Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-2074
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Appellee )
)

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DAMAGES PURSUANT TO

FED. R. APP. P. 31(c), AND FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (4), (6)

The Appellant respectfully prefaces this legal document with the following Disclosure:

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

General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, members of the US

Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight

Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made

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: 00117263728 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS.

Parties are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s

continued concerns for personal safety/security.

COMES NOW the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar who respectfully brings to this Court the

following issues:

I. Failure to TIMELY file APPELLEE BRIEF with the Court pursuant to FED. R.

APP. P. Rule 31(a)(1);

II. Evidenced RICO claims against the US Attorneys Office (MA);

III. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the FBI and MA AGO Against

Appellees/Defendants in Related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et

al;

IV. Forthcoming CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS to be Filed with the FBI Against

Referenced Officers of the Court;

V. JURISDICTION;

VI. OTHER EVIDENCED CLAIMS Supporting Motion to Vacate Dismissal w/

Damages;

VII. Appellant’s Good Faith Opportunity to Seek Agreement

VIII. Move to VACATE Dismissal Order with Damages

I. Failure to TIMELY file APPELLEE BRIEF

Under FED. R. APP. P. Rule 31(a)(1), The Appellee must serve and file a brief within

30 days after the appellant's brief is served. The Appellant timely filed his Brief with this
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

Court as required under Rule 31 on January 29, 2018. Therefore, the Appellee brief for

The United States was due on or before February 28, 2018. No Appellee Brief was

filed. Under FED. R. APP. P. Rule 31(c), Consequence of Failure to File – “An

appellee who fails to file a brief will not be heard at oral argument unless the court

grants permission.”

On March 1, 2018, and ONLY AFTER time had expired to file their Appellee Brief, a

SECOND Asst. US Attorney – Mary B. Murrane filed an APPEARANCE with the Court

as representing counsel for the Appellee.2 Shortly after filing an appearance, counsel filed

a NOTICE with the court which stated the following:

“Our office is aware that the appellant in the above-captioned case has filed a brief.

Please note that the federal defendant-appellee, the United States, was not served in the

District Court case from which this appeal arises. Therefore, the federal defendant-

appellee does not intend to file a responsive brief.”

There are several issues to address here. First, the Appellee has had months to inform

the Court of ANY concerns since the complaint was first filed with the District Court in

June of 2017 and certainly since the Notice of Appeal was filed with this Court in

October 2017. AT NO TIME, since filing an appearance as representing counsel for the

2
Please note: Asst. US Attorney – Dina M. Chaitowitz is the initial counsel for Appellee – The
United States. Also, the printed name for Attorney Murrane - as it appears on the appearance
sheet is different from the signature, with a middle initial “M”. The Court of Appeals BAR
Number – 108070.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

Appellee – has Asst. US Attorney Dina M. Chaitowitz filed ANY concerns with this

Court, or the lower District Court. Attempts to do so now should be considered MOOT

as their timeline has since EXPIRED. The attempt at this late stage exemplifies (at

minimum) GROSS NEGLIGENCE by the US Attorney’s Office.

Second, to ENSURE that Appellee, The United States was thoroughly (and

necessarily) updated, the Appellant has consistently communicated to the Court(s) via a

PREFACED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT(S), that copies of referenced Court

documents were being delivered via – certified mail, email communication and/or social

media to the following offices/agencies:

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

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG);

4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

5. Members of Congress (Both House and Senate);

6. House Judiciary Committee;

7. House Oversight Committee.

The gravity of issues involved has led to additionally informing: 8.) The Office of the

Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP); 9.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); 10.) The Federal Trade

Commission (FTC); 11.) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and 12.) The Office of

the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). ALL documents are made available to the
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

PUBLIC. Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE for failing to TIMELY communicate

ANY Appellee concern.

Third, ANY failure by the District Court to issue necessary communication meant for

the Appellee – The United States, also (at minimum) indicates NEGLIGENCE on behalf

of the Court and adds incrementally to the PLETHORA of evidenced claims brought

against this Federal Judiciary. These evidenced claims include (but are not limited to):

Lack of JURISDICTION, TREASON under ARTICLE III, Economic Espionage,

matters interpreted as impacting National Security, and others. Clearly, ANY

perceived error here – IN NO WAY is the fault of the Appellant. By filing this Notice of

record, the US Attorney’s Office has provided additional support for Vacating the

referenced Dismissal Order with damages.3 IF – AND ONLY AFTER vacating the

dismissal and awarding the Appellant FULL damages - the Appellee wishes to file a

NEW complaint, it is certainly within their rights to do so.

