Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT REPLY RE FIALKOW/PATTERSON RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR

DEFAULT AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Appellant necessarily prefaces this reply by stating that the Response/Notice of

Inaccuracies in Docketing Statement, filed by the Defendants/Appellees on May 10, 2017,

shows cause to expand upon existing or file new FRAUD on the COURT claims pursuant to

FRCP 60(b).1

Now, after reviewing the response filed by Defendants/Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey

S. Patterson, the Appellant respectfully disagrees, and files this REPLY for the following

reasons:

1. Fialkow and Patterson as parties to this appeal The Appellant has clearly articulated in:

1.) the lower District Court docket, 2.) in his Judicial Misconduct Petition now before the

1
Reference the REPLY to Notice of Inaccuracies, filed with this Court on May 15, 2017.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

Judicial Council, and 3.) before this Court, evidenced claims of judicial misconduct against

US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The list of these serious judicial misconduct

allegations against Judge Burroughs is extensive, and either individually or collectively,

IMPACTS JURISDICTION once validated. These evidenced allegations include (but are

not limited to):

a. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III (5 counts);

b. Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Economic Espionage, Pursuant to

18 U.S. Code 1832;

c. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel, 28 U.S.C. 1915;

d. Judicial Fraud on the Court;

e. Refusal to Recuse (2 Counts);

f. Violations of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution;

g. Ignoring evidenced Claims against the United States;

h. Judicial Prejudice/Bias;

i. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING INCREASED

HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff;

j. Unnecessary Judicial Delay; and

k. Color of Law violations

The record will clearly show that Judge Burroughs has chosen NOT to ADDRESS,

DEFEND, or DENY, a single one of these evidenced judicial misconduct claims alleged

against her over the past year.

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

Similarly, as previously stated to this court, NO Defendant/Appellee has chosen to even

challenge a single one of the Appellants judicial misconduct claims, including Defendants -

David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson.

ALL listed Defendants/Appellees are represented by experienced counsel. David E. Fialkow

and Jeffrey S. Patterson are experienced attorneys themselves. Therefore, ALL Defendants/

Appellees certainly SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, that ANY ONE (1) or combination of the

judicial misconduct claims, once validated, would impact jurisdiction. If Fialkow or

Patterson believed any of the judicial misconduct claims to be in question, they had nearly

one (1) year to bring their argument. They chose to say nothing, and therefore have NO

STANDING to do so here. Both Fialkow and Patterson are fully aware that once the

misconduct claims are validated, Judge Burroughs will have lost jurisdiction to the

referenced docket, rendering her dismissal order VOID, as well as ALL PRIOR related

orders. That INCLUDES the April 27, 2016 order dismissing Fialkow and Patterson.

Therefore, once the Appellants judicial misconduct claims are validated, both Fialkow and

Patterson should certainly be considered as Appellees here.

The Court is respectfully reminded that some of the serious issues raised by the

Appellant involve claims made against the United States. These claims include (but are

not limited to), Civil/Criminal RICO violations, Due Process violations, Conspiracy

claims, and Color of Law violations. There is also considerable concern regarding the

initial opinion of Chief Justice Howard, which STILL stands as uncorrected,

warranting the Judicial Misconduct Petition now before the Judicial Council. IF
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

SOMEHOW, there fails to be accountability for the evidenced judicial misconduct

claims, it will show just cause to expand upon existing claims against the United States.

It will also suggest that the integrity of The United States Court of Appeals for the First

Circuit has been compromised.

2. The Appellants request for assistance with the appointment of counsel the lower court

docket will reveal that the Appellant made a clear and irrefutable argument as to why the

lower court should have assisted with the appointment of counsel. Its failure to do so

exemplifies one of the judicial misconduct allegations against Judge Burroughs. If the lower

court had rightfully assisted with the appointment of counsel, the Appellant would have

known to file a separate appeal for the April 27, 2016 dismissal order, EVEN IF he believed

the dismissal would be ultimately voided together with the March 31, 2017 dismissal order.

Without counsel, the Appellant was under the clear belief that his notice of appeal applied to

ALL parties, including Fialkow and Patterson. Considering these circumstances while the

judicial misconduct petition is still pending, the Appellant should be allowed to either amend

the existing appeal here, or to file a separate appeal recognizing David E. Fialkow and

Jeffrey S. Patterson as Appellees.

Defendants/Appellees including Fialkow and Patterson are certainly aware that - SHOULD

this Court decide to rightfully assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel, they may

be facing incremental claims of both civil and criminal misconduct.

