Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this reply, as the
timeline for Appellees/Defendants to file any opposition to the June 20, 2018 motion has since
expired:
Rule 27. Motions (a)(3)(A) Time to file. Any party may file a response to a motion; Rule
27(a)(2) governs its contents. The response must be filed within 10 days after service of the
On July 2, 2018, the Appellant was notified via the Court’s ECF email communication of an
Martha Coakley). This attempt to file opposition was related to the Appellant’s 6/20/18 motion
to vacate the existing dismissal judgment and to correctly enforce the original claim of -
FRAUD ON THE COURT, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). ALL Appellees had until June
30, 2018 (10 days) to file opposition to the Appellant’s motion and failed to do so. Therefore:
(1) the motion SHOULD stand (AGAIN) as UNOPPOSED; (2) the opposition filed by
referenced Appellees should be stricken from the record, as it is not a valid filing; and (3) the
Court should GRANT the Appellant’s motion – and after vacating the existing dismissal order,
with prejudice.
EVEN IF referenced Appellees had timely filed their opposition, there are multiple reasons that
show it would ultimately fail on the merits. The Appellant addresses the four (4) Appellee
I. The Appellees FIRST and THIRD reasons for opposition pertain to Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3) – FRAUD ON THE COURT, where the Appellant has articulated specific,
evidenced arguments that show Appellees purposefully tried to deceive the Court(s). The
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) claims were initially filed following the initial Appellee – motions
to dismiss, in the District Court. The evidenced judicial failure to uphold Federal Rule
60(b) showed cause to bring the initial judicial misconduct complaint against presiding
District Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs. The record clearly shows that the
Appellant continued to raise his Rule 60(b) claim over the course of an entire year, only to be
completely ignored by Judge Burroughs. This (in part) brought additional judicial
misconduct claims - raising jurisdiction issues, including six (6) claims of TREASON under
ARTICLE III for ruling without jurisdiction, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE pursuant to 18
Burroughs has never denied a single referenced judicial misconduct claim, which eventually
led to her RECUSAL from the RELATED complaint, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED
STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109 (Appeal No. 2074). Moving forward (and paraphrasing),
the Appellant has clearly evidenced for the record (and in FULL PUBLIC VIEW) an
Circuit Court) Judiciary, including the Judicial Council, Office of the Circuit Executive and
even Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard. To date, evidenced judicial misconduct claims have
been brought against TEN (10) Federal Judges, SEVEN (7) of whom stand accused of
TREASON under ARTICLE III for ruling WITHOUT JURISDICTION; THREE (3) of
whom have since RECUSED.1 Failing to uphold Federal Rules including (but not limited to)
60(b) is one of the many evidenced reasons for filing judicial misconduct complaints and
raising jurisdiction issues in OVER FIFTY (50) court filings. Effort by Appellees here to
rely on existing judicial decisions that have been tied to evidenced judicial misconduct are
In their opposition, Appellees state that with regard to the Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court
claim, “he (the Appellant) never identifies what claims he is talking about.” The Appellant
disagrees, noting that clearly – throughout the lower court docket and this Appeal –
including his filed Appellate Brief, Mr. Harihar has specifically detailed the failed
1
Judicial recusals include: (1) US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; (2) First Circuit
Judge Sandra Lynch; and most recently on May 18, 2018, First Circuit Judge David Barron, who
“recently discovered” having a financial interest with Appellee – WELLS FARGO.
securitization of the RMBS Trust – CMLTI 2006 AR-1 that claims to have standing to
Mr. Harihar’s Property. This Appellant argument – supported by law and case references has
been articulated repeatedly for over three (3) years. It has also gone UNOPPOSED by ALL
argument (which by law, they are not) they make NO ATTEMPT to offer a single
argument against the failed securitization of the IMPERFECT RMBS TRUST. This
desperate attempt to untimely file opposition shows a clear effort to CONTINUE deceiving
this Court and should NO LONGER be tolerated. Therefore, the Appellant stands by his
argument, it is important for this Appellate Court to recognize the significance of the
filing, June 6, 2018. While SCOTUS did rule on the motion June 8, 2018, Appellees
certainly could have filed a response if they opposed ANY portion of the Petitioner’s
argument(s). They consciously chose not to. Here, in their opposition, Appellees
state, “it is not even clear if a response to Harihar’s application was even
have throughout this and the various other related litigations.” However, nearly a
month has passed since the ruling and there has been no effort by any Appellee to
b. This Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant/Petitioner was able to show
should rely on past decisions which as a matter of record have been tied to judicial
misconduct.
III. Finally, in their opposition, Appellees state, “Harihar continues to rely upon the post-
mandate recusal of Judge Baron as support for his other accusations.” This Appellee
assessment is incorrect.
a. First, in his filed response following Judge Barron’s recusal the Appellant lists
TWENTY (20) unresolved issues that impact the referenced judgment – EVEN
BEFORE his recusal. They include (but are not limited to) the following:
Constitution;
National Security;
§1915;
HARDSHIPS;
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against
Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False
Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of
Rights;
b. Second, with regard to the recusal itself, the Appellant shows cause to (at minimum)
question the timing of its announcement, warranting further disclosures from Judge
Barron.
c. Third, the Appellees argue that petition for rehearing en banc was “submitted to the
active judges of this court.” The list of active judges included: (1) Jeffrey R. Howard,
Chief Appellate Judge; (2) Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; (3) Sandra L. Lynch,
Appellate Judge; (4) Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge; (5) William J. Kayatta,
Jr., Appellate Judge and (6) David J. Barron, Appellate Judge (See Order dated
March 14, 2018). This Court is aware that ALL referenced judges associated with
this panel (with the exception of Judge Lynch, who was recused by Chief Judge
in this (or any related) litigation, for evidenced judicial misconduct claims including
TREASON, clearly articulated within the record. Therefore, the decision for the case
not to be heard en banc is considered invalid, as every member of the panel lacked
jurisdiction. Not a single judge has denied or refuted this argument(s). Appellees
have failed to show how ANY ONE of the Appellant’s claims lack merit. Any
judicial panel (with jurisdiction) should concur with the June 14, 2018 related ruling -
that after reviewing ALL of the Appellant’s evidenced claims, AND based on the
withdrawn and the judgment vacated. Again, the Appellee argument(s) has no
merit.
CONCLUSION
Based on the Appellee’s failure to timely file a response under FED. R. APP. P. 27(a)(3)(A) and
for the additional reasons stated within, the Appellant respectfully moves for this Court to:
4. The Court should award the Appellant treble monetary damages, full reimbursement
for all related costs and associated legal fees throughout this litigation, and any
injunctive, punitive, declaratory (or other relief) deemed appropriate. The Court
Defendants, including (but not limited to) licensure revocation, disbarment where
applicable and any other penalties the court deems appropriate. It remains the
Appellant’s full intention to continue full pursuit of related criminal claims evidenced
owed by each Appellee, including a plan that ensures timely payment to Mr. Harihar.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this REPLY to the attention of POTUS,
confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 1) with the filed Court copy. A copy will also
be made available to the PUBLIC out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal
safety and security. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this reply, the Appellant is
happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with
the presence of an independent court reporter. The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 3, 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:
Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod
David E. Fialkow
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Kurt R. McHugh
Jesse M. Boodoo
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com