FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

US Senator Elizabeth Warren, Chief Justice of the 1st Circuit -

part of Judicial Misconduct Petition in Harihar vs. US Bank
Boston, MA, February 3, 2017 A Judicial Misconduct Petition, associated with the $42B Civil Complaint,
Harihar vs. US Bank et al (US District Court, Boston, MA, Docket No. 15-cv-11880), has been filed with the
Judicial Council of the First Circuit Appellate Court. The lawsuit involves two (2) primary issues: 1. Illegal
Foreclosure associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis, and 2. Intellectual Property Rights that include an
Economic framework designed to assist the US with repairing damage caused by the foreclosure crisis, while
stemming tremendous economic growth.

The claims of misconduct (alleged) by the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar, have been brought against multiple
Defendants fifteen (15) to be exact, and include not only Bank Defendants (Wells Fargo & US Bank), but
also state/federal government (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, former Attorney General Martha
Coakley, and the United States). As time goes on, evidence continues to come forth, supporting what many
Americans already believe the existence of corruption between government and financial institutions.

Taking center stage now, are evidenced allegations of Judicial Misconduct against US District Court Judge
Allison D. Burroughs. These allegations include (but are not limited to): Judicial Fraud on the Court, Treason
to the Constitution (3 separate allegations), Imbalance of Hardships, Refusal to Recuse, Violations to Due
Process, Color of Law Violations, Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel, and Prejudice/Bias.
Concerns ALSO include the handling of the judicial misconduct complaint by Chief Justice Howard, of the
First Circuit Appellate Court. If left uncorrected, these evidenced allegations reveal a malicious intent to (at
minimum): 1.) Critically damage the legal efforts of the Plaintiff; 2.) Negatively impact the resulting
precedent set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent the implementation of a framework designed to repair and
grow the United States Economy.

So how does US Senator Elizabeth Warren play a role here? Its NO SECRET that Senator Warren for years
has been outspoken when talking about Wall Street Corruption, including the US Foreclosure Crisis. It raises
questions here however, where the Senator has historically remained completely silent, and has blatantly
IGNORED a potential solution to the Foreclosure Crisis that would deliver substantial economic growth Even
after it had been recommended by her Senior Economic Advisor, Bruno Freitas. The Deposition of
Senator Warren is certainly warranted, as this legal process moves towards a jury trial, to give detailed
explanation to many pending questions. Certainly, as a Defendant in a $42B lawsuit, there is tremendous
legal and financial risk to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if a ruling were to be made in favor of the
Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar. There also could exist tremendous political risk, if the public were to be made
aware that Senator Warren blatantly ignored an economic framework that would: 1.) Assist in making the
Illegally Foreclosed Homeowner WHOLE again thats 40,000 to 50,000 of her own constituents, and 4.2M
nationwide; and
2.) Bring HISTORIC ECONOMIC GROWTH to the Commonwealth AND to the United States.

One more thing - The nomination of Judge Allison D. Burroughs in 2015 by President Obama, came at
the recommendation of US Senator Elizabeth Warren, and therefore questions the existence of an
improper relationship.

Scroll down to view a copy of the filed Petition to the Judicial Council of the First Circuit in its entirety.
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526 (Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

February 3, 2017

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky

Administrative Attorney
United States Courts For The First Circuit
1 Courthouse Way Suite 3700
Boston, MA 02210

RE: Petition for Review of Judicial Misconduct Complaint

No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:

I hereby petition the Judicial Council for review of the Chief
Judges order issued January 4, 2017, dismissing my judicial
misconduct complaint, Complaint No. 01-16-90033.1

I. PREFACE

For safety, security and documentation purposes, the

Complainant respectfully informs this Judicial Council that
copies of this petition have been sent to the House Judiciary
Committee, the Executive office of the President (EOP), the US
Attorney General, the United States Inspector General Michael
Horowitz, the Consumer Financial protection Bureau (CFPB) and
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). A copy has also been
made available to the Public, as the judiciarys effort to
promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
process, is certainly called into question here.

The Complainant/Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully

Prefaces this petition to ensure that the Judicial Council is
fully aware, that the referenced litigation proceeding in the
US District Court (Boston, MA) raises fully supported
allegations of both civil and criminal misconduct against
fourteen (14) Defendants, and additionally against the United

1 See Attachment A, Order issued by Chief Justice Howard, pages

27-32.
Page 1
 States.2 These clearly evidenced allegations include (but are
not limited to): Fraud upon the Court (Defendant AND Judicial),
Civil Conspiracy Claims, Color of Law Violations, Civil/
Criminal RICO violations, Abuses of Judicial Discretion,
Violations to the Due Process Clause, Violation(s) to
Intellectual Property Rights and Federal Tort Claims. The
initial infractions stem from the US Foreclosure/ Financial
Crisis, arguably considered by many (worldwide) as the largest
case of FRAUD in the history of the United States. Over nearly
six (6) years of litigation, evidence supporting the
Plaintiffs consistent claims continues to come forth, while
also exposing evidenced government misconduct/corruption at
higher and higher levels as time goes on.

Here, Plaintiff/Complainant states that the presiding United

States District Court Judge - Allison D. Burroughs continues to
exemplify a malicious intent to (at minimum): 1.) Critically
damage the legal efforts of this Plaintiff; 2.) Negatively
impact the resulting precedent set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent
the implementation of a framework designed to repair and grow
the United States Economy.

The Complainant respectfully makes clear, that he DOES NOT look

for this Judicial Council to assist with delivering an order in
a pending case. The Complainant DOES however, expect there to
be accountability for evidenced allegations of judicial
misconduct AND ACTS of BAD FAITH which are irrefutable; noting
that in nearly six (6) months, the accused District Court judge
has yet to ADDRESS, DENY, or DEFEND ANY of these allegations.

The Complainant has reviewed the explanation of the referenced

decision issued by Chief Justice Howard, stating that the
misconduct complaint against Judge Allison D. Burroughs is
baseless and non-cognizable. His opening statement
additionally acknowledges for the record (See footnote no. 1 of
his decision), that the four (4) supplements to the original
complaint have also been reviewed. The Complainant respectfully
disagrees with the Chief Judges decision, and raises a number
of glaring concerns. To begin with, primary elements of the
judicial complaint are ignored entirely without a single
mention, including (but not limited to):

1. Judicial Fraud upon the Court;

2. Irrefutable evidence supporting three (3) acts of
Treason to the Constitution;

2 Reference Document No. 126, PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO ORDER (DOCUMENT

125) AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
Page 2
 3. False Statements made by Judge Burroughs and the refusal
to RECUSE.

Additional concerns of the Chief Justices decision reveal

inaccurate, and/or incomplete accounts of the record, all of
which will be explained further in this petition.

If this decision to the Complainants judicial misconduct

complaint is left uncorrected, it will (at minimum) show CLEAR
CAUSE to now question the integrity of this First Circuit
Appellate Court, specifically that of Chief Justice Howard, and
potentially even members of this Judicial Council. It will also
contribute to, and expand upon the Complainants already
existing claims against the United States which include (but
are not limited to): Violations to the Due Process Clause,
Color of Law violations, Conspiracy claims, Civil/Criminal RICO
violations, and Federal Tort Claims.

II. Judicial Fraud Upon the Court Is a PRIMARY reason, clearly

articulated and evidenced by the Plaintiff/Complainant, for
filing the motion(s) for recusal, and the judicial misconduct
complaint against Judge Burroughs.3 The Complainant has
specifically referenced Judge Burroughs failure to uphold
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).

In the referenced litigation, the Plaintiff has cited Fraud

upon the Court against ALL fourteen (14) Defendants (and also
against the United States) as it relates (at minimum) to the
knowledge of Plaintiffs clouded title, and a collective scheme
to defraud the Plaintiff of his homestead (Reference Document
No. 117, Motion for Reconsideration). It is important for the
Council to note that the Plaintiff has consistently
maintained throughout these proceedings AND in State Court(s),
the existence of clouded title as it relates (at minimum) to
his illegal foreclosure. Understanding these historical FACTS
fully, brings a scenario that can arguably be considered as a
TEXTBOOK case of Fraud upon the Court(s); showing clear cause
to find all Defendants in DEFAULT, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60 (b)(3). In her order (reference Document No.
118), Judge Burroughs fails to address or even acknowledge
these clearly evident violations to FRCP 60(b)(3).4 By choosing
to ignore this violation to a Federal Rule, Judge Burroughs has
chosen NOT to support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the
Court. ANY objective observer would entertain reasonable
questions about the judge's impartiality, prejudice/bias

3 See Attachment B, Document No. 121, pages 33-41.

4 See Attachment C, Document No. 118, pages 52-53.
Page 3
 against this Plaintiff, and conclude that a fair and impartial
hearing is unlikely.

Furthermore, when the language within an issued order reveals

that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure has been clearly
ignored, the Complainant/Plaintiff believes that ONLY one (1)
(or combination) of the following conclusions can be made:

A. That a Federal Judge has made a ruling on a Motion without

even reading the content of the Motion - therefore the basis
to question impartiality certainly exists.

B. That a Federal Judge has indeed read the referenced Motion

and then issued an order (similar to Document No. 122)5 -
therefore it would appear (at least on its surface), that the
judge may have forgotten the actual content of the Motion,
suggesting that mental illness may be an issue here.

C. That a Federal Judge has read the referenced Motion and

issued an order (similar to Document No. 122), and mental
illness does not exist - therefore it would appear that a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism does exist making fair
judgment impossible. It would appear (at least on its
surface), that elements of corruption may exist here; and
that an effort is being made by an officer of the Court, to
brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and
predetermined outcome. This Court should be aware, that the
Plaintiffs supported complaint clearly calls into question,
the integrity of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including
(but not limited to) the five-year related history within its
state judicial system. Any failure to take corrective action
here will certainly question the integrity of this Court.

There can be NO question as to how the Complainant arrived to

these conclusions. The allegation of judicial fraud is both
clear and irrefutable. Here, Chief Justice Howards decision
makes NO REFERENCE to the judicial fraud allegation - ANYWHERE.
Instead, he simply states that the allegations of bias and
mental illness are baseless, with no explanation of how he
reached his conclusion. He also appears to (inaccurately) re-
direct the Conflict of Interest allegation as a primary
reason for filing the judicial complaint. By failing to address
the judicial fraud allegation, similar conclusions (one, or
combination of the following) are now drawn, regarding Chief
Justice Howard:

A. That Chief Justice Howard MAY have issued a decision

without a thorough review of ALL relevant documents;

5See Attachment D, Document No. 122, pages 54-55.

Page 4
 B. That Chief Justice Howard has indeed read all relevant
documents - where it would appear (at least on its
surface), that the judge may have forgotten the actual
content of said documents, suggesting that mental illness
may be an issue here; or
C. That Chief Justice Howard has indeed read ALL relevant
Documents and issued a decision, and mental illness DOES
NOT exist - therefore it would appear that a deep-seated
favoritism or antagonism does exist making fair judgment
impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface),
that elements of corruption may ALSO exist here, extending
now to the Appellate Court of the First Circuit; and that
an effort is being made by the Chief Justice of the
First Circuit Appellate Court, to brush aside this
judicial misconduct complaint in order to reach a corrupt
and predetermined outcome.

These CLEARLY SUPPORTED and IRREFUTABLE FACTS constituting

Judicial Fraud on the Court ALONE - are enough to disqualify
Judge Burroughs from ruling any further in the referenced
litigation and VOIDS all related prior orders issued by Judge
Burroughs. It also constitutes an ACT(S) of BAD FAITH made by
the United States against this Plaintiff.

For clarification and documentation purposes, there are a

number of questions which MUST now be respectfully brought to
this Judicial Council and directly to Chief Justice Howard
including (but not limited to):

1. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that the

Complainants clearly evidenced claim of Judicial Fraud
on the Court against Judge Allison D. Burroughs is
BASELESS? Please clarify further for the record.

2. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that the

Complainants clearly evidenced claim of Judicial Fraud
on the Court against Judge Allison D. Burroughs is NON-
COGNIZABLE? Please clarify further for the record.

3. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that

Judge Burroughs HAS addressed, and NOT IGNORED the
referenced violation to a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure? Please clarify for the record.

4. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that

Judge Burroughs failure to uphold Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure SHOULD NOT be considered an ACT of BAD
FAITH against this Complainant/Plaintiff? Please clarify
for the record.

Page 5
 5. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that an
objective observer WOULD NOT entertain reasonable
questions about the District judge's impartiality,
prejudice against this Plaintiff, and thus WOULD NOT
conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely?
Please clarify for the record.

6. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that

Judge Allison D. Burroughs IS NOT disqualified by law to
rule in the referenced litigation? Please clarify for
the record.

It is important for this Judicial Council to note, that since

August 2016, Judge Burroughs herself has yet to ADDRESS, DENY,
or DEFEND the allegation of Judicial Fraud on the Court and
subsequent failure to support and/or uphold the Judicial
Machinery of the Court.

It is also important to for this Judicial Council to note, that

not a single one of the fourteen (14) Defendants, INCLUDING the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its former Attorney General,
have challenged the Complainants allegation(s) of Judicial
Fraud on the Court OR Call for Recusal.

