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 NOTICE REGARDING PUBLISHED DECISION BY THE JUDICIAL

COUNCIL, AND INCREMENTAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS

The Appellant respectfully informs the Court that due to the gravity of legal issues involving the

First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Judicial Council and matters including (but not limited to)

National Security, copies of this NOTICE are sent via email, social media and/or certified mail

to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector - General Michael

Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, members of the US Senate and House of

Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, and to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the Public. These parties are also

informed for documentation purposes, and out of concerns for personal safety/security.

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, necessarily files with the Court this NOTICE,

upon receiving by US Mail delivered August 5, 2017, the PUBLISHED DECISION of the
Judicial Council (First Circuit Appeals Court). The Appellant, who on August 4, 2017 filed a

RESPONSE to the July 31, 2017 order, was unaware that the Judicial Council had ruled on

the judicial misconduct petition one (1) day prior.

Now, after reviewing the six (6) page order in its entirety, there exists a published document

that not only RE-AFFIRMS the Appellants consistent claims of judicial misconduct, but shows

cause to bring incremental claims against the entire judicial council, and re-enforces the

necessity for Congressional Intervention.

A PARTIAL list of legal issues revealed in the issued order include the following:

1. As with the initial order issued by Chief Justice Howard, the Judicial Council uses

deceptive tactics to incorrectly re-write the narrative of the complaint, shifting the

focus on secondary issues, while ignoring primary issues and the specific details that

irrefutably support judicial misconduct claims. Anyone who reads through the order

WITHOUT REVIEWING THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, is led to believe that

no evidence of judicial misconduct exists. NOWHERE in the order does the Judicial

Council address any specifics of how the Appellant reached his conclusions on primary

issues.

2. Three (3) examples of PRIMARY ISSUES, where the details of the Appellants

argument are completely ignored include (but are not limited to) the following:

a. Evidenced FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 60(b);

b. Refusing to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel;

2
 c. Evidenced TREASON claims under ARTICLE III.

3. The Judicial Council also makes NO REFERENCE to the Judge Burroughs SUA

SPONTE RECUSAL in the RELATED DISTRICT COURT COMPLAINT

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, DOCKET NO. 17-CV-11109, and its impact

to related order/judgements;

4. CONFLICT of INTEREST - The Judicial Council reviewing the petition includes two

(2) Circuit Judges and three (3) District Judges. Upon receiving the order issued by the

Judicial Council, it is revealed that BOTH assigned Circuit Judges TORUELLA and

KAYATTA are ALSO presiding over THIS APPEAL.

The Appellant now provides: 1. For the record in this Appeal; 2. For the record in the related

complaint Harihar v. The United States; 3. As evidence to be reviewed by the House

Judiciary Committee; and 4. As a matter of PUBLIC RECORD - six (6) separate legal

documents (Attached) that collectively reveal the Judicial Councils FAILURE to

RECOGNIZE, and HOLD ACCOUNTABLE, evidenced judicial misconduct of Judge Allison

Dale Burroughs. The referenced legal documents include:

1. The Judicial Misconduct Petition,1 along with four (4) supplements to the petition2;

and

2. A copy of the Judicial Councils Order, issued on August 3, 2017. 3

1
Judicial Misconduct Petition pages 4 thru 132.
2
First Supplement pages 133 thru 159; Second Supplement pages 160 thru 194; Third
Supplement pages 195 thru 214; Fourth Supplement pages 215 thru 226
3
Copy of the Judicial Councils Order, issued August 3, 2017 pages 227 thru 233.

3
The Appellants interpretation is that evidence supporting a deep-seated favoritism or

antagonism DOES exist here - in the District Court, the US Appeals Court and now as

evidenced by the Judicial Council of the First Circuit, making fair judgment in the First

Circuit impossible. It would appear (at least on its surface), that elements of

CORRUPTION may exist here and that an effort is being made now by EIGHT (8)

officers of the Court,1 to brush aside ALL EVIDENCED ALLEGATIONS in order to reach

a corrupt and predetermined outcome.

The Appellant respectfully re-states the DEMAND for: RECUSAL, STAY of APPEAL,

TRANSFER of VENUE, and call for CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION. Furthermore, it

is the Appellants interpretation of the law that Judges Torruella, Kayatta, Barron are considered

to have lost jurisdiction and are disqualified by law to rule further in this Appeal. Any orders

issued without jurisdiction will be considered as acts of TREASON to the Constitution under

ARTICLE III.

Respectfully submitted this 7th Day of August, 2017.

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

1
The referenced EIGHT (8) officers of the Court include: US District Court Judges - Allison
Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and
Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges - Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr.,
David J. Barron, and Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard.

4
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526
(Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

Date

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), Attorney General - Jeff Sessions, 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.

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

27-32.

5
 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 States.1 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.

1 Reference Document No. 126, PLAINTIFF RESPONSE TO ORDER

(DOCUMENT 125) AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL.

6
 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;
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.1 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

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

7
 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).1 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 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)2 - 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

1
See Attachment C, Document No. 118, pages 52-53.
2See Attachment D, Document No. 122, pages 54-55.

8
 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;
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.

9
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.

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.

10
 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 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)

11
 separate supplemental complaints filed with the First
Circuit Appellate Court.1
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 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

1
See Attachments E, F, G and H, pages 56 thru 105.

12
 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.1 Second, the Judicial Council is asked to review
the Complainants 18-page Motion for recusal,2 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
"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."

1
See Attachment D, pages 53-54.
2 See Attachment B, pages 33-51.

13
[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

14
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 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).

15
 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 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

16
 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

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)1 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

1 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.

17
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.

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

18
 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

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

19
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 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

20
 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

21
 detailed 6-year history of this Complainants litigation,
will have clear understanding as to why that belief remains
strong today.

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.

22
 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 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.

23
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 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

24
 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.

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;

25
 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 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,

26
 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 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.

27
 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
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

28
 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 clarify for the record each of the allegations in the

29
 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

30
 these acts (alleged) the Plaintiff has, and will continue
to 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

31
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.

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;

32
 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.

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

33
Attachment A

34
35
36
37
38
39
Attachment B

40
 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

41
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 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

42
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 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

43
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),

44
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

45
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 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

46
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.

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

47
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 reasonable

48
 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

49
subjects requiring legal expertise. At minimum, the alignment

of experienced legal counsel with the Plaintiff is necessary

to 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.

50
 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. 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

51
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 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

52
 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 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

53
 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).

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

54
 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 swifter move to discovery, should

there remain questions to passing ANY portion of

the four-factor test.

55
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.

56
 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.

57
 5. Failure to Uphold Defendant, Harmon Law Offices

Default dating back to an order issued on May 24,

2016 (document 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

58
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: (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

59
 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

60
Attachment C

61
62
Attachment D

63
64
Attachment E

65
 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 Complainant respectfully requests that the Court review Documents

124 thru 126 of the referenced Docket.1

The Plaintiff/Complainant supplemental issues are respectfully summarized here:

1
Reference 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.

66
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 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.

67
 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)

68
Attachment F

69
 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. 1

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.

1
A copy of the referenced Emergency Motion, filed with the U.S. District Court is attached (See
Attachment A).

70
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)

71
Attachment A

72
 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

73
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.

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.1 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.2 A breakdown of the still

accruing costs and fees are as follows:

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

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

via injunctive relief, which was DENIED in BAD FAITH.

74
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. 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

75
 Plaintiff with (at minimum) the necessary funds available so

that timely payments can be made to secure ALL interim

housing costs.1

Breakdown of Interim Housing Costs2

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.

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.

1 Also, please find the completed AO-291-EAJA Form, as required

(See Attachment A)
2 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.

76
 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 Costs1 - Reimbursement for costs

related to transportation includes, but is not limited to:

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)

1 Total 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.

77
 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. EAJA1 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, 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.

1 EAJA The Equal Access to Justice Act

78
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 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

79
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.

80
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

81
 the Motion and its relation to the referenced judicial

misconduct, a second, 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.1

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.

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

82
Respectfully Submitted,

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

83
Attachment A

84
85
Attachment G

86
 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.1 The Plaintiff has since filed a response to the Order

(reference Document No. 131).2 By issuing the Document No. 129 ORDER, the Complainant

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

1
See Attachment A
2
See Attachment B

87
 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

88
 give this clarification. For documentation purposes, the Plaintiff/ Complainant

respectfully requests 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)

89
Attachment A

90
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)

91
Attachment B

92
 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

93
 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 U.S. Code 2412

(c)(2).1 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

1 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.

94
 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.

2. TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION 1 - 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.

1 The first allegation of Treason to the Constitution against

Judge Burroughs is supported by the issued Order in Document No.
125.

95
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, 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

96
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 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

97
 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 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

98
 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 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

99
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.

Respectfully Submitted,

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

100
Attachment H

101
 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.1 The Plaintiff has since filed a response to the Order (reference Document No.

134).2 By 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

1
See Attachment A
2
See Attachment B

102
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.1

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;

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

1
The 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.

103
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)

104
Attachment A

105
106
Attachment B

107
 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:

108
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 Allison D. Burroughs. For the

reasons previously stated and on record with the Court,1 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.2

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.

1 Reference Document No.s 121 thru 126.

2 A 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.

109
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 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.1 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

1
The Plaintiff owes the United States Federal taxes to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and also to the Massachusetts
Department of Revenue (MADOR).

110
(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:

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,

111
 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).

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.,

112
 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;

113
 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.1

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

1 The 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.

114
 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.

