Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 18-cv-11134
v. )
)
CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al )
)
Defendants )
A judgment is VOID under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.1A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,
will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).2A party seeking to void the
judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting subject-matter jurisdiction
over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claim
“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.4A judgment may also be void under Rule
1
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431 F.3d at 412.
2
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
3
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468,
475 (8th Cir. 2004).
4
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process.5Specifically, inadequate
notice or failure to provide notice or service of process may result in a lack of due process
A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be made “within a reasonable time.”7 However, courts have
held that a motion to vacate a judgment as void may be brought at any time, regardless of the
statute of limitations and other deadlines.8 In addition, a court, on its own motion, may set aside
a judgment as void provided notice is given of the contemplated action and an opportunity to be
heard.9
After reviewing the Order10 issued by US District Court Judge William G. Young, the
Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees and identifies what
misconduct evidenced by this Federal (District and Appeals Court) Judiciary. Please be
advised, the severity of issues brought by the Plaintiff, including (but not limited to) TREASON
under ARTICLE III, Section 3, mandates notifying (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS; (3) OIG; (4)
House and Senate Judiciary Committees; (5) DOJ; and (6) the FBI. This latest example of
5
Wendt, 431 F.3d at 413.
6
Id. at 853-54, citing In re Chess, 268 B.R. 150, 155 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2001).
7
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). A motion under Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (3) must be made “no more than a year after the
entry of the judgment or order of the date of the proceeding.”
8
See Hacienda Hearing & Cooling Inc. v. United Artist Theatre Co., 406 B.R. 643, 648 (Bankr. Del. 2009) citing
United States v. One Toshiba Color TV, 213 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting is final judgment is void, “no
passage of time can transmute [it] into a binding judgment” and further stating that “a court may always take
cognizance of a judgment’s void status whenever a Rule 60(b) motion is brought.”); In re Ruehle, 296 B.R. 146,
(Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2003).
9
In re Missouri Prop. Ltd., 211 B.R. 914, 924 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1996).
10
See Exhibit 1 to view the ELECTRONIC ORDER which DENIED the Plaintiff’s RESPONSE and Motion for
CLARIFICATION and RECONSIDERATION. Please note – the Plaintiff, who was DENIED ECF access, has
not received ANY communication from the Clerk’s Office. It is by CHANCE that the Plaintiff was able to view
the decision on PACER which is accessible by the public. After viewing the order, a copy of the Plaintiff’s
RESPONSE to Judge Young’s 8/20/18 Dismissal Order is attached to view in its entirety.
judicial misconduct – evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW, identifies the FOURTEENTH
(14th) Federal judge who is now considered both DISQUALIFIED and INFERIOR. A
order issued by Judge Young on September 24, 2018, exemplifies (at minimum):
B. A REFUSAL to correct erred judgments that have been evidenced as part of the
record;
DEFENDANT;
from this (and any related) litigation. Judge Young is now also identified as an INFERIOR
judge; and is added to the following list of Disqualified/Inferior judges associated with this
litigation:
11. Defendant - US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);
12. Defendant - US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court
(RI);
13. Defendant - US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME);
The record shows that Judge Young was given the opportunity to correct his judicial errors –
and consciously chose not to do so; a decision that compromises his impartiality and MUST
result in his disqualification. By issuing the order on September 24, 2018 WITHOUT
has occurred ON THE RECORD, it is witnessed by: (1) The Clerk’s Office; (2) The
PUBLIC (referencing public access to PACER); and (3) The Defendants themselves. As
required by Federal law, Mr. Harihar necessarily brings this evidenced claim of
Treason to the attention of POTUS. As a reminder Judge Young becomes the NINTH (9th)
Federal Judge associated with this litigation who stands accused of Treason, following:
As a respectful reminder (and as a matter of record), the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar has
MISCONDUCT claims against referenced judges (including, but not limited to):
11
The appellant also brings a NEW claim of Treason, under ARTICLE III, Section 3 against
Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez, as part of the REPLACEMENT Circuit Panel associated with
Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al. As a matter of record, this panel
continued to ignore the Appellant’s judicial misconduct claims and proceeded to issue an
order/judgment after LOSING JURISDICTION. The Appellant, Court Clerk – Margaret
Carter, Appellees and their retained counsel ALL serve as WITNESS to this Treason claim(s).