This Judicial Council need go no further - to make a clear and

accurate determination affirming judicial misconduct here that
includes Judicial Fraud, Prejudice/Bias and Acts of Bad Faith.
Sadly, there are additional concerns which must be brought to
the Councils immediate attention.

III. Treason to the Constitution

The Supreme Court has held that if a judge wars against the
Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has
engaged in Treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after
he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is
acting without jurisdiction, and suggests that he is then
engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in
extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for
their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference
with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has
immunity to engage in such acts.

In his judicial misconduct complaint, the Complainant has shown

multiple evidenced examples concluding that Judge Burroughs is
disqualified by law in the referenced litigation. By issuing
the order in Document No. 125, it is interpreted that Judge
Burroughs has now acted without jurisdiction in a personal

Page 6
 capacity, and not in the judges judicial capacity. The
Complainant therefore interprets the Document No. 125 Order as
a criminal act of Treason to the Constitution, and an
incremental act of Judicial Misconduct. The Complainant
believes that any additional orders by Judge Burroughs in this
matter will EACH be interpreted as such.

A review of the record reveals that the pattern of corrupt

conduct has in fact continued, where Judge Burroughs has
continued to rule without jurisdiction, thus committing three
(3) incremental acts of Treason to the Constitution. These
incremental acts of judicial misconduct were brought to the
attention of Chief Justice Howard in four (4) separate
supplemental complaints filed with the First Circuit Appellate
Court.6

After reviewing the Order issued by Chief Justice Howard, there

is not even a single reference addressing jurisdiction or
Treason allegations. Instead, in the first paragraph of his
decision, Chief Justice Howard simply states, The misconduct
complaint is baseless and not cognizable. The Chief Justice
additionally attaches a footnote (1), which reads, Complainant
submitted additional documentation subsequent to the original
complaint, which has been reviewed in conjunction with the
original filing.

It becomes abundantly clear to this Complainant/Plaintiff, that

an effort has been made by the Chief Justice to downplay and
even ignore the severity of allegations clearly evidenced
against Judge Burroughs, including Treason to the Constitution.
If left uncorrected, it gives additional reason(s) to question
the integrity of the Chief Justice and this First Circuit
Appellate Court. It is also the Complainants interpretation
that these evidenced Treason allegations are considered grounds
for IMPEACHMENT, now warranting a criminal investigation(s),
and shows cause to inform Congress, including the House
Judiciary Committee.

The Complainant respectfully requests that the following

questions be answered for the record:

1. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that

Judge Burroughs HAS NOT acted without jurisdiction in
the referenced litigation? Please Clarify for the
record.
2. Is Chief Justice Howard stating for the record that the
three (3) allegations of Treason to the Constitution,
brought against Judge Allison D. Burroughs, are BASELESS

6 See Attachments E, F, G and H, pages 56 thru 105.

Page 7
 AND NON-COGNIZABLE? Please clarify further for the
record.

IV. False Statements and Refusal to Recuse

In his decision, Chief Justice Howard states, ... complainant

filed his first motion for recusal, which the judge denied on
the ground that complainant did not meet the statutory
requirements.

Chief Justice Howard goes on to say, The misconduct complaint

and the reviewed record of the proceeding contain no
information to support the allegations of bias, disability or
any other wrongdoing with respect to the judges handling of
the complainants case.

The Complainant respectfully disagrees with the Chief Justices

opinion. First, the Complainant requests that the Judicial
Council review the referenced order issued by Judge Burroughs.7
Second, the Judicial Council is asked to review the
Complainants 18-page Motion for recusal,8 which provides
numerous, FACT-BASED examples signifying judicial misconduct,
beginning with judicial fraud and closing with an affidavit
taken verbatim from the United States District Court Website.

Based on the Court filed documents associated with the record,

it is FACTUALLY FALSE for Judge Burroughs OR Chief Justice
Howard to suggest that the Plaintiff/Complainant has failed to
identify any valid grounds for recusal under Section 455(a).
Similarly, it is ALSO factually false for Judge Burroughs OR
Chief Justice Howard to suggest that the Plaintiff HAS NOT
submitted an affidavit setting forth the specific facts and
reasons for his belief that bias or prejudice exists, as
required by Section 144.

It should be clear to this judicial council, exactly how this

Complainant/Plaintiff arrived at his conclusion(s) of judicial
misconduct. Its also highly improbable that BOTH Judge
Burroughs AND Chief Justice Howard either did not read the
motion(s) or forgot its content. The evidenced allegations lean
far more towards the argument that THEY HAVE read the
referenced documents, and that elements of corruption MAY exist
here warranting further investigation.

Refusal to Recuse Federal law requires the automatic

disqualification of a Federal judge under certain
circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that

7 See Attachment D, pages 53-54.

8 See Attachment B, pages 33-51.
Page 8
"Disqualification is required if an objective observer would
entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality.
If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached
observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added].
Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the

partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance
of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the
reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States
v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a)
"is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or
not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the
Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect
litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote
public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial
process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to

recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d
1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th
Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the
litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he
believes that he has received justice." The Supreme Court has
ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States,
362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United
States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not

file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is
obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated
circumstances. " Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir.
1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even
if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think
that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act
sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed."
Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By

law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not
disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given
another example of his "appearance of partiality" which,
possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge
not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second

Page 9
judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has
possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders
issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would
appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a
matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996)
("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based,
not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified
by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her
property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal
Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has
acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's
judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in
this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-
door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However, some
judges may not follow the law. If you were a non-represented
litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-
represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an
"appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem
that he/she has disqualified him/herself.

That appears to be the scenario here, in that Judge Burroughs

HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE LAW, HAS REFUSED TO UPHOLD THE JUDICIAL
MACHINERY OF THE COURT, AND REFUSES TO RECUSE HERSELF. The
Complainant has provided multiple examples of judicial
misconduct which are irrefutable, including (but not limited
to) the Failure to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
three (3) documented acts of Treason. Restating that Judge
Burroughs has yet to ADDRESS, DEFEND, OR EVEN DENY these
allegations. She has failed to recuse herself - sua sponte, and
has denied the Complainants Motion for recusal, as indicated
in the order associated with Document No. 122. The Complainant
has again called for Judge Burroughs to recuse herself, as
indicated in the Plaintiff Response to Judicial Order (See
Document No. 134). Judge Burroughs has denied this second call
for recusal, with NO CLARIFICATION).

Violation(s) to Due Process The decision(s) made by Judge

Burroughs not to disqualify herself (Document No. 133), now
brings a violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th
Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or
prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process
Clause."). By not disqualifying herself as required by law, the
judge has given another example of her "appearance of
partiality" which, possibly, shows cause for further

Page 10
 disqualification (See Document No. 134, Plaintiff Response to
Judicial Order).

Color of Law Violations (18 U.S. Code 242) have long been
alleged throughout the history of this litigation involving:
The Massachusetts State Judicial System, the Massachusetts
Attorney Generals Office (including, but not limited to
evidenced RICO allegations), and the Massachusetts Inspector
Generals Office. Now, Due Process/Color of Law allegations
involving the United States must additionally be addressed,
based on the actions (or inaction) of the following
Parties/Agencies/Department(s)/Office(s): Judge Allison D.
Burroughs, The Department of Justice, The US Inspector
Generals Office, and The Executive Office of the President
(Reference Document No. 121 Plaintiff Response to Order
(Doc. No. 120) and Call for Recusal). In addition to the
allegations against Judge Burroughs, Pages 11-12 of Document
No. 121 gives a general overview of historical FACTS, revealing
that this Plaintiff has been betrayed not only by the Bank
Defendants, but also by the Commonwealth and the United States
on multiple levels. Allowing the Plaintiff to amend the
existing complaint is both warranted and necessary; as is the
Courts assistance with the appointment of Counsel. The
Plaintiff believes that a successfully asserted Due
Process/Color of Law claim will likely reflect (at minimum) the
collective appearance of Conspiracy and a scheme defining
Outrageous Government Conduct.

V. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. 1915

The Plaintiff has consistently made clear that he is not an

attorney and has no legal background. The Factually supported
issues involved are too complex for the Plaintiff to present
entirely without the assistance of experienced legal counsel.
Experienced legal expertise is required in a number of areas
including (at minimum):
1. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law
2. Intellectual Property Rights associated with a National
Economic Plan
3. Litigation involving State and Federal Government
4. Federal Trial Court Litigation
5. The US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis
6. Judicial Misconduct
7. Violations to Due Process
8. Color of Law Violations
9. Civil Conspiracy Claims
10. Federal Tort Claims

Page 11
 The Complainant respectfully disagrees with Judge Burroughs
decision, and questions where exactly the bar has been set to
assist with the appointment of counsel, AND exactly how she
possibly could have arrived at her conclusions. Here, it is
completely unrealistic to expect ANY pro se litigant to
successfully litigate this matter in its entirety, considering
the number of complex subjects requiring legal expertise. Also,
when the Commonwealth (AND the United States)9 are in reality
two (2) of the opposing parties (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 unless it would result in
fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights. 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.

The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning

heavily towards the necessary appointment of counsel:

1. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim;

2. Position to investigate crucial facts;
3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both
sides are represented by persons trained in the presentation
of evidence and in cross-examination;
4. Capability of the plaintiff 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.;
5. The district court should consider the complexity of the
legal issues the claim raises. When 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 both sides are
represented by persons trained in legal analysis.

9 The Complainant has already taken the legal steps to inform the
United States of his intention to file suit either separately or
through an amendment of the existing complaint. The Complainant has
additionally offered an opportunity to the United States to seek
agreement, and awaits a decision.
Page 12
 While the Plaintiff 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. By refusing to assist the Plaintiff with the
appointment of counsel, Judge Burroughs has exemplified
Prejudice and an Act of Bad Faith against this Plaintiff (28
U.S. Code 144), and has chosen NOT to support or uphold the
Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective observer would
entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality,
and conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that if the Complainant had experienced

legal counsel 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 be well past the
Discovery phase, potentially with additional claims, and on a
TIMELY path to a jury trial. It is also entirely plausible,
that by now a settlement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the
UNITED STATES, would have been reached.

In the meantime, the Plaintiffs time should be considered no

less important than that of opposing counsel. These clearly
evidenced FACTS demonstrate an ACT of BAD FAITH, made by the
United States against this Plaintiff/Complainant. The Plaintiff
has submitted to the District Court a DEMAND for the
reimbursement for COSTS and FEES, and has yet to receive a
timely payment from the United States Treasury Department. The
United States has respectfully been informed, that (at minimum)
the referenced legal fees will continue to accrue until either:

1. The Court RIGHTFULLY assists with the appointment of

counsel; or
2. The Plaintiff is able to secure legal counsel on his
own.

The hourly rate will continue to accrue at $1000 per hour, and
is still capped at 40 hours per week. The updated accrual for
legal fees thru week ending January 29, 2017 is $3,520,000. The
evidenced Act of Bad Faith warrants treble costs bringing the
updated total (Legal costs only) to $10,560,000.

VI. Incidents of Prejudice/Bias

Each of the following evidenced acts of judicial misconduct,

both individually and collectively contribute as acts
Prejudice/Bias against the Plaintiff/Complainant:

1. Judicial Fraud on the Court

Page 13
 2. Treason to the Constitution (3 separate allegations)
3. IMBALANCE of Hardships
4. Refusal to Recuse
5. Violations to Due Process
6. Color of Law Violations
7. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel

There has also been an eighth incident of Prejudice/Bias that

includes the failure by Judge Burroughs to uphold Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(a), involving the Plaintiffs claim that
the Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC, was considered to be in
DEFAULT. The Judicial Council is respectfully requested to
review Attachment I, pages 106 thru 118.

Here, the Defendant moved for leave of Court to file its

late Motion to Dismiss, as allowed under Rule 6(b)(1)(B). As
grounds therefore, Harmon states that the one day delay in
filing its motion to dismiss was the result of good faith
excusable neglect.

Now, if this was truly just a simple calendaring error, one MAY
understand the pleading of excusable neglect. However, the
documented FACTS as outlined in the Plaintiffs filed
Opposition reveal what can ONLY be described as GROSS/IN-
EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE, and the continued efforts by this
Defendant a licensed law firm, to DECEIVE the Court(s):
1. The Defendant was reminded by the Plaintiffs
Motion/Notice filings on four (4) separate occasions
during the 21-day timeline: 5/3/16, 5/9/16, 5/10/16
and 5/16/16. The Defendant received these timely
reminders via US Mail. If anything, the Plaintiff
OVER-COMMUNICATED to the Defendant(s)to ensure timely
filing.
2. The Defendant states in item five (5), that
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, attorney Kurt R. McHugh
contacted the Plaintiff to seek his assent and to
otherwise discuss the motion. Unfortunately, the
Plaintiff did not respond to such request. The
Defendant is correct, in that attorney McHugh did in
fact attempt to reach the Plaintiff by phone on
Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 1:18pm EST. Attorney McHugh
additionally sent an email to the Plaintiff, which was
received on the same day at 1:39pm EST. Attorney
McHugh then filed his Motion with the Court at 2:59pm
EST roughly an hour and a half later. The Plaintiff
was in the middle of exercising at the gym and was
unavailable when attorney McHugh attempted to reach
him. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff cannot be faulted for
failing to return a phone call or email in LESS THAN
TWO (2) HOURS. It is important to note that the

Page 14
 Plaintiff had already filed with the Court a Default
Motion earlier that morning at 11:21am EST. It is
likely that that Defendant, who had yet to even file a
notice of appearance, realized the default, and made a
desperate effort and scramble to avoid accountability.
The Plaintiff views this action as an absolute attempt
by the Defendant to deceive this court into believing
that the Plaintiff was negligent when in fact it was
HARMON who was grossly negligent.
3. Attorney McHugh has additionally made this attempt to
deceive the Court with an attached AFFIDAVIT. The
Plaintiff views this as a serious offense and
questions the Courts CLEAR FAILURE to hold the
Defendant accountable.
4. The Court(s) is already aware, that the Defendant -
Harmon Law Offices PC, as identified by the MA
Attorney Generals Office, is connected to 50,000 to
60,000 illegal foreclosures in the Commonwealth alone.
Harmon has been long under investigation by the MA-AGO
for foreclosure and eviction practices, and has been
directly tied to DISBARRED FL Foreclosure Kingpin
David Stern.

