Notice of Complaint Filed W Admin Office of US Courts RE: First Circuit's Handling of Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161700
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)
APPELLANT NOTICE RE: LETTER DELIVERED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF US COURTS
The Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully informs this Court that since
raising judicial misconduct issues dating back to August 2016, the evidenced record reveals that
the PROCESS for addressing judicial misconduct in this First Circuit is clearly broken.
The evidenced PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT is alleged against TEN (10) Federal
(District and Circuit) Court judges. The list of allegations is lengthy and includes (but is not
limited to) the following): 1.) Prejudice/Bias, 2.) Conspiracy claims, 3.) Due Process
violations, 4.) Judicial Fraud on the Court, 5.) Economic Espionage, 6.) Treason under
Article III and MANY others. This continued pattern of corrupt conduct shows a failure to
uphold the judicial machinery of the court by judges who appear determined to prevent this pro
se litigant from reaching a fair and just resolution. A thorough review of the judicial misconduct
1
complaints/petitions reveals that Chief Judge – Jeffrey R. Howard and the members of the
judicial council have collectively failed to hold accountable ANY of the evidenced claims.
But that’s not all - If the function of the Clerk’s office is to (at least in part) ensure compliance
with: 1.) FRCP, 2.) FRAP and 3.) the Court's local rules, then a thorough review of the
referenced litigation will reveal multiple evidenced failures. These failures include witness to
Federal Judges completely ignoring and/or failing to uphold FRCP and FRAP rules (Jurisdiction
and Fraud on the Court are just two of many examples).
Similarly, the Office of the Circuit Executive has failed to ensure compliance with the rules
governing Judicial Misconduct. After speaking with Regional Administrator - Christina
Martin on March 28, 2018, it is clear, that NO ONE from EITHER office has informed the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (or any other agency/office) of these
referenced judicial violations.
Evidenced claims against referenced members of the Clerk’s Office and the Office of the Circuit
Executive include (but are not limited to) MISPRISION of TREASON under 28 U.S.C. 2382.
THEREFORE, it has become necessary to inform Director James C. Duff, of the
Administrative Offices of US Courts. Attached, please find a copy of the correspondence
delivered to the attention of Director Duff (See Attachment A). Please be advised, criminal
complaints are now officially filed with the FBI against ALL referenced officers of the Court
and include referenced parties within the Clerk’s Office and the Office of the Circuit Executive.
Please be advised - copies of this Notice are additionally sent via email, social media and/or
certified mail to the:
2
1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);
2. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
3. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;
4. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives;
5. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;
6. House Oversight Committee;
7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
8. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (SIGTARP);
9. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);
10. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);
11. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
12. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, as this judiciary’s effort to “promote
public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,” has irrefutably been
compromised. By informing the Public, 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.
Finally, please be advised that in conjunction with this notice, the Appellant respectfully files
separately:
3
1. A Motion requesting THOROUGH CLARIFICATION of exactly HOW, the
referenced judgement AND mandate could possibly be considered valid, considering the
list of unresolved issued which remain, including (but not limited to) JURISDICTION;
2. A STAY of the MANDATE issued March 23, 2018. While the referenced judgement
and mandate are BOTH considered VOID (for reasons clearly evidenced by the
record), the Appellant MAKES CLEAR, that IF NECESSARY, he intends to file a
PETITION for WRIT OF CERTIORARI with the US SUPREME COURT;
3. The newly received Order by Circuit Judges: Torruella, Kayatta and Barron, issued
April 4, 2017 is again considered issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, and based on
this pro se litigant’s interpretation of Federal Law constitutes INCREMENTAL Acts of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3. A separate motion is therefore filed to
address these incremental (and criminal) claims against the referenced judges; and
4. A second NOTICE will now be filed with the Court, informing the accused Federal
Judges that the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar, intends to file a civil lawsuit against them.
The lawsuit will be filed either by amending the existing complaint – HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al, or by filing a NEW complaint. The Appellant’s understanding of the Law is
this: Since it has been evidenced – IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW that the referenced
Federal Judges have acted ultra-vires beyond their legal jurisdiction, it is possible to
recover monetary damages. Relief in equity may additionally be sought against a judge
through civil rights actions. Incremental paths to obtain equitable relief include:
a. Declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions
establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judge’s
actions.);
4
b. Injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the NOTICE to the attention of The
President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment B) with the filed Court copy.
If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Notice, 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 6th Day of April, 2018
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
5
Attachment A
6
April 2, 2018
Administrative Office of the United States Courts

