You are on page 1of 75

No.

18-7752

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States


____________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Petitioner
v.

US BANK NA, et al
Respondents
____________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari


to the United States Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit
_______________

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO


PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR*
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
*Petitioner, Pro Se Mo.harihar@gmail.com
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
24. Whether the March 12, 2019 sworn testimony of the
Respondent – WELLS FARGO (Specifically, its former
CEO Tim Sloan), before the House Financial Services
Committee conflicts directly with their position taken for
eight (8) years in this litigation – showing cause (at
minimum) to expand upon the Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)
claims?
25. Whether the newly found Discovery – and what appears
as an improper relationship between US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and MERS, Inc., shows (at
minimum) cause to expand upon claims against
Respondent – Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
26. Whether the newly found Discovery – and what appears
as an improper relationship between Chief Justice John
Roberts and MERS, Inc., shows (at minimum) cause for
recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and 28 U.S.C. §
144?
27. Whether the newly found Discovery – and what appears
as an improper relationship between Associate Justice
Stephen Breyer and MERS, Inc., shows (at minimum)
cause for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and 28
U.S.C. § 144?
28. Whether the newly found Discovery – and what appears
to be an improper relationship between US Attorney –
Andrew Lelling (MA) and MERS, Inc., has (at least in
part) impacted the Federal Prosecutor’s decision(s) not to
bring criminal indictments against the Respondents?
29. Whether collectively, these new discoveries (referenced
above) show cause to amend the original complaint and
bring incremental claims against The United States in
the related litigation – HARIHAR v THE UNITED
STATES, Appeal No. 18-2074 and HARIHAR v
HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134?
30. Whether recent developments in the related Middlesex
Superior Court litigation (if left uncorrected) warrants
removal to Federal Court, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code
§ 1446?1

1The Petitioner references the Middlesex Superior Court Docket No. 18-cv-00050,
HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO.

1
31. Whether this unopposed Certiorari Petition and newly
discovered evidence adds incrementally (at least in part)
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – Fraud on the Court claims
against all fourteen (14) Respondents?
32. Whether the Petitioner’s FOIA request (at minimum)
shows cause for further investigation of all parties and
referenced judicial officers; including a detailed
explanation from the DOJ for its evidenced
failure(s)/refusal to bring criminal indictments against
named Respondents and Judicial Officers?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Questions Presented………………………………………. 1
Table of Authorities……………………………………….. 3
Opinions below................................................................ 4
Jurisdiction...................................................................... 5
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved........ 6
Introduction to Supplement………………………….…….7
Statement of the Case...................................................... 8
Reasons for Granting the Petition................................. 16
A. Failure to Grant Certiorari will Evidence a
Systemic Breakdown within the Judicial Branch
of Government.
Conclusion ...................................................................... 18
Second Supplement Appendix ………..…………………. 20
Proof of Service…………………………….……………..... 72

2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page

Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921)…………………6


Harihar v The United States
(1st Circuit 2017) …………………………9,13,14,15
Harihar v Howard, et al
(1st Circuit, 2018) …………………………..……9,15
Harihar v Wells Fargo, et al
(MA Land Court, 2018) …………………….….…..9
Harihar v Wells Fargo, et al
(MA Middlesex Superior Court, 2018) …….…9,14

Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ..............................................4,6,7,16,18
18 U.S.C. § 1831 .........................................................7,18
28 U.S.C. §455(a)…………………………….……..…5,6,12
28 U.S.C. § 144 …………………………….…….....…5,6,12
18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 ………………….……………….…..7
28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ……………………………………………5

Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) ................................................1,10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) ...................................2,8,10,17,18
Fed. R. App. P. 33…………...….…………..…….…15,17,18
Local Rule 33…………………..…………...……..…15,17,18

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:


Article II……………………………………..…………..6,7,18
Article III, Section 3…………………………………5,6,7,14

3
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States


________
No. 18-7752
_____________

MOHAN A. HARIHAR - Petitioner

v.

US BANK NA, et al - Respondents


___________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari


To the United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
______________

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF


TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mohan A. Harihar respectfully petitions for a writ of


certiorari to review the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in this case.

