You are on page 1of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, AND RECUSAL VOIDING


RELATED EXISTING ORDERS

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, necessarily files with the Court a motion to

supplement the record based on the recent RECUSAL of Judge Allison D. Burroughs from the

related complaint - HARIHAR v The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Docket No. 17-cv-

11109. This recusal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a), is based ENTIRELY on the evidenced

claims addressed by the Appellant in this Appeal, initiated within the lower court docket. This

Court is aware of the Appellants two (2) prior requests for Judge Burroughs recusal pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 455(a). BOTH requests for recusal were DENIED.

Therefore, the recusal here re-affirms the Plaintiffs consistent claims, bearing impact to this

Appeal, and to the lower Court docket, warranting (at minimum) the following action(s):
I. RECOGNIZING that ALL RELATED ORDERS issued by Judge Allison D.

Burroughs are considered VOID, referencing THE LAW of VOID

JUDGEMENTS and DECISIONS/SUPREME COURT DECISIONS on VOID

ORDERS (See Attachment A).

II. Orders impacted here include (at minimum) the following:

A. The Order of Dismissal, Motions to Dismiss, etc. (Document No.s 139 and

140, entered 3/31/17);

B. The Order Denying Reimbursement for Costs and Legal Fees 2nd request

(Document No. 137, entered 3/15/17);

C. The Order Denying Injunctive Relief (Document No. 133, entered 11/28/16);

D. The Order Denying Reimbursement for Costs and Legal Fees (Document No.

129, entered 10/25/16);

E. The Order addressing Judicial Disqualification, Claims Against The United

States, and Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 125,

entered 9/6/16);

F. The Order RE: Motion for Recusal (Document No. 122, entered 8/17/16);

G. The Order Denying Emergency Injunctive Relief (Document No. 120, entered

8/11/16);

H. The Order Denying Reconsideration to Allow a Third Amended Complaint

and Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel (Document No. 118, entered

7/5/16). This is also the Order which ignored FRAUD ON THE COURT

CLAIMS, pursuant to FRCP 60(b)(3);

I. The Order Denying Motion to Amend (Document No. 116, entered 6/23/16);
J. The Order Denying Motion to Amend including the addition of Civil RICO

claims under 18 USC 1962 (Document No. 103, entered 5/31/16);

K. The order Denying Default Judgement (Document No. 99, entered 5/27/16);

L. The order Denying Motion for Default (Document No. 90, entered5/24/16);

M. The Order Denying Motion to Amend (Document No. 81, entered 5/19/16);

N. The Order Denying Motion to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel

(Document No. 58, entered 5/6/16);

O. The Order Granting Motion(s) to Dismiss, etc. (Document No. 43, entered

4/27/16);

P. The Order Failing to Acknowledge Color of Law and Due Process Violations

(at minimum) by the Executive Branch of Government (Document No. 20,

entered 9/15/15);

Q. The order Denying Plaintiff to File In Forma Pauperis (IFP), Assistance with

the Appointment of Counsel, and Injunctive Relief (Document No. 12, entered

7/15/15.

III. Motions Pending Before This Court

The Recusal by Judge Burroughs clearly RE-AFFIRMS the Appellants

RESPONSE to Judicial Order, Document No. 117163010, Calling for

Clarification, Reconsideration, and a New Complaint filed against THE UNITED

STATES of AMERICA. The Appellant respectfully states that any failure to take

corrective action here will be interpreted as incremental ACTS OF BAD FAITH,

made by officers of the Court acting on behalf of the United States, to purposefully

cause additional harm to this Appellant.


It is now time for this Court to bring to a halt the UNNECESSARY, CONTINUED

HARDSHIP OF THE APPELLANT CAUSED BY THE UNITED STATES. By

taking corrective action and REIMBURSING the Appellant for Costs and Legal fees

as filed, there can at least can be an end to this unnecessary hardship.1

IV. Impact to This Appeal

With a VOID Dismissal Order, this civil complaint SHOULD be re-directed back to

the lower (District) court. However, based on the historical record, there remains

serious concern(s) regarding the INTEGRITY of both this First Circuit Appeals

Court, and the lower, District Court. EVEN BEFORE considering redirection, this

Court has already been made aware of IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

SUPPORTING FRAUD ON THE COURT (both Defendant/Appellant as well as

Judicial). Therefore (unless there is a jurisdiction issue), there SHOULD NOW exist

the ability to rule IN FAVOR of the APPELLANT Mohan A. Harihar WITH

PREJUDICE.