II. Evidenced RICO claims against the US Attorney’s Office (MA)

This Court is respectfully reminded that in the list of evidenced claims brought against

Appellee – The United States (through the US Attorney’s Office) and the Massachusetts

Attorney General’s Office - stand accused of COLLUDING with Bank Attorneys who

represent, or have represented the financial institutions - Wells Fargo and US Bank. The

Appellant calls for: 1.) this Court, 2.) Congress, 3.) EVERY copied office/agency

AND 4.) the Public to reference Attachment A, the West LegalEdcenter© continuing

3
Reference the Emergency Motion to Vacate with Damages Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
60(b)(3), (4) AND (6), filed 12/23/2018.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

education course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts.” This IRREFUTABLE evidence of

COLLUSION shows cause for bringing Civil/Criminal RICO Violations (at minimum

18 U.S. Code § 1964) here against the Appellee – The United States (also in the related

litigation against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). Here, it would appear (at least

on its surface) that the US Attorney’s Office is making a concerted effort to avoid

accountability for these evidenced claims.

III. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the FBI and MA AGO Against

Appellees/Defendants in Related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al

This Court is hereby notified that on February 21, 2018, the Appellant filed with the FBI

and MA AGO - criminal complaints against ALL Appellees/Defendants associated with

Appeal No. 17-1381. The newly filed and/or updated complaints address evidenced

criminal misconduct claims associated with the related civil complaint(s), which

ultimately impact this Appeal. After filing motions with this Court requesting

clarification,4 the Appellant is now waiting for detailed (and timely) responses for the

record – from BOTH the US Attorney’s Office and the MA AGO, regarding their

intentions to bring CRIMINAL charges (Federal and State) against referenced

Appellees/Defendants.

IV. Forthcoming CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS to be Filed with the FBI Against

Referenced Officers of the Court

The Appellant has evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, a continuous and still growing

PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by this Federal Judiciary, who have (at

4
Reference the Motion filed 3/4/18 requesting Clarification from the US Attorney’s Office,
and on 3/5/18 requesting Clarification from AG Maura Healey.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

minimum): 1.) refused to correct erred judgments, 2.) refused to uphold federal law

3.) refused to uphold their judicial oath and 4.) appear determined to cause

additional harm to the Appellant. Aside from completely ignoring evidenced Acts of

Treason, Economic Espionage and matters of National Security, this Judiciary has

failed to even acknowledge the Appellant’s Constitutional Rights and continued

concerns for his personal safety and security. Despite the Appellant’s continued pleas

in his Disclosure statement, NOWHERE in the record(s) is there ever a response or

acknowledgment by the Court. When an AMERICAN-BORN CITIZEN can NO

LONGER TRUST OR FEEL SAFE in the presence of a Federal Judiciary, or

Federal/State Prosecutors - that’s a problem. Therefore, in addition to the evidenced

judicial misconduct complaints of record it now becomes necessary to file CRIMINAL

COMPLAINTS with the FBI against referenced Officers of the Court.

As clearly articulated within the Court record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the

Court that the referenced Dismissal Order is considered VOID. Should it become

necessary for this complaint(s) to return to the lower Court, the Appellant reserves the

right to add by amendment, additional defendants who bear responsibility for these

evidenced (and any NEW) claims.

V. JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction here CLEARLY remains an issue – NOT ONLY with this Appeal, but also

with the related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al. Since initiating

litigation in the Federal Court, this Appellant has filed OVER FIFTY (50) Court

documents which raise a jurisdiction issue(s). As indicated by the record – ALL have

been IGNORED. As evidenced by the record(s), there are now TEN (10) Federal
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

(Circuit and District) Court Judges who stand accused of judicial misconduct, who have

LOST JURISDICTION to rule in THIS, OR ANY RELATED litigation. The Court is

respectfully reminded that US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs –

RECUSED herself from THIS lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109. Based on the

evidenced record (including documented judicial misconduct complaints of record),

the list of referenced Federal Judges who are believed to NO LONGER have jurisdiction

include the following:

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Recused);

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper;

3. US Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard (First Circuit)

4. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella – presiding over THIS Appeal (and the

related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al);

5. US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr. - presiding over THIS Appeal

(and the related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al);

6. US Circuit Judge David J. Barron - presiding over THIS Appeal (and the

related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al);

7. US Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;

8. US Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (US District Court (NH);

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

10. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME).