By ignoring the Defendants four (4) reminders to timely file

AND the clearly evidenced acts of deception, Judge Burroughs
has demonstrated her inability to be impartial. There can be NO
QUESTION of evidenced prejudice/bias here, with the Harmon
example, or any one of the previous seven (7) examples
provided. ANY objective observer would entertain reasonable
questions about Judge Burroughs impartiality, prejudice
against this Plaintiff, and conclude that a fair and impartial
hearing is unlikely. Similarly, ANY objective observer, who has
been made aware of ALL FACT-BASED information would entertain
reasonable questions about the Chief Justices handling of this
judicial complaint. The Complainant has paneled many objective
observers through the years and has received feedback from
across the United States and throughout the globe 100% of the
feedback believes that elements of Corruption exist here, and
that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

VII. Improper Judicial Motive

The details of the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis have long

forged the belief by many Americans nationwide, that deep-
rooted corruption exists between Wall Street, and ALL three (3)
branches of the US Government Executive, Legislative and
Judicial. ANYONE who has followed and understands the detailed
6-year history of this Complainants litigation, will have
clear understanding as to why that belief remains strong today.

Page 15
 When reviewing the clearly evidenced acts of judicial
misconduct, there are several arguments supporting Improper
Judicial Motive which should individually and/or collectively
be considered:

A. Prejudice/Bias against Pro Se Litigants It is NO SECRET, that

many in the legal community, judges and lawyers alike, are not
fans of the pro se litigant. There are a host of reasons that
contribute to this view. One view is EGO, and the belief that
the pro se litigant is not playing by their rules by not
hiring a licensed attorney to represent them on their behalf...
They believe that the pro se litigant is incapable of
understanding the complex laws and procedures of the Court, and
therefore have a pre-determined disposition to consistently
brush aside and rule against the pro se litigant, regardless of
the severity of issues at hand.

That argument can certainly be made here, and also historically

throughout related Massachusetts State Court litigation. Here,
the Complainant has laid out the evidenced PATTERN OF CORRUPT
CONDUCT of Judge Allison D. Burroughs, that includes (but is
not limited to): 1. Judicial Fraud on the Court, 2. Treason to
the Constitution (3 separate allegations), 3. IMBALANCE of
Hardships, 4. Refusal to Recuse, 5. Violations to Due Process,
6. Color of Law Violations, 7. Refusal to Assist with the
Appointment of Counsel, and 8. Prejudice favoring Defendant
Harmon Law Offices PC.

Now, if the Complainant/Plaintiff had the ability/means to

retain experienced legal counsel from the beginning, it is
HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that the course of events (or a portion)
clearly evidenced here would exist. What HAS LIKELY been
anticipated by opposing parties (and officers of the Court)
from the beginning, is that:

1. The Plaintiff would be unable to correctly interpret

the complex state, and federal procedures and laws.
2. The Plaintiff would be unable to effectively formulate
an argument to support his claims.
3. The Plaintiff would be unable to recognize and call
out misconduct by opposing counsel and/or officers of
the Court.
4. The Plaintiff would LIKELY over time, tire and quit.

That has not occurred here. In fact, it has been just the
opposite. If anything, the six-year history of this litigation
has only brought more evidence to support the Plaintiffs
consistent legal claims; All while exposing the corrupt conduct
of government officials at higher and higher levels. If left
uncorrected here, evidenced corruption would now appear to

Page 16
 extend to the Chief Justice of the First Circuit Appellate
Court.

If a pro se litigant were to succeed here, there MAY also exist

a sense of EMBARRASSMENT, for opposing attorneys as well as the
presiding judge. Legal peers may question how this could
possibly have been ALLOWED to occur.

At this stage, there can be NO QUESTION that here, the argument

supporting Judicial Bias and/or Prejudice exists, at least in
part, as an improper judicial motive.

B. Potential Magnitude of Precedent Set The Court(s) is well-

aware, that the Plaintiffs civil complaint stems from the
evidenced misconduct associated with the US Foreclosure/
Financial Crisis. The Plaintiffs foreclosure was one (1) of
4.2M properties identified by both the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, as
an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE that (at minimum) DID NOT possess CLEAR
TITLE.

Here, the argument for Improper Judicial Motive can be made,

where a finding in favor of the Plaintiffs claims would set
a national precedent that would impact (at minimum) 4.2M
identified illegal foreclosures, who would have the legal right
to similarly file a civil lawsuit. To take it a step further,
the evidenced (civil/criminal) misconduct associated with
mortgage-backed securities, would include non-foreclosures,
thus potentially increasing the legal precedent from 4.2M to
60M parties (or greater). Assuming the average lawsuit is set
to $1M in damages per claim, the total impact of damages could
range from $4.2T (trillion) to $60T+. The precedent set would
also carry criminal implications on a mass-scale. The
Complainant is confident that NO Judge wants the recognition or
association with setting this precedent, EVEN if he is JUST in
doing so.

C. Plaintiffs Intellectual Property Rights Similarly, a major

component of the Plaintiffs Civil Claim involves damages to
his intellectual property (IP) rights, including (but not
limited to) an economic framework (the Harihar FCS Model)
designed by the Plaintiff to assist the United States with
economic repair and growth. Here, the Plaintiff has set damages
equivalent to less than 1% of the estimated IP value, $42B
(does not include the award of treble damages). A ruling in
favor of the Plaintiff would hold fifteen parties responsible
for these damages, including the United States. An argument can
certainly be made for improper judicial motive and efforts to
avoid accountability for damages of this scale, and preventing
the Plaintiff from succeeding in his legal efforts. It is

Page 17
 important to note here that the legal efforts of the
Complainant/Plaintiff INCLUDE reaching a MUTUAL AGREEMENT with
the United States. The Plaintiff has extended an opportunity to
the United states to reach a mutual agreement, and is still
awaiting an answer.

D. Civil RICO and Conspiracy Claims

Many Americans, including PRESIDENT TRUMPS Administration,

believe there exists considerable corruption within our
government to the extent that the phrase, DRAIN THE SWAMP
echoed daily in his presidential campaign.

ANYONE who has followed the detailed history of this 6-year

litigation has a clear sample of an argument that reveals
corruption and conspiracy acts in ALL three (3) branches of
government. The Complainant RESPECTFULLY, AND STRONGLY
RECOMMENDS that the Judicial Council thoroughly review the
historical record before attaching the label of BASELESS or
NON-COGNIZABLE. If there is EVEN THE SLIGHTEST question
regarding any portion of this, OR ANY ALLEGATION, the
complainant is happy to provide additional detail upon request,
and preferably with the assistance of legal counsel.

Based on the evidenced allegations of the Complainant/

Plaintiff, the argument can certainly be made for improper
judicial motive to prevent CIVIL RICO and Conspiracy claims of
this magnitude from successfully moving forward. Further
investigation IS BELIEVED TO BE NECESSARY to determine whether
there is ANY JUDICIAL CONNECTION to the Civil RICO or
Conspiracy claim(s) of the Plaintiff/Complainant.

E. Interference with Interstate Commerce - Should a judge issue

any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the
party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the
judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of
"interference with interstate commerce". Here, we have
litigation where the Plaintiff has been denied his property,
and the presiding judge has, on three (3) occasions, issued an
order WITHOUT jurisdiction thereby committing acts of TREASON
against the CONSTITUTION. Criminal investigations are certainly
warranted and the argument for improper judicial motive to
hinder the efforts of the Plaintiff can certainly be made here.

F. Potential Conflict(s) of Interest

While the Complainant considers the Conflict of Interest

allegation as secondary, it is one which has merit and
certainly demands further investigation.

Page 18
First, an argument can certainly be made, that IF the Plaintiff
had the financial means and also legal counsel, it is likely
that this civil complaint would have been either initiated in,
OR transferred to a US District Court in a state OTHER THAN the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts - considering that the
Plaintiffs complaint includes the Commonwealth AND its former
Attorney General Martha Coakley, as Defendants.

The Plaintiff has ALSO exemplified and made the Court aware, of
the extensive EMAIL trail that supports his consistent claims,
and has been delivered to multiple government officials,
including:

1. The EOP (Executive Office of the President)

including communication(s) sent to the attention of
former President Barack Obama, former Vice President
Joe Biden, and former Senior Advisor to the President
Valerie Jarrett;
2. US Inspector General, Michael Horowitz;
3. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau including
communication sent to the attention of Assistant
Deputy Director, Timothy Sheehan;
4. The Department of Justice including communications
to the attention MA US Attorney Carmen Ortiz;
5. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI - Washington
and Boston Offices) including Assistant Director
Andrew McCabe;
6. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) including the
review and recommendation made by the Senators Senior
Economic Advisor Bruno Freitas;
7. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA)
8. MA Inspector General Glen Cunha
9. Governor Deval Patrick (Former, D-MA)
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA)
11. Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA)
12. MA Attorney General Maura Healey (D-MA)
13. MA Attorney General (Former) Martha Coakley (D-MA)

While evidence MAY support multiple conflict of interest

arguments, here the Complainant identifies the relationship
between Judge Allison D. Burroughs and United States Senator
Elizabeth Warren (MA).

The nomination of Judge Allison D. Burroughs in 2015 by

President Obama, came at the recommendation of US Senator
Elizabeth Warren.

The Complainant respectfully reminds the Judicial Council that

the referenced ongoing litigation is a $42B lawsuit that
includes a multi-trillion dollar economic framework designed to

Page 19
 assist the United States with repair and economic growth from
damages resulting from the US Foreclosure Crisis.

Its NO SECRET that Senator Warren for years has been, and
continues to be outspoken when talking to the Nation about Wall
Street Corruption, including the US Foreclosure Crisis. It
raises questions here however, where the Senator has remained
completely silent, and has blatantly IGNORED a potential
solution to the Foreclosure Crisis that would deliver historic
economic growth Even after it had been recommended by her
Senior Economic Advisor, Bruno Freitas. The Deposition of
Senator Warren is certainly warranted as this legal process
moves towards a jury trial, and to give detailed explanation to
many pending questions. Certainly, as a Defendant in a $42B
lawsuit, there is tremendous legal and financial risk to the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts if a ruling were to be made in
favor of the Defendant, Mohan A. Harihar. There also could
exist tremendous political risk, if the public were to be made
aware that Senator Warren blatantly ignored an economic
framework that would:

1. Assist in making the Illegally Foreclosed Homeowner

WHOLE again; and
2. Bring HISTORIC ECONOMIC GROWTH to the Commonwealth
AND to the United States.

Therefore, based on these FACTS, an argument can certainly be

made that a Conflict of Interest MAY exist here, and certainly
shows cause to suggest improper judicial motive. Any judicial
decision suggesting otherwise - prior to further investigation
is certainly considered premature.

G. Unnecessary Judicial Delay

This litigation should now be well into the DISCOVERY phase or

beyond. However, decisions on whether the Plaintiff will
survive the filed motions to dismiss are still pending after
nearly EIGHT (8) MONTHS. The following FACTS support the
argument for improper judicial motive AND unnecessary judicial
delay:

1. The FACTS outlined in the Plaintiffs Opposition,

revealing evidenced FRAUD on the Court per FRCP
60(B)(3) against ALL FOURTEEN (14) DEFENDENTS, IN
ITSELF is enough to not only survive the motion to
dismiss, but to find ALL Defendants in DEFAULT, with
PREJUDICE;
2. Instead of upholding the Judicial Machinery of the
Court, Judge Burroughs IGNORED the referenced Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure, NEVER EXPECTING this pro se

Page 20
 Plaintiff to address this, or other acts of judicial
misconduct, including Treason to the Constitution;
3. Judge Burroughs no longer has jurisdiction in this
litigation. Issuing ANY order on the filed motions to
dismiss, would EACH bring incremental Treason
allegations against the judge;
4. The Plaintiff/Complainant believes that Judge
Burroughs is waiting for a definitive and final
decision from the First Circuit Judicial Council. If
Judge Burroughs is allowed to escape accountability
here, it would certainly provide a path to WRONGFULLY
DISMISSING the Plaintiffs civil complaint;
5. Now, after reading the clarification of Chief Justice
Howard, and his decision to DISMISS this judicial
complaint, it appears (at least on its surface) that
judicial misconduct clearly extends to the Chief
Justice of this First Appellate Court; thus playing a
role in an unnecessary judicial delay.

