You are on page 1of 22

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT


LAND COURT DIVISION

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION TO BRING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANTS,

PURSUANT TO MASS. CIV. R. PROC. 60 (b)(3)

PLAINTIFF DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the related Federal Appeals, and newly filed

(Federal) Civil Complaint1 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced allegations of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and 2.) Economic Espionage

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, which are believed to impact matters of National Security. The

evidenced allegations against referenced officers of the Court include CRIMINAL

1
The related Federal Appeals reference 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-cv-2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109). A third complaint has been filed
against referenced INFERIOR Federal Judges and Defendant counsel including Attorneys
David E. Fialkow and Jeffrey Loeb (See HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134).
1
MISCONDUCT - On March 19, 2018, Criminal Complaints were filed with the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10) identified Federal (Circuit and District)

Court Judges. Therefore, since this is a RELATED ACTION, copies of this MOTION are

necessarily sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz (OIG);

4. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

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

6. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

7. House Oversight Committee;

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

9. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

10. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

11. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

12. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

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

A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, since collectively, the 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

2
are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Plaintiff’s continued

concerns for personal safety/security.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, who necessarily files this MOTION following the June 8, 2018

decision by SCOTUS to grant a timeline extension to Petitioner – MOHAN A. HARIHAR for

filing his Petition for Writ of Certiorari. On June 14, 2018, the First Circuit Appeals Court

acknowledged the SCOTUS decision, informing all parties by email, Document: 00117301445,

Entry ID: 6176899. 2

Mr. Harihar was able to demonstrate to SCOTUS a substantial list of EXTRAORDINARY

CIRCUMSTANCES and UNRESOLVED ISSUES warranting such an extension.3 What’s

more however, is that the Appellees (INCLUDING HERE - Bank Defendants Wells Fargo,

US Bank; and Defendants Jeffrey/Isabelle Perkins) made NO EFFORT to oppose ANY of

the Appellant’s reasons for requesting this extension. This now creates a substantial

conflict(s) with their position(s) in ALL RELATED STATE AND FEDERAL

LTIGATION, including this QUIET TITLE COMPLAINT. At minimum, the unopposed

motion re-affirms the original (Federal) FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIM pursuant to FRCP

60(b)(3). Here, the Plaintiff’s position is re-affirmed where the Defendants AGAIN have

consciously chosen NOT to oppose a motion to this Nation’s highest Court, creating clear

2See Exhibit 1
3
See Exhibit 2, the June 4, 2018 filed RESPONSE to Judge David Barron’s RECUSAL,
which provides a (partial) list of unresolved issues which must be addressed before the Appellant
can appropriately file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari (if it even becomes necessary).
3
conflict with their arguments here. Since Appellees chose not to file any opposition with the

Supreme Court, similarly, they CANNOT be allowed to bring an opposing position here.

THEREFORE, based on this recent development from SCOTUS, and the Defendant’s

clear effort to deceive this Court, the Plaintiff’s position is re-affirmed, showing cause for this

Court to bring a DEFAULT judgment IN FAVOR of Plaintiff - MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

with prejudice. This Court should award the Plaintiff - Quiet Title to HIS Property, ALL

requested relief and any other relief deemed appropriate, including (but not limited to) relocation

costs. Additionally, Defendants – Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins should be similarly given a

timeline of 48 hours to vacate Plaintiff’s Property, under supervision of the Middlesex

County Sherriff’s Department. Corrective action initiated by this Land Court MAY allow for

consideration in resolving (at least a portion of) existing misconduct claims against

Appellee - Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US

BANK). If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Plaintiff is happy to

provide additional supporting information upon request.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court’s efforts to address and initiate the referenced corrective

action(s). For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this MOTION to the attention of

POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 3) with the filed Court copy. If

there is a question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Plaintiff is happy to provide

additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the presence of an

independent court reporter.

4
Respectfully submitted this 24th Day of June, 2018

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

5
Exhibit 1

6
7
Exhibit 2

8
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 RESPONSE TO THE MAY 18, 2018 RECUSAL OF

CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID BARRON

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal (lower court Docket No. 15-cv-

11880), and in the RELATED Appeal,4 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced

allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and 2.)

