You are on page 1of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT REPLY IDENTIFIES EXPIRATION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLEE


OPPOSITION, PURSUANT TO FED. R. APP. P. 27(a)(3)(A)

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

motion unless the court shortens or extends the time.

On July 2, 2018, the Appellant was notified via the Court’s ECF email communication of an

opposition filing from Appellees/Defendants (excluding Appellees – Commonwealth of MA and

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,

arrive at a DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR of Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

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

reasons in their opposition:

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

U.S.C. § 1832, and perceived THREATS TO OUR NATION’S SECURITY. Judge

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

identical/similar PATTERN(S) OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by this Federal (District and

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

conclusively considered without merit.

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

APPELLEES, as a matter of record. Even if now, Appellees were allowed to present an

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

UNOPPOSED Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court claim.

II. Unopposed Motion to SCOTUS re: Timeline Extension – As a secondary, incremental

argument, it is important for this Appellate Court to recognize the significance of the

Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Petitioner’s timeline extension:

a. Appellees received an e-mail communication of the Motion on the same day of

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

permitted…. Appellees would have denied the non-procedural allegations as they

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

question the SCOTUS ruling.

b. This Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant/Petitioner was able to show

extraordinary circumstances within the 10-day requirement (Supreme Court Rule


13.5) warranting such an extension. Appellees here are suggesting that this Court

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:

1.Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues;

2.Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3.Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4.Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

5.Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH

constituting acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the

Constitution;

6.Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact

National Security;

7.Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or

unnecessarily delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for


the Court to assist with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915;

8.Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the

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

9.Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;

10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including

(but not limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF

HARDSHIPS;

13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights

Under Color of Law;

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;

17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for

his personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;


18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to

the Appellant, as stated within the record;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS,

with the presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

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

Howard for reasons unknown) were already considered DISQUALIFIED to rule

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

circumstances surrounding Judge Barron’s recusal, the issued mandate should be

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:

1. Withdraw the mandate associated with this Appeal;

2. Vacate the judgment associated with this Appeal;

3. Issue a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT for FRAUD ON THE COURT, under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(3), in favor of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, with prejudice;

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

should also assess appropriate professional penalties against ALL Appellees/

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

against ALL Appellees/Defendants;

5. The Appellant requests a separate hearing to proportionately determine damages

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

consideration to initiate corrective action in this matter.

Respectfully submitted this 3rd Day of July, 2018.

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

You might also like