The Appellant respectfully AGAIN calls for the sua sponte RECUSAL of Circuit

Judges – Torruella, Kayatta, Barron, and also Chief Justice Howard. ANY failure to
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

recuse shows (at minimum) additional cause to: 1.) Bring INCREMENTAL TREASON

Claims under ARTICLE III, Section 3; 2.) TRANSFER this Appeal(s) to a different

Circuit WITH Jurisdiction; 3.) Bring to the attention of Congress and 4.) Show cause to

expand upon and/or bring NEW COLOR OF LAW/DUE PROCESS claims against the

United States and The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

VI. OTHER EVIDENCED CLAIMS Supporting Motion to Vacate Dismissal w/

Damages

These UNRESOLVED issues, evidenced by the historical record(s) include (but are not

limited to) the following:

1. Failing to address evidenced claims of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3

of The US Constitution alleged against FOUR (4) Federal (Circuit and District)

Judges, including Chief Justice Howard, for RULING WITHOUT

JURISDICTION;

2. Failing to address multiple evidenced claims of MISPRISION of TREASON,

PURSUANT to 18 U.S. Code § 2382, brought against three (3) additional officers

of the Court5 and twenty-one (21) parties in the related litigation, HARIHAR v. US

BANK et al;

3. Failing to address Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1832, and matters believed to impact National Security;

5
Misprision of Treason claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 are filed against Circuit Clerk –
ROBERT M. FARRELL, Circuit Clerk MARGARET CLARK and Deputy Clerk –
MATTHEW A. PAINE;
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

4. Failing to promptly exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or

unnecessarily delaying WITHOUT CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to

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

5. Failing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).6

6. Failing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial

Code of Conduct;

7. Failing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS;

8. Failing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

9. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color

of Law;

10. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

11. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

12. Failing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

13. Failing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

14. Failing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record;

6
The Appellant draws reference to the related case, Harihar v. US Bank et al, where the Court
(Both District and Appellate) repeatedly failed to acknowledge the CLEARLY EVIDENCED
and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar. By Federal Law, a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan
A. Harihar SHOULD HAVE already been issued.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

15. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for TRANSFER to another circuit WITH

Jurisdiction;

16. Failing to address DEMAND(S) FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION;

17. Failing to address repeated requests to TIMELY VALIDATE (AND VOID) the

referenced Dismissal Order(s);

18. Failing to address and ACKNOWLEDGE the relationship of this Complaint to

HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), including PACER

recognition;

19. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. REFUSAL(S) to RECUSE by both Circuit and District Court judges. It is important

to note, that while US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs refused to

recuse herself (twice) in HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880),

her IMMEDIATE RECUSAL for the EXACT SAME REASONS when assigned

to the related complaint HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Docket No. 17-

cv-11109) is certainly recognized;

21. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) supporting PREMATURE DISMISSAL;

22. Failing to address the well evidenced and continued PATTERN of CORRUPT

CONDUCT within this litigation;

VII. Appellant’s Good Faith Opportunity to Seek Agreement

From the BEGINNING of this litigation, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR

has clearly and respectfully stated for the record, that his intentions are to ultimately

reach a mutual agreement IN GOOD FAITH with the Appellee – The United States.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

While under NO OBLIGATION to do so, Mr. Harihar WILL AGAIN, IN GOOD

FAITH, offer the Appellee – The United States an opportunity to reach mutual

agreement. If this good faith opportunity is (AGAIN) ignored or denied, the

Appellant will necessarily move forward with this civil action(s) and continue to

pursue criminal charges against ALL responsible parties, regardless of timeline.

VIII. Move to VACATE Dismissal Order with Damages

Barring any forthcoming agreement between the Appellant – Mohan A Harihar and

Appellee – The United States, AND ONLY AFTER JURISDICTION has rightfully

been RESTORED, the Appellant has provided this Court with an evidenced list of

reasons warranting VACATING the referenced dismissal with FULL damages IN

FAVOR of the Appellant. Wherefore, the Appellant respectfully requests that:

1. The Court VACATE the referenced dismissal order issued September 29, 2017;

2. The Court AWARD Mr. Harihar maximum civil damages as detailed in the

original complaint. Considering the substantial amount of damages owed to the

Appellant, and the Appellee’s decision not to oppose the requested relief, the

Appellant MAY be willing to consider a payment plan and/or alternative forms of

payment to ease any potential burden to The United States, and as a continued

sign of GOOD FAITH. The Appellant respectfully states that once the referenced

judgements have been appropriately vacated and damages have been rightfully

awarded as stated, the intention remains to align with The United States for the

purpose of implementing the HARIHAR FCS model© nationwide. Successful

Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

implementation will undoubtedly assist in paving the way to historical economic

growth and prosperity for our great Nation;

3. The Court AWARD punitive damages, reimbursement of legal fees as indicated,

and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court;

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this document to the President,

confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment B) with the filed Court copy. If there is a

question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional

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

independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 7th Day of March, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

Attachment A
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

Attachment B
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117263728 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/07/2018 Entry ID: 6155392

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 7, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF users:

Dina Michael Chaitowitz

Mary B. Murrane

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