Mohan A.

Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

October 26, 2017

VIA US MAIL
United States District Court
Attn: Clerks Office
Suite 2300
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210

RE: HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109

Dear Clerk of the Court:

Enclosed, please find the following documents associated with

the referenced Docket:

1. Response to September 29, 2017 order;

2. Notice of Appeal.

Please note, as is explained within the enclosed RESPONSE, the

September 29, 2017 order is considered issued WITHOUT
jurisdiction, and an Act of TREASON under Article III, Section 3
of The United States Constitution. By receiving this document(s),
ALL parties within the Clerks office are hereby notified that you
are considered WITNESSES to the referenced act(s) of treason.
Please be advised, any person who has witnessed an act of treason
and fails to report it (or serve as witness) will be considered to
have committed MISPRISION of TREASON, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code
2382.

Due to the severity of these claims and its interpreted impact to

National Security, copies of these Court documents have
necessarily been delivered via email, social media, and/or US Mail
to: President Trump, Members of Congress, US Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, US Inspector General Michael Horowitz, The FBI, The House
Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Mohan A. Harihar
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 17-cv-11109
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant )
)

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 29, 2017 ORDER, BRINGING EVIDENCED

CLAIMS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AGAINST JUDGE DENISE J. CASPER
INCLUDING TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III

Disclosure Statement of the Plaintiff - The Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this RESPONSE to

the referenced judicial order with the following Disclosure statement:

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Civil Complaint AND in the RELATED

Appeal,1 include (but are not limited to) evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE

III Section 3 of the Constitution, Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832 and are

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 House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee,

1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-cv-1381 (Also,
lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
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.

The Plaintiff makes available to ALL parties receiving this filed Court document, the following

references:

1. Plaintiff RESPONSE to Judicial Order Issued August 11, 2017 (See Attachment A);

2. Judge Caspers Memorandum and Order of Dismissal, Document No.s 14 and 15

(See Attachment B), which is evidenced and interpreted as being issued WITHOUT

JURISDICTION, and therefore an ACT of TREASON under Article III.

After reviewing Document No.s 14 and 15 issued by Judge Denise J. Casper on September

29, 2017, the following legal interpretations are made, and it becomes necessary for the Plaintiff

to move forward with the following legal actions:

I. FAILURE to INITIATE Corrective Action and Required Judicial Discretion;

II. Judicial FRAUD on the COURT;

III. Plaintiff CLARIFICATION;

IV. Move for Dismissal is PREMATURE;

V. Plaintiff DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARING;

VI. Continued PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT;

VII. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT Necessarily Filed;

VIII. JURISDICTION ISSUES;

IX. ACT of TREASON Under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The US Constitution;

X. DEMAND for TRANSFER;

XI. CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION NECESSARY;

XII. CONCLUSION

I. FAILURE to INITIATE Corrective Action and Required Judicial Discretion While

the Memorandum to the order associated with Document No. 14 finally acknowledges the

financial status of the Plaintiff as indigent, it FAILS (at minimum) to accurately address and

make corrections to the following:

A. MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS IMPACTED BY RECUSAL Document No. 14

FAILS to accurately address the sua sponte RECUSAL of the preceding Judge

Allison Dale Burroughs. This ERROR by the District Court critically impacts not only

this complaint, but also the related Appeal No. 17-1381, Harihar v US Bank et al. The

Plaintiff has made it IRREFUTABLY CLEAR through his EVIDENCED

ARGUMENT(S), that Judge Burroughs recusal VOIDS ALL related orders, including

the DISMISSAL ORDER associated with Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Harihar v. US

Bank, et al. A THOROUGH REVIEW of the referenced docket will reveal the LIST

OF EVIDENCED ALLEGATIONS WHICH MADE RECUSAL UNAVOIDABLE

INCLUDING SIX (6) UNOPPOSED CLAIMS OF TREASON brought against

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. The Plaintiff is CERTAIN, that IF he was EVEN

SLIGHTLY incorrect with ANY of the misconduct claims brought against Judge

Burroughs, the Judge HERSELF would have immediately addressed the issue(s). She
 DID NOT and now, Judge Caspers inaccurate suggestion that the Plaintiff is merely

dissatisfied with an adverse decision(s), is not only FALSE, it should be alarming to

this Court, and ANY objective observer. Therefore, Judge Caspers FAILURE TO

PROPERLY ADDRESS AND VACATE ORDERS IMPACTED BY RECUSAL is

(at minimum) interpreted as a DUE PROCESS VIOLATION, showing cause for HER

recusal and for filing a judicial misconduct complaint.

B. Plaintiffs GOOD FAITH Efforts to Reach Mutual Agreement The Court, OR a

representative acting on behalf of The United States has failed to provide the Plaintiff

with a DOCUMENTED ANSWER regarding US intentions to reach a MUTUAL

AGREEMENT with the Plaintiff, as requested.