OPINIONS BELOW
The order list: 586 U.S. (published February 19,
2019) shows an unpublished decision to Application
No 18A-554. A separate docket search reveals that
the STAY application and request for assistance
with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
§1915 was denied without cause.

4
JURISDICTION

As a matter of record, more than fifteen (15) judicial


officers in both the First Circuit Appeals Court and US
District Court of Massachusetts lost jurisdiction for
their evidenced failure(s) to uphold Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, their Judicial Oath and the
Constitution of The United States. There is no valid
argument of record to suggest otherwise. To date, there
has been an unprecedented nine (9) recusals from this
litigation (combined Federal and State). Formal
Treason claims have been brought against ten (10)
judicial officers under ARTICLE III, Section 3 for
continuing to Rule after jurisdiction had been lost.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28


U.S.C. 1254(1). However, following: (1) the unpublished
denial to Application No. 18A554 dated February 19,
2019; (2) the evidenced claims expressed in the first
supplement (filed March 9, 2019); and (3) new
discoveries referenced in this second supplement, the
jurisdiction of each Justice and the integrity of this
court has been called into question.

The Petitioner has just recently discovered new


evidence that reveals what appears to be improper
relationships involving properties owned by Chief
Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
and MERS, Inc. – a named Defendant in the related
MA state litigation.2 The Petitioner believes that the
Mortgage Fraud Audit that revealed these new
discoveries (at minimum) impacts jurisdiction,
warranting disqualification and the immediate recusal
of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 144. Any
objective observer would agree.

The Petitioner respectfully reminds this Court that he


is not a legal expert and has virtually no legal

2The Petitioner references HARIHAR v WELLS FARGO, et al, Middlesex Superior Court
Docket No. 1981-cv-00050.

5
experience aside from this litigation. Collectively, the
complexity of legal issues described in: (1) Mr.
Harihar’s Certiorari Petition; (2) First Supplement; and
now (3) this Second Supplement is so great - the
appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915 should
be granted without any further, unnecessary judicial
delay. Based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the
law, any failure to uphold this “textbook” example for
appointing counsel will similarly impact jurisdiction,
warranting (at minimum) immediate
disqualification/recusal under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and 28
U.S.C. § 144.

The Petitioner respectfully states that all jurisdiction


issues must be resolved prior to ruling on Certiorari
Petition 18-7752. Considering the severity of evidenced
claims against judicial officers of this Court,
clarification is requested for the record - in the event
that these issues remain unresolved and it becomes
necessary to inform/update both Congress and the
Executive Branch under ARTICLE’s II and III.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY


PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the


U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor
state governments may deprive any person “of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.” A similar
due process provision was found in the Magna Charta, as
well as early state constitutions. Chief Justice William
Howard Taft explained the purpose behind the clauses in
Truax v. Corrigan (1921) as follows: “The due process
clause requires that every man shall have the protection
of his day in court, and the benefit of the general law, a
law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not
arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders
judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold
his life, liberty, property and immunities under the
protection of the general rules which govern society. It, of
course, tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it
makes a required minimum of protection for every one’s

6
right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or
the Legislature may not withhold.”

Additional Constitutional and Statutory Provisions apply


(including Articles II and III), considering: (1) the
evidenced (and unopposed) claims raised against judicial
officers – including Treason; (2) matters perceived to
impact National Security; (3) Economic Espionage - 18
U.S.C. § 1831; (4) RICO -18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 and other
evidenced claims. In the interest of judicial economy and
to fully comprehend the full scope of legal issues
involved, the Petitioner respectfully re-states that the
totality of complex legal issues associated with this
litigation warrants the appointment of counsel under 28
U.S.C. §1915.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND SUPPLEMENT

Since filing the Petition for Certiorari on January 28,


2019, there continues to be new discoveries and
incremental activity in related (lower court) litigation
that warrants this second supplement. New discoveries
include: (1) Sworn testimony by the Respondent – Wells
Fargo CEO (now former) Tim Sloan, who appeared before
the House Financial Services Committee on March 12,
2019; (2) The appearance of an improper relationship
between MERS Inc. and properties believed to be owned
by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Stephen Breyer,
US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA) and US Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA); (3) incremental judicial
misconduct associated with related litigation in the
Middlesex Superior Court (MA) – bringing the ninth (9th)
recusal of a judicial officer related to this litigation
(combined federal and state)3; and (4) a newly filed FOIA
request filed with the Office of the Attorney General.

