts and Federal Law, and he MUST be allowed the

opportunity to establish those facts through discovery.

G. SECOND CIVIL RICO CLAIM (18 U.S.C. 1962) (COUNT VIII)

In a third amended complaint, the Plaintiff will add a

second CIVIL RICO violation CLAIM, and expand upon the

facts of improper relationships between Defendants

Nelson Mullins LLP, the US Attorneys Office, the MA

Office of the Attorney General, the Boston BAR

Association, and Attorney Jeffrey S. Patterson. The

relationships in question references the West LegalEd

Center course entitled, After the Bubble Bursts

36
 Mortgage and Foreclosure issues in Criminal and Civil

Litigation. Here, the United States, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and former counsel to Bank Defendants

(Nelson Mullins and Jeffrey Patterson), have together

colluded, contributed to and/or taught a class on how to

defend lender clients against illegal foreclosure. These

improper relationships CLEARLY exemplifies COLLUSION and

(at minimum) shows cause to allege why criminal

complaints filed by the Plaintiff have not been brought

as charges before the Court(s). The Plaintiff must be

allowed the opportunity to establish these facts through

discovery.

H. HAMP and False Claims Violations (COUNT IX) A third

amended complaint is necessary to add HAMP and False

Claims violations by the Defendant mortgage servicer,

Wells Fargo NA. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home

Affordable Modification Program to offer loan

modifications to borrowers who demonstrated their

eligibility during a trial period (The case is Corvello

v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals, No. 11-16234). The Plaintiff has consistently

stated that the Bank Defendants refused to modify the

Plaintiffs mortgage over a 22-month effort (ALL

37
 conversations recorded), even though the Plaintiff

clearly met the requirements set forth by HAMP (and

other) loan modification programs. The Plaintiff must be

allowed the opportunity to establish the facts through

discovery.

I. Tampering allegations, per 18 U.S. Code 1519) (COUNT X)

In a third amended complaint, the Plaintiff will add one

Count (each Defendant) of Tampering allegations, per 18

U.S. Code 1519 against DEFENDANTS FIALKOW, PATTERSON,

and HALEY. The tampering allegation of a Middlesex

Superior Court file has been well documented with

Massachusetts State Courts and has been completely

ignored by the Commonwealth. The Plaintiff is not aware

of any other parties (other than Court employees) to have

accessed the referenced file, or who would have reason to

alter/displace its contents. Court must find that

Plaintiffs allegations present a question of fact as to

whether these Defendants tampered with the Superior Court

file, and he must be allowed the opportunity to establish

those facts through the course of discovery and further

investigation (if necessary). As managing partner of the

Boston Office, Peter Haley is on record in an email

communication to the Plaintiff, stating that both he and

38
 the firm fully support ALL actions taken by Attorney

Fialkow in representing the client(s).

J. Wrongful Foreclosure and Eviction Practices (Count XI)

The Plaintiff will seek civil damages and injunctive

relief (and any additional relief deemed appropriate by

the Court) against Bank Defendants, Harmon Law Offices PC

and Nelson Mullins LLP for wrongful foreclosure and

eviction practices against the Plaintiff. Defendant

Harmon Law offices PC has already been under

investigation (for over three years) by the MA Attorney

General for these same allegations. The Plaintiff has

already brought to the Courts attention, that Harmon is

identified with DISBARRED FORECLOSURE KINGPIN DAVID

STERN (FL). Harmon Law Offices PC is identified with over

50,000 illegal foreclosures in the Commonwealth alone.

Here, the Plaintiff alleges that these Defendants knew

that they had no legal standing to foreclose or displace

the Plaintiff, but decided to act illegally and

unethically for the purpose (at least) of financial gain.

X. NEW KEY WITNESS On Sunday, May 29, 2016, the Plaintiff

was informed that a long-time Wells Fargo employee, with

intricate knowledge of the misconduct related to the

Plaintiffs foreclosure, has agreed to testify as a KEY

WITNESS before a trial jury, on behalf of the Plaintiff.

39
 The confirmation of this new witness, not previously

available, necessitates the filing of a third amended

complaint, and impacts EVERY Defendant listed in this

complaint.

XI. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS and AG MARTHA COAKLEY -

DEFENDANT, MARTHA COAKLEY is perhaps one of the most

recognized Attorney Generals in the United States for her

efforts to address the mass-violations of both State and

Federal law associated with this Nations Foreclosure/

Financial Crisis. Prior to joining the $25B Foreclosure

settlement, the Attorney General had already filed suit in

Suffolk County Superior Court (Docket No: 11-4363) against

five (5) lenders, including the Defendant Wells Fargo NA.