This collection of facts SHOULD certainly demonstrate BOTH

improper judicial motive as well as unnecessary delay.

H. Imbalance of Hardships

In his decision, Chief Justice Howard states, As with all of

the District Courts orders, the judge thoroughly explained the
reasons for each of these rulings, noting, with respect to the
request for injunctive relief, that the complainant was not
seeking to preserve the status quo but to obtain damages.

The Complainant respectfully disagrees with the Chief Justices

opinion, which shows cause to question whether the Chief
Justice has reviewed ANY of the Plaintiffs responses to a
judicial order (For example, reference Document No. 121). While
a judges explanation of an order may be lengthy and appear
thorough, it DOES NOT GUARANTEE complete accuracy. Such is the
case as exemplified throughout this docket.

The Complainant has made clear, that Injunctive Relief was

strictly sought to preserving the status quo, and to preserving
the Plaintiffs status, as it existed immediately prior to the
allegedly wrongful conduct of the defendant(s). The Plaintiff
has repeatedly called for the Court to re-assess its
interpretation of the Plaintiffs status prior to the alleged
misconduct vs. current day.

In a forty-two-billion-dollar ($42B) civil lawsuit, the

Plaintiff has merely sought to establish the status quo as it
pertains to housing, transportation, and avoiding greater
hardship. The Plaintiff has repeatedly stated he is open to

Page 21
 discussing various options for receiving this relief, so as to
abide by the law, and to avoid enduring even greater hardship
that began on August 22, 2016. Judge Burroughs has ignored or
denied these requests to re-assess or even divulge her
interpretation of the status quo. The result is an evidenced
Act of Bad Faith made by the United states against this
Plaintiff.

Based on her opinion and order denying injunctive relief, it is

firmly believed that Judge Burroughs has exemplified prejudice
against this Plaintiff, and again, has chosen NOT to support or
uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective
observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's
impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is
unlikely.

VIII. BAD FAITH ACTS BY THE UNITED STATES

After reviewing Chief Justice Howards decision, there is NOT A

SINGLE MENTION of Bad Faith Acts by the United States. As
previously described in this petition, these referenced Acts of
Bad Faith include (but are not limited to):

A. Judicial Fraud on the Court

B. Treason to the Constitution (3 allegations)
C. Refusal to Recuse (2 allegations)
D. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel
E. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING
INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff
F. Unnecessary Judicial Delay

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Judicial Council

THOROUGHLY review the ENTIRE record, prior to rendering its
decision here.

The Complainant in part, seeks for this Council to VALIDATE

referenced Acts of Bad Faith made against the Plaintiff by the
United States, and to initiate corrective actions.

IX. Request(s) for Hearing

It is necessary for the Complainant to clarify his requests for

a hearing. After reviewing Judge Howards decision, his
interpretation to have a hearing for clarification and
documentation purposes before a different judge is incorrect.

First, for the numerous allegations of judicial misconduct

brought against Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the Plaintiff has
requested a hearing, so that Judge Burroughs can address and

Page 22
 clarify for the record each of the allegations in the presence
of a court reporter. This clarification and documentation is
necessary for several reasons:

1. If a final judgement IS NOT found entirely IN FAVOR of

the Plaintiff, OR if a mutual agreement IS NOT reached
between ALL Parties INCLUDING the United States, it
may become necessary for the Plaintiff to file an
Appeal.
2. Based on the totality of evidenced misconduct
(alleged) that includes TREASON, a full, criminal
investigation is certainly warranted, and should be
immediately brought to the attention of the House
Judiciary Committee.

The request for a hearing was also made to address the Fraud on
the Court claim against fourteen (14) Defendants (Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 60(B)(3). As a general proposition,
substantive misconduct provides grounds for default with
prejudice because it more clearly and directly subverts the
judicial process. The Plaintiff had respectfully called for the
Court to schedule the required evidentiary hearing to determine
whether the conduct forming the basis for Defendants default
was willful or done in bad faith or was deliberate and in
contumacious disregard of the courts authority.

The decision by Judge Burroughs to ignore this clear violation

of a Federal Rule revealed her failure to uphold the judicial
machinery of the Court, thus bringing the Judicial Fraud on the
Court allegation.

X. Plaintiffs Personal Safety and Well-Being Concerns

The Plaintiffs complaint addresses civil and criminal issues

related to US Foreclosure Crisis. Many Americans consider this
Foreclosure Crisis to be The largest case of FRAUD in US
history. It is believed by many, to involve elements of
corruption at a very high level. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) AND the MA Attorney Generals Office (MA-AGO) are BOTH on
record as stating that they WILL NOT protect this Plaintiff
from the evidenced criminal misconduct committed against him.
The Plaintiff NO LONGER FEELS SAFE walking down the street or
in his own apartment. Now, the judicial misconduct allegations
involving Judge Burroughs and Chief Justice Howard only
heighten these safety concerns.

For safety and security reasons, and also to inform the

millions of Americans who stand to be negatively impacted by
these acts (alleged) the Plaintiff has, and will continue to

Page 23
 make these evidenced FACTS available to the PUBLIC, including
this legal petition.

The 4.2M parties who were similarly harmed and incurred damages
from an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE certainly should be forewarned that
if they so choose to legally seek damages resulting from an
illegal foreclosure, they are likely to face similar elements
of misconduct, including (but not limited to) government
corruption, as exemplified throughout this litigation.

When Federal Judges fail to uphold the judicial machinery of

the Court; When Federal and State prosecutors refuse to
prosecute fully supported criminal complaints; When Federal and
State Legislators ignore the supported complaints of their
constituents; and when the Head of the Executive Branch of the
United States ignores requests to assign a special prosecutor:
These historical and EVIDENCED FACTS show clear cause for this
Plaintiff, AND AT MINIMUM, ALL THOSE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY
THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS, to lose faith in all three (3) branches
of government. Still, it remains the Plaintiffs sincere hope,
that this faith will ultimately be restored, there will be
accountability, and a mutual agreement will eventually be
reached between ALL parties.

XI. Conclusion

First, as historically offered to EVERY DEFENDANT, and

similarly to Judge Burroughs, the Complainant respectfully
wishes to offer Chief Justice Howard the opportunity to take
CORRECTIVE action regarding his decision. There is a lot of
information to digest, and it MAY appear (at least on its
surface), that Chief Justice Howard MAY NOT have reviewed all
relevant information prior to making his decision.

EVEN IF the Complainant was somehow incorrect in EVERY

assessment described, this Council SHOULD CERTAINLY CONCLUDE
that the APPEARANCE OF PARTIALITY CERTAINLY EXISTS.

Many Americans ALREADY BELIEVE that the US Foreclosure Crisis

includes corruption within this Government AND Wall Street. If
left uncorrected, the documented acts of misconduct by Judge
Allison D. Burroughs AND the referenced decision by Chief
Justice Howard will show cause for the Complainant/Plaintiff
and the PUBLIC to LOSE FAITH in this Federal Judiciary Branch
of Government. It will certainly exemplify a malicious intent
to (at minimum): 1.) Critically damage the legal efforts of
this Plaintiff; 2.) Negatively impact the resulting precedent
set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent the implementation of a
framework designed to repair and grow the United States
Economy.

Page 24
Upon re-affirming the position of the Chief Justice, there are
a number of issues which the Complainant respectfully requests
for this Judicial Council to address:

A. VALIDATE whether or not the United States has interest in

reaching a MUTUAL AGREEMENT as offered by the Plaintiff. IF
the United States DOES in fact have interest in reaching a
mutual agreement with the Plaintiff/Complainant, and ONLY IF
it is ALLOWED by LAW, there MAY be a POTENTIAL opportunity to
withdraw related judicial complaints on file.

If a mutual agreement with the United States IS NOT an

option, the Complainant respectfully requests that judicial
council validate for the record, each individual act of
judicial misconduct and Acts of Bad Faith, as historically
evidenced, and documented in this legal petition.

B. If the position of Chief Justice Howard remains unchanged, it

will add to the evidenced argument(s) and claim(s) made by
the Complainant/Plaintiff, including (but not limited to)
corruption and conspiracy claims. It will reveal evidenced
judicial misconduct by both a Federal District Court judge as
well as the Chief Justice of a Federal Appellate Court. It
will warrant an additional judicial complaint against the
Chief Justice and further investigation.

The Complainant states for the record that IF the position

of Chief Justice Howard remains unchanged, AND IF NO
CORRECTIVE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THIS JUDICIAL COUNCIL, it will
show just cause to:

1. Bring additional misconduct complaints against

members of this Council;
2. Expand upon a necessary criminal investigation;
3. Bring this matter to the attention of the House
Judiciary Committee;
4. Bring this matter to the attention of the Executive
Office of the President (EOP), as a special
prosecutor is CLEARLY WARRANTED;
5. Update the Office of the United States Inspector
General.

C. Validate for the record that Judge Burroughs has in FACT been
disqualified by law to rule in the referenced litigation. The
Complainant respectfully requests that the appropriate legal
action be taken, to remove and replace Judge Burroughs, so
that the referenced litigation can move forward without
further unnecessary delay.

Page 25
 D. Validate Acts of Bad Faith by the United States which
should lead to immediate corrective action regarding:
assistance with the appointment of counsel, re-establishing
the status quo and the balance of hardships, and the
reimbursement of costs and fees due to the Plaintiff.

Finally, this Complainant states that he has been respectful to this

and EVERY Court, and has followed the law to the best of his ability
for the past six (6) years. While the many evidenced acts of
misconduct have shown just cause to lose faith in government, it
remains my SINCERE HOPE, that the United States will take corrective
steps in restoring that faith.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Councils time and

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

Complainant/Plaintiff

Page 26
Attachment A

Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Attachment B

Page 33
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO ORDER (DOCUMENT 120) AND CALL FOR RECUSAL PER
JUDICIAL CODE, 28 U.S.C. 455(a), AND 28 U.S.C. 144

After reviewing the recent order (and those orders prior to Document

No. 120) issued on August 11, 2016 by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, it

has become increasingly clear to this Plaintiff that a fair and

impartial proceeding here is unlikely. These very serious concerns

have accumulated throughout this legal process, showing cause to

address them now, prior to moving forward:

1. Judicial FRAUD ON THE COURT The Plaintiff understands

this definition as follows: Fraud Upon the Court is where

the Judge (who is NOT the "Court") does NOT support or

uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court. The Court is

an unbiased, but methodical "creature" which is governed

by the Rule of Law... that is, the Rules of Civil

Procedure, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Rules

Page 34
of Evidence, all which is overseen by Constitutional law.

The Court can ONLY be effective, fair and "just" if it is

allowed to function as the laws proscribe. Whenever any

officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in

the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court".

In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th

Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is

fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself

and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent

documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where

the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or

influence is attempted or where the judge has not

performed his judicial function --- thus where the

impartial functions of the court have been directly

corrupted."

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit

Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which

does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a

fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the

judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its

impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for

adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7

Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, 60.23. The 7th

Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon

Page 35
the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never

becomes final."

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a

Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the

U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required

if an objective observer would entertain reasonable

questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's

attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to

conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely,

the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky

v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).

Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the

partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the

appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services

Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988)

(what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but

its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d

1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against

the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is

actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code,

28 U.S.C. 455(a), is not intended to protect litigants

from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote

Page 36
public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial

process.").

That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a

judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v.

O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v.

Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that

"It is important that the litigant not only actually

receive justice, but that he believes that he has received

justice." The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed

the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance

of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80

S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348

U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).

"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need

not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge

is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated

circumstances. " Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th

Cir. 1989).

Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself

even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that

"We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on

Page 37
the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit

is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.

Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify

themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law.

Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law,

then the judge has given another example of his "appearance

of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the

judge. Should another judge not accept the

disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has

evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly

disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by

any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear

to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter

of law, and are of no legal force or effect. Should

a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation

of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United

States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The

right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based,

not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").

Should a judge issue any order after he has been

disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of

any of his / her property, then the judge may have been

engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with

interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's

Page 38
personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial

capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this

manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-

door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However,

some judges may not follow the law. If you were

a non-represented litigant, and should the court not

follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the

judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and,

under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified

him/herself.

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars

against the Constitution, or if he acts without

jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the

Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been

automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting

without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then

engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged

in extortion and the interference with interstate

commerce. Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges

have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both

treason and the interference with interstate commerce are

criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such

acts.