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.

115
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 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

116
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.

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

117
Activity in Case 1:15-cv-11880-ADB Harihar v. US Bank
NA et al Order on Motion for Recusal

Attachment I

118
119
120
121
122
123
 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

124
 Defendants clear and admitted DEFAULT, and to further allow

this Motion to file late, would show clear prejudice against

this Plaintiff.

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

125
 received on the same day at 1:39pm EST.1 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 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.

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

Attorney Kurt R. McHugh, on May 19, 2016 at 1:39PM EST.

126
 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.

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.

127
Respectfully submitted,

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

128
Attachment A

129
 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

130
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.

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

131
132
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526
(Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

Date

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky

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

RE: Supplement to Petition under Review of Judicial

Misconduct Complaint No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:

Since filing the referenced Judicial Misconduct Petition with the
Judicial Council (received February 14, 2017), there have been
two (2) actions that now warrant this supplement to the original
judicial misconduct petition.
First, an additional act of judicial misconduct is now alleged.
The judicial order, issued March 15, 2017 and associated with
Document No. 1371 of the referenced litigation, brings an
incremental allegation of TREASON to the Constitution against
Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.
The conscious decision made here AGAIN - to issue an order
WITHOUT JURISDICTION, reveals a BLATANT DISREGARD for the
CONSTITUTION, and the JUDICIAL MACHINERY that Judge Burroughs has
sworn to uphold. This continued PATTERN of CORRUPT CONDUCT by a
Federal District Court Judge shows cause to now bring a
FOURTH(4th) allegation of Treason to the Constitution against
Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It is the Plaintiffs
interpretation, that these evidenced offenses are considered
criminal in nature, and also provide grounds for IMPEACHMENT.

1 See Attachment A, Judicial Order associated with Document No.

137.

133
By now, it SHOULD be clearly evident to ANY objective observer,
that NOT ONLY is a fair and impartial trial UNLIKELY, but it
becomes ABSOLUTELY clear that - a United States District Court
Judge is willing to commit multiple acts of Treason to prevent
this Plaintiff from ever arriving at a jury trial. As with prior
orders called into question, the Complainant respectfully filed a
REPLY to the order associated with Document No. 137.1 It would
seem (at least on its surface) that the District Court has AGAIN
ignored the Plaintiffs REPLY. The Complainant also respectfully
reminds this Council that this litigation, initiated in MAY 2015,
is now approaching ten (10) months WITHOUT a move to the
Discovery phase. Unnecessary judicial delay is irrefutable.
Second, EVEN IF there was jurisdiction, the decision to issue the
referenced order DENYING REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS AND FEES is
considered an incremental ACT of BAD FAITH, committed by the
United States against this Plaintiff.
These evidenced actions by an officer of the Court show a
deliberate effort by the UNITED STATES to ensure that a
continued, and increasing HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff continues.
The Court SHOULD have directed the Treasury Department to issue
the requested reimbursement on or before January 14, 2017. The
Complainant, whom the Court acknowledged as indigent, intended to
use a portion of the reimbursement to address variables
responsible for the increased hardship i.e. repaying overdue
taxes due to the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Instead, the Complainant has now been made aware
that TAX LIENS have been filed against him, by the United States
and the Commonwealth.
The Complainant understands that his filed Judicial Misconduct
Petition is currently under review with the Judicial Council.
While the Complainant certainly respects the legal process and
the MANY issues to address, the continued Acts of Bad Faith
clearly evidenced by Judge Burroughs, warrant (at minimum) the
following IMMEDIATE actions by this Council:
1. VALIDATE - this referenced, and continued Act of Bad Faith
as it applies to Document No. 137 and the Reimbursement of
Costs and Fees due to the Plaintiff;
2. AUTHORIZE - the Department of the Treasury (either directly
or via the District Court) to issue timely payment to the

1 See Attachment B, Document No. 138, REPLY to Judicial Order

Denying Reimbursement

134
 Plaintiff/Complainant in the amount of $11,949,420 for the
referenced costs and fees on or before April 1, 2017.1
3. PROVIDE the Complainant with an ANSWER, as to whether or
not the United States has interest in reaching a mutual
agreement in this legal matter.

Acknowledging this act of Bad Faith and taking the requested

corrective action will AT LEAST cease an increased hardship that
has unnecessarily burdened this Plaintiff/Complainant for nearly
two (2) years.
Finally, the Complainant has made clear - the increasing concerns
for HIS safety and security, and also concerns regarding
accountability for the criminal allegations associated with the
Judicial Misconduct Petition. There also remain grave concerns
related to the opinion(s) of Chief Justice Howard, who has yet to
take corrective action here. These collective actions (alleged)
only add to (at minimum) the Conspiracy, and Color of Law Claims
brought against the United States. For these reasons, copies of
this supplemental complaint will be delivered/made available to:
1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);
2. The House Judiciary Committee;
3. The Office of US Inspector General;
4. The Department of Justice;
5. The Public.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Councils time and

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

1 If no payment is received by April 1, 2017, the updated

reimbursement due AFTER April 1, 2017 but before April 8, 2017,
will be $12,069,420. After April 8, 2017, any portion of
reimbursement still considered due to the Plaintiff/Complainant
will be assessed late fees and interest charges, similar in
process to penalties applied by the Internal Revenue Service.

135
Mohan A. Harihar

Complainant/Plaintiff

Attachment A

136
137
Attachment B

138
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

REPLY TO JUDICIAL ORDER DENYING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS AND FEES,

DOCUMENT NO. 137

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

files this REPLY to the judicial order, Document No. 137, issued

on March 15, 2017 by Judge Allison D. Burroughs. The order comes

one (1) day after the Plaintiff filed a NOTICE (See Document No.

136) informing the United States of OVERDUE COSTS and FEES owed

to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the order, the Plaintiff respectfully disagrees

with Judge Burroughss decision, identifying the following

139
serious issues that now respectfully DEMAND immediate attention

from a higher authority:

I. The Judicial Order (Document No. 137) is considered VOID

First, it is the Plaintiffs CLEAR INTERPRETATION of the

LAW, that the presiding judge Allison D. Burroughs, has

been DISQUALIFIED by law, and no longer has jurisdiction to

rule in this litigation. Therefore, the Order associated

with Document No. 137 (and ALL those prior) are considered

VOID. The record makes it abundantly clear as to how this

interpretation of the law has been made, with irrefutable

evidence to support EVERY portion of the Plaintiffs

claim(s). The Court is also aware that the Plaintiff has

filed a JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT(S) against Judge

Burroughs. A 118-page Judicial Misconduct Petition is

currently under review by the Judicial Council of the First

Circuit Appellate Court.1

II. FOURTH (4th) Allegation of TREASON to the Constitution

Since August 2016, the Plaintiff has brought multiple claims

of judicial misconduct, including three (3) separate

allegations of TREASON against Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

These fully-supported allegations are irrefutable, and are

1 The Judicial Misconduct Petition was officially received by the

Judicial Council of the First Circuit on February 14, 2017.

140
 clearly articulated - both within the record and also in the

referenced Judicial Misconduct Petition. The record

additionally shows that Judge Burroughs STILL, since August

2016 has made NO effort to DENY, DEFEND, or even ADDRESS

these serious allegations. The conscious decision made here

again - to issue an order WITHOUT JURISDICTION, reveals a

BLATANT DISREGARD for the CONSTITUTION, and the JUDICIAL

MACHINERY that Judge Burroughs has sworn to uphold. This

continued PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT by a Federal District

Court Judge shows cause to now bring a FOURTH(4th)

allegation of Treason to the Constitution against Judge

Allison Dale Burroughs. It is the Plaintiffs

interpretation, that these evidenced offenses are considered

criminal in nature, and also provide grounds for

IMPEACHMENT.

By now, it SHOULD be clearly evident to ANY objective

observer, that NOT ONLY is a fair and impartial trial

UNLIKELY, but it becomes ABSOLUTELY clear that a United

States District Court Judge is willing to commit multiple

acts of Treason to prevent this Plaintiff from ever arriving

at a jury trial.

III. Refusal to Acknowledge Acts of BAD FAITH

141
 A review of the record will clearly reveal the Plaintiffs

evidenced claim(s) of BAD FAITH ACTS, committed against him

by the United States. Collectively, these referenced Acts of

Bad Faith articulated both in the record, and in the

referenced JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PETITION include (but are not

limited to):

ii) Judicial Prejudice/Bias

iii) Judicial Fraud on the Court

iv) Treason to the Constitution (3 allegations)

v) Refusal to Recuse (2 allegations)

vi) Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel

vii) Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff

viii) Unnecessary Judicial Delay

ix) Color of Law violations

x) Conspiracy Claims

Here, in the issued order (Document No. 137)1, the

previously referenced order (Document No. 129)2, OR ANYWHERE

for that matter, Judge Burroughs fails to make a single

reference to, or take responsibility for, ANY act made by

the United States in BAD FAITH.

1 See Attachment A, Document No. 137

2 See Attachment B, Document No. 129

142
 The record will ALSO show that the Plaintiff filed a REPLY

to the Order associated with Document No. 129, that appears

(at least on its surface) to have been completely ignored by

Judge Burroughs (See Document No. 131). In his REPLY to the

Document No. 129 Order, the Plaintiff states the following:

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)1 is not the appropriate legal reference for

1
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.

143
 addressing ACTIONS MADE IN BAD FAITH, it further underscores

the need for the COURT to assist the Plaintiff with

retaining (already requested) legal counsel.