Attn: Director James C. Duff
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
RE: FIRST CIRCUIT PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT INDICATES A BROKEN

PROCESS WARRANTING INTERVENTION
Dear Director Duff:
Please be advised, the gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this complaint 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 complaint 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, 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 MY continued
concerns for personal safety/security.
After speaking with Regional Administrator - Christina Martin on March 28, 2018, her
recommendation was to communicate to you directly, regarding my evidenced claims involving
(in part) the handling of Judicial Misconduct Complaints within the First Circuit. Evidenced
claims of judicial misconduct have now been brought against TEN (10) Federal (District and
Circuit) Court Judges, including First Circuit Chief Judge – Jeffrey R. Howard and members
of the First Circuit Judicial Council. Misconduct also extends beyond Federal Judges to
include the Clerk’s Office and the Office of the Circuit Executive. Collectively, evidenced
7
arguments have been made - revealing that the INTEGRITY of the First Circuit Court(s) is
compromised.
I. BACKGROUND
My name is Mohan A. Harihar – I have been a pro se litigant for the past seven (7) years
involving litigation that stems from misconduct associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis and
Illegal Foreclosure. The first four (4) years of litigation proceeded in MA State Courts and the
last three (3) years have been in Federal Court (All within the First Circuit). The referenced
Federal Cases are: 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).
Since August 2016, I have identified evidenced judicial misconduct associated with my
litigation in the US District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. This misconduct was
first evidenced against US District Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs, BEGINNING with
the Judge’s failure to uphold (and blatantly IGNORE) a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
(Rule 60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court). The additional list of evidenced claims brought against
Judge Burroughs includes (but is not limited to):
1. Failing to address JURISDICTION issues;

2. Refusal(s) to RECUSE;
3. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION, constituting an act of
TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;
4. Failing to address: a.) the Plaintiff’s Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced
ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters
believed to impact National Security;
5. Failing to promptly exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily
delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to Assist with
the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;
6. Failing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT
claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
8
7. Failing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial Code
of Conduct;
8. Failing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not limited
to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;
9. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;
10. Failing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;
11. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of
Law;
12. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
13. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
14. Failing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
15. Failing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal
SAFETY AND SECURITY;
16. Failing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as
stated within the record;
17. Failing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the
presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;
18. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to
DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving to DISMISSAL;
19. Ignoring requests for TRANSFER; and others.
The record shows that although at a substantial LEGAL DISADVANTAGE, I have properly
followed the legal process for filing the judicial misconduct complaints under Rules for Judicial
Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. The initial complaint was filed in August 2016
with the Office of the Circuit Executive – under Susan Goldberg (Deputy Circuit Executive –
Florence Pagano and Administrative Attorney – Anastasia Dubrovsky) and as required, reviewed
by First Circuit Chief Judge – Jeffrey R. Howard. After filing the complaint, incremental
claims against Judge Burroughs warranted filing four (4) supplemental complaints.
On January 5, 2017, I received a correspondence from the Circuit Executive stating that Chief
Judge Howard dismissed my complaint. After reading through the Chief Judge’s decision, a
9
number of glaring concerns were identified. To begin with, primary elements of the judicial
complaint were ignored entirely without a single mention, including (but not limited to):
1. Judicial Fraud upon the Court - and evidenced examples showing the failure to
uphold Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the judicial machinery of the Court;
2. Irrefutable evidence supporting three (3) acts of TREASON to the Constitution,
under ARTICLE III, Section 3;
3. Refusal(s) to RECUSE; and others.
It became clear that Chief Judge Howard had NO INTENTION of holding an accused officer of
the court accountable for evidenced judicial misconduct. It also became clear that a PATTERN
of CORRUPT CONDUCT was developing.
On February 3, 2017, and pursuant to Rule 18 of the Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability

Proceedings, I filed with the Circuit Executive a judicial misconduct petition for review by the
Judicial Council. The Judicial Council was comprised of:
1. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

