Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

Application for stay of judgment-- No. 18A554

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:17 PM
To: lwood@supremecourt.gov
Cc: NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
mary.murrane@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, "Constituent.services@state.ma.us"
<constituent.services@state.ma.us>, elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov,
Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov, Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, scheduling@warren.senate.gov,
sydney_levin-epstein@markey.senate.gov, june.black@mail.house.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us,
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us, igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, Jennifer
Masello <jennifer.masello@jud.state.ma.us>, david fialkow <david.fialkow@klgates.com>, "Jeffrey B.
Loeb" <JLoeb@richmaylaw.com>, kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com, "Murphy, Matthew T."
<mmurphy@casneredwards.com>, kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Dear Deputy Clerk Wood,

Please be advised of the following:

1. New Application filed on 11/30/18 for 60-day Extension of Time to File Certiorari
Petition (Attached) - The Court is expected to have received the application by USPS
Express Mail Delivery on Saturday, 12/1/18. There is a sense of urgency to address this
application, as the Petitioner's deadline is fast approaching on 12/9/18. Justice Breyer's
decision to deny the requested STAY of judgment (Application No. 18A554, attached) on
11/27 (without cause) substantially changes the content of the Certiorari Petition. To
be clear, it was NOT expected that a Supreme Court Justice would purposefully IGNORE
and brush aside evidenced claims of TREASON, Economic Espionage, judicial
misconduct and matters perceived to impact National Security - particularly after
acknowledging these evidenced claims on June 8, 2018 (Referencing Application No.
17A1359).
2. Identical Patterns of Corrupt Conduct Identified w/ Supreme Court Justice Stephen
Breyer - To be clear, based on my interpretation of: (1) Federal Laws under The United
States Constitution; and (2) the Judicial Oath of Office, it would appear (at least on its
surface) that a Supreme Court Justice has brushed aside a petition in order to reach a
corrupt and pre-determined outcome. This evidenced action of record is IDENTICAL to the
evidenced claims brought by the Petitioner against FIFTEEN (15) judicial officers, all within
the First Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Petitioner will have evidenced an
UNPRECEDENTED level of judicial misconduct ranging from the US District Court to the US
Supreme Court, in FULL PUBLIC VIEW. Please be advised - You are considered to have
personally witnessed this evidenced claim against Justice Breyer and are required to
bring this matter to the attention of the Court. The following parties are additionally
considered as witnesses: (1) Supreme Court Case Analyst Clayton R. Higgins; (2)
 Emergency Applications Clerk Mara Silver; and (3) All Appellees/Defendants and their
associated counsel of record.
3. Cause to Inform Chief Justice Roberts, POTUS and Congress - It becomes necessary
now to inform Chief Justice John G. Roberts of this latest development. The Petitioner will
respectfully submit a separate letter to the attention of the Chief Justice. Similarly, since this
latest development involves evidenced Treason, Economic Espionage and National Security
claims against judicial officers - POTUS (via www.whitehouse.gov) and Congressional
leaders will necessarily be informed/updated (Including, but not limited to the House/Senate
Judiciary Committees). Parties copied on this email will include: (1) The OIG - specifically, IG
Michael Horowitz; (2) DOJ, specifically, acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker; (3)
Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); (4) US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (5) US
Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); (6) US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA); (7) State AG
Maura Healey (MA); and (8) Counsel for Appellees/Defendants. The PUBLIC will
additionally receive a copy of this email and attached documents out of continued concerns
for my personal safety and security.

It remains my sincere hope that corrective action will be initiated here, prior to moving forward with
this litigation. Thank you for your attention to this very serious and sensitive matter.

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com
[Quoted text hidden]

3 attachments
Harihar Writ of Certiorari Extension Request - November 2018.pdf
164K
Harihar SCOTUS Petition for STAY.pdf
127K
Appendix - SCOTUS Motion for Stay.pdf
1964K

2
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

APPLICATION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to Rule

13(5) of the Rules of this Court, for an extension of time of 60 days, to and including

February 7, 2019 (Thursday), for the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari to

review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated

August 7, 2018 (Exhibit 1), on which a timely petition for rehearing and for

rehearing en banc was denied on September 7, 2018 (Exhibit 2). The jurisdiction of

this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

1. The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be due, if

not extended, is December 9, 2018.

2. On November 17, 2018, the Petitioner filed Application No. 18A554 to

request a stay of judgment; submitted to your Honor to address the growing list of

extraordinary circumstances including twenty-three (23) unresolved issues

3
previously acknowledged by you on June 8, 2018.1 This list of issues included (but

was not limited to): (1) Jurisdiction, (2) Criminal claims including (but not limited

to) Treason and Economic Espionage, (3) matters perceived to impact National

Security and others.

