Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant )
) Case No. 17-2074
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Defendant/Appellee )
The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the Civil Complaint against THE UNITED
STATES, this associated Appeal, 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 MOTION are sent via email, social media
and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector
Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight
1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-cv-1381 (Also,
lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made
evidenced acts of misconduct (alleged). Parties are additionally informed for documentation
purposes, and out of the Appellants continued concerns for his personal safety/security.
JURISDICTION here remains an issue This Court is respectfully reminded that evidenced
(and UNOPPOSED) judicial misconduct claims stand against TEN (10) officers of the First
Circuit Court (both the District and Appellate Courts). Here in the US Court of Appeals, the
evidenced record indicates that the following Circuit Judges are DISQUALIFIED BY LAW to
Please be advised should there be a ruling on this motion by any one of the referenced judges,
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of The Constitution. ALREADY, Treason claims
(one count each) stand unopposed against Chief Justice Howard and Judge Kayatta. It should
also be noted that the filed judicial misconduct complaints in part, were filed due to the
assisting Mr. Harihar with the appointment of counsel. Once jurisdiction has been re-established,
the presiding Circuit Judges should be familiar with the totality of legal issues warranting
such a motion both here in this complaint against The United States, AND in the related
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
complaint, HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No, 17-1381, Lower Court Docket No. 15-
cv-11880).
COMES NOW the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, who respectfully requests the
Courts assistance with the appointment of counsel, based (at minimum) on the following
reasons:
1. The Appellant has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND and does not have the financial means
to retain counsel. Both of these FACTS have been recognized by the US District 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 (at
g. Judicial Misconduct;
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
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.
6. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented by
7. Capability of the Appellant 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 Court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s) raises. When
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
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
9. While the Appellant 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.
representing him from the beginning whether with, or without the assistance of the Court,
this litigation would be in the position it finds itself in now. It is FAR MORE LIKELY
that by now, the process would STILL be in the lower court, well past the Discovery phase,
just resolution. It is also entirely plausible, that by now a settlement agreement between
Mr. Harihar and THE UNITED STATES, would have been reached.2
10. By thus far refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not only
caused increased hardship to the Appellant, but has also WASTED (collectively) over two
(2) years of the litigants and the Courts time. The Appellants time should be considered
no less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly evidenced FACTS
demonstrate ACT(S) of BAD FAITH, made by the United States against this Appellant.
The Appellant has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the reimbursement for
COSTS and FEES (Reference Document No. 16), and has yet to receive a timely
2
It should be noted, that in the lower court, The United States DID NOT file opposition to the
Plaintiffs request(s) for assistance with the appointment of Counsel.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
payment from the United States Treasury Department. The United States has
respectfully been informed, that (at minimum) the referenced legal fees will continue to
c. A MUTUAL AGREEMENT has been reached between Mr. Harihar and The
United States.
11. Appellants Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own For over six (6) years,
the Appellant has reached out to a countless number of law firms, in an effort to secure and
retain legal counsel. These efforts have been unsuccessful, not because the claims lack
a. Conflict of interest;
COMPLAINT THAT HAS MERIT - The Appellant has found that many law
firms are fearful that if they choose to represent him, they are CERTAIN to face
12. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon
existing claims against the United States. The Appellants filed complaint brings multiple
claims against the United States. The Court is aware that ALL three (3) branches of
government previously received notice of the Appellants legal intentions, including the
required SF-95 form. The Appellant (through related litigation) previously offered the
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
United States opportunities to seek agreement, with multiple efforts (unsuccessful) through
the District court to get a response. Counsel is needed to assist with addressing these issues,
the Appellant with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon existing
Based on the reasons stated within, the Appellant respectfully requests the following actions by
this Court:
1. That this Appellate Court exercise warranted judicial discretion and ASSIST the
Appellant with the appointment of counsel. The Appellant is certainly willing to consider
2. VALIDATE the referenced Act(s) of Bad Faith by the lower Court, denying assistance
with appointment of counsel and also IGNORING the Appellants demand(s) for a
clarification hearing;
3. Upon validation, APPROVING the reimbursement of accruing COSTS and FEES owed
to the Appellant, and notifying the Treasury Department to TIMELY issue payment to the
Appellant.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this document to the President, the email
from The White House confirming receipt is attached (See Attachment A) with the filed Court
copy. If this Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief that this Motion: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported
law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely
have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
Attachment A
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117219700 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/08/2017 Entry ID: 6130731
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 8, 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:
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com