IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

EMERGENCY MOTION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR: (1) A STAY

OF JUDGMENT; AND (2) ASSISTANCE W/ APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to Rule 23

of the Rules of this Court; and under 28 U. S. C. §2101(f) for a stay of judgment to

address the growing list of extraordinary circumstances and unresolved issues

previously acknowledged by this Court.1 The referenced judgment, dated August 7,

2018 (Exhibit 1), comes from a replacement (and similarly inferior) Circuit Panel

following: (1) the collective recusals of the initial panel2; and (2) the July 17, 2018

order which recalled the March 23, 2018 Mandate and vacated the January 17,

2018 Judgment (Exhibits 2 and 3)3. A timely petition for rehearing and for

rehearing en banc was denied by the same inferior Circuit Panel on September 7,

1 The Petitioner references Petition 17A-1359 which (in part) requested a timeline extension for
filing his Certiorari Petition; also identifying a list of unresolved, extraordinary issues. No
Opposition was filed against the Petition. On June 8, 2018, the Supreme Court granted the
Petitioner’s timeline extension, based on these extraordinary, unresolved issues.
2 The initial Circuit Panel assigned to Appeal No. 17-1381 and Appeal No. 17-2074 included: (1)

Circuit Judge David Barron; (2) Juan R. Torruella; and (3) William J. Kayatta, Jr. Judge Barron
was first to recuse on 5/18/18, followed by judges Torruella and Kayatta on 7/17/18.
3 All (8) related orders were similarly vacated.
2018 (Exhibit 4). Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal law, Mr.

Harihar believes that this plethora of unresolved (and certainly complex) legal

issues – beginning with jurisdiction, again prevents him from filing a petition for

Certiorari with this Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28

U.S.C. § 1254(1). The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be

due, if a stay (and/or timeline extension) is not granted, is December 9, 2018.

After reviewing the Judicial Codes of Conduct, it is the Petitioner’s

interpretation that one concept is nearly universal: judges are required to avoid

both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (“the appearance

standard”).4 In fact, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Caperton noted this

commonality and further explained the importance of such standards, in remarking

that codes of conduct “serve to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of

law.”5 Respectfully, as evidenced by the record, any objective observer who has

followed this litigation from the beginning will conclude: (1) a failure to adhere to

such standards; and (2) that the integrity of the First Circuit Judiciary has long

been compromised.

As grounds therefore, the Petitioner respectfully references the

circumstances summarized in Application 17A-1359 (Exhibit 5) and events of

4 See, e.g., ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 1 (2011) (“A judge shall uphold
and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”); Raymond J. McKoski, Judicial Discipline and the
Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees is What the Judge Gets, 94 MINN. L. REV. 1914,
1985 (2010) [hereinafter McKoski, Judicial Discipline] (noting that North Carolina and Oregon are
the only two states to have abandoned the appearance standard).
5 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Co., 556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009)

2
record occurring since that justify: (1) granting this emergency motion for a stay

order; and (2) assisting Mr. Harihar with the appointment of counsel pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1915, prior to moving forward with this litigation:

1. Aside from Appeal No. 17-1381, the referenced list of extraordinary,

(and still) unresolved issues involves the following related litigation: (a) HARIHAR

vs. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-

11109); and (b) HARIHAR vs. HOWARD, et al. Docket No. 18-cv-11134.

2. Collectively, the Petitioner has evidenced what is believed to be an

unprecedented, egregious abuse of power exemplified by the First Circuit Appeals

Court and the lower District Court. As evidenced by the record, a review of the

referenced Appeal and the related litigation shows: (a) There has been a total of

eight (8) recusals; (b) Eight (8) out of Ten (10) First Circuit judges are considered

disqualified, including Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (c) Collectively, fourteen (14)

judicial officers (combined District and Circuit Court) stand accused of judicial

misconduct and based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal law, are

considered disqualified from ruling further in this Appeal or any related litigation;

and (d) Nine (9) judicial officers stand accused of Treason under Article III, Section

3 of the United States Constitution for continuing to rule without jurisdiction. The

accused judicial officers have failed to provide any valid response that denies or

refutes a single judicial misconduct claim, including Treason.