V. POTENTIAL Consideration for CAMP,2 pursuant to FRAP (and local) Rule 33

The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court of his intention to seek maximum civil,

criminal, and professional penalties against ALL responsible parties. SHOULD this

Court decide to rightfully take corrective action and finally assist with the

appointment of counsel, there MAY be opportunity to explore POTENTIAL

Consideration for CAMP, pursuant to FRAP (and local) Rule 33.

1
The Court is respectfully reminded that referenced costs and legal fees continue to accrue. As
of July 8, 2017, the updated payment due to the Appellant for referenced costs and legal fees is
$13,709,420. Timely payment by the Treasury Department to the Appellant is respectfully
requested on or before this date.
2
The First Circuits Civil Appeals Management Plan
The Appellant will certainly take into consideration ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION initiated

by this Court, and will plan to make legal adjustments accordingly moving forward in this

appeal, with referenced judicial misconduct complaints, and with the related complaint against

The United States.

Due to the severity of these collective civil/criminal claims, for documentation purposes, and

also out of concerns for personal safety/security, copies of this filed Motion are sent via email

and/or 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 29th Day of June, 2017.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
The Law of Void Judgments and Decisions
Supreme Court Decisions on Void Orders
A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a
judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice
and an opportunity to be heard. Earle v. McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398. See also
Restatements, Judgments ' 4(b). Prather vLoyd, 86 Idaho 45, 382 P2d 910.

The limitations inherent in the requirements of due process and equal protection of the law
extend to judicial as well as political branches of government, so that a judgment may not be
rendered in violation of those constitutional limitations and guarantees. Hanson v Denckla,
357 US 235, 2 L Ed 2d 1283, 78 S Ct 1228.

A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely
disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it.
It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding
force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... All
proceedings founded on the void judgment are themselves regarded as invalid. 30A Am Jur
Judgments '' 44, 45.

It is a fundamental doctrine of law that a party to be affected by a personal judgment must


have his day in court, and an opportunity to be heard. Renaud v. Abbott, 116 US 277, 29 L
Ed 629, 6 S Ct 1194.

Every person is entitled to an opportunity to be heard in a court of law upon every question
involving his rights or interests, before he is affected by any judicial decision on the question.
Earle v McVeigh, 91 US 503, 23 L Ed 398.

No Opportunity to Be Heard
A judgment of a court without hearing the party or giving him an opportunity to be heard is not
a judicial determination of his rights. Sabariego v Maverick, 124 US 261, 31 L Ed 430, 8 S
Ct 461, and is not entitled to respect in any other tribunal.

"A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void
state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed
370; Ex parte Rowland (1882) 104 U.S. 604, 26 L.Ed.
861:

"A judgment which is void upon its face, and which requires only an inspection of the judgment
roll to demonstrate its wants of vitality is a dead limb upon the judicial tree, which should be
lopped off, if the power to do so exists." People v. Greene, 71 Cal. 100 [16 Pac. 197, 5 Am.
St. Rep. 448]. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority
to grant, its judgment is to that extent void." (1Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) An illegal order
is forever void.
Orders Exceeding Jurisdiction
An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any
proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See Rose v.
Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565;
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93
US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L ed 608.

"If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its
judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is no
judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710 (6th Cir.
1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction." (Lubben v.
Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).

A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing void
state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343, 84 L ed
370. Federal judges issued orders permanently barring
Stich from filing any papers in federal courts. After Judges Robert Jones and Edward Jellen
corruptly seized and started to liquidate Stich's assets, Judge Jones issued an
unconstitutional order barring Stich from filing any objection to the seizure and liquidation.

Void Orders Can Be Attacked At Any Time


An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court, is void, or voidable, and can be attacked
in any proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See
Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24
L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh
(1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L
ed 608. U.S. v. Holtzman, 762 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1985) ("Portion of judgment directing
defendant not to import vehicles without first obtaining approval ... was not appropriately
limited in duration and, thus, district court abused its discretion by not vacating it as being
prospectively inequitable." Id at 722.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 29, 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