2. US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.;
3. US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);
4. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);
5. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME).
On March 31, 2017 Judge Burroughs wrongfully dismissed my civil complaint. Notice of
Appeal was timely filed in April 2017. The Circuit Judges presiding over the Appeal were:
1. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

2. US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.;
3. US Circuit Judge David J. Barron.
On June 14, 2017 I necessarily filed a RELATED Civil Complaint against The United States
(Docket No. 17-cv-11109). US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs was again
assigned to this case on June 16, 2017. Three (3) days later on June 19, 2017, Judge
10
Burroughs RECUSED herself sua sponte. By her recusal, there was just cause to attack ALL
related orders INCLUDING (but not limited to) the Dismissal Order associated with
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. Despite multiple efforts requesting the
District (and Appeals) Court to initiate corrective action, none was taken. Based on the
evidenced record, this recusal has instead been seemingly ignored by the (District and
Appeals) Court.
On August 3, 2017, and after filing four (4) additional supplements, the Judicial Council, in
what is viewed as a synonymous pattern of corrupt conduct - dismissed my judicial misconduct
petition without VALID cause.
II. CONTINUED PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT
Since identifying the referenced judicial misconduct against Judge Burroughs and Chief Judge
Howard, IDENTICAL patterns of corrupt conduct have been similarly identified/evidenced
against ALL judges associated with: 1.) the related Appeal No, 17-1381 and with 2.) the related
complaint against THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No, 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-
cv-11109).
This SAME pattern of corrupt conduct is evidenced with the members of the Judicial Council,
where it should appear clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, that this Federal Judiciary
shows no intention to hold fellow judges accountable for their misconduct.
As a PRIMARY example, since August 2016, I have collectively filed with the Court(s) –
OVER FIFTY (50) + court documents addressing a JURISDICTION issue(s). NOT ONCE
has this judiciary (including the judicial council) addressed (or even acknowledged) my raised
issues pertaining to jurisdiction. Other evidenced examples include (but are not limited to): 1.)
issues regarding Treason claims, 2.) Economic Espionage, 3.) Threats to National Security,
etc.…
11
III. INTENT, MOTIVE AND CONSPIRACY CLAIMS
While further investigation is needed to determine exactly WHY TEN (10) Federal Judges
would break their judicial oath and conspire against this pro se litigant, the resulting failures
to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court are irrefutable. There are however, supported
arguments within the record(s) that demonstrate both judicial intent as well as motive:
1. Avoid Setting Legal Precedent

2. Prejudice/Bias Against Pro Se Litigants
3. Economic Espionage and Threats to National Security
IV. INCREMENTAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS FILED
As evidenced by the record(s), there appears to be a clear agenda by this Federal Judiciary to
ensure that this pro se litigant does not receive a FAIR AND JUST RESOLUTION to his civil
complaint(s). It has become necessary to file judicial misconduct complaints against TEN (10)
Officers of the Court. They include:
1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Recused)*;

2. US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper*;
3. US Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard*;
4. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella*;
5. US Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.*;
6. US Circuit Judge David J. Barron*;
7. US Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson*;
8. US Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante (US District Court (NH);
9. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI);
10. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME).
*Indicates evidenced claims of Treason have been brought against the Federal (District
or Circuit) Judge, for ruling without jurisdiction.
12
V. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE FBI
Since evidenced claims against referenced Officers of the Court include CRIMINAL claims,
complaints have been necessarily filed with the FBI. These evidenced criminal claims include
(but are not limited to): 1.) Treason, 2.) Economic Espionage, 3.) Criminal Conspiracy
claims, and others.
VI. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE AND CLERK’S OFFICE
If the function of the Clerk’s office is to (at least in part) ensure compliance with: 1.) FRCP, 2.)
FRAP and 3.) the Court's local rules, then a thorough review of the referenced litigation will
reveal multiple evidenced failures. These failures include witness to Federal Judges completely
ignoring FRCP and FRAP rules (Jurisdiction and Fraud on the Court are just two of many
examples).
Similarly, the Office of the Circuit Executive has failed to ensure compliance with the rules
governing Judicial Misconduct. After speaking with Regional Administrator - Christina
Martin on March 28, 2018, it is clear, that NO ONE from EITHER office has informed the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (or any other agency/office) of these
referenced judicial violations. With this communication, complaints are now officially filed
against the following parties:
1. Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg;