3 To date, there have been a total of nine (9) judicial recusals associated with this litigation
– eight (8) federal judges and one (1) MA state judge. They include: (1) US District Court
Judge Allison Dale Burroughs; (2) US First Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch; and recusals
(3) – (8) Circuit Judges Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta and David J. Barron – TWO
(2) sua sponte recusals from HARIHAR v US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) and
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (9) Middlesex Superior
Court Judge – Kenneth J. Fishman (MA).

7
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Respondents
were given until March 7, 2019 to file their
response/opposition to this Petition. However, not one (1)
of the fourteen respondents filed a response with this
Court. This is substantial considering one (1) of the
primary claims against the Respondents is Fraud upon
the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) – a claim
which historically remains unopposed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 15(8) the Petitioner


respectfully adds a second supplement to his Petition for
Certiorari, filed on January 28, 2019.
2. New evidence, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) – has
now surfaced with the sworn testimony of the Respondent -
Wells Fargo, specifically, (now former) CEO – Tim Sloan,
before the House Financial Services Committee on March
12, 2019. In his testimony – which included an admission to
mortgage-related abuses, Mr. Sloan states that his company
has reached out to every customer in an effort to resolve
these issues. This testimony clearly contradicts what has
been evidenced in this (and all related State/Federal)
litigation over the past eight (8) years. As evidenced by the
record, Wells Fargo has never once “reached out” to Mr.
Harihar in effort to resolve a single issue related to these
admitted mortgage abuses associated with his Property. In
fact, it is the Petitioner who has in Good Faith – repeatedly
extended opportunities to Wells Fargo (and to all
Respondents) to seek a mutual agreement, only to be
ignored.

In a statement released Thursday, March 14, 2019 by the


House Financial Services Committee, Chairwoman Maxine
Waters (D-CA) stated the following:

“It was very clear from Mr. Sloan’s testimony that Wells
Fargo has failed to clean up its act.” Remarkably, following
his testimony, the OCC publicly rebuked Wells Fargo, citing

8
the bank’s ‘inability to execute effective corporate
governance.’

This Court is respectfully reminded that as a matter of


record: (1) the Department of Justice (DOJ); (2)
Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (MA AGO);
and (3) Federal Bank Regulators, specifically, the OCC4
have all identified these mortgage abuses, recognizing Mr.
Harihar’s Property as an illegal foreclosure.

While jurisdiction remains an issue here, this new evidenced


testimony shows cause to again amend all related
State/Federal complaints and justifies filing a second
supplement to this Petition.5
3. On March 20, 2019, the Respondent - Wells Fargo reached
an agreement to pay more than $13 million to settle a
pending class-action lawsuit (originating in North Carolina)
that accused the bank of “improperly” modifying the
mortgages of borrowers who had declared bankruptcy. The
settlement comes on the heels of Wells Fargo CEO Tim
Sloan’s referenced testimony over the bank’s run of scandals
that include egregious mortgage abuses. Last year, the bank
revealed that an error in its mortgage underwriting
software led to hundreds of improperly denied mortgage
modifications for borrowers facing foreclosure over a five-
year period. This court is respectfully reminded that as a
matter of record, the Plaintiff has for eight (8) years brought
this Wells Fargo “ERROR” or “GLITCH” to the attention of
every State and Federal docket related to this litigation –
only to be ignored.
4. On Thursday, March 28, 2019, National headlines
announced - Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan steps down as
bank struggles to get past scandals.