C. Failure to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915

In her order, Judge Casper states:

As to the Plaintiffs failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, he argues that he

should have court appointed counsel

Now, based on the collective reasons articulated within this docket and the related

litigation warranting assistance with the appointment of counsel,2 this statement shows

clear cause to question her judgement. The gross inaccuracy here by Judge Casper is

believed to demonstrate (at minimum) INTENT to keep a severe IMBALANCE of

HARDSHIPS, heavily weighing IN FAVOR of the Plaintiff. As with her predecessor

2
To reference a portion of the Plaintiffs reasons for requesting the Courts assistance with the
appointment of counsel, reference attachment A. Also reference the specific requests filed in
this docket, the related Appeal No, 17-1381 (including the Appellate Brief), and its lower court
Docket No. 15-cv-11880, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al.
 Judge Burroughs, and similarly with the related Appeal, Judge Caspers failure to

exercise warranted judicial discretion to assist the Plaintiff with the assignment of

counsel CLEARLY shows additional cause for her recusal and for filing a judicial

misconduct complaint. Here, Judge Casper shows INTENT to keep this pro se litigant at

a substantial legal disadvantage despite a TEXTBOOK example warranting

assistance with the appointment of counsel pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1915. This

refusal to assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel shows a failure to uphold

Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 and the judicial machinery of the court. It further exemplifies an

incremental act made in BAD FAITH - now by a TENTH (10th) officer of the Court

acting on behalf of The United States - ensuring fundamental unfairness that

impinges on the Appellants DUE PROCESS rights.

In the meantime, while he is forced to continue as a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff will

continue to charge The United States for his time until:

1. The Court has properly exercised its legal discretion and assisted this Plaintiff with

the appointment of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915;

2. The Plaintiff has been able to successfully secure counsel on his own;

3. A mutual agreement has been reached between Mr. Harihar and The United States.

The updated accrual for charged legal fees currently due to the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar,

if received on or before Friday, November 3, 2017 is $2,520,000 (Includes treble costs for

Acts considered to have been made in BAD FAITH).

D. Judicial Failures Warrant Amending the Original Complaint By failing to initiate

corrective action, Judge Caspers evidenced actions show cause to bring

INCREMENTAL claims against The United States including (at minimum):

1. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;

2. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

3. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

4. Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

5. Judicial FRAUD on the COURT claims;

6. Incremental CIVIL RICO Claims.

E. Denial to File Electronically Judge Casper fails to correct or even address her reason

for denying the Plaintiff the ability to file electronically without cause a process

designed to ease filing for both the Court as well as litigants. The argument can certainly

be made that by denying this procedural benefit only CONTRIBUTES to the Judges

referenced acts made in BAD FAITH.

F. Request(s) for Hearing and the Presence of a Court Reporter Plaintiff requests for a

hearing have been consistently IGNORED. Considering the enormity of evidence

supporting the ALL of the Plaintiffs claims (referencing also the related Appeal, and its

lower court docket), there is cause to question EXACTLY WHAT information Judge

Casper reviewed, and EXACTLY HOW she could have possibly reached her

conclusions. Therefore, the DEMAND for a hearing with the presence of an independent

court reporter is again respectfully made for documentation purposes as this matter is

necessarily prepared for presentation before a Congressional committee.

 G. Refusal to RECUSE In his August 11, 2017 Response (See Attachment A), the

Plaintiff had respectfully identified legal issues which, like her predecessor if left

uncorrected, warranted immediate recusal. However, NOT ONLY were these legal

issues left uncorrected, there has been NO RECUSAL. Therefore, it is interpreted that

incremental acts of judicial misconduct are now evidenced, indicating LOSS of

JURISDICTION as well as incremental VIOLATIONS to DUE PROCESS.

Furthermore, AS WITH HER PREDECESSOR, making a CONSCIOUS DECISION

to continue ruling WITHOUT jurisdiction is considered an Act of Treason under

Article III, Section 3 of The United States Constitution.

II. Judicial FRAUD on the Court By failing to initiate corrective action, Judge Casper

demonstrates the refusal to uphold Federal law(s), bringing now a claim of Judicial Fraud on

the Court. Synonymous with reasons which forced the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge

Allison Dale Burroughs, the interpretation of this order issued by Judge Casper instead

appears to (at least on its surface) use deceptive tactics to incorrectly re-write the

narrative of the Plaintiffs complaint. The order ignores primary issues, facts and the

specific details that irrefutably support the Plaintiffs collective claims against the

United States. Anyone who reads through the order WITHOUT REVIEWING THE

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS within this docket AND the related Appeal, is

incorrectly led to believe that no evidence of misconduct exists. Considering the enormity of

supporting evidence provided within both dockets, NOWHERE in the order does Judge

Casper address any specifics of how the Appellant reached his evidenced conclusions.

Instead, the referenced order reflects a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT, showing that a TENTH (10th) Officer of the Court acting on behalf of The
 United States has a disposition here to brush aside ALL motions to: 1.) Reach a corrupt

and pre-determined outcome, 2.) Keep this Plaintiff critically disadvantaged and 3.)

Do whatever it takes, including committing acts of Treason, to ensure that this

complaint never arrives at a JUST CONCLUSION. If these documented BAD FAITH

ACTIONS are left uncorrected, it will continue to re-affirm both the lack of integrity

within this United States District Court, and the corruptive variables including (but not

limited to) CONSPIRACY, that continue to be exposed at State and Federal levels.

III. PLAINTIFF Clarification After reviewing the judicial order associated with Document

No. 14, it becomes necessary for the Plaintiff to clarify for the record issues which are either

INNACCURATELY DESCRIBED or IGNORED ENTIRELY by Judge Casper:

A. Plaintiffs Disclosure Statement is Apparently IGNORED The Plaintiff has

intentionally prefaced many of his filed court documents with a disclosure statement to

INFORM the Court(s) of the gravity of legal issues (i.e. Acts of Treason, Economic

Espionage, etc.) believed to bare impact to the betterment of the United States as well

as National Security. The historical record(s) CLEARLY ARTICULATES exactly

how the Plaintiff has reached his VALID conclusions warranting such a disclosure. Here,

Judge Casper fails to make even a single reference to the disclosure and concerns for

personal safety, further reinforcing the arguments supporting judicial misconduct claims.