THEREFORE, EVEN IF Judge Burroughs still had jurisdiction,

neither order addresses the primary issues that include Acts

of Bad Faith. There appears only the intention of reaching

a pre-determined disposition to DENY the Plaintiffs

motion(s).

With regard to the reimbursement of Costs and Fees, the ONLY

argument that MAY remain is whether the United States bears

full responsibility for the reimbursement to the Plaintiff,

OR if the Defendants SHOULD share proportionate

responsibility.

IV. Re-affirmation that the Courts assistance with the

appointment of Counsel is warranted, pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. 1915

The Plaintiff respectfully acknowledges that for reasons

stated in the Document No. 137 Order, 45 C.F.R. 30.11 MAY

not be the correct legal reference, and that the original

reference to 28 U.S. Code 2412 (c)(2) is believed to be

appropriate. Judge Burroughss clarification of the order is

yet another example which re-affirms that the Courts

144
assistance with the appointment of Counsel is clearly

warranted.

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): Real Estate/

Foreclosure Law, Intellectual Property Rights associated

with a National Economic Plan, Litigation involving State

and Federal Government, Federal Trial Court Litigation, The

US Foreclosure/Financial Crisis, Judicial Misconduct,

Violations to Due Process, Color of Law Violations, Civil

Conspiracy Claims and Federal Tort Claims.

The Plaintiff has repeatedly questioned where exactly the

bar has been set to assist with the appointment of counsel,

AND exactly how Judge Burroughs could possibly have arrived

at her conclusions NO CLARIFICATION HAS EVER BEEN

PROVIDED, EVEN WHEN REQUESTED. 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

145
 the Commonwealth (AND the United States)1 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:

6. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim;

1 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.

146
7. Position to investigate crucial facts;

8. 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;

9. 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.;

10. 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.

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

147
Prejudice and an incremental 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 Plaintiff 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

148
 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:

D. The Court RIGHTFULLY assists with the appointment of

counsel; or

E. The Plaintiff is able to secure legal counsel on his

own.

Legal Fees will continue to accrue at an hourly rate of

$1000 per hour, and will remain capped at 40 hours per week.

The TOTAL updated accrual due to the Plaintiff thru week

ending March 25, 2017 is $3,943,140 (includes previously

reported Transportation, Housing and Legal costs). The

evidenced Act of Bad Faith warrants treble costs bringing

the updated total to $11,829,420.

V. Congressional Intervention, Criminal Investigation(s) now

warranted

Due to the severity of Civil AND Criminal allegations within

the Plaintiffs complaint including (but not limited to)

conspiracy claims, judicial misconduct, etc, Congressional

intervention and criminal investigations are certainly

warranted. Therefore, a copy of this filed REPLY will

149
 additionally be delivered to the following

Offices/Agencies/Courts:

A. The Judicial Council of the First Circuit Appellate Court

B. The Executive Office of the President (EOP)

C. The Office of the United States Inspector General

D. The House Judiciary Committee

E. Members of Congress

F. The Department of Justice

VI. Fear for Personal Safety

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)1 AND the MA Attorney Generals Office (MA-

AGO) are BOTH on record as stating that they WILL NOT

protect this Plaintiff AN AMERICAN BORN CITIZEN, 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 only heighten these safety

concerns.

1 Department of Justice, as led under the Obama Administration.

150
 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 make these evidenced FACTS available to the PUBLIC,

including this REPLY to the judicial order associated with

Document No. 137.

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.

VII. CONCLUSION

Based on collective Facts as described here, within Document

No. 135 and throughout the record, it becomes necessary for

this Court to initiate CORRECTIVE action PRIOR to moving

forward. Corrective action SHOULD include (at minimum):

A. A Conclusion that the existing argument(s)/circumstances

DOES IN FACT warrant immediate relief to this Plaintiff,

as described. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that

the Court direct the Treasury Department to issue the

referenced reimbursement of costs and fees due to the

151
 Plaintiff. The updated reimbursement through week ending

March 25, 2017 is $11,829,420. To avoid additional LATE

FEES and INTEREST added to the principle balance, it is

again requested that the COURT authorize the Treasury

Department to TIMELY issue payment, payable to the

Plaintiff for the referenced amount due, on or before

March 25, 2017.1 Efforts made by ANY party to prevent the

Plaintiff from rightfully receiving this reimbursement

will be interpreted as an attempt to cause further harm

and damage(s) to the Plaintiff;

B. Initiating next steps with the appropriate

Court/Committees/Agencies (i.e. The Judicial Council of

the First Circuit, The House Judiciary Committee and the

Department of Justice), in addressing the criminal

allegations brought forth against Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs;

C. The Courts assignment of a District Court Judge that HAS

jurisdiction to rule in the referenced litigation;

D. The Courts assistance with the assignment of counsel;

1
Should it become necessary to assess late fees and interest to
the principle balance, the Plaintiff will reference procedures
used by the IRS, MA-DOR and other creditors for calculating these
variables.

152
 E. Provide the Plaintiff with a definitive ANSWER, whether

or not the United States has interest in reaching a

MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

VIII. 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 Notice: (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.

If the Court has ANY questions, or requires ANY additional

information or clarification, the Plaintiff is happy to provide

upon request.

153
Respectfully Submitted,

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

154
Attachment A

155
156
Attachment B

157
158
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

day, March 19, 2017, 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

159
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526
(Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

COPY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

April 17, 2017

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky

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

RE: 2nd Supplement to Petition under Review of Judicial

Misconduct Complaint No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:

Per our recent phone conversation, it has become necessary to
file a second (2nd) Supplement to the Judicial Misconduct
Petition against US District Court Judge Allison Dale
Burroughs. Two (2) evidenced, incremental acts of felony/criminal
misconduct are now alleged against Judge Burroughs:
1. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III

This Fifth (5th) allegation of Treason stems (at minimum)

from the conscious decision to issue an order, DISMISSING

the Plaintiffs complaint, WITHOUT JURISDICTION. With

this VOID order associated with Document No. 139, it is

interpreted that Judge Burroughs has purposefully

160
 committed a fifth (5th) act of Treason to the

Constitution.

2. Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Economic

Espionage, Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832 - Based on the

extensive pattern of corrupt conduct, including the

misappropriation of the Plaintiffs trade secret(s), the

Plaintiff brings allegations of Economic Espionage

against Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

See Attachment A, Document No. 141, to review the Plaintiff/

Complainants filed RESPONSE to the VOID order associated with

Document No. 139, and further articulation of these evidenced

allegations.

See Attachment B, Document No. 142, NOTICE of APPEAL - While it

ultimately may be considered unnecessary to file a NOTICE OF

APPEAL, it has yet to be determined if Judicial Misconduct

extends beyond the US District Court. Already, there is concern

surrounding the initial opinion issued by Chief Justice Howard,

which has yet to be corrected. The Plaintiff respectfully states

that any failure to take corrective action in this matter shows

cause to bring additional judicial misconduct claims, and adds

161
(at minimum) to already existing Conspiracy claims filed against

the United States.

Due to the severity of these evidenced criminal allegations, and

out of fear for personal safety, the Complainant has additionally

copied the following Offices/Agencies for their information:

A. The Executive Office of the President Notified via email,

US Mail and social media (See Attachment C);

B. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Washington/Boston offices notified via email and social

media;

C. The Office of the US Attorney General Notified via email,

US Mail and social media;

D. The House Judiciary Committee Notified via US Mail and

social media;

E. Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker (R-MA) Notified via

email, US Mail and social media.

F. The Office of the US Inspector General, Michael Horowitz -

Notified via email, US Mail and social media.

PLEASE NOTE: By informing the Offices/Agencies listed above, ALL

THREE branches of the United States government are officially

notified of evidenced allegations including (but not limited to)

162
TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE. These evidenced allegations ADD

to the existing Plaintiff claims against the United States, and

the UNDENIABLE need for assistance with the appointment of

counsel, as requested.1

At this time, the Plaintiff states for the record his intentions,

and with the assistance of Federal Prosecutors, to have criminal

charges brought against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. The

continued PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT and the evidenced ACTS of

BAD FAITH identified throughout the record demonstrates the

Judges CLEAR INTENT to cause irreparable harm and damages to

this Plaintiff, and ultimately to the United States. The clear

ABUSE of JUSTICE is so extensive, MENTAL ILLNESS should not be

ruled out. While these criminal acts are clear and irrefutable,

further investigation is needed to determine if Judge Burroughs

has acted alone, or has COLLUDED with other parties. The

Complainant re-states the considerable concern(s) indicating that

misconduct extends BEYOND the US District Court; citing the

1 Reference Document No.s 124 and 126, and Existing claims

against the United States which have yet to be addressed
including (but not limited to): Violations to Due process, Color
of Law Violations, ABUSE of PROCESS CLAIMS, and FEDERAL TORT
claims. The evidenced Treason and Economic Espionage allegations
now show cause to expand claims to include Conspiracy and RICO
claims against the United States.

163
documented (and still uncorrected) OPINION of Chief Justice

Howard, of the First Circuit.