3
 3. As evidenced by the record filed with the Circuit Executive – Susan

Goldberg, the Petitioner has repeatedly followed the legal process for addressing

judicial misconduct, only to encounter identical patterns of corrupt conduct with the

Chief Judge and the Judicial Council. As Circuit Executive, Ms. Goldberg (and her

staff) has witnessed this broken process firsthand. However, there appears to be no

action taken to inform the Administrative Office of US Courts or any other

(appropriate) authority. The Petitioner has therefore, as a matter of record taken it

upon himself to inform (and regularly update) Director James C. Duff

(Administrative Office of US Courts) of the referenced judicial failures and a clearly

broken process that exists within the First Circuit Judiciary. No corrective action

appears to have been initiated.

4. Since the referenced judicial misconduct claims have occurred within

court walls and are a matter of record, the respective court clerks, specifically – (1)

Margaret Carter; (2) Maria R. Hamilton; and (3) Robert Paine, have witnessed

these judicial failures firsthand. However, based on their inaction it seems clear

that these court officers have no intention of reporting evidenced judicial

misconduct claims to the Circuit Executive, or to any other appropriate authority.

Similarly, all Defendants/Appellants and their respective counsel have witnessed

and refused to acknowledge these referenced acts of judicial misconduct, including

Treason – warranting Misprision claims under 18 U.S. Code § 2382.

5. As evidenced by the record (and as required by Federal law), the

Petitioner has notified: (1) POTUS; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) the

4
respective (District/Circuit) Court(s) of evidenced Treason claims under ARTICLE

III. Since the severity of these evidenced claims is perceived to impact matters of

National Security, the following offices/agencies/committees have regularly been

updated: (1) the FBI – including (former) Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; (2) DOJ

– including (former) AG Jeff Sessions, US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and

(former) US Attorney Carmen Ortiz (MA) ; (3) OIG – specifically IG Michael

Horowitz; (4) MA Congressional leaders including (but not limited to) US Senator

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and US Congresswoman

Niki Tsongas (D-MA); and (5) both the House/Senate Judiciary Committees. No

corrective action has been initiated.

6. As evidenced by the record, the Petitioner has filed multiple criminal

complaints with the FBI against referenced Officers of the Court and opposing

parties for evidenced criminal misconduct that include (but are not limited to): (1)

RICO Violations; (2) Treason (also Misprision) claims; (3) Color of Law violations;

(4) Economic Espionage under 18 U.S. Code § 1831, and others (Exhibit 6). Since

The United States is an Appellant in the related litigation (referencing Appeal No.

17-2074), these criminal claims have been witnessed firsthand by representing

counsel: (1) Assistant United States Attorneys (MA) – Mary Beth Murrane; (2)

Assistant United States Attorneys (MA) Cynthia A. Young; and (3) (initially by)

Assistant United States Attorneys (MA) Dina M. Chaitowitz. As previously stated,

the petitioner has brought these matters to the direct attention of US Attorney

5
(MA) Andrew Lelling as well as to his predecessor – US Attorney Carmen Ortiz

(MA). However, there has yet to be a response.

7. On July 17, 2018, following the recusal of Circuit Judge David Barron,

the First Circuit: (1) Recalled the Mandate issued March 23, 2018; and (2) The

judgment entered on January 17, 2018 and the relevant orders not already

rendered moot were vacated (Exhibit 3).

8. On July 23, 2018, the Petitioner filed a response to the July 17th order

(Exhibit 7), identifying the (same) list of unresolved issues that must first be

addressed once the replacement panel is assigned (including, but not limited to):

a. Continued refusal to address/clarify Jurisdiction issues;

b. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

c. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

d. Refusal(s) to recuse (other than those already recognized);

e. Continuing to issue orders after losing jurisdiction, each

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

Constitution;

f. Refusing to address or even acknowledge: (1) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights; (2) Evidenced Economic

Espionage claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832; and (3) matters

believed to impact National Security;

6
g. 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;

h. Refusing to address the evidenced (and unopposed) Fraud on the

Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4) and (6);

i. 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;

j. Refusing to address identified Due Process Violations, including

(but not limited to) refusing a trial by jury;

k. Ignoring requests for a grand jury;

l. Refusing to address and re-establish the clearly evidenced

imbalance of hardships;

m. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation

of Rights Under Color of Law;

n. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy

Against Rights;

o. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False

Statements;

7
 p. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation

of Rights;

q. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing legal (and other) fees due

to the Appellant, as stated within the record;

r. Refusing to address demand(s) for clarification hearings, with the

presence of an independent court reporter;

s. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact, refusing

discovery and prematurely moving for Dismissal;

t. Failing to address the Petitioner’s request(s) to Clarify the DOJ’s

intention to enjoin the civil complaint with criminal indictments;

u. Failing to identifying for the record impacted (Federal and State)

litigation;

v. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s good faith opportunity(s) to

reach a mutual agreement; and

w. Failing to acknowledge the Petitioner’s repeated concerns for

his personal safety and security.