B. Relationship of This Complaint to HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-

1381) The Court is respectfully reminded that this complaint, while directly associated

with the claims in the referenced appeal Harihar v US Bank et al, is by law necessarily

filed as a SEPARATE complaint. The United States CANNOT be included with other

Defendants. Considering the enormity of evidence supporting this Plaintiffs consistent

 claims, there is cause to question EXACTLY HOW Judge Casper could possibly have

reached her conclusions, thus warranting a full investigation.

C. Evidenced CORRUPTION and CONSPIRACY CLAIMS The Plaintiff respectfully

makes clear for the record, that the collective actions now by TEN (10) Federal Judges

associated with this litigation reveals an EVIDENCED PATTERN OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT that warrants a FULL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. It now becomes

necessary to AMEND the Plaintiffs complaint, as Judge Caspers actions (or lack

thereof) add incrementally to existing corruption and conspiracy claims.

D. Plaintiffs Evidenced Claims Extend BEYOND the Federal Judiciary The

historical actions (or lack thereof) identified in ALL THREE (3) branches of

government individually and collectively shows (at minimum) an INTENT to damage/

misappropriate the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property (Trade Secret), and warrants the

existing complaint to include (but not be limited to) Federal Tort, Due Process, and Color

of Law Claims against the United States. Judge Caspers order not only ignores these

evidenced claims, but has failed to accept the Plaintiffs claims as FACT prior to a move

to DISCOVERY. Considering the enormity of supported facts contained within the

historical record(s), Judge Casper has certainly erred in her assessment.

Continuing to take shape is what appears to be a grand scheme of historic proportion to

ultimately prevent illegally foreclosed homeowners from recovering damages, and that

prevents the implementation of an economic framework that would certainly bring

historic growth to this Nation. Here, the evidenced claims of judicial misconduct are

likely to expose a Federal Judicial Scandal of historic proportion. As previously

evidenced, concerns also extend beyond this Federal Judiciary. Legislators who have
 been outspoken about the corruption within Wall Street, and who have direct

knowledge of the Plaintiffs evidenced claims, have been silent here, and the DOJ is

on record as saying they will not prosecute evidenced crimes committed against this

American Citizen. In the related litigation, the Plaintiff/Appellants official requests for

the Appointment of a Special Prosecutor, Assembly of a Grand Jury, and a FULL

criminal investigation has also been seemingly ignored. As an AMERICAN

CITIZEN, these actions are UNACCEPTABLE. Judge Caspers assessment here is

again inaccurate, deceptive and incomplete.

E. ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE - By failing to address claims alleging the

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage under (at minimum) 18

U.S.C. 1832, Judge Casper failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court,

exemplifying yet another reason why she has been disqualified by law to rule further

here. There is obviously increased concern when the Plaintiff continues to raise issues

believed to impact matters of National Security, and the presiding judge(s) offer NO

RESPONSE as indicated by the record(s).

F. Questioning the Integrity of the Court in her memorandum, Judge Casper states,

Litigants are understandably disappointed when they do not prevail in the court, but

that does not give them the license to attack the integrity of the judiciary.

Both here, and in the related litigation, this Plaintiff/Appellant has exposed evidenced

judicial misconduct involving now TEN (10) officers of the Court, THREE (3) of

whom stand accused of TREASON for continuing to issue orders after losing

jurisdiction. ALL of these evidenced allegations ALSO stand UNOPPOSED, as they are
 IRREFUTABLE, and are cemented in the historical record. This Plaintiff has shown

ABSOLUTE CAUSE to attack the integrity of this judiciary and certainly stands by

his evidenced decisions to do so.

IV. Move to Dismissal is both PREMATURE and IMPROPER - Here, the Plaintiff states

that Judge Casper has exemplified a 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. The collective reasons that clearly evidence judicial misconduct

within the record include (but are not limited to):

A. Judicial Prejudice/Bias;

B. Judicial Fraud on the Court;

C. Treason to the Constitution;

D. Refusal to Recuse;

E. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel;

F. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff;

G. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

H. Color of Law violations;

I. Conspiracy Claims

J. Obstruction of Justice

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

favoritism or antagonism does exist making fair judgment impossible. AS SIMILARLY

 EVIDENCED IN THE RELATED LITIGATION Judge Casper has consciously

refused to uphold federal law(s) and prematurely moved to dismissal. Therefore, it

would appear (at least on its surface) that elements of corruption may exist here, and

that an effort has been made now by a 10th officer of the court, to brush aside all

motions in order to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome.

V. DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARING As evidenced in Document No. 13, in

the related litigation Harihar v. US Bank et al, Appeal No. 17-1381, and its lower Court

Docket No. 15-cv-11880, the Plaintiff has respectfully made MULTIPLE REQUESTS for

a hearing(s) to clarify with the presence of an INDEPENDENT Court Reporter. ALL

requests have either been DENIED, IGNORED WITHOUT CAUSE, or now reveals this

ATTEMPT to WRONGFULLY AND PREMATURELY DISMISS.