The Actions evidenced by Judge Allison Dale Burroughs against this

Plaintiff CANNOT be allowed to continue without legal

consequence(s). Doing so would at minimum - irreparably harm the

Plaintiff, wrongfully impact precedent, and will deprive the Nation

from substantial economic benefit. Furthermore, the Nation and ALL

Americans will be witness to a level of CORRUPTION of historic

proportion. Immediate action by the Judicial Council is clearly

warranted, including Congressional intervention (if necessary) to

remove and replace Judge Burroughs for the evidenced allegations

stated within this petition.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Councils time and

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Complainant/Plaintiff

164
Attachment A

165
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

RESPONSE TO DOCUMENT NO. 139, INCLUDING NEW ALLEGATIONS OF

TREASON, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE AND MISPRISION

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

files this RESPONSE to the judicial order of DISMISSAL, Document

No. 139, issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION on April 3, 2017 by Judge

Allison D. Burroughs. This order is considered VOID, as is ALL

related orders issued by Judge Burroughs.

The Plaintiff respectfully informs the Court of the following:

166
 1. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III - is

now evidenced for a fifth (5th) time.

2. Misprision of Treason, pursuant to 18 USC 23821 - is

alleged (5 counts) against the eleven (11) attorneys

representing the Defendants, also against Defendant Martha

Coakley, Esq. and Defendant - Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

3. Misprision of Felony, pursuant to 18 USC 42 - is alleged

against ALL Defendants and their respective attorneys.

With regard to MISPRISION, any effort by the Defendants to

seek protection under the fifth (5th) Amendment or Sovereign

Immunity is considered waived, as evidenced FRAUD on the

Court violations (alleged) under FRCP 60(b)(3) against ALL

Defendants is on record.

1
18 USC 2382 - Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States
and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against
them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make
known the same to the President or to some judge of the United
States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a
particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years,
or both.
218 USC 4 - Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission

of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals

and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some
judge or other person in civil or military authority under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both

167
 4. Economic Espionage, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832 are

alleged against Judge Burroughs, ALL Defendants and their

attorneys.

These NEW allegations warrant the amendment of the existing

complaint, and (at minimum) collectively adds to the supported

CIVIL CONSPIRACY, CIVIL RICO and ABUSE of PROCESS CLAIMS made by

the Plaintiff.1 It also shows the UNDENIABLE need for the Court

to finally assist the Plaintiff with the APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL.

Due to the severity of these evidenced allegations, it is

necessary to immediately update the following Offices/Agencies/

Courts:

G. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Washington/Boston offices notified via email and social

media;

H. The Office of the US Attorney General Notified via email,

US Mail and social media;

I. The Executive Office of the President Notified via email,

US Mail and social media;

1 Reference Document No. 106, Motion to file Third Amended

Complaint, denied by Judge Burroughs.

168
 J. The Judicial Council of the First Circuit (Second Supplement

to Judicial Misconduct Petition filed) Notified via US

Mail;

K. The House Judiciary Committee Notified via US Mail and

social media;

L. Massachusetts Governor Charles Baker (R-MA) Notified via

email, US Mail and social media.

At this time, the Plaintiff states for the record his intentions,

and with the assistance of Federal Prosecutors, to have criminal

charges brought against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. The

continued PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT and the evidenced ACTS of

BAD FAITH identified throughout the record demonstrates the

Judges CLEAR INTENT to cause irreparable harm and damages to

this Plaintiff, and ultimately to the United States. The clear

ABUSE of JUSTICE is so extensive, MENTAL ILLNESS should not be

ruled out. While these criminal acts are clear and irrefutable,

further investigation is needed to determine if Judge Burroughs

has acted alone, or has COLLUDED with other parties. Already,

there is considerable concern that misconduct extends BEYOND the

169
US District Court, citing the documented (and still uncorrected)

OPINION of Chief Justice Howard, of the First Circuit.1

The Court is respectfully reminded that that a Judicial

Misconduct Petition, filed against Judge Burroughs is still

pending before Judicial Council of the First Circuit. A second

supplement is now necessarily filed to inform the Judicial

Council of these new evidenced allegations. ANY failure to hold

Judge Burroughs ACCOUNTABLE for her actions BY EITHER THE

JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND/OR FEDERAL PROSECUTORS will suggest to the

American Public that she is ABOVE the LAW, and that the

Constitutional rights of this Plaintiff, an American-born citizen

should be IGNORED. It would additionally CONFIRM that Judicial

misconduct EXTENDS BEYOND the District Court to the First

Circuit, warranting further legal action.

The Court is respectfully reminded that despite numerous

opportunities - dating back to August 2016, Judge Burroughs HAS

YET TO ADDRESS, DENY or DEFEND these serious allegations brought

against her.

1 Reference Attachment A of The Judicial Misconduct Petition

associated w Harihar vs US Bank. The petition can be viewed in
its entirety by clicking on the attached link,
http://scribd.com/document/338338675

170
The Plaintiff respectfully calls for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of

Government/DOJ to immediately initiate the following actions:

1. The OPENING of an official CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION against

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs;

2. The ASSEMBLY of a Grand Jury;

3. The ASSIGNMENT of a Special Prosecutor by the Department of

Justice (DOJ).

Under the PRIOR OBAMA administration, the DOJ, under the (former)

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch is on record as stating they

WILL NOT PROSECUTE evidenced criminal misconduct committed

against the Plaintiff Mohan A. Harihar. It is my HOPE, that

under the new TRUMP administration and US Attorney General Jeff

Sessions, efforts to DRAIN THE SWAMP and take CORRECTIVE ACTION

here will begin.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES PRESENTED

The Plaintiff respectfully brings the following list of

ADDITIONAL ISSUES now before the Court:

I. JURISDICTION for the many reasons stated here and throughout

the record, it is necessary for the Court to VALIDATE that Judge

171
 Allison D. Burroughs no longer has jurisdiction to rule in this

litigation.

II. The Denied THIRD Amended Complaint of the Plaintiff EVEN

IF Judge Burroughs had jurisdiction, her decision to DENY a

Third Amended Complaint is viewed as a deliberate effort to

damage the legal efforts of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff

references Document No. 106, filed June 10, 2016, which

articulates the securitization failure of RESIDENTIAL

MORTGAGE-BACKED SECUTITIES (RMBS), and the collective

reasons warranting a third amended complaint.

III. Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Economic

Espionage, Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 18321 - Based on the

extensive pattern of corrupt conduct, the Plaintiff brings

allegations of Economic Espionage against Judge Allison D.

Burroughs and also against ALL Defendants.

The misappropriation of trade secrets can impose severe

economic and other harm not only to the owner of the trade

1 Also referencing 18 U.S.C. 1836(b) is replaced to provide for

private civil actions, including (subject to appropriate
safeguards) ex parte orders "providing for the seizure of
property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of
the trade secret that is the subject of the action." Remedies
available to the court include the granting of injunctions,
awarding of damages (including treble damages in cases of willful
and malicious misappropriation) and the awarding of costs in
cases where the claim was made in bad faith.

172
secret but on many others. The adverse consequences may

affect company employees whose livelihood is based on the

continued success of the company, a community dependent on

the company contributions to the local economy, or even the

health of a particular industry or the national economy.

In appropriate cases involving aggravated conduct, criminal

prosecution is necessary to deter and punish the

misappropriation of a trade secret.

18 U.S. Code 1832, involves the misappropriation of a

trade secret with the intent to convert the trade secret to

the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner and to

injure the owner of the trade secret. According to the U.S.

Attorneys Manual, some of the factors assessed in

initiating an economic espionage or trade secret case

include (a) the scope of the criminal activity, including

evidence of involvement by a foreign government, foreign

agent, or foreign instrumentality; (b) the degree of

economic injury to the trade secret owner; (c) the type of

trade secret misappropriated; (d) the effectiveness of

available civil remedies; and (e) the potential deterrent

value of the prosecution.

173
The Economic Espionage Act applies to a broad range of

misappropriation conduct. As a general summary,

misappropriation is alleged to exist here (at minimum) under

two (2) categories/subsections:

1. Copy/Share - Without authorization copies, duplicates,

sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters,

destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers,

sends, mails, communicates, or conveys.

For example, if there is NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the

evidenced allegations of civil/criminal misconduct

related to illegal foreclosure, the Intellectual property

belonging to the Plaintiff, known as - the HARIHAR FCS

Model CANNOT be implemented, and is critically

damaged/destroyed;

2. Conspiracy Evidenced allegations show that All fourteen

(14) defendants (15 parties in total, including the

United States) were aware that clear title did not exist

with the Plaintiffs property and that these parties

collectively participated in a scheme to defraud the

Plaintiff of his HOMESTEAD. The Court is well aware that

this is not an isolated incident. The Plaintiff is able

to conservatively provide 4.2 million other examples of

174
 this scheme, as described by the DOJ, the MA Attorney

Generals Office and Federal Bank Regulators.

Such conduct deprives the Plaintiff first - as a homeowner,

secondly the Plaintiff as the Intellectual Property owner,

and third - our Nation of the corresponding economic and

social benefits.

The implementation of the Plaintiffs Intellectual Property

is critical to restoring US economic growth, fostering a

more dynamic US economy, and delivering a more broadly

shared prosperity, particularly to those who have been

damaged by the US Foreclosure Crisis, and who live at the

bottom of the economic pyramid.