Page 39
The Plaintiffs position is supported by the following

examples for the record:

a. Failure to Uphold Federal Rule of Civ. Proc. 60(b)(3)

In his Motion for reconsideration, the Plaintiff

cites Fraud upon the Court against ALL fourteen (14)

Defendants as it relates to the knowledge of

Plaintiffs clouded title, and a collective scheme

to defraud the Plaintiff of his homestead (Reference

Document no. 117, Motion for reconsideration). It is

important for the Court to note that the Plaintiff

has consistently maintained throughout these

proceedings AND in state Court(s), the existence of

clouded title as it relates (at minimum) to his

illegal foreclosure. Understanding these historical

facts fully, brings a scenario that can arguably be

considered as a TEXTBOOK case of Fraud upon the

Court(s); showing clear cause to find all Defendants

in default, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60 (b)(3). In her order (reference document

no. 118), Judge Burroughs fails to address or even

acknowledge these clearly evident violations to FRCP

60(b)(3). By choosing to ignore this violation to a

Federal Rule, Judge Burroughs has chosen NOT to

support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the

Court. ANY objective observer would entertain

Page 40
 reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality,

prejudice against this Plaintiff, and conclude that

a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

b. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 The Plaintiff

has consistently made clear that he is not an

attorney and has no legal background. The Factual

issues involved are too complex for the Plaintiff to

present entirely without the assistance of

experienced legal counsel. Experienced legal

expertise is required in a number of areas including

(at minimum):

1. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law

2. Intellectual Property Rights associated with a

National Economic Plan

3. Litigation involving State and Federal

Government

4. Federal Trial Court Litigation

5. The US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis

It is completely unrealistic to expect any pro se litigant to

successfully litigate this matter in its entirety without the

assistance of legal counsel, considering the number of complex

subjects requiring legal expertise. At minimum, the alignment of

experienced legal counsel with the Plaintiff is necessary to

Page 41
ensure that the supported allegations against Defendants are

accurately articulated throughout the complaint and aligned with

the appropriate Causes of Action; thus reducing the risk of

misinterpretation and potentially premature dismissal by the

Court. Experienced legal representation will also be necessary as

this matter moves to a trial by jury. Considering the magnitude

of the legal task at hand, the Plaintiff has made clear that he

is willing to consider a contingency agreement, should any legal

firms become available as options for counsel. While the Plaintiff

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. By refusing to

assist the Plaintiff with the appointment of counsel, Judge

Burroughs has exemplified prejudice against this Plaintiff (28

U.S. Code 144), and has chosen NOT to support or uphold the

Judicial Machinery of the Court. ANY objective observer would

entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality,

and conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

2. The Court is aware that this is a multibillion-dollar

lawsuit which addresses Plaintiff damages which stem

from the US Foreclosure Crisis. The associated misconduct

which includes FRAUD, has already (in part) been

identified by the Department of Justice, Massachusetts

Attorney Generals Office, and Federal Bank Regulators.

Page 42
 Thus far, the Defendants, and the Court itself have

apparently failed to even acknowledge or recognize these

FACTS, or that there has even been a foreclosure crisis

plaguing this nation since 2008 (or prior).

The Court is aware that this lawsuit also addresses damages to the

Plaintiffs Intellectual Property Rights, and an economic framework

designed to deliver trillions of dollars in economic growth to the

United States of America. The Court is aware that this intellectual

property has been successfully presented to/reviewed by: The

Executive Office of the President (EOP), a member of the US Senate,

a member of the US Congress, two (2) state attorney generals (MA

and NH), and others. Yet it appears as though Judge Burroughs (and

the Defendants) have refused to even acknowledge its existence.

Instead, the interpretation thus far is that it appears this matter

is being treated strictly as an isolated incident; questioning the

legality of a singular foreclosure, and nothing more. IT SHOULD BE

RECOGNIZED, AND NOT IGNORED - that this Plaintiff not only addresses

the damages associated with his illegal foreclosure, but has also

developed a credible SOLUTION to assist a nation.

By blatantly ignoring the FACTS related to the Plaintiffs

Intellectual Property Rights, Judge Burroughs has exemplified

prejudice against this Plaintiff (28 U.S. Code 144), and has

chosen NOT to support or uphold the Judicial Machinery of the Court.

ANY objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about

Page 43
the judge's impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial

hearing is unlikely.

3. This Civil action addresses allegations of corruption at

a state and federal level The Plaintiff has respectfully

demanded a trial by jury, at which time the historical

facts will show clear cause to question the integrity of:

a. The Massachusetts Judicial System revealing (at

minimum) multiple abuses of judicial discretion;

b. The Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General

revealing (at minimum) supported allegations of

improper relationships, RICO violations, and the

refusal to prosecute supported criminal complaints;

refusing to protect an American born citizen

(residing in the Commonwealth) from supported

criminal misconduct;

c. The Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General

failing to take action involving (at minimum) RICO

violations involving the MA Office of the Attorney

General;

d. The Department of Justice refusing to prosecute

the fully supported criminal complaints of the

Plaintiff; refusing to protect an American born

citizen from supported criminal misconduct; It is no

secret, that the DOJ has been highly criticized for

multiple failures to prosecute, ranging from Wall

Page 44
 Street executives to current Presidential

Candidates.

e. The United States Office of the Inspector General -

ignoring the request(s) to assign a special

prosecutor, to address and prosecute related

criminal complaints;

f. The Executive Branch of Government ignoring the

request(s) for the assignment of a special

prosecutor, to address and prosecute related

criminal complaints; these multiple requests had

been sent to the direct attention of President Barack

Obama (via Senior Advisor, Valerie Jarrett). On a

state level, both Governors Gov. Deval Patrick and

Gov. Charlie Baker have ignored numerous email

communications regarding this matter.

g. The Legislative Branch of Government a jury trial

will have the opportunity to review dozens of related

email communications delivered to, and ignored by

members of the US Senate and members of Congress

including (but not limited to): US Senator Elizabeth

Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), and US

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (MA).

Page 45
The collective historical FACTS reveal that this Plaintiff has been

betrayed not only by the Bank Defendants, but also by the

Commonwealth and the United States on multiple levels.

4. Response to the most recent order denying injunctive

relief

a. The Plaintiff disagrees with Judge Burroughs

opinion that he seeks damages in the guise of

preliminary injunctive relief. Relief here is

strictly sought to preserving the status quo, and to

preserving the Plaintiffs status, as it existed

immediately prior to the allegedly wrongful conduct

of the defendant(s). The Plaintiff respectfully

calls for the Court to re-assess its interpretation

of the Plaintiffs status prior to the alleged

misconduct vs. current day.

b. Judge Burroughs states that the Plaintiff has not

made an adequate showing that he is likely to succeed

on the merits of any of his claims The Plaintiff

disagrees. With the overwhelming amount of evidence

and information already presented to the Court, it

is unclear as to how Judge Burroughs could have

formed this opinion which, at minimum, should be

considered premature. The Plaintiff respectfully

calls for the Court to re-assess the merits, and a

Page 46
 swifter move to discovery, should there remain

questions to passing ANY portion of the four-factor

test.

The Court need go no further than - to understand the ALL of the

Facts surrounding the referenced clouded title that rightfully

belongs to the Plaintiff. EVEN IF clouded title was not an issue,

a jury trial will be presented with additional, fully supported

allegations including (but not limited to):

i. Deceptive Trade Practices Laws in Massachusetts

ii. FDCPA and MCDCA violations

iii. Civil Conspiracy and Abuse of Process

iv. CIVIL RICO Claims

v. HAMP and False Claims Violations

vi. Tampering allegations

vii. Wrongful Foreclosure and Eviction Practices

viii. Damages to Plaintiffs Intellectual Property

Rights

c. A jury trial will be made aware, that the Department

of Justice (DOJ), Massachusetts Attorney Generals

Office, and Federal Bank Regulators have ALL

definitively identified the referenced illegal

foreclosure with misconduct associated with the US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.

Page 47
 d. Balance of Hardships The Plaintiff respectfully

requests that Judge Burroughs clarify her

interpretation as it relates to this balance of

hardships, and for the Court to re-assess. Clearly,

a severe imbalance exists, heavily weighing on the

side of the Plaintiff.

e. Preliminary Injunctive Relief Sought In a forty-

two-billion-dollar ($42B) civil lawsuit, the

Plaintiff merely seeks to establish the status quo

as it pertains to housing, transportation, and

avoiding greater hardship. The Plaintiff is open to

discussing various options for receiving this

relief, so as to abide by the law, and to avoid

enduring a greater hardship set to begin August 22,

2016.

Based on her opinion and order denying injunctive relief, it is firmly

believed that Judge Burroughs has exemplified prejudice against this

Plaintiff, and has chosen NOT to support or uphold the Judicial

Machinery of the Court. ANY objective observer would entertain

reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality, and conclude that

a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

5. Failure to Uphold Defendant, Harmon Law Offices Default

dating back to an order issued on May 24, 2016 (document

Page 48
 no. 90) the Plaintiff disagrees with the opinion of

excusable neglect by Harmon; and the Judges decision to

ignore the tactics used by Harmon to blatantly deceive

the Court here. The Court is respectfully reminded, that:

a. The Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC is directly

tied to an estimated 50,000 60,000 identified

illegal foreclosures in the Commonwealth alone;

b. Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC has been directly

tied to disbarred Florida foreclosure kingpin, David

Stern;

c. Harmon Law Offices PC has been under investigation

by the MA Attorney General for WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

AND EVICTION PRACTICES for a period exceeding three

(3) years.

By refusing to uphold Defendant Harmon Law Offices clear default, the

Plaintiff firmly believed that Judge Burroughs has exemplified

prejudice, and has chosen NOT to support or uphold the Judicial

Machinery of the Court. ANY objective observer would entertain

reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality, and conclude that

a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely.

6. Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify

to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this Motion:

Page 49
(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 by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for

extending, modifying, or reversing existing 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.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

Page 50
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mohan A. Harihar, Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day,

August 16, 2016, served the foregoing document upon all parties, by
electronically filing to all ECF registered parties (Includes ALL
Defendants).

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

Page 51
Attachment C

Page 52
Page 53
Attachment D

Page 54
Page 55
Attachment E

Page 56
 JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________________

IN RE

COMPLAINT NO. 01-16-90033

____________________________

BEFORE

HOWARD, CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

____________________________

SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

FILED: SEPTEMBER 19, 2016

____________________________

SUBMITTED BY

COMPLAINANT: MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO: 15-cv-11880,

HARIHAR VS. US BANK, ET AL.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Complainant, Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully files this supplemental complaint, to inform this

Court of additional allegations against Judge Allison D. Burroughs and collectively against the United

States, since the initial complaint was filed/received on August 24, 2016. It is the Complainants

understanding that the Honorable Chief Judge Howard and the Judicial Council have access to the

referenced, lower US District Court Docket file, in its entirety. To avoid excessive repetition here, the

Page 57
Complainant respectfully requests that the Court review Documents 124 thru 126 of the referenced

Docket.10

The Plaintiff/Complainant supplemental issues are respectfully summarized here:

1. Treason to the Constitution- If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by

law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is then engaging in criminal

acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.

Here, the Complainant has alleged that Judge Burroughs is disqualified by law. By issuing the

order in Document No. 125, it is interpreted that Judge Burroughs has now acted without

jurisdiction in a personal capacity, and not in the judges judicial capacity. The Supreme Court

has held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has

engaged in Treason to the Constitution. The Complainant therefore interprets the Document

No. 125 Order as an act of Treason to the Constitution, and an incremental act of Judicial

Misconduct. The Complainant believes that any additional orders by Judge Burroughs in this

matter will each be interpreted as such.

2. Additional Grounds for Disqualification Even if Judge Burroughs was acting in a Judicial

capacity, her ability to be impartial is again questioned with the Document No. 125 Order. The

Plaintiff/Complainants supported allegations against the United States warrant amending the

existing Complaint. However, Judge Burroughs decision to DENY the Motion without any

clarification, further exemplifies Judicial prejudice/bias.

3. Conflict(s) of Interest Further investigation into the professional background of Judge

Burroughs raises questions of her ability to be impartial here. Allegations against the United

10Reference Document No. 124 - Plaintiff Motion Addressing Violation(s) To Due Process Clause,
Color of Law Violations, Federal Tort Claims, and others; Document No. 125 Order issued by
Judge Burroughs denying Plaintiffs Motion, with no clarification of Order provided; Document
126 Plaintiff Response to Order.
Page 58
 States and the Commonwealth include (but are not limited to): documented Civil RICO claims,

improper relationships, and Collusion. At minimum, the Judges prior roles serving as the

Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, including several years in the Economic Crimes Unit in

Boston, are believed to constitute a conflict of interest here.

4. Appointment of Counsel The increasing legal complexity associated with this complaint(s),

should clearly validate the Plaintiffs multiple requests for the Courts assistance with the

appointment of counsel.

5. Good Faith Effort to Reach Mutual Agreement - As with the other fourteen (14)

Defendants, the Plaintiff respectfully makes the same effort to reach a mutual agreement with

the United States, IN GOOD FAITH. Any failure to reach a mutual agreement compels the

Plaintiff to continue with Civil and Criminal litigation against ALL responsible parties,

including the United States, regardless of timeline.

6. Writ of Mandamus Pending the outcome reached by the Judicial Council, the

Plaintiff/Complainant retains the right to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, should it

become necessary to do so.

The Complainant is grateful for the Councils consideration of this supplemental (and original)

complaint(s).