Considering the enormity of evidence supporting ALL of the Plaintiffs claims, it becomes

necessary for documentation purposes, to have a more thorough understanding of exactly

HOW Judge Casper could possibly have arrived at her conclusions. ANY further denial

here to do so will only strengthen the Plaintiffs argument(s) demonstrating judicial

misconduct, conspiracy claims, etc.

VI. Continued PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT

The Plaintiffs collective interpretations of the historical record AND this referenced

order shows evidence supporting a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism DOES exist here

1.) In this District Court, 2.) The US Appeals Court AND 3.) As evidenced by the Judicial

Council of the First Circuit, making fair judgment in the First Circuit impossible. It would

appear (at least on its surface), that elements of CORRUPTION may exist here and that an
 effort is being made now by TEN (10) officers of the Court,3 to brush aside ALL

EVIDENCED ALLEGATIONS in order to reach a corrupt and pre- determined outcome.

ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would certainly agree, that a JUST OUTCOME here is

UNLIKELY.

VII. Judicial Misconduct Complaint Filed The refusal to uphold Federal law in itself

disqualifies Judge Casper from ruling further in this litigation. With the filing of this

response and by the clearly evidenced record(s) supporting ALL claims, the Plaintiff

necessarily files a tenth (10th) judicial misconduct complaint with the First Circuit

Executive, against District Court Judge Denise J. Casper (See Attachment D).

VIII. JURISDICTION - The conscious decision by Judge Casper NOT to uphold federal law

or her judicial oath automatically DISQUALIFIES her from ruling in this, or ANY related

litigation. Furthermore, the decision NOT to recuse OR initiate CORRECTIVE ACTION,

now brings JURISTICTION issues synonymous with those identified with her predecessor

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, who has RECUSED herself sua sponte. The Plaintiff

respectfully states for the record that the referenced Order of Dismissal associated with

Document No.s 14 and 15 is considered to be VOID, since Judge Denise J. Casper is

considered to NO LONGER HAVE JURISDICTION, and is therefore disqualified by law

to issue such an order.

3
The referenced TEN (10) 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, Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard and now District Court
Judge Denise J. Casper.
IX. ACT of TREASON Under ARTICLE III Section 3 - The referenced Order of Dismissal,

issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, signifies an Act of TREASON to the Constitution

under Article III, Section 3.

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 of treason, and may be engaged in extortion

and the interference with interstate commerce. Therefore, based on the Plaintiffs

interpretation of the law, under ARTICLE III Section 3 of The UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION, a claim(s) of TREASON to the Constitution is necessarily brought

against Judge Denise J. Casper. Any further attempt to issue additional orders without

jurisdiction will be considered INCREMENTAL acts of Treason. The President is also

notified, as is required by Federal law, and ALL parties receiving a copy of this response

including (but not limited to) the Clerk of the Court, to serve as witness. Please be

advised, any party who, after being made aware of an act of Treason refuses to serve as

witness will have committed MISPRISION of TREASON, under 18 U.S. Code 2382.

X. DEMAND for TRANSFER After a complete review of the historical record, it should

become ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, that a just outcome

in this District Court or First Circuit Appellate Court is unlikely. Therefore, the Plaintiff

respectfully demands a transfer of this docket to a different circuit where jurisdiction and

integrity are not questioned. The Plaintiff is well aware that a transfer to a different venue

will certainly bring additional costs to ALL parties. The Plaintiff himself is recognized by

this Court as INDIGENT. However, this Court is aware that the gravity of issues (including
 but not limited to Economic Espionage) addressed in this complaint (and related litigation)

impacts NOT ONLY the Plaintiff, but also the Economic betterment of THE UNITED

STATES.

XI. CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION NECESSARY - The continued PATTERN OF

CORRUPT CONDUCT evidenced by this federal judiciary warrants not only transfer, but

also immediate intervention by Congress, and the House Judiciary Committee. As evidenced

within the record(s), the Plaintiff still awaits a response from US Senator Elizabeth Warren

(D-MA) and US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA), who have been tasked with

bringing this matter - believed to impact National Security to the direct and immediate

attention of Congress.

XII. CONCLUSION

Based on the continued pattern of corrupt conduct exemplified on record by a tenth (10th) Federal

Judge, the Plaintiff respectfully calls for the Court to initiate the following actions:

1. Recognize that the Order of Dismissal issued by Judge Denise J. Casper is indeed VOID;

2. Recognize that As with the circumstances requiring Judge Burroughs recusal, Judge

Caspers failure to uphold Federal law REMOVES JURISDICTION and

DISQUALIFIES her from ruling further in this or ANY related litigation. The

referenced judicial misconduct claims evidenced here also warrant amending the original
 complaint to include (at minimum) the following INCREMENTAL claims against The

United States:

a. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law;

b. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

c. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

d. Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

e. Failure to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915;

f. Failure to uphold 18 U.S.C. 1832;

g. Incremental Civil RICO Claims;

3. Re-stablish Jurisdiction;

4. Finally Assist the Plaintiff with the Appointment of Counsel;

5. Instruct the Treasury Department to timely issue reimbursement to the Plaintiff for legal

fees as charged. The updated accrual currently due to the Plaintiff if received on or before

Friday, November 3, 2017 is $2,520,000 (Includes treble costs for Acts considered to

have been made in BAD FAITH).