9. On July 26, 2018 the Court assigned the following replacement panel:

(1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3)

Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez (Exhibit 8). As a matter of record, both Chief Judge

Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson had previously been considered

8
disqualified to rule further in this litigation and refused to recuse, without valid

cause.

10. On July 29, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion to remove

disqualified/inferior Circuit judges. The record shows that the Emergency Motion

was ignored by the replacement panel (Exhibit 9).

11. On August 5, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Motion for a

hearing to address the continued imbalance of hardships and request for injunction

(Exhibit 10) The record shows that this Emergency motion was also ignored by the

inferior replacement panel.

12. On August 7, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued a judgment

without jurisdiction denying the Disqualification motion - providing a grossly

inaccurate, misconstrued and ultimately invalid explanation (Exhibit 11). The

(void) judgment affirmed dismissing the Petitioner’s complaint and all pending

motions.

13. On August 16, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the Judgment

order (Exhibit 12), addressing the following: (1) New Evidence; (2) Validation of

Judicial Oath under 28 U.S. Code § 453; (3) Legal consequences impacting

jurisdiction; and (4) a petition for re-hearing/transfer. At this stage, an

unprecedented eight (8) out of ten (10) First Circuit judges were considered

disqualified to rule further in this (or any related) litigation. Considering the

severity of legal issues, coupled with an evidenced (and unprecedented) abuse of

9
judicial power, a request for transfer to SCOTUS or before a Congressional panel

was considered appropriate.

14. On August 29, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued an Order

without jurisdiction, denying the Petitioner’s motion without cause (Exhibit 13).

15. On September 3, 2018, the Petitioner filed an Emergency Response to

the 08/29/18 Order, identifying an unprecedented abuse of judicial authority, re-

affirming cause to Petition for removal/impeachment under Article II, Section 4

(Exhibit 14).

16. On September 7, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued an

incremental order without jurisdiction, inaccurately interpreting it as a

reconsideration motion and denying it (Exhibit 15).

17. On September 19, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the (void)

09/07/18 order, identifying a continued abuse of judicial power and questioning

whether mental illness has been a factor in referenced judicial decisions (Exhibit

16).

18. On October 5, 2018, the inferior replacement panel issued a (void)

order without jurisdiction, giving a grossly misconstrued explanation that: (a) once

again ignored jurisdiction (and other extraordinary, unresolved) issues; (b) ignored

SCOTUS’ acknowledgment of these extraordinary, unresolved issues; and (c)

prohibited further filings from the Petitioner (Exhibit 17).

10
 19. On October 10, 2018, the Petitioner filed a Response to the (void)

10/05/18 order which: (a) re-affirmed egregious judicial misconduct under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b)(4); (b) brought an incremental claim of Treason under Article III; and

(c) showed cause for amendment and transfer (Exhibit 18).

20. On October 12, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from First Circuit

Clerk Maria R. Hamilton, which stated the following:

“This will acknowledge receipt on October 10, 2018, of your correspondence

dated October 10, 2018, regarding the above case. Please be advised that

pursuant to this court's October 5, 2018 order denying your motion for

clarification, the court stated that "[n]o further filings from appellant will be

accepted in this appeal." As a result, I am returning your papers to you

without taking action on them. I have also enclosed a copy of the October 5,

2018 order for your records.”

At minimum, the Circuit Clerk has failed to recognize the list of extraordinary

issues that: (a) render the referenced Court order void; and (b) render the

replacement panel inferior (Exhibit 19).

21. The Petitioner believes that collectively, these referenced

circumstances bring an unprecedented scenario that warrants intervention by: (a)

SCOTUS, to assist with resolving the existing issues impacting this litigation; (b)

11
The Executive Branch, to address evidenced criminal claims of record, including

(but not limited to) Treason under Article III, Criminal RICO claims, Economic

Espionage and others; and (c) a Congressional panel to address the egregious abuse

of judicial power evidenced by the First Circuit judiciary.

