Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)
The Appellant respectfully prefaces this legal document with the following Disclosure:
The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal, its lower court docket no. 15-cv-
11880, and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited to) evidenced allegations of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, Economic Espionage pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and are believed to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies
of this filed REPLY 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
1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight Committee and to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL
AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties are additionally informed for documentation
purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for personal safety/security.
Harihar respectfully disagrees. The content of the opposition is not only GROSSLY
which have been IGNORED for A YEAR AND A HALF, should be considered
clients here, or as Appellees/Defendants certainly know better. And for the remaining litigants
with limited financial resources, the arguments against you are only strengthened by such
avoid both civil and criminal accountability are unacceptable, and are necessarily made available
I. JURISDICTION
Since initially bringing evidenced judicial misconduct claims dating back to August
2016, the Appellant has raised jurisdiction issues documented in NO LESS THAN
2
Reference is collectively made to filings within: 1.) this Appeal No. 17-1381, 2.) the lower
court Docket No. 15-cv-11880; 3.) the related Appeal No. 17-2074 (Harihar v. The United
States); 4.) the lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109; 5.) the Judicial Misconduct complaints
has this Federal Judiciary addressed the Appellant’s issues pertaining to
jurisdiction.
IGNORING over fifty (50) separate filings that involve a jurisdiction issue, the
amendment.
II. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT OPPOSE THE APPELLANT’S MOTION
This Court is well aware that a duplicate – Emergency Motion to Vacate w/ Damages
was first filed on December 23, 2017 in the related litigation, HARIHAR v. THE
UNOPPOSED, where The United States DOES NOT oppose VACATING the
referenced dismissal order AND DOES NOT oppose awarding the Appellant – Mohan
A. Harihar, maximum civil damages, punitive damages legal fees, other costs and any
other damages deemed appropriate by the Court. The Appellant respectfully re-states for
the record that BY FEDERAL LAW, even if evidenced claims are directly related to
other parties, any lawsuit brought against The United States must be filed separately.
Since the circumstances warranting these emergency motions are one and the same,
duplicate motions to vacate w/ damages were necessarily filed. The conscious decision
filed with Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard; and 6.) the Judicial Misconduct Petitions filed with
the First Circuit Executive and the Judicial Council.
made by Appellee - The United States NOT TO OPPOSE ANY PORTION of the
III. UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS FROM THE LOWER COURT
this Court, that the PRIMARY component leading to this appeal pertains to
have NO LEGAL RIGHT to raise ANY argument here, period. EVEN IF their
opposition was allowed, Appellees STILL fail to provide a single, valid argument to
1. Appellees3 reference their Aug. 29, 2017 Motion for Summary Disposition, but fail
argument(s). Also referenced is the Oct. 11, 2017 Opposition to Harihar’s Motion for
Judgment. Again, the Appellees fail to acknowledge the Appellant’s filed REPLY
dated October 18, 2017. Here, not only are the Appellees’ arguments negated,
but it would appear (at least on its surface) that these litigants expect criminal
ESPIONAGE) to be IGNORED.
Coakley reference prior Oppositions filed on September 21, 2017 and October 11,
2017. Appellees here fail to acknowledge the Appellant’s filed REPLY dated
3
References all Appellees/Defendants with the exception of Appellee – Martha Coakley and
Appellee – Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
September 24, 2017, which clearly negates their arguments. Their October 11, 2017
reference is also negated by the Appellant’s REPLY filed October 18, 2017 for
ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER who thoroughly reviews the historical record of this
litigation will find a lengthy list of legal issues which have either been ignored entirely,
or where timeline to rule is beyond excessive. A few of these glaring examples are listed
as follows:
months.
OCTOBER 1, 2017 and AMENDED by the clerk’s office on November 14, 2017
addressed in over two (2) weeks? Clearly, the evidenced circumstances detailed
JURISDICTION.
The Appellees continue to attach unsupported labels with this Appellant, such as: 1.)
Abusive, 2.) Frivolous, and others. The Appellant has articulated for the record EACH
and EVERY argument supporting his EVIDENCED claims. Appellees have unfairly
The Appellant’s position is this – If you intend to attach labels such as abusive, frivolous,
etc…, be prepared to back it up. If you cannot support such labels, you should cease and
desist from doing so. If you continue without cause, there should be accountability for
your actions. Such is the case here, and is clearly exemplified throughout the record. The
Court should also take into account the number of opportunities afforded to these
Appellees to reach mutual agreement - ALL of which were ignored. Appellees have no
one to blame except themselves for the legal position they find themselves in now.
These continued tactics to wrongfully attack this Appellant warrant additional damages
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons articulated: 1.) in the original motion, 2.) by the UNOPPOSED
position of The United States in the related Appeal, and 3.) in this REPLY, the Appellant –
Mohan A. Harihar respectfully stands by his position for the Court to VACATE the referenced
Dismissal order and to award maximum civil (and all other applicable) damages including added
penalties for slander and defamation of the Appellant’s character. The pursuit of criminal and
Judges - Torruella, Kayatta, Barron, Thompson, and Chief Justice Howard are considered
to have lost jurisdiction and are no longer allowed to rule in this litigation. Any attempt to
III.
Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this court document to the
President, the email from The White House confirming receipt is attached (See Attachment
A). If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this REPLY, the Appellant is happy to
provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 8, 2018 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