6. Provide a documented ANSWER for the record, stating The United States intentions

for seeking agreement with the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar;

7. Pending the answer regarding The United States intentions, arrange for TRANSFER of

this litigation to another circuit, and CONFIRM the official notification of Congress.

8. Seek a FULL Criminal Investigation

9. Based on the historical record associated with this and related litigation, the Plaintiff has

documented VALID concerns that raise serious DOUBT as to whether corrective action

will be timely implemented. Therefore, in conjunction with filing this Plaintiff

 RESPONSE, a NOTICE of APPEAL is additionally filed to address ALL orders of

Judge Casper which remain in question.

Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this court document to the

President, the email from The White House confirming receipt is attached (See Attachment C).

If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this RESPONSE, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with

the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 26th Day of October, 2017,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 17-cv-11109
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant )
)

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO ORDER ISSUED AUGUST 11, 2017

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully DISAGREES with the Court Order

issued by Judge Denise J. Casper. If left uncorrected, it will (at minimum) show cause for the

Plaintiff to bring a tenth (10th) judicial misconduct complaint against an officer of the Court

acting on behalf of The United States. After identifying a number of serious issues, the Plaintiff

now files this RESPONSE before the September 1st, 2017 deadline, prefaced also by the

following DISCLOSURE:

I. Disclosure Statement of the Plaintiff - The Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this response

to Judge Caspers order with the following Disclosure statement:

 A. The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this complaint against The United

States and in the RELATED Appeal,4 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 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.

B. NEW Judicial Misconduct Complaints are now filed against eight (8) additional

Federal judges. Please be advised - the evidenced allegations supporting these

judicial misconduct complaints are directly related to this complaint, and (at

minimum) show cause to EXPAND upon existing CONSPIRACY CLAIMS against

The United States. BY THEMSELVES, the evidenced allegations now against a

total of NINE (9) officers of the court acting on behalf of The United States -

further validates the Plaintiffs argument for assistance with the appointment of

counsel. The Court is respectfully reminded that Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

has RECUSED herself from THIS LITIGATION based on the evidenced

4
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK, et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (First
Circuit).
 allegations brought against her in the related Docket, HARIHAR v. US BANK, et

al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. Re-stating that ANY failure to take CORRECTIVE

action here will show cause: to bring a tenth (10th) judicial misconduct complaint

against Judge Casper and call for her recusal.

C. Congressional Intervention A 2nd formal request has been successfully delivered

to the direct attention of US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and US

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA), requesting that they bring these evidenced

judicial misconduct claims to the IMMEDIATE attention of Congress, the House

Judiciary Committee, and the President. A copy of the delivered email

communication is attached as reference, and includes the newly filed judicial

misconduct complaint against eight (8) Federal judges and also the recently filed

Appellant Brief (Harihar v. US Bank et al, Appeal No. 17-1381). (See Attachment

A)

II. FTCA Claim(s) against the United States Typically, the government is liable for the

operations of federal agencies and employees. Both terms are defined by statute

found at 28 USC 2671. Federal agencies associated with any of the three branches of

the government are responsible under the act. 28 USC 2674 states that the United

States shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual

under like circumstances. 28 USC 1346 (b) states the basis for claims as the

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any government employee while acting within

the scope of his employment. Consequently, virtually every kind of negligence action

that could be brought against private individuals can be maintained against the

government whether based on misfeasance or nonfeasance.

 Here, the historical actions (or lack thereof) identified in ALL THREE (3) branches of

government individually and collectively shows (at minimum) an INTENT to damage

the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, and warrants the existing complaint to include (but

not be limited to) Federal Tort, Due Process, and Color of Law Claims against the

United States.

III. Jurisdiction First, it SHOULD be clear, that the legal complexity of bringing an FTCA

complaint against the United States in itself warrants the assistance with the appointment

of counsel. Here, the record reveals that the Plaintiff has been clear, with notifying all

three (3) branches of government of his intention to file suit. Despite multiple attempts

(through the Court, and all three branches of government) requesting an updated status of

the filed FTCA claim(s), none was provided. Also, no denial letter was received after six

(6) months had elapsed - Therefore, the Plaintiff is considered to have exhausted all

administrative remedies.

IV. Summary (Overview of FACTS) The Plaintiff respectfully provides a list of FACTS,

either evidenced as part of the historical record, OR which can be produced during the

DISCOVERY phase. SHOULD this Court PREMATURELY decide to dismiss this

complaint PRIOR to discovery, it will show cause for (at minimum) recusal, and for

filing a tenth (10th) judicial misconduct complaint. The following is merely a fractional

list of the facts which support the Plaintiffs consistent claim(s):

A. The Plaintiffs property was identified as an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE by the

Department of Justice, Federal Bank Regulators, and the Massachusetts Office of

the Attorney General. This illegal foreclosure was one (1) of 4.2M identified
 NATIONWIDE, as part of the US FORECLOSURE CRISIS;

B. The US FORECLOSURE CRISIS is identified by many as the LARGEST CASE

OF FRAUD IN US HISTORY;

C. While trying to save his home, the Plaintiff created a plan that he believed would

achieve this goal (known as - The HARIHAR FCS Model). The Plaintiff made this

plan his Intellectual Property (IP), believing that if implemented as a template

across 4.2M illegal foreclosures, would help repair the immense damages suffered

from the crisis AND in addition, bring an estimated $5T in economic growth to the

US;

D. Over the past several years, the Plaintiff SUCCESSFULLY presented this plan to

multiple government offices including (but not limited to):