The referenced complaint (already filed with this Court,

see Attachment J of the Plaintiffs second amended

complaint) addresses much of the allegations associated

with this complaint, and this Nations Foreclosure Crisis.

The Plaintiff has historically and consistently referenced

the Attorney Generals complaint in the lower Court(s), and

it has been ignored. CLEARLY, this Attorney General knows

FIRST-HAND, the intricate details of the mass-violations

related to this Nations Foreclosure Crisis Statewide and

Nationwide.

40
The decision to include the former Attorney General and the

Commonwealth as Defendants here was made for the following

reasons:

A. The Attorney General, over the course of 2+ years

received personally, dozens of email communications from

the Plaintiff: 1.) providing her with the details of the

referenced misconduct of Bank Defendants and Harmon Law

Offices PC, 2.) requesting her alignment with prosecuting

these responsible parties (and understanding that a 3+

year investigation of Harmon was ALREADY underway for

wrongful foreclosure and eviction practices), 3.)

Alignment with furthering the Plaintiffs Intellectual

Property known as the FCS Model, which had been favorably

presented to Senior Policy Advisors to the Attorney

General. The Plaintiffs efforts were completely ignored.

B. These email communications also included several efforts

made by the Plaintiff, pleading with the Attorney General

to assist in helping the Plaintiff avoid a Wrongful

Displacement from his home. Again these pleadings went

directly to the Attorney General and were ALL ignored. As

a result, the Plaintiff was wrongfully evicted from his

home, and was HOMELESS for nearly two (2) years. The

resulting ILLEGAL foreclosure, Wrongful Displacement, and

41
 resulting damages suffered by this Plaintiff clearly

could have been avoided and/or minimized if the

Commonwealth and the Attorney General had acted upon the

Plaintiffs multiple pleas for help.

C. It is vitally important for the Court, and specifically

for a JURY, to understand to what extent this Plaintiff

has gone to since November 2008, in effort to save his

home. To understand this effort and the reasons for

including the Commonwealth and this former Attorney

General will require the Court to review ALL related

historical email communications, and historical

transcripts from the lower Court(s). With that, a third

amended complaint will additionally question WHY, this

Attorney General and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

after acknowledging that the referenced foreclosure is in

FACT illegal, have refused to take corrective action.

D. A third amended complaint will call for the Court, and a

jury, to have the opportunity to review the numerous

communications sent to the direct attention of the

Attorney General (or copied on) ALL of which were

completely ignored.

E. The Plaintiff questions: WHY would an Attorney General,

after spending years fighting, and bringing to light on a

National Scale what is arguably the LARGEST CASE OF FRAUD

42
 IN US HISTORY then refuse to protect and assist this

ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED HOMEOWNER? Why would she refuse/

ignore a case that would irrefutably assist with her 3+

year investigation of Harmon Law Offices PC? These

clearly evident facts bring added support to the

Plaintiffs conspiracy claims. The Plaintiff believes

that he should have the opportunity to bring these (and

other) important questions before a jury trial.

F. The Plaintiff brings to the Courts attention, the Press

Release and public admission made by Attorney General

Coakley a few days prior to leaving office (January

2015), stating in fact that over 50,000 foreclosures in

the Commonwealth were ILLEGAL.

G. Even more perplexing, is the fact that the Plaintiff, in

Late 2011 (and just days before AG Coakley made the

decision to join the $25B National Mortgage Settlement),

presented his proposed FCS Economic Framework

(Foreclosure Crisis Solution) to Senior Policy Advisors

of the Attorney General (Britt McBride and Jennifer

Stark). Both are quoted as stating, We would LOVE to

implement this type of program. In addition to damaging

the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property through its

inaction, questions are raised as to whether Copyright

43
 infringement pertains to current homeowner programs

offered by the Commonwealth and Nationwide.

H. With regard to the 11th Amendment of the Constitution and

Sovereign Immunity, and also prosecutorial immunity, we

have here a case where: 1.) A crime against the plaintiff

has occurred involving an illegal foreclosure, 2.) the

Commonwealth has confirmed that the referenced

foreclosure is illegal, 3.) Despite the Commonwealths

confirmation, the State Judicial System refuses to

correct an erred judgment. Furthermore, they refuse to

state WHY they wont correct the judgment, leaving this

Plaintiff still with irreparable and accruing damages

suffered.