The details within this docket reveal a clear INTENT by

Judge Burroughs, as well as the Defendants, to

misappropriate and/or irreparably damage the intellectual

property rights belonging to the Plaintiff. The Court is

well aware of the Economic Model, referred to as the Harihar

FCS Model. The FCS Model was created by the Plaintiff to

bring substantial Economic growth and repair (estimated at

$5T or greater) to the United States from damages caused by

175
the US Foreclosure Crisis. The Court is aware that the FCS

Model has merit, having been reviewed by the Executive

Office of the President (EOP, including former VP Joe

Biden), The House Financial Services Committee (Former

Deputy Chief Counsel, Gail Laster), the AG Offices of

Massachusetts and New Hampshire, Senior Economic Advisor

(Bruno Freitas) to US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and

others. The record will show clear efforts by Judge

Burroughs and the Defendants to steer clear from ANY

Intellectual Property Rights discussion, and instead attempt

to DISCREDIT the Plaintiff to ensure that this matter never

arrives before a jury trial.

The Conspiracy argument can certainly be made where there

MAY be parties who DO NOT wish to see this multi trillion-

dollar economic plan implemented. There may also be INTENT

to deprive the Plaintiff of his Intellectual Property

Rights, or both. This evidenced allegation(s) further

underscores the necessity of assistance with appointed

counsel and the alignment with Federal Prosecutors. The

continued effort by Judge Burroughs to DENY this assistance,

reaffirms the intent to keep this Plaintiff at a critical

disadvantage. The Plaintiff now seeks to work with the US

176
 Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the DOJ, as the

investigation(s) moves forward, ultimately bringing charges

of Economic Espionage against ALL responsible parties. The

Plaintiff maintains his position to gain alignment with the

TRUMP administration, so that the United States can

ultimately benefit from the Harihar FCS Model.

IV. Re-capping the List of evidenced Judicial Misconduct

allegations against Judge Burroughs now before the Judicial
Council of the First Circuit;

a. Economic Espionage, Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832

b. ARTICLE III. SECTION 3, TREASON to the Constitution (5

counts) stems (at minimum) from the conscious decision

to issue an order WITHOUT jurisdiction. With the VOID

order associated with Document No. 139, it is interpreted

that Judge Burroughs has purposefully committed a fifth

(5th) act of Treason to the Constitution.

The requirement of two (2) witnesses is met as the

Defendants and their respective attorneys have ALL

witnessed the five (5) counts of Treason alleged against

Judge Burroughs. As reported, each allegation stems from

each judicial order issued by Judge Burroughs when there

was no longer jurisdiction to do so, and is considered

VOID. The VOID order is part of the Docket, and is

177
 communicated to ALL litigants at the approximate time of

issue. Therefore, there can be no dispute, that the

Plaintiff, the Defendants, and their respective counsel

have ALL witnessed these criminal acts.

In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), the

Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required

to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove

that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses,

according to the decision, are required to prove only

that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal

agents investigating the crime, for example).

c. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel, 28

U.S.C. 1915 This Act made in Bad Faith by Judge

Burroughs is exemplified throughout the Docket, Reference

Document No. 138. Judge Burroughs has denied multiple

requests to schedule a hearing to clarify this, and other

decisions under oath, and in the presence of a court

reporter. The expectation that ANY pro se litigant should

have the ability to successfully litigate the extensive

and complex legal issues alleged in this Docket - and

without the assistance of experienced counsel is simply

ludicrous.

178
d. Judicial Fraud on the Court exemplified by the

conscious decision of Judge Burroughs to IGNORE a Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure, including (but not limited to)

FRCP 60 (b)(3) Reference Document No. 121, Motion for

Recusal. By violating and ignoring the Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Rules of Evidence, Judge Burroughs has

committed - an obstruction(s) of justice, Act(s) made in

Bad Faith, and has shown cause for RECUSAL;

e. Refusal to Recuse (2 Counts) reference Document No.s

121 thru 126.

f. ACTS made in BAD FAITH Judge Burroughs fails to make a

single reference to, or take responsibility for, ANY act

by the United States made in BAD FAITH.

g. Violations to DUE PROCESS - The decision(s) made by Judge

Burroughs not to disqualify herself, 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."). Reference Document No.s 121 thru 124;

h. Ignoring evidenced Claims filed against the United States

as indicated in Document No.s 123-124. Also, reference

Document No. 126. To ensure compliance with Federal

179
 Rules, the Plaintiff has served Notice to all three (3)

branches of the Federal Government via email

communication, notifying them of the intention to

amend/include the United States as a Defendant in the

referenced civil complaint. Included with the Notice is

the completed Federal Tort Form 95, as required for any

Federal Tort Claims against the United States.

Despite multiple documented requests by the Plaintiff,

the United States has yet to inform the Plaintiff of

their legal intentions moving forward.

i. Judicial Prejudice/Bias as evidenced and reported

throughout the record;

j. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships - and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff, as evidenced and

reported throughout the record;

k. Unnecessary Judicial Delay this civil action, filed

nearly two (2) years ago (May 2015), has certainly

evidenced unnecessary delay by Judge Burroughs. These

delays negatively impact both the Plaintiff as well as

Defendants. Examples include (but are not limited to):

the judges failure to assist with the appointment of

180
 council, ten (10) months WITHOUT a move to DISCOVERY, and

efforts to issue orders without jurisdiction;

l. Color of Law violations as evidenced and reported

throughout the record;

m. Denial of Hearings Evidenced in the record, Judge

Burroughs has refused/denied to schedule hearings that

were - either mandated by law, or requested by the

Plaintiff for clarification purposes, and in the presence

of a court reporter.

n. Failing to accept as true all well-pleaded facts -

Analyzing those facts in the light most hospitable to the

plaintiffs theory, and drawing all reasonable inferences

from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. While Judge

Burroughs CLAIMS to have done so, a REVIEW and VALIDATION

of the record will confirm otherwise. This is clear and

irrefutable throughout the Docket, and shows cause to

question WHY A MOVE TO DISCOVERY WAS NEVER INITIATED.

o. Refusing to ADDRESS Plaintiff FEARS for SAFETY and Well-

Being The Plaintiffs fully supported complaint

addresses what many consider (worldwide) to be the

largest case of FRAUD in US History. The complaint calls

out - not only the misconduct within the countrys

largest lending institutions, but also corruption within

181
 government. It reveals the MA State Attorney Generals

and DOJs documented refusal (under the Obama

administration), to prosecute evidenced criminal

misconduct against an American-born citizen. On top of

that, the Plaintiff is the sole owner to intellectual

property valued at approximately $5T, and his civil

complaint impacts a potential precedent to at least 4.2M

parties.

Efforts to address these issues in a Federal Court has

revealed evidenced judicial misconduct of substantial

proportion. The Plaintiff has clear reason to fear for

his personal safety and well-being, and has brought these

concerns to the attention of the Court on several

occasions. The presiding judge has completely IGNORED the

Plaintiffs concerns, as if they were never mentioned.

V. Call for VALIDATION of demonstrated Judicial techniques

The Plaintiff calls for the necessary assistance of

counsel, and of federal prosecutors to validate whether

Judge Burroughs demonstrated Judicial techniques within this

docket that corroborate misconduct allegations. These

techniques include (but are not limited to):

1. Failure to consider the possibility of erred judgments of

the State Court(s);

182
2. Ignoring the Law - One of the primary techniques used by

corrupt judges is to simply ignore the law. One party

cites the law and overwhelming case law. The favoured

party doesn't have the law on their side. The judge

simply ignores the law and rules against the party that

was legally right;

3. Citing Invalid Law - claiming a case applies when it

doesn't;

4. Ignoring the Facts - Judges are always under oath, and a

judge is supposed to never say or write anything that

isn't true. So, when a judge knowingly lies in orders for

the purpose of ruling against a party for the judge's

criminal reasons, it is a criminal violation of perjury.

Each such instance is a separate count;

5. Ignoring Issues - rather than make up an explanation, a

judge just ignores those tough issues.;

6. Saying Nothing in Orders - corruptly calling a complaint

"frivolous" and denying motions with no valid explanation

whatsoever;

7. Block Filing of Motions and Evidence - The pro se party

is denied the information needed to defeat the other

party, and there is no record of this evidence and these

arguments on appeal;

183
 8. Tampering with Evidence as evidenced in the Middlesex

Superior Court, and ignored;

9. Denying Constitutional Rights as evidenced;

10. Automatically Ruling against PRO SE LITIGANTS as

evidenced;

11. Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of

Judicial Conduct as evidenced;

12. Allowing Perjury - When the judge knows the testimony is

perjured, the judge is suborning perjury when he or she

does nothing about it and accepts the perjury as if it

was fact;

13. Premature Dismissal PRIOR to DISCOVERY as evidenced;

14. Denying a Hearing - Hearings are dangerous for dishonest

judges as courtroom observers, media, and the transcript

of the hearing will force the judges to be a little more

honest.

15. Denying a Jury Trial - Judges corrupt the judicial

process by depriving parties of a jury trial. Juries

can't be controlled by the judges to ensure that their

favoured party wins, so judges end cases before the

people who should win can reach a jury.

184
 CONCLUSION

The Actions evidenced by Judge Allison Dale Burroughs against

this Plaintiff CANNOT be allowed to continue without legal

consequence(s). Doing so would at minimum - irreparably harm the

Plaintiff, wrongfully impact precedent, and will deprive the

Nation from substantial economic benefit. Furthermore, the Nation

and ALL Americans will be witness to a level of CORRUPTION of

historic proportion.