1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) per the specific request of Vice

President, Joe Biden (Obama Administration);

2. The House Financial Services Committee Presented directly to the Deputy

Chief Counsel (former) Gail Laster;

3. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) presented to Senior Economic

Advisor, Bruno Freitas;

4. US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) presented to former Director,

Brian Martin;

5. Attorney General Michael Delaney (Former) (R-NH);

6. Attorney General Martha Coakley (Former) (D-MA) presented to Senior

Policy Advisors Jennifer Stark and Britte McBride;

E. The Plaintiffs IP is considered a Trade Secret, where the MISAPPROPRIATION

 of a Trade Secret is protected under the Economic Espionage Act pursuant to 18

U.S.C. 1832;

F. The Department of Justice is on record as REFUSING to prosecute the related

CRIMINAL components to the related complaint(s);

G. Legislators with: (1) first-hand knowledge of the Plaintiffs IP; (2) this litigation; and

(3) who have been critical of the Corruption within Wall street, are suddenly silent,

ignoring potential risks to National Security and failing to inform Congress of these

potential threats;

H. Evidenced judicial misconduct is well documented against nine (9) Federal Judges

related to this litigation; Aside from the FTCA Claims, the Plaintiff seeks to

hold a judge(s) liable for judicial acts, and can CONCLUSIVELY show that either

(1) that the judge(s) was not functioning in a judicial capacity, or (2) the judge(s)

has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

I. A THOROUGH REVIEW of the historical record will reveal a pattern of corrupt

conduct and the appearance of a scheme defining outrageous government conduct

collectively within ALL three branches.

V. Unnecessary Judicial Delay Since filing this complaint against The United States on

June 14, 2017, and the recusal of Judge Burroughs five (5) days later, the Plaintiff

necessarily brings claims of unnecessary judicial delay regarding the following:

A. Judge Caspers Order Fails to Address Motion to VACATE Orders following

RECUSAL Respectfully, this Court is well-aware of the relationship between this

complaint against The United States, and the ongoing Appeal No. 17-1381

Harihar v. US Bank et al. Judge Burroughs sua sponte recusal from this litigation -
 three (3) days after assignment on June 19, 2017, SHOULD HAVE initiated action

from this District Court to address any RELATED orders or judgements impacted by

recusal. One (1) MONTH later, with NO ACTION taken by this District Court, The

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Vacate Orders on July 19, 2017. As indicated in the

Plaintiffs Motion, all orders associated with the related Docket No. 15-cv-11880,

Harihar v. US Bank et al, must now be considered as VOID, INCLUDING the

dismissal order of the referenced complaint. The issued order by Judge Casper fails to

make ANY reference to the Plaintiffs motion to vacate orders, and now more than

ten (10) weeks following recusal, no corrective action has been taken by the

District Court. The Plaintiff does not believe this is by accident, and this

evidenced and unnecessary judicial delay (at minimum) brings increased

hardship to this Plaintiff; further strengthens the argument for assistance with

the appointment of counsel; and negatively impacts the related Appeal No. 17-

1381. Respectfully, ANY failure by this Court to implement CORRECTIVE action

here to VOID/VACATE related orders/judgements impacted by recusal will show

cause: to bring a tenth (10th) judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Casper; for

the judges recusal; for an update to Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, and

other referenced offices/agencies including the Executive Office of The President

(EOP).

B. Denying Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915 By just reading through the six (6) page order issued by Judge Casper, ANY

OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would conclude that the complexity of issues raised

warrants this Court to assist the Plaintiff with the assignment of counsel. It would
appear (at least on its surface) that Judge Casper HAS NOT accepted the Plaintiffs

claims as true/factual prior to Discovery, and is attempting to prematurely (and

unfairly) move towards dismissal. There are a number of issues which question

exactly how Judge Casper arrived at her decision to refuse counsel, and suggests a

failure to exercise legally required discretion. They include (at minimum):

1. The Plaintiff has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND and does not have the financial

means to retain counsel. Both of these FACTS have been recognized by this

District Court and the Appeals Court.

2. Based on the claims listed in the submitted SF-95 form and the additional/

expanded allegations raised against the United States since, legal expertise is

required in the following areas in order to proceed in a FAIR and BALANCED

manner - ultimately in the PURSUIT OF JUSTICE (including, but not limited

to):

a. Violations to the Due Process Clause;

b. Color of Law Violations;

c. Civil/Criminal RICO Violations;

d. Federal Tort Claims;

e. Treason to the Constitution;

f. Fraud on the Court (Judicial);

g. Judicial Misconduct;

h. Evidenced Acts made in BAD FAITH;

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

j. Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic

 Espionage;

k. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;

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

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

Crisis;

m. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law;

n. Litigation involving State and Federal Government;

o. US District Court Trial Court Litigation;

p. Civil Conspiracy Claims;

q. Obstruction of Justice Claims.

3. When the United States is the OPPOSING PARTY (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.

4. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim The historical record clearly articulates the

Plaintiffs reasoning for each portion of the four-factor test, including success on
 the merits;

5. Position to investigate crucial facts;

6. 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;

7. 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.;

8. 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.

9. 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 here, in what many would certainly consider as a

TEXTBOOK case example.