2. Deputy Circuit Executive – Florence Pagano;
3. Supervisory Attorney – Anastasia Dubrovsky;
4. Circuit Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter;
5. Circuit Clerk – Robert M. Farrell;
6. Deputy Clerk – Matthew A. Paine
These parties have also witnessed Federal Judges continuing to Rule after LOSING
JURISDICTION. The Clerk’s Office and the Office of the Circuit Executive have therefore
consciously chosen NOT to report (or serve as witness to) evidenced acts of Treason by
SEVEN (7) Officers of the Court - and instead remain silent. These actions constitute
13
MISPRISION OF TREASON, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. Code § 2382. Additional arguments

suggest that these parties have CONSPIRED with Federal Judges to ensure that the referenced
litigation does not successfully move forward.
Criminal complaints are now necessarily filed with FBI against these referenced individuals (See
Attachment A).
VII. EVIDENCED TREASON CLAIMS WARRANT INFORMING THE EXECUTIVE

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT (EOP)
As required by Federal Law and as evidenced by the record(s), I have reported these witnessed
claims of Treason to: 1.) the Executive Office of The President (EOP), 2.) The Governor of
Massachusetts – Charlie Baker (R-MA) and 3.) The United States District Court (MA) and
US Appeals Court (First Circuit).
VIII. CONGRESS, THE DOJ, INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) AND OTHER

OFFICES/AGENCIES NECESSARILY INFORMED
Since the referenced litigation raises issues which are believed to impact matters of National
Security, I have consistently stated (in a PREFACED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT), that
copies of referenced Court documents were being delivered via – certified mail, email
communication and/or social media to the following offices/agencies:
1. The Executive Office of the President (EOP);
2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);
3. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG);
4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
5. Members of Congress (Both House and Senate);
6. House Judiciary Committee;
14
7. House Oversight Committee.
The gravity of issues involved has led to additionally informing: 8.) The Office of the Special
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP); 9.) The Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC); 10.) The Federal Trade Commission (FTC); 11.) The
Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and 12.) The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC). ALL documents are additionally made available to the PUBLIC.
IX. CONCERNS FOR PERSONAL SAFETY/SECURITY
When an American citizen of The United States – the greatest country in the world cannot
depend on: 1.) an IMPARTIAL Federal (or State) Judiciary to uphold the Law, or 2.)
Federal/State Prosecutors to prosecute evidenced criminal misconduct, there exists a clear reason
to fear for one’s safety and security.
X. 28 U.S. Code § 453 – OATHS OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before
performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon
me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
A pattern of corrupt conduct has now been evidenced – IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW, that
irrefutably shows that the referenced Officers of the Court have FAILED to uphold their Oath
of Office and the judicial machinery of the Court.
XI. CLOSING STATEMENT
Director Duff - After a THOROUGH review of: 1.) the referenced litigation, 2.) judicial
misconduct complaints filed and 3.) judicial misconduct petitions filed, there is an expectation
for you to similarly conclude that (at minimum) there has been a BREAKDOWN in the
PROCESS, as it pertains to the FIRST CIRCUIT’S ability to address judicial misconduct
15
complaints. There is also an expectation for you, and/or the appropriate authority to initiate a
plan of corrective action moving forward.
If there is disagreement with ANY singular claim brought against the referenced parties, please
articulate exactly which documents of record were reviewed in order to reach your conclusion. I
am happy to provide you with additional supporting information upon request.
For documentation purposes, copies of this communication will be filed via NOTICE with the
US District Court (MA) and the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
16
Attachment A
17
18
The TEXT BOX of the filed Criminal Complaint reads as follows:
I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
DEFENDANTS: 1.) Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg; 2.) Deputy Circuit Executive – Florence
Pagano; 3.) Supervisory Attorney – Anastasia Dubrovsky; 4.) Circuit Clerk of the Court –
Margaret Carter; 5.) Circuit Clerk – Robert M. Farrell; 6.) Deputy Clerk – Matthew A. Paine
Contact Information: John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse,1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210, Clerk's Office: 617-748-9057
ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against referenced officers of the
Court have occurred in the timeline associated with the litigation: HARIHAR v. US BANK et al,
Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880); HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES,
Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and actions related to filed judicial
misconduct complaints/petitions.
The evidenced allegations conclusively show that (at minimum) these referenced officers of
the court have personally witnessed an act(s) of Treason under Article III, Section 3 of the
Constitution, and have failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their
failure(s) to report Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct additionally
contributes to existing CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By
their actions (or lack thereof) these parties are believed to have contributed to the
Misappropriation of a Trade Secret (IP) designed to assist the United States with economic
growth/repair associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis. The complainant believes that upon
further investigation, additional (related) crimes committed by these officers will be evidenced.
The Complainant maintains the right to expand upon/file new claims if deemed necessary.
STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The Complainant states that these facts establish probable
cause indicating that (at minimum) the following crimes have occurred: MISPRISION OF
TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to
defraud United States; and ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code §
1831.
Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with the referenced litigation
and include judicial misconduct complaints/petitions filed with the Office of the Circuit
Executive. A separate complaint has also been filed with the Director of the Administrative
Offices of US Courts.
Please be advised, since this matter involves evidenced claims of TREASON and matters
perceived to impact National Security, the Complainant (by his interpretation of Federal Law)
has necessarily communicated these claims to the President, members of Congress and other
appropriate agencies. The PUBLIC has also been copied out of concerns for personal safety
and security. Copies of this criminal complaint will be delivered to the President's attention,
filed with the Court and appropriate agencies.
19
20
Attachment B
21
22
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 6, 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
24