The Plaintiff respectfully calls for the following legal next

steps: 1. Alignment with the Department of Justice, including

the assignment of a special prosecutor and the assembly of a

Grand Jury; 2. Immediate action by the Judicial Council,

including Congressional intervention (if necessary) to remove

and replace Judge Burroughs for reasons as stated within; 3. The

Courts assistance with the appointment of Counsel; 4. Addressing

the Safety concerns of the Plaintiff; 5. With the filing of this

Response (and additionally by separate Motion) the Plaintiff

files a NOTICE OF APPEAL, in the event that the evidenced judicial

misconduct against Judge Burroughs is allowed to continue without

accountability).

185
IX. 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 Notice: (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.

If the Court has ANY questions, or requires ANY 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

186
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

day, April 13, 2017, 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

187
Attachment B

188
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

Notice of Appeal

Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar,

acting Pro Se in the above-named case hereby appeals to the

United States Court of Appeals for the First Federal Circuit from

the US District Court (Boston, MA), from the issued Order

Dismissing ALL Claims against the Defendants with prejudice,

entered in this action on April 3, 2017.

The Plaintiff respectfully states for the record that the

referenced Order of Dismissal is believed to be VOID, since the

presiding Judge Allison Dale Burroughs is considered to NO

LONGER HAVE JURISDICTION, and is therefore disqualified by law to

issue such an order. A JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT PETITION is STILL

PENDING before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit. The

189
referenced Order of Dismissal signifies a fifth (5th) act of

TREASON to the Constitution under Article III, and a Second

Supplement to the Judicial Misconduct Petition is now necessarily

filed with the Judicial Council. Alignment with Federal

prosecutors is now sought, as is the initiation of a full

criminal investigation, the assembly of a grand jury, and

assistance with the appointment of counsel. The evidenced

allegations which include TREASON and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE have

made it necessary to additionally inform the President, members

of Congress, the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and the US

Inspector General.

While it ultimately may be considered unnecessary to file this

NOTICE OF APPEAL, it has yet to be determined if Judicial

Misconduct extends beyond the US District Court. Already, there

is concern surrounding the initial opinion issued by Chief

Justice Howard, which has yet to be corrected. The Plaintiff

respectfully states that any failure to take corrective action in

this matter shows cause to bring additional judicial misconduct

claims, and adds to already existing claims filed against the

United States.

190
Respectfully Submitted,

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

day, April 14, 2017, 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

191
Attachment C

192
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Economic Espionage, Treason alleged against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
To: president@whitehouse.gov
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, Civil.Feedback@usdoj.gov,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, boston@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Mr. President,

As an American citizen, and documented as part of the record, I am respectfully reporting to your direct
attention - evidenced allegations of: TREASON under Article III of the US Constitution, and ECONOMIC
ESPIONAGE, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832, against US District Court Judge - Allison Dale
Burroughs. As you are already aware, a Judicial Misconduct Petition filed against Judge Burroughs
is currently under review by the Judicial Council (First Circuit). With these latest allegations, a second
supplement is now filed with the Judicial Council. A copy of the second supplement is attached for your
review. Please be advised, since claims of misconduct have been made against the United States, the
actual second supplement filed with the Judicial Council will additionally include a copy of this
(delivered) email communication (appearing as attachment C). Additional parties copied (via email,
US Mail, and/or Social Media) include: US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General
- Jeff Sessions, the House Judiciary Committee, and the FBI. For safety and security reasons, a copy
is also made available to the Public.

The evidenced allegations of Treason and Economic Espionage against Judge Burroughs shows cause to
expand already existing claims against the United States that include (but are not limited to): Violations
to Due process, Color of Law Violations, Abuse of Process, and Federal Tort claims. These
allegations show the UNDENIABLE need for assistance with the appointment of counsel, as requested by
the Plaintiff (and repeatedly DENIED).

When I began this legal journey, I knew it would likely be a long road, and quite possibly a dangerous one.
The evidenced corruption exposed in this litigation confirms what many Americans already believe to be
true. Successfully validating these claims in a court of law is necessary to ensure a continued FAITH in
our justice system. Any failure to do so exposes (in part) a corrupt judicial system of historic
proportion. For obvious reasons, I fear for my safety and well-being. Documenting this legal journey and
making it available to the public is done to raise awareness, and for safety/security purposes.

Mr. President - at this time I respectfully request your assistance with the following:

1. As the head of the Executive Branch of Government, APPROVING the requested assignment of a
Special Prosecutor to the referenced litigation. Sadly, prior requests delivered to the attention of
former AG Loretta Lynch and President Obama were seemingly IGNORED;
2. Providing an ANSWER, whether or not the United States has interest in reaching a MUTUAL
AGREEMENT with the Plaintiff in the referenced litigation.
3. Gaining ALIGNMENT with the United States as it pertains to the POTENTIAL implementation of
the referenced Intellectual Property. Successful implementation of such an economic framework
would provide incremental avenues to pay for at minimum (and in their entirety), high-priority
agenda topics (i.e., both infrastructure, and also the border wall). I remain hopeful that justice here
will ultimately prevail, and that this communication(s) leads to having further discussion of the
FCS Model.

193
Mr. President - Thank you for your time and consideration of this very serious matter. I look forward to
your response.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Most respectfully,

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

194
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526
(Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

COPY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

June 4, 2017

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky

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

RE: 3rd Supplement to Petition under Review of Judicial

Misconduct Complaint No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:

Based on recent activity in the US District Court, it becomes
necessary to now file a third (3rd) Supplement to the Judicial
Misconduct Petition against US District Court Judge Allison
Dale Burroughs.
Specifically, the Appellant draws reference to the filed Motion
with Accompanying Affidavit for Permission to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis (IFP), Document No. 145, filed April 20, 2017.
A RESPONSE to the referenced order was respectfully filed with
the District Court (Document No. 148); Also, a MOTION has been
filed with the Appellate Court. Both documents address the
following serious issues:
1. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III (6th
Count);

2. Content of the Text within Document No. 146;

3. Continued Pattern of Corrupt Conduct;

4. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

195
 5. Re-affirming the Need to Assist with the Appointment of
Counsel;

6. Continued Concerns for Personal Safety

Both referenced documents are attached for the Judicial Councils

review (See Attachment A). Due to the severity of these

civil/criminal claims, and also out of concerns for personal

safety and security, continued communication updating the

following offices/agencies/committees is warranted: 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 has also been made available to the Public.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Councils time and

consideration of this very serious matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Complainant/Plaintiff

196
Attachment A

197
 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 MOTION TO FIND JUDICIAL ORDER (DOCUMENT NO. 146) ISSUED

WITHOUT JURISDICTION

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

find a judicial order from the lower US District Court VOID, and is believed to be ONE (1)

of SIX (6) orders - issued without jurisdiction by the presiding Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs. The referenced order was issued by Judge Burroughs on May 25, 2017 (Reference

Document No. 146). Specifically, the Appellant draws reference to the filed Motion with

Accompanying Affidavit for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (IFP), Document No.

145, filed April 20, 2017.

The Appellant has respectfully filed with the District Court a RESPONSE to the referenced

order (see Attachment A, Document No. 148). The filed response addresses the following

issues with the referenced order:

198
 1. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III (6th Count);

2. Content of the Text within Document No. 146;

3. Continued Pattern of Corrupt Conduct;

4. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

5. Re-affirming the Need to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel;

6. Continued Concerns for Personal Safety

After reviewing Document No.s 145 thru 148, the Appellant respectfully requests the following

actions:

1. Re-affirm that the Order associated with Document No. 146 is indeed VOID;

2. VALIDATE the list of issues referenced above, and as articulated in Document No. 148.

3. Acknowledge the reimbursement for referenced COSTS and LEGAL FEES due to the

Appellant, and instruct the Treasury Department to issue reimbursement, as requested.

Reimbursement to the Appellant is respectfully requested to be received on or before

June 10, 2017. Upon receiving reimbursement, the Appellant will arrange to make a

timely payment with the Clerk of the Appeals Court, as required.

4. Provide the Appellant with an update for the record, regarding the filed requests to the

Executive Branch/DOJ to: ASSIGN a Federal/Special Prosecutor, ASSEMBLE a Grand

Jury, and begin a full-Criminal Investigation.

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

security, copies of this filed Motion are sent via email and/or certified mail to: The Executive

199
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 30th Day of May, 2017.

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

200
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

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

Plaintiff

vs.

US BANK NA, et al.

Defendants

RESPONSE TO JUDICIAL ORDER, DOCUMENT NO. 146, AND SIXTH (6TH)

ALLEGATION OF TREASON, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III

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

files this RESPONSE to the judicial order, Document No. 146,

believed to have been issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION on May 25, 2017

by Judge Allison D. Burroughs. This order is considered VOID, for

reasons previously articulated - in this docket; in the Judicial

Misconduct Petition pending before the Judicial Council of the

First Circuit; and in filings now before the Appellate Court. ALL

201
related orders issued by Judge Burroughs are too, considered

VOID.

A copy of the referenced order, Document No. 146, reads as

follows:

Docket Text:

Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Plaintiffs

Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 145] is

granted because plaintiff has made an adequate showing that he is

without sufficient funds to pay the filing fee for appeal. I

decline to make any determination concerning whether this appeal

is taken in good faith. The Clerk shall transmit this Order to

the First Circuit Court of Appeals. (PSSA, 4)

The Judicial Misconduct Petition now before the Judicial Council

of the First Circuit reveals evidenced allegations, any one of

which will remove jurisdiction, once validated. These evidenced

allegations include (but are not limited to):

1. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III

(previously 5, now 6 counts);

2. Intellectual Property Rights Infringement and Economic

Espionage, Pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832;

202
3. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel, 28 U.S.C.