3. Fraud on the Court, pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3) One of the major issues of this appeal

addresses Fraud on the Court alleged against ALL Appellees, including Fialkow and

Patterson, and stands as UNOPPOSED. Not a single Defendant/Appellee chose to address

or file opposition to these allegations. Furthermore, the lower court record will show that the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

Appellant consistently referenced these fraud on the court claims throughout the course of

nearly a year, without ANY argument in return from opposing parties. On top of that, by

ignoring the Plaintiffs claim entirely, Judge Burroughs violated her judicial oath to uphold

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judicial machinery of the court, bringing upon

herself an incremental act of judicial misconduct (Judicial Fraud on the Court).

Validating Fraud on the Court claims against Defendants/Appellees would lead to

Defendant/Appellee DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Appellant, with prejudice. Since

Defendants/Appellees have no standing to address the initial fraud on the court claims in

their Appellate briefs, there is just cause here for this Court to find them in DEFAULT with

prejudice, thus ruling in favor of the Appellant.

Now, after reading the Notice of Inaccuracies filed by Defendants/Appellees, the Appellant

identifies a continued pattern of corrupt conduct, showing cause to expand upon, or file

NEW Fraud on the Court and Perjury claims.

4. Criminal Claims Both David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson are fully aware that

official requests have been made to the Executive Branch of government requesting:

a. The assignment of a federal/special prosecutor;

b. The assembly of a grand jury; and

c. The opening of a full criminal investigation.

The Appellant is confident that there ALREADY exists within the historical record, evidence

which supports criminal misconduct against ALL Appellees/Defendants and also against

Judge Allison D. Burroughs. While the Appellant has brought SOME of these claims to the

attention of the Court (i.e. - Economic Espionage, Fraud on the Court and Misprision), he is
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

aware that it is the DOJ and/or a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, who must prosecute the

criminal components to these claims and any others revealed through investigation.

5. Professional Implications The Appellant respectfully brings to this Courts attention, that

there are related complaints on file with the Massachusetts Board of BAR Overseers and the

Office of the BAR Council, filed against David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson, which

are still pending. Both Fialkow and Patterson are certainly aware of the certain professional

implications at least within this Commonwealth, once the evidenced allegations against

them are validated.

6. Request for Default and Summary Judgement is based on the Merits Clearly, the

Appellants move for this Court to find Defendants/Appellees Fialkow and Patterson in

Default IS NOT solely based on their failure to file a notice of appearance. The following

factors have collectively weighed in determining a move for Default and Summary

Judgement:

a. The lower court record reflects a supported claim of Fraud on the Court against

Defendants/Appellees David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson, which stands as

unopposed, and therefore CANNOT be argued before this Court. Fialkow and

Patterson are clearly aware of these facts, and their efforts here to discredit the

Appellant by attaching generic labels such as frivolous, inflammatory, unfounded or

false - are themselves without merit and should be stricken from the record. EVEN

IF - Judge Burroughs STILL HAD Jurisdiction, and Defendants/Appellees had filed

opposition in the lower court to argue Fraud on the Court claims, the REQUIRED

evidentiary hearing would have revealed that the record supports the fraud the court
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

claim(s), thus directing the Court to render a judgement in favor of the Plaintiff, and

finding the Defendants in DEFAULT with Prejudice;

b. The Notice of Inaccuracies in Docketing Statement, filed May 10, 2017, shows cause

to expand upon or bring NEW claims of Fraud on the Court AND Perjury against

ALL Defendant Appellees, including Fialkow and Patterson.

c. The VALIDATION of Judicial Misconduct allegations against Judge Allison D.

Burroughs will not only reveal a lack of jurisdiction, but will VOID all related orders,

including the dismissal order of Fialkow and Patterson. Therefore, both Fialkow and

Patterson should be considered as Appellees here.

d. Fialkow and Pattersons failure to file a Notice of Appearance represents the inability

to forecast the possibility of actually being held accountable for their actions. Had

they anticipated the likelihood of judicial misconduct claims being upheld, it would

be clear that filing a Notice of Appearance is necessary here. Although not a reason

for Default in itself, the decision to ignore local rule 12(a) only adds to the collective

reasons recommending a default judgement with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

Based on the reasons stated within, the Appellant respectfully stands by his initial requests, and

moves for this Court to first acknowledge Defendants - David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S.

Patterson as Appellees in this proceeding. As Appellees, the Appellant moves for the Court to

find David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey S. Patterson responsible for committing (at minimum)
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

Perjury, and Fraud upon the Court. The Appellant also moves for a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT,

in favor of the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, with prejudice, and any other penalties the court

deems appropriate.

Due to the severity of these civil and criminal claims, and also concerns for personal safety and

security, copies of this filed REPLY are sent via certified mail to: The Executive Office of the

President (EOP), the US Inspector General Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General Jeff

Sessions, the House Judiciary Committee, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A

copy will also be made available to the Public.

Respectfully submitted this 17th Day of May, 2017.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117155991 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/17/2017 Entry ID: 6092793

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 17, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered
CM/ECF users:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod
David E. Fialkow
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Kurt R. McHugh
Jesse M. Boodoo

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