1. Refusing to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues;
4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE;
Constitution;
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National
Security;
delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist
the COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the
Color of Law;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the
The Plaintiff has CLEARLY shown just cause to attack and VOID ALL ORDERS
associated with the referenced federal litigation – and the record shows that Mr. Harihar has
done just that, with NO VALID rebuttal of record from ANY Defendant or accused Officer
Based upon the recent events as described above, the Plaintiff shows cause to amend his
(HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES) reveals that both Circuit panels have
recused and have been replaced. HOWEVER, in EACH of the replacement judicial
Plaintiff/Appellant’s efforts to raise these issues, they were ignored by BOTH panels.
Instead, these judicial officers made the conscious decision to (AGAIN) continue
crimes of record were witnessed by: (1) the Appeals court Clerk’s Office; (2)
listed Appellees and (3) their attorneys INCLUDING the US Attorney’s Office
(MA). Therefore, the Plaintiff shows cause to bring as an amendment (or by separate
legal action) incremental claims of Treason against the accused judicial officers
The Plaintiff respectfully reminds the Court that he is a pro se litigant – WITH NO LEGAL
EXPERIENCE. Considering the severity of legal issues listed before this Court, it bears
repeating to ask WHY the Plaintiff was DENIED counsel under Title 28 U.S.C. §1915? It
should be CLEAR to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER that this US District Court AND
transfer this (and the related Appeals) to either: (1) SCOTUS; or (2) A Congressional
Panel.
CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has followed the law to the best of his ability as a pro
se litigant and has been respectful to this and EVERY Court. The nearly FOUR (4) year
historical record of this Federal litigation has conclusively shown that this judiciary is plagued
Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal Law and the Judicial Oath of Office, these FOURTEEN
(14) Federal Judges have DISCRACED the COURT and this NATION. Based on the severity
of issues and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) the Plaintiff respectfully calls for:
2. A MOTION to be filed with BOTH: (a) SCOTUS and the (b) HOUSE/SENATE
3. The Court to allow the Plaintiff to Amend his original complaint for reasons as
described within;
President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A
copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources nationwide, out
of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a
question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional
supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an
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
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.
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
EXIBIT 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. 18-cv-11134
v. )
)
CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al )
)
Defendants )
After reviewing the Final Order of Dismissal issued by US District Court Judge William G.
Young, the Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully disagrees. Based on
the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal law, the conscious decision by Judge Young to
prematurely (and certainly in error) dismiss this complaint now raises (at minimum) the
CONDUCT, similarly evidenced in related Federal litigation involving the same judicial officers
listed as Defendants here12; (2) If left uncorrected, the Plaintiff shows cause to file a judicial
misconduct complaint against Judge Young; (3) If left uncorrected, Judge Young will be
considered WITHOUT JURISDICTION to rule further in this, or ANY related litigation; and
(4) Collectively, the Plaintiff has evidenced an EGREGIOUS ABUSE OF POWER that
continues to plague this Federal Judiciary and which CLEARLY warrants removal of this
12
Related Federal litigation references: (1) HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381
(Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); and (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES,
Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
complaint to SCOTUS, or before a Congressional panel. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER
who has thoroughly reviewed the nearly EIGHT (8) year historical record associated with this
litigation will certainly agree. The Plaintiff provides further explanation of how he reached these
First, it becomes necessary to acknowledge that the original complaint was filed with the
Court on Wednesday, May 30, 2018. It is unclear as to why it took until Friday, August
11, 2018 – over TEN (10) weeks to rule on THREE (3) motions: (A) a motion to file
electronically (ECF); (B) a motion requesting the Court’s assistance with the
FORMA PAUPERIS:
A. Motion to File Electronically (ECF) - The Court is well-aware that the Mr. Harihar has
Court as well as the Fist Circuit Appeals Court. After reviewing Judge Young’s
motion to file electronically. Based on the collective judicial abuses associated with the
historical record, the Plaintiff has reason to believe that: (1) this unnecessary judicial
delay and denial to file electronically is a deceptive tactic to (at minimum) negatively
impact/impair the Plaintiff’s response time. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that
Judge Young provide clarification for the record, as to how he arrived at his
decision to DENY Mr. Harihar permission to file and receive court communications
electronically;
B. Motion Requesting the Court’s Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel,
“the plaintiff has not shown that extraordinary circumstances exist that would
warrant the appointment of counsel. The motion for counsel is therefore denied.”
However, this opinion differs from a recent acknowledgment by SCOTUS, who on June
8, 2018, GRANTED a timeline extension for filing his petition for Writ of Certiorari,
which SCOTUS has acknowledged and now shows cause for further clarification from
Judge Young:
Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID
conclusion;
referenced Federal Judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse Mr.