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, which are believed to impact matters of

National Security. The evidenced allegations against referenced officers of the Court

include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - On March 19, 2018, Criminal Complaints were

filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10) identified Federal

4
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).
9
(Circuit and District) Court Judges. Therefore, copies of this RESPONSE are necessarily sent

via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:

14. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

15. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

16. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz (OIG);

17. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

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

19. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

20. House Oversight Committee;

21. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

22. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

23. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

24. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

25. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

26. 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.

10
COMES NOW the Appellant, who files this timely RESPONSE after being notified on May

18, 2018 of the RECUSAL by Circuit Judge David Barron. The announcement of this recusal

raises a number of issues, including (but not limited to) the following:

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted;

II. This Court MUST Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in similar fashion;

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES;

IV. Impacted Litigation;

V. Impacted Orders;

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

VII. Relief Requested

__________________________________________________________________

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted

After reviewing the referenced 5/18/2018 letter5 announcing the recusal of Judge David

Barron, the explanation provided is considered insufficient, in that far more detail is required

in order to fully understand ALL factors leading up to this recusal. The Appellant

respectfully requests that Judge Barron provide for the record a detailed explanation of

exactly HOW, at this time he came to find out about a Financial interest in the

Appellee/Defendant – Wells Fargo. While the Appellant does not necessarily question the

conflict itself, there is cause to question the timing of its discovery. This Appeal was initiated

5 See Attachment A
11
in April 2017 – therefore, further validation is needed to confirm all details related to the

judge’s “newly discovered” financial interest in Appellee, Wells Fargo;

II. This Court MUST NOW Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in Similar Fashion

This Court is aware that the announced recusal of Judge Barron is the THIRD (3rd)

RECUSAL associated with this litigation. On June 19, 2017, the first Judge to recuse was

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the RELATED case – HARIHAR v THE UNITED

STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109. Despite multiple documented efforts by the Appellant,

the record will conclusively reveal multiple failures by BOTH the District and Appellate

Courts to address and remedy the list of resulting conflicts and impacted orders associated

with this recusal.

The second recusal was announced by Chief Judge Howard, who recused Circuit Judge

Sandra Lynch from ruling on the 3/14/2018 decision for reasons UNKNOWN.6

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Aside from the issues related to the referenced recusals, this Court is reminded of the list of

existing issues which, as evidenced by the record, have been IGNORED by this Court –

BEGINNING WITH JURISDICTION ISSUES. This Court AND the American Public

have now witnessed the following acts, EACH of which constitute judicial misconduct –

bringing to this Appellant (and likely to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER) a heightened

state of ALERT and OUTRAGE:

6
The 3/14/18 Order referenced the Appellant’s Petition for re-hearing en banc. Questions are
raised regarding not only the recusal of Judge Lynch, but also regarding the jurisdiction of other
judges issuing the referenced order(s).
12
A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues7;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

D. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

E. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

F. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’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;

G. Refusing to 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;

H. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

I. Refusing 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 and Judicial Oath;

J. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

L. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

7
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
13
M. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color

of Law;

N. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

O. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

P. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

Q. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

R. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as

stated within the record;

S. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

T. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

IV. Impacted Litigation

This Court must now address ALL litigation, associated orders and misconduct complaints

impacted by Judge Barron’s recusal, not just Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron is also a

presiding judge in the RELATED APPEAL No. 17-2074 – HARIHAR v. THE UNITED

STATES, and as a member of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL, has contributed to orders

associated with related judicial misconduct complaints.

This Court is now aware that on May 30, 2018, the Appellant filed a NEW Complaint with

the District Court against multiple Defendants including TEN (10) Officers of the Court

who are considered to be INFERIOR JUDGES (Reference Docket No. 18-cv-11134,

14
HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al). Judge Barron is listed

here as a Defendant and as an inferior judge. The DEMAND is now respectfully made to

address ALL referenced litigation and judicial misconduct complaints impacted by recusal.