1915;

4. Judicial Fraud on the Court;

5. Refusal to Recuse (2 Counts);

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

7. Ignoring evidenced Claims against the United States;

8. Judicial Prejudice/Bias;

9. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff;

10. Unnecessary Judicial Delay; and

11. Color of Law violations

Now, considering the related list of serious claims evidenced

against Judge Burroughs, the conscious decision to AGAIN, issue

an order without jurisdiction warrants continued communication to

the following Offices/Agencies/Courts:

1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The US Inspector General Michael Horowitz;

3. The US Attorney General Jeff Sessions;

4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

5. The Judicial Council of the First Circuit;

6. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; and

203
 7. The House Judiciary Committee.

By issuing the order associated with Document No. 146, the

following serious issues are additionally raised, showing cause

to expand upon existing claims against Judge Burroughs. They

include (but are not limited to):

5. Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to Article III - is

now evidenced for the sixth (6th) time, following an order

issued without jurisdiction.

6. Content of the Text within Document No. 146 EVEN IF, Judge

Burroughs still had jurisdiction to rule in this matter,

there are issues within the content of its text:

a. First, while Judge Burroughs rightfully acknowledges the

indigence of the Plaintiff, she has IGNORED line item six

(6), located on page 3 of the IFP form.1 Line item 6

states:

State every person, business or organization owing you and

your spouse money, and the amount owed.

1 Reference Document No. 145 to view the completed IFP - In Forma

Pauperis form.

204
 Line item 6 CLEARLY identifies The UNITED STATES as a party

owing the Plaintiff/Appellant reimbursement for COSTS and

associated LEGAL FEES, totaling $12,309,420.00.1 The

Plaintiff/Appellant has CLEARLY ARTICULATED HIS SUPPORTED

ARGUMENT to this Court, to the Judicial Council, and to

the Appellate Court, justifying the reimbursement claim -

with NO VALID ARGUMENT on record to dispute the claim, or

why the reimbursement payment has not already been issued by

the Treasury Department. The Plaintiff/Appellant

respectfully waits for the Court (either the US District

Court, or the First Circuit Court of Appeals) to notify the

Department of the Treasury, so that payment can issue

without further delay - noting that as of May 30, 2017, no

payment has been received, and reimbursement costs continue

to accrue. Upon rightfully receiving reimbursement for costs

and associated legal fees as filed, the

Plaintiff/Appellant will be in a position to pay the

required $500 fee for his appeal. Therefore, EVEN WITH

1 As previously stated within the Docket, the Plaintiff/

Appellants Legal Fees continue to accrue at an hourly rate of
$1000 per hour, and will remain capped at 40 hours per week. The
TOTAL updated accrual due to the Plaintiff thru week ending June
10, 2017 will be $4,343,140 (includes previously reported
Transportation, Housing and Legal costs). The evidenced Acts of
Bad Faith by an officer of the Court acting on behalf of the
United States, warrant treble costs bringing the updated total to
$13,029,140, and is considered tax-exempt.

205
JURISDICTION, ignoring line item 6 shows just cause to

expand upon existing judicial misconduct claims.

b. Second, Judge Burroughs states that she declines to make

any determination concerning whether this appeal is taken

in good faith.

For over two (2) years, Judge Burroughs has presided over

this case, NEVER ONCE, questioning the good faith of the

Plaintiff/Appellant. Similarly, for over four (4) years

in Massachusetts State Courts NO presiding JUDGE has

EVER ONCE questioned the GOOD FAITH of the

Plaintiff/Appellant.

Now, in Document No. 146, Judge Burroughs states that she

declines to make any determination whether the appeal is

taken in good faith. While there is absolutely NO

justifiable reason to question the Good Faith of the

Plaintiff/Appellant through over six (6) years of

litigation, it is believed that the filed Judicial

Misconduct Complaint/Petition has perhaps prompted this

indirect attempt to somehow unfairly discredit him. The

judges statement shows cause to again expand upon

existing Judicial Misconduct claims.

206
The following conclusions are additionally made regarding

Judge Burroughs referenced statement:

a. The record shows that the Plaintiff/Appellant has

brought irrefutable claims alleging BAD FAITH ACTS

committed by the presiding Judge Allison D.

Burroughs. The Court is respectfully reminded that

since August 2016, Judge Burroughs HAS YET TO ADDRESS,

CHALLENGE, DENY or DEFEND ANY of these serious

allegations brought against her.

b. The list of evidenced judicial misconduct allegations

against Judge Burroughs is substantial, and includes

claims of Treason against the United States

Constitution. Any acknowledgment that the

Plaintiff/Appellant continues to act in good faith MAY

be held against her, as it pertains to these judicial

misconduct allegations;

c. Any UNFOUNDED suggestion that the Plaintiff/Appellant

has acted in BAD FAITH shows clear cause to expand upon

existing judicial misconduct claims.

d. Even if the referenced order is ultimately considered

VOID, the underlying insinuation within the judges

207
 statement is completely unfounded, and contributes to

the existing claims against her.

7. Continued Pattern of Corrupt Conduct The issued order

associated with Document No. 146 demonstrates a Continued

PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT and an INCREMENTAL ACT of BAD

FAITH by an Officer of the Court - acting on behalf of the

United States. It further exemplifies the Judges CLEAR

INTENT to discredit, and cause irreparable harm and damages

to this Plaintiff/Appellant, and ultimately to the United

States as a whole. The clear ABUSE of JUSTICE is so

extensive, MENTAL ILLNESS should not be ruled out. While

these acts of judicial misconduct are clear and irrefutable,

further investigation is needed to determine if Judge

Burroughs has acted alone, or has perhaps COLLUDED with

other parties. Already, there is considerable concern that

misconduct extends BEYOND the US District Court, citing the

documented (and still uncorrected) OPINION of Chief Justice

Howard, of the First Circuit Appeals Court.

In addition to the pending Judicial Misconduct Petition, the

Plaintiff/Appellant awaits the Executive Branchs: 1.)

Appointment of A Federal/Special Prosecutor, 2.) Assembly of

a Grand Jury, and 3.) Start of a Full-Criminal

Investigation.

208
8. Unnecessary Judicial Delay Since the order associated with

Document No. 146 is believed to have been issued without

jurisdiction, there is just cause to expand upon existing

judicial misconduct claims that include (but are not limited

to) unnecessary delay and abuse of process/ judicial

discretion.

9. The issued order associated with Document No. 146 re-affirms

the pending motion before the Appellate Court that the

Courts assistance with the Appointment of Counsel continues

to be warranted, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 1915.

10. Plaintiffs/Appellants Concerns for Personal Safety

Continue to be IGNORED despite numerous efforts documented

throughout the record indicating concerns for safety and

security, these concerns have been completely ignored by the

District Court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the continued pattern of corrupt conduct exemplified in

the (VOID) order (Document No. 146) issued by Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs AND the related concerns stated within, it seems clear

that the presiding judge has no intention of accepting

accountability or taking corrective action here. Therefore:

209
 1. The Plaintiff/Appellant necessarily updates the Executive

Office of the President, US Inspector General, US Attorney

General, House Judiciary Committee, the Judicial Council of

the First Circuit, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals;

2. A Motion is now filed with the Appellate Court to address the

concerns states within this response (Document No. 148).

3. A copy of the email communication delivered to the President,

DOJ and other referenced offices/agencies is attached for

documentation purposes, and as part of the record.1

4. A third supplemental Complaint is also filed with the Judicial

Council of the First Circuit.

5. Due to the continued concerns for personal safety and security,

a copy of this response is made available to the public.

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 Notice: (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

1 See Attachment A

210
 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.

If the Court has ANY questions, or requires ANY 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

211
EXHIBIT A

212
From: Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, May 30, 2017 at 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: HARIHAR v US BANK, 6th Claim of Treason alleged against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
To: president@whitehouse.gov
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, Civil.Feedback@usdoj.gov,
washington.field@ic.fbi.gov, boston@ic.fbi.gov

Dear Mr. President,

This email communication is necessarily delivered to your direct attention, as a sixth (6th) count of
Treason to the Constitution, pursuant to ARTICLE III has been alleged against US District Court
Judge - Allison Dale Burroughs (Reference Harihar v. US Bank, Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Boston,
MA, Document No.'s 145 thru 147). This latest allegation of Treason comes as a US District Court Judge
has again issued an order without having the jurisdiction to do so. As the Plaintiff/Appellant, I have
respectfully filed a RESPONSE to the order (Document No. 147). Since this matter has transitioned to
the US Court of Appeals (First Circuit, Docket No. 17-1381), a motion will be filed to inform the Court of
this latest judicial misconduct allegation(s), and additional concerns. A THIRD supplement to the Judicial
Misconduct Petition now before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit will also be submitted.

Mr. President - as follow-up to the email communication from April 17, 2017, I respectfully request an
update from the DOJ regarding: 1.) The Assignment of a Federal/Special Prosecutor, 2.) The
Assembly of a Grand Jury, and 3.) Opening of a full, criminal investigation. Please note, for
documentation purposes and as part of the record, a copy of this email communication is filed with the
related US District Court and Appellate Court Dockets, and additionally with the Judicial Council of the
First Circuit.

Mr. President - Thank you for your time and consideration of this very serious matter. I look forward to
your response.