I. There is an EXPECTATION, for the Commonwealth, and the

former Attorney General to RECOGNIZE when they have

erred, and to hold themselves accountable when their

actions cause harm and damage to a resident. The Court

should take note that the Commonwealth and the Attorney

General have thus far failed to do so.

J. A third amended complaint will call for the Commonwealth

to either waive its right to sovereign immunity, or for

this Court to allow the Plaintiff to appeal to Congress

to abrogate the states sovereign immunity. The Plaintiff

will additionally seek the relief in this lawsuit for

44
 Damages and Declaratory relief under 18 U.S.C. 1961, 18

U.S.C. 1962, and 18 U.S.C. 1964(Count V); and

Prospective injunctive relief against the Commonwealth

under 1983, see Stone v. Caswell, 963 F. Supp. 2d 32,

37 (D. Mass. 2013), (Count VI); any additional relief

that the Court deems as just and appropriate.

K. A third amended complaint SHOULD additionally be able to

withstand a motion to dismiss, as it raises both civil

conspiracy and RICO claims against a state official

(former) and also the state itself.

XII. DEFENDANTS, KEN/MARY DAHER - with regard to defendant Real

Estate Brokers, a third amended complaint is necessary to

clarify the following:

A. The Plaintiff does not hold Ken or Mary Daher responsible

for the misconduct which led to the illegal foreclosure.

B. That these Defendants clearly knew that the Plaintiff was

actively seeking to invalidate the illegal foreclosure

(both here and historically);

C. That as licensed real estate brokers, Ken and Mary Daher

were fully aware of the LEGAL RISKS in that they: 1.) had

full knowledge that this ILLEGAL foreclosure DID NOT

possess CLEAR TITLE, 2.) were clearly forewarned by the

Plaintiffs Disclosures that clear title did not exist,

and that legal action against responsible parties was

45
 ongoing, 3.) still ignored all red flags, warnings, and

disclosures and proceeded to willfully move forward with

selling an illegal foreclosure.

D. By willfully selling an illegal foreclosure, the

Plaintiff alleges that Ken and Mary Daher have (at

minimum) committed multiple ethics violations under the

National Association of Realtors (NAR) Code of Ethics.

The Plaintiff has already made the Court aware, of the

hearing before the Northeast Association of Realtors, and

the recess pending further action taken by the Court(s).

E. The Defendant Real Estate Brokers are on record as

aligning with the mortgage servicer - Wells Fargo NA and

its attorneys, and ignoring the illegalities related to

the foreclosure to the extent of including incentives to

potential homebuyers with an Enter to Win $250,000

sweepstakes.

The Court SHOULD recognize, that while these real estate

brokers were not responsible for the actual foreclosure,

their decisions to unethically sell an illegal

foreclosure has undoubtedly contributed to damages

suffered by this plaintiff and the conspiracy to

unlawfully divest him of HIS homestead.

46
 F. These Defendants have shown NO REMORSE for their actions,

who likely believed there was little chance that they

would EVER be held legally accountable.

G. Court must find that Plaintiffs allegations present a

question of fact, enough to overcome a 12(b) dismissal,

and he must be allowed the opportunity to establish those

facts through the course of discovery.

XIII. DEFENDANTS, JEFFREY/ISABELLE PERKINS with regard to

defendants who have willfully purchased a recognized

ILLEGAL foreclosure, a third amended complaint is necessary

to clarify the following:

A. The Plaintiff does not hold Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

responsible for the misconduct which led to the illegal

foreclosure.

B. That the Plaintiff has CLEARLY sought to invalidate the

illegal foreclosure (both here and historically);

C. That the Department of Justice, Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, and Federal Bank Regulators have ALL

identified related violations to State and Federal

Law(s), and have declared the foreclosure as ILLEGAL;

D. That the Foreclosure sale is in FACT - VOID, therefore

Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins are NOT the RIGHTFUL owners.

The Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar IS the rightful owner;

47
E. That Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins SHOULD HAVE KNOWN

BETTER than to purchase a property that did not possess

clear title. Isabelle Perkins is believed to be a

LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT, who works for, or is believed

to have historically worked for the same parent real

estate brokerage (Weichert Realtors Inc.) as Defendant

Real Estate Brokers Ken/Mary Daher;

F. That Jeffrey and Isabelle were fully aware of the LEGAL

RISKS in that they: 1.) Had full knowledge that this

ILLEGAL foreclosure DID NOT possess CLEAR TITLE, 2.) were

clearly forewarned by the Plaintiffs Disclosures that

clear title did not exist, and that legal action against

responsible parties was ongoing, 3.) still ignored all

red flags, warnings, and disclosures and proceeded to

willfully move forward with the purchase of an illegal

foreclosure.

The Court SHOULD recognize, that while these homebuyers

were not responsible for the actual foreclosure, their

decisions to unethically purchase an illegal foreclosure

has undoubtedly contributed to damages suffered by this

plaintiff and the conspiracy to unlawfully divest him of

HIS homestead.

48
 G. These Defendants have shown NO REMORSE for their actions,

who likely believed there was little chance that they

would EVER be held legally accountable.

H. Court must find that Plaintiffs allegations present a

question of fact, enough to overcome a 12(b) dismissal,

and he must be allowed the opportunity to establish those

facts through the course of discovery.

XIV. PLAINTIFFS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY This portion of the

Plaintiffs complaint involving the Plaintiffs

Intellectual Property is considered both sensitive as well

as complex. As a Pro Se litigant, effectively describing

the damages as it pertains to this complaint can be

challenging. However, the Plaintiffs research has now

uncovered testimony to draw comparison. It is the Testimony

of the Honorable Grant D. Aldonas before the Committee on

Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives July 19,

2012.7 The Topic(s) addressed in the Justices testimony

include: Unfair Trading Practices Against the United

States: Intellectual Property Rights Infringement, Property

Expropriation, and Other Barriers. While the Plaintiffs

complaint does not raise claims involving trade, it does

7 See Attachment A, Testimony of the Honorable Grant D. Aldonas

before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of
Representatives July 19, 2012.
49
bring allegations of unfair practices that undermine

intellectual property rights; which, if left unaddressed

and uncorrected, ultimately prohibits a successfully

implemented FCS Model from delivering substantial economic

growth to the United States, estimated in the trillions of

dollars.

For example, in order for the FCS economic framework to be

implemented as intended, an already identified illegal

foreclosure would have to be recognized by a Court, and may

require corrective action if prior decisions failed to do

so. This case is a prime example of that. In fact, by

seeking corrective action here with his illegal

foreclosure, the Plaintiff will demonstrate by personal

example how the model will work to better the economy, and

even to Bank Defendants.

ANY party, whos actions prevent an illegal foreclosure from

being recognized, will have contributed to damages against

this economic model, and is therefore, liable. The

Plaintiff alleges that every defendant listed in complaint

bears a portion of responsibility for these damages. A

third amended complaint will be necessary - the Court must

find that Plaintiffs allegations present a question of

fact, enough to overcome a 12(b) dismissal, and he must be

50
 allowed the opportunity to establish those facts through

the course of discovery.

The implementation of the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property

is critical to restoring US economic growth, fostering a

more dynamic US economy, and delivering a more broadly

shared prosperity, particularly to those who have been

damaged by the US Foreclosure Crisis, and who live at the

bottom of the economic pyramid.

But, the more profound strategic reason for confronting

these practices is that our failure to do so will result in

a far less dynamic U.S. economy, which will weaken the

moral solvency of the example we set as a free society.

- Honorable Grant D. Aldonas

XV. Finally, a third amended complaint is necessary to revise

and strike those portions of the complaint that currently

require the alignment of Federal Prosecutors; and/or where

clarity in the Causes of Action was lacking.

Wherefore, for the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff

respectfully requests that this Court:

1. ALLOW the Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint.

51
 2. RECOGNIZE that the Plaintiff has secured a key witness,

who has agreed to testify in support of the Plaintiffs

allegations before a jury trial.

3. DENY - Defendants Motion(s) to Dismiss, and to bar

Defendants from filing similar motions until a third

amended complaint has been filed, and the Plaintiff has

been allowed the opportunity to establish the facts

through discovery.

4. RECONSIDER the Courts prior decision to assist with the

appointment of counsel, and agree that the Plaintiff has

met the requirements necessary for the appointment of

counsel.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Courts consideration of this

request.

Respectfully submitted,

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

52
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mohan A. Harihar, Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this

day. June 10, 2016, served the foregoing document upon all
parties, by electronically filing to all ECF registered parties
(Includes ALL Defendants).

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

53
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 9, 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
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

54