C. Violation(s) to Due Process In the related complaint, Harihar v US Bank et al., the

decision made by Judge Burroughs not to disqualify herself, brings a 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 herself as

required by law, the judge has given another example of her "appearance of
 partiality" which, possibly, shows cause for further disqualification. The judges

decision to later recuse here sua sponte, and for the exact same reasons, reaffirms

the violation to Due Process (and all other) judicial misconduct claims. The collective

actions evidenced by the Department of Justice, the Judicial Council, Chief Justice

Howard, and the presiding judges of the appeal, add incrementally to violate due

process rights. Ignoring these facts here will again (at minimum) show cause for

unnecessary delay, incremental Due Process Violations, and call for recusal.

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 of treason, and

may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

D. Color of Law Violations (18 U.S. Code 242) have long been alleged throughout the

history of this litigation involving: The Massachusetts State Judicial System; the

Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office (including, but not limited to evidenced RICO

allegations); and the Massachusetts Inspector Generals Office. Now, Due Process/Color

of Law allegations involving the United States must additionally be addressed, based on

the actions (or inaction) of the following Parties/Agencies/Department(s)/Office(s): Judge

Allison D. Burroughs; previously identified District and Circuit judges; The Department

of Justice, The US Inspector Generals Office, and The Executive Office of the President

(Obama Administration, Reference Document No. 121 Plaintiff Response to Order

(Doc. No. 120) and Call for Recusal). In addition to the allegations against Judge
 Burroughs, Pages 11-12 gives a general overview of historical FACTS, revealing that this

Plaintiff has been betrayed not only by the Bank Defendants, but also by the

Commonwealth and the United States on multiple levels. The Courts assistance with

the appointment of Counsel is CLEARLY both warranted and necessary. The Plaintiff

believes that a successfully asserted Due Process/Color of Law claim will likely reflect

(at minimum) the collective appearance of a scheme defining outrageous government

conduct.

E. Denial to File Electronically The Plaintiff addresses the DENIAL Order issued after

nine (9) weeks and without cause, refusing to allow the Plaintiff to use the Courts

Electronic filing system (ECF). It is unclear exactly how Judge Casper reached her

decision here, in what is ordinarily considered as a procedural formality to ease the filing

of court documents and to provide litigants with immediate notification of any new

developments via email. The Court IS AWARE, that ECF Filing/Notification is currently

granted by both this US District Court, and also the US Court of Appeals, to the Plaintiff;

in the related Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Harihar v. US Bank, et al; and Appeal No. 17-1381.

The has been NO reason or cause to suspend or revoke this privilege from the

Plaintiff/Appellant. Similarly, there is no reason to do so here.

IF the motion to file electronically had rightfully (and timely) been granted, an email

would have been received on August 11, 2017, immediately notifying the Plaintiff.

Instead, the order was received by mail on August 18, 2017 ONE WEEK LATER, and

taking away an entire week for a pro se litigant to respond by the court-ordered deadline

of September 1, 2017. Based on the historical record, theres cause to suggest that
 denying the use of ECF (without cause) was intentional, to further impact the

imbalance of hardship weighing heavily in favor of the Plaintiff. At minimum, it

reveals an incremental ACT of BAD FAITH by a tenth (10th) officer of the Court,

acting on behalf of The United States. Left uncorrected, it: (1) Shows an act of

prejudice/bias by Judge Casper, and grounds for RECUSAL pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

455(a) and 28 U.S.C. 144; (2) Shows cause to expand upon existing claims of judicial

misconduct claims against The United States; (3) Clearly reinforces the complexity of

issues thus warranting assistance with the appointment of counsel; and (4) Re-affirms that

the integrity of this US District Court is indeed compromised, warranting the attention of

Congress.

VI. Reimbursement for Accruing Costs and Legal Fees - The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar,

respectfully seeks the reimbursement of costs and fees from the United States, following

referenced action(s) of record alleged to have been made in BAD FAITH.

Per 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) - Any judgment against the United States or any agency

and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity for fees and

expenses of attorneys pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid as provided in sections

2414 and 2517 of this title, except that if the basis for the award is a finding that the

United States acted in bad faith, then the award shall be paid by any agency found to

have acted in bad faith and shall be in addition to any relief provided in the judgment.

The resulting impact of these BAD FAITH acts has (at minimum): caused increased

hardship to an already indigent Plaintiff; critically jeopardized the Plaintiffs complaint

 moving forward; and has potentially damaged the intended (and substantial) economic

benefit to the United States.5 The Plaintiff makes clear that the costs and fees sought here

are considered separate from damages sought in the original complaint. A breakdown of

the still accruing legal fees is as follows:

A. Legal Fees The referenced bad faith acts made by the United States have played a role

in ensuring that this Plaintiff is unable to secure experienced legal counsel. Clearly, if

Judge Casper had rightfully assisted with the Plaintiffs request(s) to appoint counsel, it is

likely that this legal process would be constructively farther along than it is now. Instead,

an officer of the Court acting on behalf of The United States, wrongfully forces this

Plaintiff to continue with the monumental task of proceeding as a pro se litigant.

The Plaintiffs time should be considered no less valuable than that of opposing counsel.

EAJA6 allows awards of attorneys fees against the United States - 28 U.S.C. 2412(b),

and makes the United States liable for the prevailing partys attorneys fees to the same

extent that any other party would be under the common law and statutory exceptions to

the American rule, including the statutory exceptions that do not specifically authorize

fee awards against the United States. This provision, unlike the rest of EAJA, contains

no limitations on the assets or number of employees of parties eligible to recover fees,

and no maximum hourly rate for fee awards.