213
GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Most respectfully,

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 30, 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

214
Mohan A. Harihar - Complainant
7124 Avalon Drive, Acton, MA 01720 | 617.921.2526
(Mobile) | mo.harihar@gmail.com

COPY PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

June 30, 2017

Ms. Anastasia Dubrovsky

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

RE: 4th Supplement to Petition under Review of

Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 01-16-90033

Dear Ms. Dubrovsky:

Based on recent activity in the US District Court, it becomes

necessary to now file a fourth (4th) Supplement to the Judicial

Misconduct Petition against US District Court Judge Allison

Dale Burroughs.

Specifically, the Complainant draws reference to the newly filed

civil complaint HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-

11109, initially assigned to Judge Allison Dale Burroughs on June

16, 2017 (Reference Document No. 6). On Monday, June 19, 2017,

Judge Burroughs RECUSED herself sua sponte, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 455(a) (Reference Document No. 7).

215
This recusal is based ENTIRELY on the evidenced claims addressed

by the Complainant in this Judicial complaint. This Judicial

Council is aware of the Complainants 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 Complainants consistent claims, bearing impact to

this Judicial Complaint, the related Appeal before the First

Circuit (Appeal No. 17-1381), the original complaint Harihar v

US Bank, et al (Docket No. 15-cv-11880), and the newly filed

complaint Harihar v The United States (Docket No. 17-cv-11109).

A Motion to Supplement the Record has now been filed with the

referenced Appeal, and is attached for this Judicial Councils

review (See Attachment A).

Due to the severity of these civil/criminal claims, and also out

of concerns for personal safety and security, continued

communication updating the following offices/agencies/committees

is warranted: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US

Inspector General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General - Jeff

Sessions, the House Judiciary Committee, and the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI). A copy has also been made available to

the Public.

The Complainant is grateful for the Judicial Councils time and

consideration of this very serious matter.

216
Respectfully Submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar
Complainant/Plaintiff

217
Attachment A

218
 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):

219
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);

220
 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.

221
 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

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

222
 appointment of counsel, there MAY be opportunity to explore POTENTIAL

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

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

223
Attachment A

224
 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

225
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.

226
 JUDICIAL COUNCIL
OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 01-16-90033

BEFORE
Torruella and Kayatta, Circuit Judges
Laplante, McConnell, and Levy, District Judges

ORDER

ENTERED: AUGUST 3, 2017

Petitioner, a pro se litigant, has filed a petition for review of Chief Judge Howard's

order dismissing his complaint, under 28 U.S.C. 351 (a), against a First Circuit district

judge. Petitioner alleged that the judge was biased against him while presiding over his

civil case. Chief Judge Howard dismissed the complaint as baseless and not cognizable.

In the original complaint, petitioner asserted that the judge was disqualified from

presiding over his case because of the judge's former employment. Petitioner alleged that

the judge wrongfully denied a number of petitioner's motions and that the judge's denial of

his first motion to recuse demonstrated that the judge either did not read the motion,

suffered from "mental illness," or acted out of prejudice against petitioner. Petitioner

227
requested that the judge recuse from the case, that he be afforded a hearing before a

difTcrent judge, and that the Judicial Council assist petitioner with settling the underlying

litigation.

In dismissing the misconduct complaint, Chief Judge Howard first explained that

the judicial misconduct procedure does not provide an avenue for obtaining an order in a

pending or closed case. See 28 U.S.C. SS 351, el seq., and Rules for Judicial-Conduct

and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Rules of Judicial-Conduct), Rules I l, 19, and 20.

Chief Judge Howard dismissed petitioner's allegations of conflict of interest, bias,

and disability as baseless. The Chief Judge observed that, in addition to filing a civil

complaint, petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), a motion for

appointment of counsel, and motions for injunctive relief. In a memorandum and order,

the judge denied the requests for injunctive relief for failure to show a likelihood of

success on the merits, and denied the IFP motion and motion for appointment of counsel,

without prejudice.

Chief Judge Howard further observed that the judge issued a number of other

rulings in which the court consistently provided thorough explanations for its

determinations. These included allowing petitioner's requests for extensions of time and

several defendants' motions to dismiss, and denying petitioner's repeated requests for

appointment of counsel, to amend his complaint, and for injunctive relief.

228
 Shortly thereafter, petitioner filed his first motion for recusal, which the judge

denied because petitioner failed to meet the statutory requirements. Subsequently,

petitioner filed numerous additional requests to disqualify the judge, for appointment of

counsel, and for injunctive relief, each of which the judge denied.

Chief Judge Howard explained that the misconduct complaint and reviewed record

contained no information to support the allegations of bias, disability, or other

wrongdoing in connection with the judge's handling of petitioner's case. The Chief Judge

further determined that the judge's former employment did not demonstrate a conflict of

interest, require disqualification, or evidence misconduct. See Code of Conduct for

United States Judges, Canon 3(C)(1). Therefore, Chief Judge Howard dismissed the

complaint as baseless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 352(b)(1)(A)(iii). See also Rules of

Judicial-Conduct, Rule 11(c)(1)(D).

Because there was no evidence of improper judicial motive, Chief Judge Howard

also dismissed petitioner's objections to the court's rulings as not cognizable, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 352(b)(1)(A)(ii). See also Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule and Rule

3(h)(3)(A) ("Cognizable misconduct . . . does not include . . an allegation that is directly

related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling. An allegation that calls into

question the correctness of a judge's ruling . . . , without more, is merits-related.

In the petition for review, petitioner repeats his allegations that the judge was biased

and should have recused from petitionert s case, and that the court's rulings indicate that

229
the judge either failed to read petitioner's motions, suffers from "mental illness," or acted

out of prejudice. Petitioner suggests that the judge was improperly motivated to protect the

interests of financial institutions and the senator who allegedly recommended the judge for

nomination, and to harm petitioner based on his pro se status. Petitioner further alleges that

the judge's rulings, some of which have issued since the dismissal of the original

misconduct complaint, amount to fraud upon the court, treason, and due process violations.

1
Petitioner further alleges that all of the court's rulings are void because the judge is

disqualified. Petitioner adds that the judge wrongly delayed petitioner's case.

Petitioner also alleges that Chief Judge Howard's dismissal of his misconduct

complaint "play[ed] a role in an unnecessary judicial delay" and asserts that the Chief

Judge either did not read the complaint, suffers from "mental illness," or acted out of

favoritism.

Petitioner concludes by requesting various relief, including the removal and

replacement of the district judge, a criminal investigation, and the First Circuit Judicial

Council's assistance with settling petitioner's underlying case. Petitioner asks for an

evidentiary hearing before the subject judge so that the judge "can address and clarify for

the record each of [petitioner's] allegations .

1
The rulings to which petitioner objects include the judge's failure to recuse, dismissal of the case, denial of
petitioners requests for bill of costs, and grant of petitioner's motion for leave to appeal IFP (while declining to
determine whether the appeal was made in good faith).

230
 As an initial matter, the judicial misconduct procedure does not provide an avenue

for affording relief in a pending or closed case, including assistance with litigation, or the

removal of a judge where, as here, the complaint did not warrant the appointment of a

special committee. See 28 U.S.C. 351, el seq., and Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rules I l ,

19, and 20. Cf., Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule 20(b)(2) (providing for referral of a

misconduct complaint to the Judicial Conference where, after the appointment of a special

committee, a judicial council "determines that a . . . judge may have engaged in conduct

that . . . might constitute ground for impeachment. ").

Moreover, the petition for review is meritless and offers no information that would

undermine Chief Judge Howard's determinations, let alone suggest that the Chief Judge

was biased or disabled in connection with his review of the complaint. See Commentary

to Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule 3 ("Any allegation that calls into question the

correctness of an official action of a judge -- without more -- is merits-related . . . . [A]

complaint challenging the correctness of a chiefjudge's determination to dismiss a prior

misconduct complaint would be properly dismissed as merits-related .

There is no evidence in the reviewed record to support petitioner's claims of bias,

conflict of interest, disability, or other wrongdoing by the district judge. The court's

rulings, including those issued since dismissal of the original misconduct complaint, see

n. l , supra, supply reasons for each of the courtl s determinations. Further, neither the

judge's former employment, a senator's purported recommendation of the judge, nor any

231
other available information demonstrates a conflict of interest, requires the judge's

disqualification, or evidences misconduct. See Code of Conduct for United States Judges,

Canon 3(C)(1). Therefore, the complaint was properly dismissed as baseless.

See 28 tJ.S.C. 352(b)(l)(A)(iii). Sec also Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule I l(c)(1)(D).

Because petitioner failed to present any evidence of improper judicial motive, his

objections to the judge's orders in his case were properly dismissed as not cognizable.

See 28 U.S.C. 352(b)(I)(A)(ii); see also Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule 11(c)(l)(B).

The same is true for petitioner's allegations that the district judge and Chief Judge

Howard wrongly delayed adjudication of petitioner's case. See Rules of Judicial-

Conduct, Rule 3(h)(3)(B) ("Cognizable misconduct . . . does not include . . an allegation

about delay in rendering a decision or ruling, unless the allegation concerns an improper

motive in delaying a particular decision or habitual delay in a significant number of

unrelated cases"); see also id. Commentary on Rule 3 ("With regard to Rule 3(h)(3)(B), a

complaint of delay in a single case is excluded as merits-related.

For the reasons stated herein, the order of dismissal issued in Judicial Misconduct

Complaint No. 01-16-90033 is affirmed. See Rules of Judicial-Conduct, Rule 19(b)(1).

232
 8/3/2017
Date Susan Goldberg, Secretary

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 7, 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

233