22. As previously stated in Petition 17A-1359 the Petitioner respectfully

restates that the case itself presents substantial issues of law, among which include

the following (partial list): (1) whether jurisdiction issues were properly addressed

by the First Circuit (and District) Court; (2) whether under Article III Section 3 of

the US Constitution, a Circuit (or District) Court judge continued to rule after

losing jurisdiction; (3) whether Rule 60(b)(3), (4) and (6) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure (Unopposed claims) was properly addressed by the Court(s); (4)

whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a Circuit judge(s) who has presided in the

referenced appeal, failed to recuse following jurisdiction (and other referenced)

issues; (5) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Circuit Judges failed to properly

address evidenced Economic Espionage claims and matters believed to impact

National Security; (6) whether under 28 U.S.C. §1915 Circuit Judges failed 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; (7) whether Circuit judges (and previously the District Court) took

appropriate action following each of the eight (8) recusals of record; (8) whether the

lower courts properly addressed and re-established a balance of hardships; and

others . The Petitioner believes that if he had been able to secure counsel on his

12
own, or if the lower courts properly exercised their discretion under 28 U.S.C.

§1915, additional questions of law warranting this Court’s attention would

certainly be revealed. Moving forward, the Petitioner respectfully reserves the right

to bring any additional, related claims to the attention of this Court.

23. Petitioner requires the requested Stay to enable all three (3) branches

of government to timely address and resolve all existing legal issues. Upon doing so,

and if it is even still necessary to file a petition with this Court, Petitioner

respectfully requests assistance with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.

§1915. A review of the record will reveal that the Petitioner has exemplified a

“textbook” example that warrants such assistance. At minimum, considering the

extensive list of legal issues involved, experienced counsel representing both sides

would certainly aid with judicial economy moving forward.

24. Should the Petitioner become successful in acquiring counsel (either

on his own, or through the assistance of this Court), there would then be an

opportunity to explore the First Circuit’s Civil Appeals Management Plan (CAMP),

governed by Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and First Circuit

Local Rule 33.0. Local Rule 33.0 mandates alternative dispute resolution of all civil

appeals. The purpose of the CAMP program is to provide a confidential forum in

which to promote settlement where feasible, simplify the issues on appeal, and

address procedural questions and any other matters that may assist in the

disposition of the proceeding. Since the Petitioner has repeatedly (and wrongfully)

13
been denied assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1915, the CAMP program was previously

not an available option. The Petitioner respectfully reminds the Court that he has

in Good Faith, historically offered multiple opportunities to the opposing parties in

an effort to reach a mutual agreement. Opposing parties have either denied or

ignored all of the Petitioner’s efforts. At minimum, exploring the CAMP option

would certainly aid with judicial economy moving forward.

25. For the foregoing reasons, if after all extraordinary issues have been

resolved it becomes necessary to still file a Certiorari petition, the Petitioner hereby

requests a sixty-day extension of time; once the Stay of judgment has been lifted, or

such a date deemed appropriate by this Court.

26. Respectfully, please be advised - based on the Petitioner’s

interpretation of the Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims

pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic

Espionage and (3) matters believed to impact National Security, copies of this

Motion are necessarily delivered to the President, DOJ, OIG and members of

Congress. A copy will also be made available to the Public out of continued concerns

for the Petitioner’s safety and security.

If your Honor has any questions regarding any portion of this Motion, or requires

additional information, the Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

14
The Petitioner is grateful for this Court’s consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

November 9, 2018

15
-16-
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
___________________________________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, hereby certify that copies of the

attached Application to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, for: (1) a Stay of
Judgment; and (2) Assistance with Appointment of Counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915,
to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit were served on:

David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP)

State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 261-3126
david.fialkow@klgates.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E. Fialkow, Esq. and
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney General)

One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of MA and Martha Coakley, Esq.

Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 01960
617.217.4720
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Nelson Mullins LLP and Peter Haley, Esq.

Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)

303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
617.426.5900
mmurphy@casneredwards.com

Counsel for Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies)

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)

176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC)

150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
617.558.8435
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Counsel for Harmon Law, PC and Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

Service was made by Priority/Express USPS mail on June 6, 2018.

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com