13
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over SIXTY (60) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced
Defendants/Federal (District and Circuit) Judges.
an extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly
referenced Federal judges and the Court Clerk – Defendant Margaret Carter
CLARIFY their reasons for issuing the MANDATE in the related litigation? Is
extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which
stating that referenced Federal Judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT
refuse Mr. Harihar’s repeated calls for RECUSAL in the related litigation? Is
extraordinary circumstance? Also, is Judge Young aware that thus far, there
have been no less than FIVE (5) RECUSALS in the related Federal
litigation?14 If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were
14
The following FIVE (5) Defendants have ALL RECUSED from the referenced, related
litigation: (1) US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; (2) First Circuit Judge
David Barron; (3) First Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella; (4) First Circuit Judge William J.
Kayatta, Jr.; and (5) First Circuit Judge Sandra J. Lynch.
Defendants here) DID NOT continue issuing orders after LOSING
JURISDICTION in the related litigation? Is Judge Young stating for the record
circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were
National Security - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed
as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address or even acknowledge: a.) the
circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were
Defendants here) DID NOT FAIL to exercise judicial discretion with regard to
assistance with the appointment of counsel in the related litigation? Is Judge
circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were
COURT claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) - Is Judge Young stating that
extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which
the Judicial Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath - Is Judge Young stating that
referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address
(but not limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY - Is Judge Young stating that
the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach this
conclusion;
11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY - Is Judge Young stating that
referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT refuse to address
Mr. Harihar’s requests for a GRAND JURY in the related litigation? Is Judge
circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which documents were
Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here)
clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach
this conclusion;
13. Refusing to address Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law - Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as
claims pertaining to: Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach
this conclusion;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights -
Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here)
to: Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights in the related
15. Refusing to address Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False
claims pertaining to Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements
conclusion;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights
pertaining to Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights in the
Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT completely IGNORE Mr.
conclusion;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the
Appellant, as stated within the record - Is Judge Young stating that referenced
accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant in the related litigation?
extraordinary circumstance? If so, please clarify for the record exactly which
stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT
stating that referenced Federal judges (listed as Defendants here) DID NOT fail
21. Is Judge Young stating that referenced Federal judges ARE NOT considered
clarify for the record exactly which documents were reviewed in order to reach
this conclusion;
22. Please provide clarification for the record as to HOW Judge Young came to
COURT and other licensed attorneys are 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
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
said that the district court's decision must "rest upon the court's careful
upon certain factors that have been recognized as highly relevant to a request
for counsel.”
23. Please provide clarification for the record which documents were reviewed that
24. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW this Court has
25. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young
DISAGREED with the following (as it pertains to the Plaintiff’s request for
counsel): “Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are
examination”;
26. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young
The Court of Appeals who 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.”;
27. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young chose to
consciously DISCARD the complexity of the legal issues raised by the Plaintiff’s
claims: 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;
28. Please provide clarification for the record exactly HOW Judge Young came to
29. Based on the Plaintiff’s supported claims as evidenced by the record, please
While the Plaintiff understands that this section of Judge Young’s Memorandum is an
overview, it lacks key points that if read by an objective observer, would certainly impact
their perspective:
A. FIVE (5) Federal (District and Circuit) Judges listed as Defendants here have
C. There are numerous orders which are considered VOID, not just a singular order
judicial misconduct claims impacting jurisdiction, the Plaintiff has shown cause to
C. seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Based on the historical record, original complaint and this response, the Plaintiff has clearly
identified multiple judicial errors which negate the judge’s arguments and show that
After reviewing section IV of Judge Young’s Memorandum, it would appear (at least on
its surface) that your Honor has “missed” or has failed to read a section(s) of the Plaintiff’s
“Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the
jurisdiction to cases arising under the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S. Code § 1331 - Federal
question. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Title 28 U.S. Code §1331 is
also considered an appropriate basis for jurisdiction in this action against referenced
federal judicial officers, for claims arising from violations of federal constitutional rights
guaranteed in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and
redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403 U.S. 388 (1971)."
Please be advised, since evidenced claims against named Defendants include: 1.)
Fraud on the Court, 2.) Judicial Fraud on the Court, 3.) Treason and other
civil/criminal claims of record – Litigation Privilege, Judicial Immunity, Sovereign
(or any other form of) Immunity is considered WAIVED. The Plaintiff seeks
criminal charges against ALL parties with the assistance of Federal Prosecutors and
respectfully wishes to enjoin this civil complaint with a criminal complaint and
associated criminal charges. Evidenced misconduct is also grounds for professional
accountability, including (but not limited to) disbarment and removal from the
bench, where applicable. This Court is respectfully reminded that for all
misconduct claims related to the referenced litigation, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) has served as witness (either directly or indirectly) through the US
Attorney’s Office (MA), specifically, Assistant US Attorneys - Mary Murrane and
Dina M. Chaitowitz.