3. On November 27, 2018, after a ten (10) day “screening process,” the

Petitioner’s Application No. 18A554 was docketed. On that same day, your Honor

denied the application, without cause. Considering the plethora of documented

evidence supporting the Petitioner’s claims, it remains unclear as to why

Application 18A554 was denied. The relief requested in Application No. 18A554 did

not include a request for an extension of time, in the event the stay was denied.

Therefore, the Petitioner respectfully shows cause to file this new Application for a

timeline extension.

4. Respectfully, as a matter of record, your Honor has already

acknowledged that this case presents substantial issues of law, among which

include (but are not limited to) the following: (1) whether jurisdiction issues were

properly addressed by the First Circuit (and District) Court; (2) whether under

Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution, a Circuit (or District) Court judge

continued to rule after losing jurisdiction; (3) whether Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure (Unopposed claims) was properly addressed by the

1 The Petitioner references Petition 17A-1359 which (in part) requested a timeline extension for
filing his Certiorari Petition; also identifying a list of unresolved, extraordinary issues. No
Opposition was filed against the Petition. On June 8, 2018, Justice Breyer granted the Petitioner’s
timeline extension, based on these extraordinary, unresolved issues.

4
Court(s); (4) whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a Circuit judge(s) who has presided

in the referenced appeal, failed to recuse following jurisdiction (and other

referenced) issues; (5) whether, under 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Circuit Judges failed to

properly address evidenced Economic Espionage claims and matters believed to

impact National Security; (6) whether under 28 U.S.C. §1915 Circuit Judges failed

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; and (7) whether Circuit judges (and previously the

District Court) took appropriate action following the recusal of US District Court

Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs. Additional questions of law warranting this

Court’s attention can be found by referencing Petition No.’s 17A1359 and 18A554.

5. Petitioner requires the additional requested time as the denial of

Application No. 18A554 substantially changes (and adds considerably to) the

content of his certiorari petition. The Petitioner is now tasked with preparing a

petition that addresses not only: (1) the aforementioned issues of law from the

original complaint; but also incorporates (2) the substantial list of extraordinary

issues which still remain unresolved. Considering this new development, Petitioner

requires additional time to further research these legal issues and prepare an

appropriate petition for consideration by this Court. Considering the complexity of

legal issues at hand and the lower Court’s refusal to appoint counsel, the

Petitioner’s pursuit to acquire experienced legal counsel is ongoing to (at minimum)

assist with judicial economy.

5
 6. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner hereby requests that an

extension of time to and including February 7, 2019, be granted within which

Petitioner may file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

7. Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the

Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1)

Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage and (3)

matters believed to impact National Security, copies of this petition are necessarily

delivered to the President (Exhibit 3), DOJ and House/Senate Judiciary

Committees. A copy will also be made available to the Public out of continued

concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and well-being.

8. If your Honor has any questions regarding any portion of this Motion,

or requires additional information, Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

The Petitioner is grateful for this Court’s consideration of his request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
November 30, 2018

6
Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117323394 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Entry ID:
6189010

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;

HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Howard, Chief Judge,

Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
__________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: August 7, 2018

Pursuant to this court's order dated July 17, 2018, mandate was recalled, the
original judgment was vacated, and the appeal was assigned to the present panel
for further review.

-1-
 The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is
denied. See United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against
judge separate from the case under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic
recusal can be obtained by the simple act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229
F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000) (similar); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934,
940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened
suit against him[.]").

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117323394 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Entry ID:
6189010

Having reviewed the record and arguments on appeal, we affirm the judgment
dismissing the complaint. All other pending motions are denied.

Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.0(c).

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar

David E. Fialkow
Jesse Mohan Boodoo
Kurt R. McHugh
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod

-2-
Exhibit 2

-3-
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117335822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/07/2018 Entry ID:
6196279

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS;

HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP;
PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY
PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH;
MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.
__________________

Before

Howard, Chief Judge,

Lipez and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
__________________

ORDER OF COURT

Entered: September 7, 2018

We construe the appellant's response to this court's order dated August 29, 2018, as a
motion for reconsideration, and we deny it. Mandate shall issue forthwith.

-4-
 By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar, David E. Fialkow, Jesse Mohan Boodoo, Kurt R.

McHugh, Kevin Patrick Polansky, Matthew T. Murphy, Jeffrey B.
Loeb, David Glod

-5-
Exhibit 3

-6-
-7-
-8-
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
___________________________________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, hereby certify that copies of the

attached Application to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, for an Extension of Time
to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit were served on:

David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP)

State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 261-3126
david.fialkow@klgates.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E. Fialkow, Esq. and
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney General)

One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of MA and Martha Coakley, Esq.

Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 01960
617.217.4720
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Nelson Mullins LLP and Peter Haley, Esq.

Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)

303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
617.426.5900
mmurphy@casneredwards.com

Counsel for Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies)

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)

176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC)

150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
617.558.8435
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Counsel for Harmon Law, PC and Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

Service was made by Priority/Express USPS mail on November 30,

2018.

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com