4 The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is an independent bureau within the
United States Department of the Treasury that was established by the National Currency
Act of 1863 and serves to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and thrift
institutions and the federally licensed branches and agencies of foreign banks in the
United States. The Comptroller of the Currency is Joseph Otting.
5 Reference to related State/Federal litigation includes: (1) US District Court Middlesex

Superior Court Docket No. 1181-CV-04499; (2) Northeast Housing Court Docket No.
11H77SP3032; (3) MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144; (4) Federal Appeal No. 17-
2074, HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (First Circuit); and (5) HARIHAR v HOWARD,
et al, Docket No. 18-cv-11134 (US District Court, Boston, MA).

9
“We have more work to do and that is an ongoing
commitment by all of Wells Fargo’s 260,000 team members
— starting with me — to put our customers’ needs first, to
act with honesty, integrity and accountability; and to strive
to be the best bank in America,” Sloan told the House
committee.

The Plaintiff is certain that collectively, this eight (8) year


litigation has (at least in part) contributed to the Mr. Sloan’s
decision to resign. To be clear – since the Respondents have
refused to even discuss opportunities to reach a mutual
agreement, these latest developments involving Wells
Fargo, combined with the plethora of evidence that already
supports all of the Plaintiff’s consistent claims of record -
show cause for this Court to: (1) finally recognize past erred
judgements by the lower courts; and (2) initiate corrective
action. Furthermore, based on the sworn testimony of Mr.
Sloan, the Plaintiff shows cause to expand upon (or to file a
new) claim(s) of Fraud on the Court against the Respondent
– Wells Fargo and representing counsel of record – David E.
Fialkow, Esq., pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 60(b)(3).6
5. New evidence surfaced from a mortgage fraud audit on
Thursday, March 28, 2019, revealing what appears to be an
improper relationship between MERS Inc.7 and properties
believed to be owned by US Senator (and 2020 Presidential
Candidate) Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)8:

“A WylerOne MERS Mortgage Fraud Audit ™️ reveals too


many “Phantom Mortgage Accounts” on this Cambridge, MA
residence believed to be owned by US Senator (MA) and
2020 Presidential Candidate, Elizabeth Warren. So many
mortgage accounts that the MERS Database can't pull them

6 The Petitioner has similarly brought an incremental Fraud on the Court claim in the
related State litigation, pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).
7 MERS, Inc. is a Defendant in the related State litigation proceeding in the Middlesex

Superior Court (MA). Despite the Petitioner’s efforts to inform the First Circuit Appeals
Court of new evidence under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), the Inferior, Replacement Circuit
Panel issued a (void) order instructing the Clerk to disallow any future filings, including
new evidence.
8 See Exhibit 1. References the Cambridge, MA residence believed to be owned by US

Senator (MA) and 2020 Presidential Candidate, Elizabeth Warren.

10
all up. (More than 20 mortgages will reveal an "EXCEEDS"
in the MERS Database.) Notice, it is a corner lot which
means there may be even more concealed "shadow
mortgages" on this property. We have seen this pattern
before on Congressman, Dave Trott's home in Birmingham,
Michigan and Linda Orlan's home also in Birmingham, MI.
(Owner of Orlans PC) - both owners of Foreclosure Mills
that are under Federal Investigation.”

There are many who suspect that the referenced Federal


investigation involving MERS, Inc. – and its creation (at
least in part) relates to money laundering on a global scale.
(It is the Petitioner’s understanding that MERS has just
been purchased by the Intercontinental Exchange known as
ICE.)

At minimum, this newly discovery relationship shows cause:


(1) for further investigation regarding this relationship
between Senator Warren and MERS, Inc.; and (2) to expand
upon arguments of nonfeasance by legislative leaders in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including Senator
Warren. As a matter of record, the Petitioner has evidenced
the Senator Warren’s clear refusal to acknowledge and
address systemic failures within: (1) the Judicial branch of
government (State and Federal); and (2) the Executive
branch of government – referencing specifically, the
refusal(s) by State/Federal Prosecutors to bring criminal
indictments as it relates to the Plaintiff’s filed criminal
complaints of record.