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 59
Attachment F

Page 60
 JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________________

IN RE

COMPLAINT NO. 01-16-90033

____________________________

BEFORE

HOWARD, CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

____________________________

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

FILED: OCTOBER 24, 2016

____________________________

SUBMITTED BY

COMPLAINANT: MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO: 15-cv-11880,

HARIHAR VS. US BANK, ET AL.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Complainant, Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully files this second supplemental complaint, and to

inform this Judicial Council that an Emergency Motion has been filed with the referenced Docket (15-

cv-11880, Document No. 128). The Complainant/Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for costs and fees from

the United States, for acts made against him in BAD FAITH. 11

11A copy of the referenced Emergency Motion, filed with the U.S. District Court is attached (See
Attachment A).
Page 61
The Plaintiff has alleged that Judge Burroughs is disqualified by law, and therefore does NOT expect

Judge Burroughs to rule on said Motion. The Plaintiff also understands that decisions are still pending

before this Council as it relates to Judicial Misconduct and resulting bad faith acts committed by the

United States. The immediate concern is the resulting increased hardships now faced by the Plaintiff,

showing cause to file an Emergency Motion with the US District Court.

The second concern is understanding the United States position with regard to seeking a mutual

agreement with the Plaintiff. Despite multiple efforts made by the Plaintiff, there has yet to be a

response by ANY branch of the United States Federal government.

If the Judicial Council has ANY questions, needs additional information/clarification, the Complainant

is happy to provide upon request.

The Complainant is grateful for the Councils attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

7124 Avalon Drive

Acton, MA 01720

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 62
Attachment A

Page 63
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFF EMERGENCY MOTION TO COLLECT COSTS AND FEES, PURSUANT TO 28

U.S. Code 2412

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully seeks

the reimbursement of costs and fees from the United States,

following reported action(s) alleged to have been made in BAD FAITH.

Per 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) - Any judgment against the United

States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in

his or her official capacity for fees and expenses of attorneys

pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid as provided in sections

2414 and 2517 of this title, except that if the basis for the award

is a finding that the United States acted in bad faith, then the

award shall be paid by any agency found to have acted in bad faith

and shall be in addition to any relief provided in the judgment.

Page 64
The resulting impact of these BAD FAITH acts has (at minimum):

caused increased hardship to an already indigent Plaintiff;

critically jeopardized the Plaintiffs complaint moving forward; and

has potentially damaged the intended (and substantial) economic

benefit to the United States.12 The referenced bad faith actions and

counts of judicial misconduct have been brought to the attention of

the Judicial Council of the First Circuit, where a decision is still

pending. The Plaintiff makes clear that the costs and fees sought

here are considered separate from damages sought in the original

complaint.13 A breakdown of the still accruing costs and fees are as

follows:

1. Interim Housing As stated in the Notice recently submitted to

the Court (reference Document No. 127), the Plaintiff should

rightfully be in his own home, located at 168 Parkview Avenue,

Lowell MA 01852. Instead however, the referenced illegal

foreclosure resulted in a HOMELESS scenario for a period of two

(2) years, and he is now forced to enter into a SECOND 12-month

lease on a one-bedroom apartment, effective November 1, 2016.

The Court has already acknowledged the indigence of the

Plaintiff who, as a result of referenced misconduct and bad

faith acts, struggles each month to timely pay his rent.

12 The referenced Economic benefit to the United States is tied to

the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, known as the Harihar FCS
Model.
13 Costs and fees sought here include assistance originally sought

via injunctive relief, which was DENIED in BAD FAITH.

Page 65
 Because the Plaintiff has not been allowed to rightfully return

to his home, and equivalent interim housing has not TIMELY been

provided, the Plaintiff considers the referenced housing lease,

and ALL associated interim housing costs the financial

responsibility of the United States.

There is an immediate concern here with a fast approaching

deadline of NOVEMBER 1, 2016 to pay the first installment of

the recently renewed 12-month lease. The Plaintiff respectfully

requests that at minimum, this immediate concern first be

addressed. It is recommended that a separate account now be set

up by the United States for the Plaintiff with (at minimum) the

necessary funds available so that timely payments can be made

to secure ALL interim housing costs.14

Breakdown of Interim Housing Costs15

a. Current 12-month lease beginning 11/1/2016 - $849.00 due

(November payment only); $10,188.00 full-year total due.

b. Prior 12-month lease - $10,104.00 total payments made.

14 Also, please find the completed AO-291-EAJA Form, as required (See

Attachment A)
15 Total interim housing reimbursement costs thru week ending

10/29/2016 is $29,114.86. Please note, the Plaintiffs current one-

bedroom apartment lease is not considered equivalent to his
illegally foreclosed home a twenty-six hundred (2600) square foot,
four (4) bedroom, two (2) bath private residence with two (2)
parking spaces.
Page 66
 c. Associated Cost of Utilities/Cable/Internet - $3,119.64

(Includes total interim utility and cable/internet charges

beginning 11/2/2015 thru 10/22/2016).

d. Furnishings $970.00 (Total cost of used furnishings

purchased for current housing.)

e. Hotel Stays while Homeless - $7,000.66 ($2968.10, Feb/Mar

2014, Town Place Suites, Tewksbury, MA; $4032.56 Apr/Jun

2015, Sonesta Suites, Andover, MA). These costs are

increased debts to the Plaintiff, which are owed to the

Plaintiffs burdened family.

2. Transportation - Similarly, the Plaintiff has been financially

unable to secure reliable transportation since his forced

repossession, and has had to continue burdening family members

to use their vehicles for transportation to/from employment,

and everyday needs. With the identified acts made in bad faith,

the Plaintiff now holds the United States responsible for all

costs to these increased hardships related to transportation.

Breakdown of Transportation Costs16 - Reimbursement for costs

related to transportation includes, but is not limited to:

16Total transportation reimbursement costs due to the Plaintiff thus

far is $97,624.76 (plus costs associated with replacement vehicle
tax, title, registration, insurance, etc.). The Plaintiff
respectfully requests that this transportation reimbursement be
deposited into the same separate account as the interim housing
reimbursement.
Page 67
 a. Equivalent replacement cost for the Plaintiffs forced

vehicle repossession (BMW X5) - $85,000.00 (plus all

applicable taxes, title, registration costs, etc.).

b. Leased Vehicle 1 $4,220.86 (Down Payment plus 12-monthly

payments).

c. Leased Vehicle 2 $5,704.00 (Down Payment plus 12-monthly

payments).

d. Auto Insurance - $2,699.90 (6/11/14 thru 12/29/16)

3. Legal Fees The referenced bad faith acts made by the United

States have played a role in ensuring that this Plaintiff is

unable to secure experienced legal counsel. Clearly, if Judge

Burroughs had rightfully assisted with the Plaintiffs

request(s) to appoint counsel, it is likely that this legal

process would be constructively farther along than it is now.

Instead, bad faith acts made by the United States force this

Plaintiff to continue with the monumental task of proceeding as

a pro se litigant.

The Plaintiffs time should be considered no less valuable than

that of opposing counsel. EAJA17 allows awards of attorneys

fees against the United States - 28 U.S.C. 2412(b), and makes

the United States liable for the prevailing partys attorneys

fees to the same extent that any other party would be under the

common law and statutory exceptions to the American rule,

17 EAJA The Equal Access to Justice Act

Page 68
including the statutory exceptions that do not specifically

authorize fee awards against the United States. This

provision, unlike the rest of EAJA, contains no limitations on

the assets or number of employees of parties eligible to

recover fees, and no maximum hourly rate for fee awards.

Breakdown of Legal Fees It should come as no surprise, based

on the amount of complex legal issues involved, that it would

be considered well beyond a full-time job for a TEAM of highly-

skilled/experienced attorneys to handle the legal tasks at hand

let alone a single pro se litigant who is not an attorney.

The only legal experience Mr. Harihar has is this legal battle,

which is approaching six (6) years of litigation between State,

and now Federal Court(s). The legal fees sought here will only

apply to hours associated to time spent on this Federal Docket.

The Plaintiff makes clear that legal fees associated with

related Massachusetts litigation is reimbursement sought

separately from the listed Defendants in the referenced

complaint.

Legal Hours The begin date for counting legal hours is set as

the filing date of the complaint, May 21, 2015. The Plaintiff

has far exceeded 40 hours per week learning/ studying the

law, preparing arguments, reviewing cases, etc., to the best of

his ability in this monumental task. For the purpose of this

Page 69
COSTS AND FEES submission, legal hours will be capped at 40

hours per week. Calculating total weeks with a begin date of

May 21, 2015 thru week ending October 29, 2016, is

approximately seventy-five (75) weeks. The Plaintiff requests

that legal fee reimbursements similarly be deposited into the

same separate account set up for interim housing and

transportation reimbursements.

Hourly Rate The Plaintiff is open to having additional

discussion regarding a set hourly rate. However, based on the

number of complex issues at hand, it should be clear that

enhanced fees are warranted, and should not be set to the EAJA

cap limit. To further justify enhanced fees, it is suggested

that the Court note that the retained law firm to Bank

Defendants Wells Fargo NA and US Bank NA, is their third law

firm in nearly six (6) years. Defendants Harmon Law Offices

PC and Nelson Mullins LLP both WITHDREW from this litigation.

Current counsel, K&L Gates, LLP is believed to command upward

of $1000 per hour (or greater) for their services, due to the

complexity of legal issues associated with this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sets the requested hourly rate for

reimbursement equivalent to the referenced opposing counsel, at

$1000 per hour.

Page 70
Calculation of Total Legal Hours thru week ending 10/29/16

Multiplying: 75 (total weeks) x 40 (hours per week) x $1000

(rate per hour) = $3,000,000.00 (USD).

The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear that legal fees will

continue to accrue and be charged to the United States beyond

week ending 10/29/16 until: 1.) Experienced legal counsel has

been secured by the Plaintiff with the assistance of the Court;

2.) The Plaintiff is financially able to retain counsel

following the initial reimbursement of legal fees; or 3.) A

mutual agreement is reached between the Plaintiff and the

United States. Should a mutual agreement be reached with the

United States, reimbursement of legal fees will continue to be

sought against the remaining fourteen (14) Defendants moving

forward.

The Plaintiff respectfully makes clear, that with the filing of

this motion, it is expected that Judge Burroughs WILL NOT be

making a decision on this (or any other related) motion, as she

is alleged to be disqualified by law, and judicial complaints

are still pending before the Judicial Council. Any such order

will be considered an incremental act of Treason to the

Constitution. Given the Emergency status of the Motion and its

relation to the referenced judicial misconduct, a second,

Page 71
 supplemental complaint will be filed with the Judicial Council,

and will include a copy of this filed Motion.

Clarification Requested The Plaintiff respectfully requests

that the United States provide an answer as to whether or not

there is interest in reaching a mutual agreement with the

Plaintiff. The Court is aware, that the Plaintiff has extended

several opportunities to reach a mutual agreement with the

United States, but has received no answer in return.18

Conclusion Total costs of Interim Housing, Transportation,

and Legal Fees reimbursement due to the Plaintiff is

$3,126,739.62. The Plaintiff has already been identified by the

Court as indigent, and therefore is compliant with 28 U.S. Code

2412 (d)(2)(B), an individual whose net worth did not exceed

$2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed.

If the Court has any questions, or requires additional

information or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide

upon request.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

18 Reference Document No. 127 Notice, filed October 10, 2016.

Page 72
Attachment A

Page 73
Page 74
Attachment G

Page 75
 JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________________

IN RE

COMPLAINT NO. 01-16-90033

____________________________

BEFORE

HOWARD, CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

____________________________

THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

FILED: NOVEMBER 8, 2016

____________________________

SUBMITTED BY

COMPLAINANT: MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO: 15-cv-11880,

HARIHAR VS. US BANK, ET AL.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Plaintiff/Complainant, Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully and necessarily files this third

supplemental complaint, to inform this Judicial Council of an additional allegation of judicial

misconduct against - Judge Allison D. Burroughs, following the issued order associated with

Document No. 129 of the referenced Docket.19 The Plaintiff has since filed a response to the Order

(reference Document No. 131).20 By issuing the Document No. 129 ORDER, the Complainant

19 See Attachment A
20 See Attachment B
Page 76
respectfully summarizes these added concerns:

1. The Plaintiff has already alleged that Judge Burroughs is disqualified by law, and therefore

DID NOT expect Judge Burroughs to rule on said Motion. By doing so, Judge Burroughs has,

for a second time, acted in a personal capacity vs. a judicial capacity. The

Plaintiff/Complainant considers this as a second act of Treason against the Constitution.

2. Since the allegations of judicial misconduct were brought, Judge Burroughs has made no effort

to ADDRESS, DENY, or DEFEND her position against these allegations, including Treason.

3. The language within Document No. 129 does not take ANY accountability for, and fails to

even address BAD FAITH ACTIONS committed by the United States against this Plaintiff.

4. It becomes increasingly clear, by the supported allegations of judicial misconduct, that the

United States has a pre-determined disposition here to keep this Plaintiff critically

disadvantaged and will do whatever it takes, including committing treason, to ensure

that this complaint never arrives before a jury trial. If these documented BAD FAITH

ACTIONS are left uncorrected, it will re-affirm both the lack of integrity within this United

States District Court, and the corruptive variables that continue to be revealed at State and

Federal levels.

5. Correcting these referenced bad faith actions must come from a court (and a judge) with the

jurisdiction to make such corrections. The Plaintiff/Complainant re-states that this

EMERGENCY status relates to the increased imbalance of hardships which should be

corrected PRIOR to allowing this litigation to proceed.

6. Document No. 129 also provides no clarification regarding the United States position to reach

a mutual agreement with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has again requested clarification in

Document No. 131, however it is unclear whether Judge Burroughs has the authority to give

this clarification. For documentation purposes, the Plaintiff/ Complainant respectfully requests

Page 77
 that this Judicial Council assist with clarifying the position of the United States, and the

extended opportunity to reach a mutual agreement.