While initiating this Complaint in this District Court is considered proper, TRANSFER
to a different Circuit, or perhaps even REMOVAL to the US Supreme Court MAY
likely be necessary, considering: 1.) The severity of these evidenced allegations and 2.)
TEN (10) Federal (District and Circuit) Court judges, ALL from this First Circuit, are
named Defendants. By filing this complaint, the Plaintiff also shows INCREMENTAL
cause for RECUSAL(S) in the related litigation – HARIHAR v US BANK et al
(Appeal No. 17-1381) and HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-
2084).”
Judge Young also speaks to absolute judicial immunity to claims brought against them in
their personal capacities. But again, it appears that has failed to read (or acknowledge) the
“As a general rule, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done in the
exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter how
erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).
HOWEVER, if an INFERIOR judge acts maliciously or corruptly he may incur
liability. Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509. In the referenced litigation, the
record CONCLUSIVELY shows what can only be described as an egregious
PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT, where presiding judges have ALL blatantly
refused to uphold Federal laws, brushing aside all claims in order to reach a corrupt and
pre-determined outcome.”
including case references which are improperly applied; resembling judicial patterns of
record associated with claims against Defendant Judicial Officers. For Judge Young to
either: (1) “miss”; (2) ignore; or (3) mis-state ANY portion of the Plaintiff’s complaint – for
whatever reason, certainly shows cause for CONTINUED concern moving forward in this
litigation.
V. RICO - To be clear, and based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation of Federal Law, Mr.
Harihar has brought evidenced arguments that clearly support his CIVIL RICO claims under
18 U.S.C. § 1864, NOT CRIMINAL RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1862. The Plaintiff DOES
however, seek to enjoin his civil complaint with criminal indictments, brought by Federal
Prosecutors and which are expected to include CRIMINAL RICO indictments under 18
U.S.C. § 1862.
VI. NEW EVIDENCE – FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(2) - Since filing the initial complaint in May
2018, there have been INCREMENTAL incidents of record by the Defendants AND other
judicial officers (to be named); showing cause for the Plaintiff to amend his original
complaint and (at minimum) update: (1) POTUS; (2) SCOTUS; (3) CONGRESS; and (4)
the DOJ. These new/incremental incidents include (but are not limited to) the following:
Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella; (3) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta; showing
cause to legally attack and VOID ALL RELATED ORDERS. This Court is
The Plaintiff has evidenced for the record – presiding Federal Judges who STILL
it is clear that they are DISQUALIFIED from doing so. The most recent examples
– by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Norman H.
Stahl; and (3) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. For Chief Judge
cause to file a NEW judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Stahl and
by: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Kermit V.
Lipez; and (3) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. This order comes
(including ALL associated orders) and the panel was RECUSED. The
4. Order Issued August 29, 2018 – which DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE THE
informed: (1) POTUS and (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA) of these (and ALL
These orders (referenced above) which are considered to have issued WITHOUT
complaint. Therefore, per Federal law, the Plaintiff shows cause to bring
CONCLUSION
Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of Federal Law, the Plaintiff’s evidenced arguments bring
CORRUPTION in US HISTORY;
litigation:
a. POTUS;
15
Refers here to Defendant - attorneys and non-judicial court officers associated with this
complaint.
b. SCOTUS;
Duff;
g. FBI;
There can be NO QUESTION that there have been multiple JUDICIAL ERRORS with regard
to decisions made here be Judge Young. The Plaintiff has shown cause to NOT ONLY attack
this order, but to consider it VOID. ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would certainly agree. As
with EVERY Judicial Officer listed as a Defendant here – and out of respect for Judge Young
and this Court, the Plaintiff – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully requests that your Honor
RECONSIDER his decision(s) here and CORRECT JUDICIAL ERRORS that have been
identified (and any others), BEGINNING WITH REVERSING the premature dismissal order
and GRANTING the referenced motions of the Plaintiff. Based on the Plaintiff’s interpretation
of Federal law, ANY failure by Judge Young to initiate corrective action will (at minimum)
William G. Young;
President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 1) with the filed Court copy. A
copy will additionally be made available to the PUBLIC and to media sources nationwide, out
of the Plaintiff’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a
question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Plaintiff is happy to provide additional
supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an
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
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.
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
EXIBIT 2