5
The referenced Economic benefit to the United States is tied to the Plaintiffs Intellectual
Property, known as the Harihar FCS Model.
6
EAJA The Equal Access to Justice Act
Breakdown of Legal Fees It should come as no surprise, based on the amount of

complex legal issues involved, that it would be considered well beyond a full-time job for

a TEAM of highly-skilled/experienced attorneys to handle the legal tasks at hand let

alone a single pro se litigant who is not an attorney. The only legal experience Mr.

Harihar has is this legal battle, which has exceeded six (6) years of litigation between

State, and now Federal Court(s). The legal fees sought here will only apply to hours

associated to time spent on this Federal Docket.

Legal Hours The begin date for counting legal hours is set as the filing date of the

complaint, June 14, 2017. The Plaintiff has far exceeded 40 hours per week learning/

studying the law, preparing arguments, reviewing cases, etc., to the best of his ability in

this monumental task. For the purpose of this LEGAL FEES submission, legal hours will

be capped at 40 hours per week. Calculating total weeks with a begin date of June 14,

2017 thru week ending September 9, 2017, is a total of thirteen (13) weeks.

Hourly Rate The Plaintiff is open to having additional discussion regarding a set

hourly rate. However, based on the number of complex issues at hand, it should be clear

that enhanced fees are warranted, and should not be set to the EAJA cap limit. Due to the

complexity of legal issues associated with this case, the Plaintiff sets the requested hourly

rate for reimbursement at $1000 per hour.

 Calculation of Total Legal Hours thru week ending 9/9/17 Multiplying: 13 (total

weeks) x 40 (hours per week) x $1000 (rate per hour) = $520,000 (USD). Since this

involves acts made in bad faith, triple costs are assessed, bringing a total of $1,560,000

(USD). The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that legal fees will continue to accrue

and be charged to the United States beyond week ending 9/9/17 until: 1.)

Experienced legal counsel has been secured by the Plaintiff with the assistance of the

Court; 2.) The Plaintiff is financially able to retain counsel following the initial

reimbursement of legal fees; or 3.) A mutual agreement is reached between the Plaintiff

and the United States.

VII. Motion to File IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP) As indicated in the original motion, the

First Circuit Court of Appeals has acknowledged the indigence of the Plaintiff/Appellant,

thus granting permission to proceed IFP. Since the Plaintiff has no legal background, he

believed that the same format would be considered acceptable by the lower Court. The

Plaintiff will now complete (and sign) the provided IFP AO 240 form and along with this

REPLY, re-submit as a NEW motion, his request to proceed In Forma Pauperis.

VIII. Request for Hearing and the Presence of a Court Reporter SHOULD there be a

failure to implement corrective action here, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that a

hearing be scheduled, so that Judge Casper can provide thorough clarification as

documentation for the record, and for the review of Congress. The Plaintiff also requests

that a court reporter be present for the hearing.

IX. Plaintiffs Good Faith Effort(s) to Reach a Mutual Agreement The historical record

will certainly show that this Plaintiff has made numerous efforts, ALL IN GOOD

FAITH, to reach a mutual agreement with ALL PARTIES. The Plaintiff respectfully
 extends this same effort here to reach a mutual agreement IN GOOD FAITH with The

United States.

X. Conclusion For the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff has shown cause why this

complaint should NOT be dismissed, and the record reveals that all administrative

remedies have been exhausted. Prior to moving forward, the Plaintiff requests that this

Court, or a representative acting on behalf of The United States provide

CLARIFICATION as to whether The United States wishes to seek mutual agreement

here.

Pending clarification, the Plaintiff has made clear that the Judges order in part,

exemplifies acts made in bad faith, showing cause to file a tenth (10th) judicial

misconduct complaint and call for recusal. As with the related complaint, the Plaintiff

respectfully offers a single opportunity to implement corrective action here. That

includes:

A. Granting the motion to VACATE/VOID all related orders/judgments following the

recusal of Judge Burroughs;

B. Granting the Plaintiff permission to file electronically;

C. Reimbursement of Legal fees totaling $1,560,000 upon successfully receiving

reimbursement from the Treasury Department, the Plaintiff will be in a financial

position to pay the required fee to the Court. If necessary, the completed IFP form is

also submitted as requested, RE-STATING that in the related complaint, both the

District Court and the Appeals Court both recognize the Plaintiff as INDIGENT;

D. Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel the Court is respectfully reminded that

legal fees will continue to accrue until;

 1. A mutual agreement is reached, or;

2. The Plaintiff has successfully secured council on his own or with the assistance of

the court.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Courts consideration of this very serious, and sensitive matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

 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;
 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)

 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 ____________________________
 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;
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_______
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
 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.

4. Name of Complainant: MOHAN A. HARIHAR___________________________

Contact Address: 7124 Avalon Drive_____________________________________
Acton, MA 01720______________________________________
Daytime telephone: (617) 921.2526_________________________________________
5. Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge Denise J. Casper___________________________
Court: US District Court (MA)

6. 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: 17-cv-11109 and related to Docket No. 15-cv-11880, and
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. ________________________________________

6. Statement of Facts

The Plaintiff/Complainant identifies evidenced judicial misconduct now by a Tenth (10th) officer
of the Court, and respectfully submits the attached court document (Document No. 16) Plaintiff
Response to September 29, 2017 Order, for a detailed explanation of the claim(s).

7. 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____________________