CONCLUSION

In order for this litigation to proceed in a FAIR and JUST manner, Judge Burroughs MUST First

either recuse herself, or be removed by this Judicial Council. Second, before this litigation is allowed

to proceed, CORRECTIVE ACTION must be taken regarding BAD FAITH ACTIONS committed by

the United States against this Plaintiff. Third, if it is allowed by law, the Plaintiff/Complainant

respectfully requests that the Judicial Council ASSIST with clarifying whether or not the United States

has interest in reaching a MUTUAL AGREEMENT with the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar.

If the Judicial Council has ANY questions, or requires additional information/clarification, the

Plaintiff/Complainant is happy to provide upon request. The Complainant is grateful for the Councils

continued attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 78
Attachment A

Page 79
This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this
e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits
attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy
of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access
fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first
viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not
apply.

United States District Court

District of Massachusetts

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 10/25/2016 at 11:27 AM EDT and filed on 10/25/2016

Case Name: Harihar v. US Bank NA et al

Case Number: 1:15-cv-11880-ADB
Filer:
Document Number: 129(No document attached)

Docket Text:
Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Emergency
Motion for Bill of Costs and Fees for Bad Faith by the United States [ECF No. 128]
is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff moves for an order under 28 U.S.C 2412
that the U.S. Government pay Plaintiffs interim housing costs, transportation
costs, and legal fees for time he has spent on this action. [ECF No. 128]. Section
2412 allows a prevailing party to recover fees and expenses incurred in a civil
action against the United States. Schock v. United States, 254 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.
2001) (emphasis added). An individual is a prevailing party [i]f the plaintiff has
succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieve[d] some of the
benefit... sought in bringing suit. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993)
(quoting Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S.
782 (1989)). Here, Plaintiff is still in the midst of litigating the suit and has not
obtained any favorable judgment that would entitle him to fees and expenses
under 2412. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is denied without prejudice. (Folan,
Karen)

Page 80
Attachment B

Page 81
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT NO. 129

After reviewing Document No. 129 issued by Judge Allison D.

Burroughs, the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se,

respectfully DISAGREES with its content, and files with the Court

the following response:

1. The Plaintiff DID NOT Expect an Order Issued by Judge Burroughs

For the supported allegations of judicial misconduct now

before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit, the Plaintiff

considers Judge Burroughs disqualified by law. Because the

judge is considered disqualified, and due to the EMERGENCY

status of the motion, it was expected that the JUDICIAL COUNCIL

would dictate next steps in this litigation, adhering to 28

Page 82
 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2).21 For this reason, the Plaintiff

respectfully expressed caution in the original motion, and a

copy of the motion was filed with a second supplemental

complaint to the Judicial Council.

It is important to RE-STATE, that the Plaintiff relief sought

at this point in the litigation, stems from BAD FAITH ACTIONS

caused by the UNITED STATES and JUDGE ALLISON D. BURROUGHS.

Document No. 129 makes NO MENTION of Bad Faith acts, appearing

to avoid accountability and resulting harm to this Plaintiff.

If these referenced BAD FAITH acts had not been committed by

the United States, AT MINIMUM, the Plaintiff would not be

suffering increased hardships; there would likely be

experienced legal counsel representing the Plaintiff; and this

litigation would likely be constructively farther along than it

is now. If 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) is not the appropriate

legal reference for addressing ACTIONS MADE IN BAD FAITH, it

further underscores the need for the COURT to assist the

Plaintiff with retaining (already requested) legal counsel.

21Per 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) - Any judgment against the United
States or any agency and any official of the United States acting in
his or her official capacity for fees and expenses of attorneys
pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid as provided in sections
2414 and 2517 of this title, except that if the basis for the award
is a finding that the United States acted in bad faith, then the
award shall be paid by any agency found to have acted in bad faith
and shall be in addition to any relief provided in the judgment.

Page 83
 2. TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION 22 - By issuing the order

associated with Document No. 129 (and previously with Document

No. 125), the Plaintiff brings a second allegation of Treason

to the Constitution against Judge Allison D. Burroughs. For the

reasons previously stated, the Plaintiff considers Judge

Burroughs disqualified by law, prohibiting her from issuing ANY

further rulings in this case. The Plaintiffs interpretation of

the law is that Judge Burroughs no longer has jurisdiction to

rule on this Docket. By doing so, the judge has AGAIN acted in

a personal capacity versus a judicial capacity. Furthermore,

Judge Burroughs has refused to recuse herself, and has made no

effort to address, dispute or deny any of the supported

allegations exemplifying judicial misconduct, including

Treason.

Judge Burroughs knew, or should have known that, by her

previous allegation that she had no jurisdiction, she committed

treason against the Constitution. "We [Judges] have no more

right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given,

then to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other

would be treason to the Constitution." [clarification added]

U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392,

22The first allegation of Treason to the Constitution against Judge

Burroughs is supported by the issued Order in Document No. 125.
Page 84
406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5

L.Ed 257 (1821).

Judge Burroughs should not have engaged in treason to the

Constitution, a Constitution to which she has taken a personal

oath to support. VIOLATION OF SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - All

judges have taken an oath to, and their lawful authority

depends on their complete and full compliance with, the

Constitution of the United States of America, and the Supreme

Law of the Land.

The Supreme Law of the Land can be found in the decisions of

the U.S. Supreme Court. In Old Wayne Mut. L. Assoc. v.

McDonough, 204 U.S. 8, 27 S.Ct. 236 (1907), the Supreme Court

ruled that:

"Chief Justice Marshall had long before observed in Ross v.

Himely, 4 Cranch 241, 269, 2 L.ed. 608, 617, that, upon

principle, the operation of every judgment must depend on the

power of the court to render that judgment. In Williamson v.

Berry, 8 How. 495, 540, 12 L.ed. 1170, 1189, it was said to be

well settled that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising

authority over a subject `may be inquired into in EVERY OTHER

COURT when the proceedings in the former are relied upon and

brought before the latter by a party claiming the benefit of

such proceedings,' and the rule prevails whether `the decree or

judgment has been given, in a court of admiralty, chancery,

ecclesiastical court, or court of common law, or whether the

Page 85
 point ruled has arisen under the laws of nations, the practice

in chancery, or the municipal laws of states.'" [Emphasis

added].

In Elliott v. Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340

(1828), the court stated that "without authority, its judgments

and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable,

but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even

prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no

justification; and all persons concerned in executing such

judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.

This distinction runs through all the cases on the subject; and

it proves, that the jurisdiction of ANY COURT exercising

authority over a subject, may be inquired into IN EVERY COURT,

when the proceedings of the former are relied on and brought

before the latter, by the party claiming the benefit of such

proceedings." [Emphasis added].

Judge Burroughs knew, or should have known, the law and the

U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ANY COURT and EVERY COURT can

vacate a void order. Judge Burroughs conscientiously,

arbitrarily, capriciously, deliberately, intentionally, and

knowingly engaged in conduct in violation of the Supreme Law of

the Land, and of Rule 62(A) and Rule 63(A).

3. Mutual Agreement Opportunity with the United States The Court

is aware that the Plaintiff has respectfully extended an

Page 86
 opportunity to reach a mutual agreement with the United States.

In Document No. 128, the Plaintiff requested that the Court

clarify the United States position regarding the opportunity.

After reading Document No. 129, it appears that Judge Burroughs

has ignored the request to clarify for the record whether or

not the United States is interested in reaching a mutual

agreement with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff respectfully

restates this request for clarification. IF the United States

were to ultimately reach a mutual agreement with the Plaintiff,

and ONLY IF it is allowed by law, there MAY be consideration

for withdrawing and/or amending existing judicial complaints.

Consideration will additionally be given, should Judge

Burroughs decide to immediately RECUSE herself from this civil

action.

If, however, the United States is NOT interested in seeking a

mutual agreement with the Plaintiff, then the Plaintiff SHOULD

(at minimum) be allowed to AMEND his complaint, adding the

United States as a Defendant for reasons already presented to

the Court.

4. Third Supplemental Complaint filed with the Judicial Council

With the second allegation of Treason against the Constitution

brought against Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the Plaintiff files

with the Judicial Council, a Third Amended complaint, and

Page 87
 attaches a copy of this filed response, Document No. 131, as a

reference.

CONCLUSION

We live in a time where Americans have begun to question the

integrity of our Federal Government, believing that corruption

exists at a very high level. Were hearing about it practically

every day - reported in this Presidential election, within the

Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI). Anyone who reviews and understands the historical facts of

this litigation, will too, question the integrity of our government,

and certainly this United States District Court. If there is going

to be ANY chance of re-building that integrity, it should begin with

correcting documented BAD FAITH actions committed by the United

States against this Plaintiff, and clarifying the mutual agreement

opportunity between the United States and the Plaintiff.

If the Court has ANY questions, or requires additional information

or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request.

Page 88
Respectfully Submitted,

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

Page 89
Attachment H

Page 90
 JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________________

IN RE

COMPLAINT NO. 01-16-90033

____________________________

BEFORE

HOWARD, CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE

____________________________

FOURTH SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT

FILED: DECEMBER 12, 2016

____________________________

SUBMITTED BY

COMPLAINANT: MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO: 15-cv-11880,

HARIHAR VS. US BANK, ET AL.)
_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Plaintiff/Complainant, Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully and necessarily files this FOURTH

supplemental complaint, to inform this Judicial Council of an additional allegation of judicial

misconduct against - Judge Allison D. Burroughs. This troublesome and continuing pattern of corrupt

conduct is realized following the issued order associated with Document No. 133 of the referenced

Docket.23 The Plaintiff has since filed a response to the Order (reference Document No. 134).24 By

23 See Attachment A
24 See Attachment B
Page 91
issuing the Document No. 133 ORDER, it becomes increasingly clear to this Plaintiff/Complainant, that

presiding United States District Court Judge - Allison D. Burroughs continues to exemplify a

malicious intent to (at minimum): 1.) Critically damage the legal efforts of this Plaintiff; 2.) Negatively

impact the resulting precedent set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent the implementation of a framework

designed to repair and grow the United States Economy.

Since filing the initial complaint with the Court on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff has necessarily brought

a number of judicial misconduct allegations against the presiding judge Allison D. Burroughs. These

supported allegations are all on record with this US District Court, and are also before this Judicial

Council of the First Circuit. Evidenced allegations raised by the Plaintiff include (but are not limited

to):

5. Incidents of prejudice/bias, favoring referenced Defendants;

6. Refusing to acknowledge/recognize primary issues within the Plaintiffs complaint including

(but not limited to) the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property Rights, and the Economic framework

designed to assist the United States with economic recovery/growth from damages caused by

the US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.25

7. Failure to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

8. Failing to maintain a fair balance of Hardships;

9. Refusal to assist with the appointment of Counsel;

10. Refusal to schedule a hearing(s) for clarification and documentation purposes for the

record, in the event it becomes necessary for the Plaintiff to file an appeal;

25The Intellectual Property Rights of the Plaintiff include, (but are not limited) to the Harihar
FCS Model an economic framework recognized by the Executive Office of the President
(EOP) including Vice President Joe Biden, the (former) Deputy Chief Counsel of the House
Financial Services Committee Gail Laster, Senior Economic advisor to US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), the Congressional Office of Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-
MA), and others.

Page 92
11. TREASON against the Constitution of the United States (three alleged acts);

12. Refusal to recuse.

13. BAD FAITH Acts

Judge Burroughs has thus far refused to recuse herself, and has made no effort to address, dispute or

deny any of the supported allegations exemplifying judicial misconduct, including Treason.

CONCLUSION

With the filed response to Document No. 133, the Plaintiff/Complainant has for a SECOND time,

respectfully DEMANDED the immediate RECUSAL (or otherwise REMOVAL) of Judge Allison D.

Burroughs. If this demand is again refused (or ignored) by Judge Burroughs, the Plaintiff will proceed

with next steps in bringing this matter to the attention of the House Judiciary Committee, and the

incoming Presidential Administration.

If the Judicial Council has ANY questions, or requires additional information/clarification, the

Plaintiff/Complainant is happy to provide upon request. The Complainant is grateful for the Councils

continued attention to this very serious matter.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)

Page 93
Attachment A

Page 94
Page 95
Attachment B

Page 96
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-11880

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL ORDER - DOCUMENT NO. 133

After reviewing the judicial order in Document No. 133 issued by

Judge Allison D. Burroughs, the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting

pro se, identifies a number of troubling issues that AGAIN warrant

her immediate RECUSAL. SHOULD Judge Burroughs refuse to recuse

herself, the Plaintiff will necessarily initiate next steps in

bringing this matter to the attention of the House Judiciary

Committee. The Plaintiff respectfully files with the Court, and a

copy also to the Judicial Council of the First Circuit the following

response:

14. Third (3rd) Act of Treason against the Constitution By issuing

the order associated with Document No. 133 (and previously with

Document No. 129 and Document No. 125), the Plaintiff brings a

third (3rd) allegation of Treason to the Constitution against Judge

Page 97
 Allison D. Burroughs. For the reasons previously stated and on

record with the Court,26 the Plaintiff considers Judge Burroughs

disqualified by law, prohibiting her from issuing ANY further

rulings in this case. The Plaintiffs interpretation of the law is

that Judge Burroughs no longer has jurisdiction to rule on this

Docket. By doing so, the judge has, for a THIRD time, acted in a

personal capacity versus a judicial capacity. Therefore, the

Plaintiff considers the order associated with Document No. 133

(and ALL those prior) as VOID.27

Furthermore, Judge Burroughs has refused to recuse herself, and

has made no effort to address, dispute or deny any of the

supported allegations exemplifying judicial misconduct,

including Treason.