V. Impacted Orders

The Appellant first addresses the EIGHT (8) impacted orders of Appeal No. 17-1381:

A. ORDER OF COURT Entered: June 5, 2017 - Here, the appellant's motions for

appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are denied. ALL requests

here have been denied WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, even when clarification and

reconsideration had been respectfully requested. With the recusal of Judge Barron

(and the previous RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs), the Appellant shows cause to

attack this order and have it VOIDED by the Court. Before any attempt to re-address

the issues contained in the original motion, the Court is respectfully reminded that

JURISDICTION remains an issue. The remaining TWO (2) presiding Circuit Judges

– Judge Torruella and Judge Kayatta are considered to have ALREADY LOST

JURISDICTION to rule in this or ANY RELATED litigation. Once jurisdiction has

been properly restored, evidenced arguments supporting the Appellant’s motion (at

minimum) SHOULD result in the following:

1. THE COURT SHOULD initiate corrective action for these publicly

evidenced errors, beginning with actions two (2) thru five (5) listed below. IF

corrective action is initiated here, there MAY be opportunity to amend or

withdraw judicial misconduct (and other) complaints (if allowed by law). Any

failure to initiate corrective action here will certainly contribute to the ongoing

effort calling for their immediate removal from the Bench;

15
2. An ORDER granting the Appellant assistance with the appointment of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Once experienced legal counsel has been

retained, the Appellant reserves the right to further amend this response as

deemed necessary;

3. An ORDER granting a STAY of ALL collection activity against the

Appellant while litigation is ongoing;

4. VACATING the existing Judgment and Mandate Order.

5. ISSUING a DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR of the APPELLANT –

MOHAN A. HARIHAR with prejudice, based on the PUBLICLY

EVIDENCED AND UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claims under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). There is NO grey area here. Furthermore,

Appellees/Defendants have NO ALLOWABLE ARGUMENT since the

record reveals NO PRIOR ARGUMENT;

B. Once corrective action is initiated (as described above), the remaining orders8

associated with this Appeal No. 17-1381 are perceived as MOOT. The Appellant

restates that he retains the right to amend this response, if only partial corrective action

is initiated or as deemed necessary.

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Based on Judge Barron’s recusal, the reasons stated above and throughout this Appeal,

shows absolute cause to initiate corrective action. Once these critical errors have been

corrected (as described by the Appellant), there will no longer be a need to petition the

8
Remaining orders impacted by recusal (Appeal No. 17-1381 ONLY) include orders issued on
the following dates: July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14, 2018, April 4, 2018 and April
11, 2018 Orders, as well as the January 17, 2018 Judgment.
16
US Supreme Court. HOWEVER, until corrective action is initiated, the due date for filing

the Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is fast approaching on June 12, 2018.

THEREFORE, with the filing of this response, the Appellant respectfully requests that

the Court issue an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend the

timeline for filing his petition until ALL unresolved issues have been appropriately

addressed.

VII. Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR respectfully requests the

following relief, based on these referenced reasons impacted by recusal:

A. Initiate corrective action by assisting the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

B. Consider ALL referenced orders associated with this Appeal VOID;

C. ISSUE an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend the

timeline for filing his petition with the Supreme Court until ALL unresolved issues

have been appropriately addressed and resolved in this Appeals Court.

D. VACATE the Judgment and Mandate ORDER associated with this Appeal;

E. ISSUE a DEFAULT JUDGMENT - IN FAVOR of the APELLANT, MOHAN A.

HARIHAR with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

F. Issue an order for additional relief to the Appellant for: 1.) Punitive damages, 2.)

Declaratory relief and 3.) ANY OTHER relief deemed appropriate by the Court;

G. Issue an order for a reimbursement of legal fees (and ALL associated costs) as

previously described by the Appellant;

17
H. Appropriately address for the record, related issues pertaining to (at minimum)

evidenced CRIMINAL misconduct, Economic Espionage and National Security

and others. This will require the input from the Executive Branch of Government,

including (but not limited to): 1.) The President, 2.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 3.) The FBI, 4.) specific Congressional Committees.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s efforts to address and initiate the referenced corrective

action(s). For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE 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 response, 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 re-submitted this 4th Day of June, 2018

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

18
Exhibit 3

19
20
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 24, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication. The Plaintiff will also
plan to bring additional hardcopies for all parties and the Court for the Case Management
Conference scheduled for Monday, June 25, 2018.

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow

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

22

You might also like