Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

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 )
)

REPLY TO APPELLEES’ OPPOSITION TO VACATE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DAMAGES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (4) AND (6)

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).
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

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.

After reviewing the Opposition filed by Appellees/Defendants, the Appellant – Mohan A.

Harihar respectfully disagrees. The content of the opposition is not only GROSSLY

INCORRECT, it actually suggests that continuing to address JURISDICTION issues –

which have been IGNORED for A YEAR AND A HALF, should be considered

FRIVOLOUS. These deceptive tactics MUST no longer be tolerated, and SHOULD be

considered DISCRACEFUL to the legal community. Attorneys – whether representing their

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

poorly crafted and deceptive tactics. These CONTINUED ACTS of DESPERATION to

avoid both civil and criminal accountability are unacceptable, and are necessarily made available

to the AMERICAN public to expose the increasing SCOPE of MISCONDUCT. The

Appellant respectfully provides a further, detailed explanation warranting this REPLY:

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

FIFTY (50) SEPARATELY FILED COURT DOCUMENTS.2 NOT EVEN ONCE,

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
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

has this Federal Judiciary addressed the Appellant’s issues pertaining to

jurisdiction.

The PRIMARY PURPOSE for filing this EMERGENCY Motion to VACATE

JUDGMENT is to collectively address the still growing and certainly EGREGIOUS

abuse of authority that continues to be exemplified by this Federal Judiciary. By

IGNORING over fifty (50) separate filings that involve a jurisdiction issue, the

evidenced argument(s) supporting CONTINUED PATTERNS OF CORRUPT

CONDUCT is now so extensive, filing a separate motion is certainly warranted over

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

UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-2074). That motion stands on record as

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.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

made by Appellee - The United States NOT TO OPPOSE ANY PORTION of the

motion certainly impacts the validity of the Appellees opposition here.

III. UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS FROM THE LOWER COURT

NEGATE ANY APPELLEE ARGUMENT ON APPEAL

It becomes necessary here to respectfully re-inform the Appellees/Defendants, as well as

this Court, that the PRIMARY component leading to this appeal pertains to

UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE COURT claims. Therefore, Appellees/Defendants

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

support such opposition. For example:

1. Appellees3 reference their Aug. 29, 2017 Motion for Summary Disposition, but fail

to acknowledge the September 9, 2017 Appellant response which negates their

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

acts committed within Court walls (including TREASON and ECONOMIC

ESPIONAGE) to be IGNORED.

2. Similarly, Appellee – Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Appellee – Martha

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.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

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

the reasons previously stated (above).

IV. UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL DELAY

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:

a. Exactly HOW LONG should it take to determine the VALIDITY of an

UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM? Certainly NOT NINE (9)

months.

b. WHY has the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, filed

OCTOBER 1, 2017 and AMENDED by the clerk’s office on November 14, 2017

yet to be addressed in January 2018?

c. Why hasn’t this EMERGENCY Motion to VACATE w/ DAMAGES been

addressed in over two (2) weeks? Clearly, the evidenced circumstances detailed

within the motion warrant IMMEDIATE attention by a Court WITH

JURISDICTION.

V. SLANDER and DEFAMATION of Character

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

attacked this Appellant with such labels WITHOUT A SINGLE, VALID


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

ARGUMENT. Time and time again, the Appellant has called for separate hearings with

the presence of an independent court reporter, only to be IGNORED.

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

(at minimum) for slander and defamation of Mr. Harihar’s character.

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

professional accountability against ALL parties will continue as well.


Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

The Court is respectfully reminded that JURISDICTION still remains an issue. Circuit

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

do so will be interpreted by the Appellant as an incremental act(s) of Treason under ARTICLE

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

presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 8th Day of January, 2018.

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

Attachment A
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117240739 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/08/2018 Entry ID: 6142370

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