15. Plaintiffs Creditors Even if Judge Burroughs still had

jurisdiction, it is the Plaintiffs clear belief, that her actions

exemplified in her issued order(s) continue to display a pattern

of corrupt conduct. In her Order, Document No. 133, Judge

Burroughs states, First, Plaintiff has failed to establish why an

injunction can issue against his multiple creditors. The

26Reference Document No.s 121 thru 126.

27A judicial misconduct complaint, and three supplemental
complaints, have been filed against Judge Allison D. Burroughs
where a decision(s) is pending before the Judicial Council of the
First Circuit. A fourth supplemental complaint to the Judicial
Council is now warranted.
Page 98
 Plaintiff respectfully disagrees. The Plaintiff has clearly

established the FACTS which have allegedly led to his indigence,

and which the Court has ALREADY acknowledged. These FACTS include

(but are not limited to) the referenced allegations of misconduct,

against these Defendants (which include the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts and ALSO the United States) which have negatively

impacted the Plaintiffs marriage, family, career, retirement and

everyday way of living. The Court is ALREADY aware that the United

States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are two (2) of these

creditors.28 Both the United States and the Commonwealth have

received notice through this litigation, thus complying with Fed.

R. Civ. Pro. 65(d)(2). Furthermore, neither party (or any other)

has filed opposition to this requested injunction. While

additional creditors also exist, Judge Burroughs SHOULD have AT

MINIMUM issued a temporary injunction against the IRS and MADOR,

while legal matters proceed. Allowing the injunction to include

additional creditors, once compliant with Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

65(d)(2), SHOULD also have been considered.

The Plaintiff has CLEARLY established why an injunction can,

and should issue. For Judge Burroughs to state otherwise, AGAIN

clearly suggests one (1) or more of the following conclusions:

The Plaintiff owes the United States Federal taxes to the Internal
28

Revenue Service (IRS) and also to the Massachusetts Department of

Revenue (MADOR).

Page 99
 a. Judge Burroughs has ruled on a motion without reading related

filings, thus further questioning the judges ability to be

impartial;

b. Judge Burroughs may have forgotten the actual content of the

Motion and related filings, suggesting that mental illness may

be an issue here;

c. A deep-seated favoritism or antagonism does exist making fair

judgment impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface),

that elements of corruption may exist here; and that an effort

is being made by an officer of the Court, to brush aside all

motions in order to reach a corrupt and predetermined outcome;

d. A combination of scenarios a, b or c exists.

16. Four-Factor Test Judge Burroughs next states the following,

Here, Plaintiff has failed to make an adequate showing that he is

likely to succeed on the merits of any of his claims, which is the

main bearing wall of the four-factor test that the Court uses to

evaluate motions for preliminary injunctive relief.

Again, the Plaintiff respectfully disagrees, referencing

Document No. 119, filed in August 2016, and previously in April

2016, where the Plaintiff has ALREADY clearly articulated his

reasoning for each portion of the four-factor test, including

success on the merits. Considering the FACTS presented to the

Court, the generic opinion and issued order by Judge Burroughs

denying relief leads this Plaintiff to draw the same troubling

conclusions as previously described above (see No. 2).

Page 100
 The Plaintiff also questions ALL THREE (3) case references

believed to be improperly applied by Judge Burroughs: 1.)

Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20,

(2008); 2.) G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639

F.2d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 1980); and 3.) Corp. Techs., Inc. v.

Harnett, 731 F.3d 6, 10 (1st Cir. 2013). Based on the totality

of FACTS presented by the Plaintiff, it is unclear exactly how

Judge Burroughs could have reached her conclusions. The vague,

and somewhat generic language pattern of the order(s) calls for

further clarification. The Plaintiff AGAIN respectfully calls

for a formal hearing, so that further clarification can be

provided by Judge Burroughs on this, and several other orders

in question. The Plaintiff also respectfully requests that a

court reporter be present for the scheduled hearing.

17. Pattern of Corrupt Conduct Since filing the initial complaint

with the Court on May 21, 2015, the Plaintiff has necessarily

brought a number of judicial misconduct allegations against the

presiding judge Allison D. Burroughs. These supported

allegations are all on record with this US District Court, and are

also before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit. Evidenced

allegations raised by the Plaintiff include (but are not limited

to):

a. Incidents of prejudice/bias, favoring referenced Defendants;

Page 101
 b. Refusing to acknowledge/recognize primary issues within the

Plaintiffs complaint including (but not limited to) the

Plaintiffs Intellectual Property Rights, and the Economic

framework designed to assist the United States with economic

recovery/growth from damages caused by the US

Foreclosure/Financial Crisis.29

c. Failure to uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

d. Failing to maintain a fair balance of Hardships;

e. Refusal to assist with the appointment of Counsel;

f. Refusal to schedule a hearing(s) for clarification and

documentation purposes for the record, in the event it

becomes necessary for the Plaintiff to file an appeal;

g. Treason against the Constitution of the United States (three

alleged acts);

h. Refusal to recuse.

i. BAD FAITH Acts

18. BAD FAITH Actions against the Plaintiff - With the order

associated with Document No. 133, the Plaintiff considers this as

an additional ACT MADE IN BAD FAITH, by Judge Burroughs and the

UNITED STATES against this Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is still

waiting for the United States to take accountability for these

acts made in bad faith.

29The Intellectual Property Rights of the Plaintiff include, (but

are not limited) to the Harihar FCS Model an economic framework
recognized by the Executive Office of the President (EOP), a Senior
Officer of the House Financial Services Committee, a Senior Economic
advisor to a sitting US Senator, a Congressional Office, and others.
Page 102
19. Mutual Agreement Opportunity with the United States In

addition to bad faith acts, the Plaintiff still awaits an ANSWER

regarding the respectfully proposed Mutual Agreement Opportunity,

offered to the United States by the Plaintiff.

Conclusion

It becomes necessary here to restate the LEGAL intentions of the

Plaintiff:

1. To hold ALL parties legally responsible for damages caused by

the referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE;

2. To set a legal precedent that would allow the millions of

Americans similarly harmed to rightfully do the same; and

3. Gain alignment with the United States to potentially implement

the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property, known as the Harihar FCS

Model, resulting in an estimated $5T (or greater) of economic

growth to the United States.

Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will

be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Regrettably, neither the Plaintiff, nor ANY objective person who has

followed this litigation can have that expectation in Judge

Burroughs' courtroom. It is the Plaintiffs ABSOLUTE opinion, that

the evidenced acts of judicial misconduct clearly exemplify

Page 103
malicious intent to (at minimum): 1.) Critically damage the legal

efforts of this Plaintiff; 2.) Negatively impact the resulting

precedent set; and 3.) Ultimately prevent the implementation of a

framework designed to repair and grow the United States Economy.

[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of rights by

the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first

instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of

Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme

Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they

relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole

adrift. For what was the government divided into three

branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose

their usurpations?

Thomas Jefferson, 1821

The Plaintiff - Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully repeats the DEMAND

for the immediate recusal of Judge Allison D. Burroughs. Should

Judge Burroughs again refuse to recuse herself, the Judicial Council

will again be updated, and next steps will commence in addressing

this matter with the House Judiciary Committee and the incoming

Presidential Administration. The Plaintiff additionally requests

that the United States take accountability for the referenced acts

made in bad faith, and to provide an ANSWER regarding the referenced

mutual agreement opportunity, as requested.

Page 104
If the Court has ANY questions, or requires additional information

or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide upon request.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

Page 105
Activity in Case 1:15-cv-11880-ADB Harihar v. US Bank NA
et al Order on Motion for Recusal

Attachment I

Page 106
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR Docket No: 2015-cv-11880

Plaintiff

v.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT HARMON LAW OFFICE, PCS MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE ONE DAY LATE MOTION TO DISMISS

After reviewing the Defendant Harmon Law Offices Motion and

Affidavit, the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, files this Opposition

based on the following:

1. The Court is holding this PRO-SE Plaintiff to the SAME standard

of Law as the Defendants - who are in a financial position to

retain highly experienced legal counsel. The Plaintiff does not

have that luxury, and yet has exemplified the ability to adhere

to the rules of the Court for over five years, including

deadlines. A failure to uphold the Defendants clear and

admitted DEFAULT, and to further allow this Motion to file

late, would show clear prejudice against this Plaintiff.

Page 112
 2. Attorney McHugh states in his affidavit that he takes deadlines

seriously, and that it is his practice to write them all down.

Yet, attorney McHugh did not even take the time to file an

appearance with the Court. The Court should consider this as

in-excusable neglect.

3. The Defendant was reminded by the Plaintiffs Motion/Notice

filings on four (4) separate occasions during the 21-day

timeline: 5/3/16, 5/9/16, 5/10/16 and 5/16/16. The Defendant

received these timely reminders via US Mail. If anything, the

Plaintiff OVER-COMMUNICATED to the Defendant(s).

4. The Defendant states in item five (5), that Pursuant to

Local Rule 7.1, attorney Kurt R. McHugh contacted the Plaintiff

to seek his assent and to otherwise discuss the motion.

Unfortunately the Plaintiff did not respond to such request.

The Defendant is correct, in that attorney McHugh did in fact

attempt to reach the Plaintiff by phone on Thursday, May 19,

2016 at 1:18pm EST. Attorney McHugh additionally sent an email

to the Plaintiff, which was received on the same day at 1:39pm

EST.30 Attorney McHugh then filed his Motion with the Court at

2:59pm EST roughly an hour and a half later. The Plaintiff

was in the middle of exercising at the gym and was unavailable

when attorney McHugh attempted to reach him. Nevertheless, the

Plaintiff cannot be faulted for failing to return a phone call

30See Attachment A, the email received by the Plaintiff, from

Attorney Kurt R. McHugh, on May 19, 2016 at 1:39PM EST.
Page 113
 or email in LESS THAN TWO (2) HOURS. It is important to note

that the Plaintiff had already filed with the Court a Default

Motion earlier that morning at 11:21am EST. It is likely that

that Defendant, who had yet to even file a notice of

appearance, realized the default, and made a desperation effort

and scramble to avoid accountability. The Plaintiff views this

action as an absolute attempt by the Defendant to deceive this

court into believing that the Plaintiff was negligent when in

fact it was HARMON who was grossly negligent.

5. Attorney McHugh has additionally made this attempt to deceive

the Court with an attached AFFIDAVIT. The Plaintiff views this

as a serious offense and respectfully calls for the Court to

take appropriate action.

6. The Defendants accusation that the Plaintiffs claims against

Harmon lack merit are certainly premature. Whether the

Plaintiffs allegations can be proven is a question of fact

that must be determined after discovery.

The clear effort made by this Defendant to deceive this Court, and

cause further damages to this Plaintiff should no longer be tolerated.

Page 114
 CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Plaintiff respectfully

calls for the Court to:

1. DENY the Defendants Motion to file late;

2. Find the Defendant - HARMON LAW OFFICES PC in DEFAULT, pursuant
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(a);
3. Hold the Defendant Harmon Law Offices PC and their retained
counsel Kurt R. McHugh accountable for their clear efforts to
deceive this Court and cause further damage to the Plaintiff.
4. GRANT relief as requested in the Plaintiffs Default Motion,
and any additional relief the Court deems as just and
appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

Page 115
Attachment A

Page 116
 Kurt McHugh <kmchugh@harmonlaw.com> 1:39 PM (22 hours ago)

to
me

Mr. Harihar,

I plan on filing a motion to file a motion to dismiss late on behalf of Harmon Law Offices, P.C. Pursuant to
local rule 7.1(a)(2), I am reaching out to you to discuss the motion. Please contact me to discuss. Thank
you.

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

Litigation Department
Harmon Law Office, PC
150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
Direct: 617-558-8435
Fax: 617-243-4038
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege
and/or the work product doctrine. It may also be private and/or confidential information protected under state
and federal laws. As such, it is solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If
you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken
in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender if you have inadvertently received
this e-mail prior to deleting it.

THIS OFFICE MAY BE DEEMED TO BE A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED SHALL BE
USED FOR SAID PURPOSE

The information contained in this e-mail may be confidential and may be subject
to the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. It may
also be private and/or confidential information protected under state and
federal laws. As such, it is solely for the addressee. Access to this e-mail
by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted to be taken
in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please notify the sender
if you have inadvertently received this e-mail prior to deleting it. If you no
longer want to receive this email please send an email stopemail@harmonlaw.com
and you will be removed from our list within 5 business days.

Page 117
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mohan A. Harihar, Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day.

May 20, 2016, served the foregoing document upon all parties, by
electronically filing to all ECF registered parties and by sending a
copy, first class mail, postage prepaid to all unregistered parties.

Mohan A. Harihar
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

Page 118