Notice of Complaint Filed W Admin Office of US Courts RE: First Circuit's Handling of Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice of Complaint Filed W Admin Office of US Courts RE: First Circuit's Handling of Judicial Misconduct Complaints

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117274686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Entry ID: 6161700

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT NOTICE RE: LETTER DELIVERED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE

governing Judicial Misconduct. After speaking with Regional Administrator - Christina

referenced judicial violations.

THEREFORE, it has become necessary to inform Director James C. Duff, of the

Administrative Offices of US Courts. Attached, please find a copy of the correspondence

certified mail to the:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;

3. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

4. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives;

5. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

6. House Oversight Committee;

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

9. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

10. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

11. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

12. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

concerns for personal safety/security.

1. A Motion requesting THOROUGH CLARIFICATION of exactly HOW, the

record), the Appellant MAKES CLEAR, that IF NECESSARY, he intends to file a

PETITION for WRIT OF CERTIORARI with the US SUPREME COURT;

April 4, 2017 is again considered issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, and based on

this pro se litigant’s interpretation of Federal Law constitutes INCREMENTAL Acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3. A separate motion is therefore filed to

a. Declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions

establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judge’s

b. Injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.

independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 6th Day of April, 2018

Administrative Office of the United States Courts

RE: FIRST CIRCUIT PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT INDICATES A BROKEN

Dear Director Duff:

1. Failing to address JURISDICTION issues;

7. Failing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

On February 3, 2017, and pursuant to Rule 18 of the Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability

1. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

1. US Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella;

II. CONTINUED PATTERNS OF CORRUPT CONDUCT

III. INTENT, MOTIVE AND CONSPIRACY CLAIMS

1. Avoid Setting Legal Precedent

IV. INCREMENTAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS FILED

1. US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs (Recused)*;

V. CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED WITH THE FBI

VI. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE AND CLERK’S OFFICE

1. Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg;

MISPRISION OF TREASON, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. Code § 2382. Additional arguments

VII. EVIDENCED TREASON CLAIMS WARRANT INFORMING THE EXECUTIVE

VIII. CONGRESS, THE DOJ, INSPECTOR GENERAL (OIG) AND OTHER

Security, I have consistently stated (in a PREFACED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT), that

communication and/or social media to the following offices/agencies:

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

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG);

4. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

5. Members of Congress (Both House and Senate);

6. House Judiciary Committee;

7. House Oversight Committee.

IX. CONCERNS FOR PERSONAL SAFETY/SECURITY

X. 28 U.S. Code § 453 – OATHS OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES

XI. CLOSING STATEMENT

Thank you for your attention to this very serious matter.