Through the years – including recent days, Senator Warren


has been quite vocal on the corruption that exists within
Wallstreet and Big Banks - specifically, the Respondent –
WELLS FARGO. However, it remains unclear as to why
Senator Warren has remained completely silent on a
nationally recognized, multibillion-dollar lawsuit that
exposes this corruption – within banking and government in
her own state of Massachusetts. For years (and as a matter
of record), the Plaintiff has regularly updated Senator
Warren directly, via: (1) email communication – a majority

11
of which are part of the historical record9; (2) social media
(Facebook/Twitter); and (3) by phone to her
Boston/Washington D.C. offices, only to be ignored. As a
matter of record, Mr. Harihar successfully presented his
IP/Trade Secret to Senator Warren’s Senior Economic
Advisor – Bruno Freitas.10 The Plaintiff believes: (1) this
improper relationship with the Defendant - MERS, Inc.;
combined with (2) evidenced RICO claims involving the
Commonwealth has (at least in part) played a role in the
Senator’s nonfeasance.
6. New evidence has similarly surfaced from a mortgage fraud
audit on Thursday, April 6, 2019, revealing what appears to
be improper relationships between MERS Inc. and
properties believed to owned by Chief Justice John Roberts11
and separately, by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.12
Furthermore, it is believed that the mortgage associated
with the Chief Justice’s property is held by the Respondent
– WELLS FARGO.

At minimum, these new discoveries show cause for recusal


pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 144. The
Petitioner believes that these improper relationships may
have influenced Justice Breyer’s decision to deny STAY
Application 18A554, on November 27, 2018.13 This Court’s
denial of STAY Application 18A554 again on February 19,
2019 is addressed in the first supplement, filed March 9,
2019. In the first supplement, the Petitioner has requested

9 The Petitioner references the following email address, believed to belong to US Senator
Elizabeth Warren: elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov .
10 The Petitioner references his IP (Intellectual Property)/Trade Secret known as the

“HARIHAR FCS MODEL”.


11 See Exhibit 2. According to public records, this is one (1) of the homes owned by US

Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts. A Wyler0ne Mortgage Fraud Audit™️ reveals
multiple mortgages have been registered on this address according to MERS PUBLIC
records.
12 See Exhibit 3. Similarly, according to public records, this property appears to be owned

by Justice Stephen Breyer. The MERS Database has registered an Unknown Number of
what are believed to be “Fake” or “Shadow” Mortgage Accounts” on Justice Breyer’s
property.
13 The Court is respectfully reminded that a formal judicial misconduct complaint was

brought against Justice Stephen Breyer, after exemplifying an identical pattern of corrupt
conduct to that evidenced by judicial officers in the lower court(s). On December 3, 2019,
the Petitioner delivered a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, informing him of the misconduct
complaint against Justice Breyer. See Exhibit 4.

12
clarification – as to whether the second denial of Petition
18A554 was a unanimous or majority decision. In either
scenario, IF Chief Justice Roberts and/or Justice Breyer
voted to DENY the STAY Application, the argument can be
made that these improper relationships with MERS and the
Respondent - WELLS FARGO may have (at least in part)
influenced their decision(s), thus warranting recusal. Based
on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of the law, this latest
discovery - coupled with the erred denial of STAY
Application 18A554, calls now for the disqualification of
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer from ruling further
on this Petition, or any related litigation. Any objective
observer would agree.
7. On April 7, 2019, a new discovery was brought to the
attention of the Petitioner involving US Attorney Andrew
Lelling (MA)14:

“A WylerOne MERS Mortgage Fraud Audit ™️ reveals


several Active Mortgage Accounts in MERS that appear to
reconcile with the public courthouse records. Three active
mortgages with JP Morgan Chase, Provident, and Quicken
Loans are suspect. His mortgage appears to be a NON
brokered Fannie/Freddie Mortgage with MERS…. A deeper
dive on these two audits needs to be reviewed by multiple
Federal Agencies. TCR Submission Number TCR
1396287669244.”

As a respectful reminder, this court is already aware that as


a matter of record, evidenced criminal complaints have long
been filed with the FBI and DOJ against all named
Respondents. However, Federal Prosecutors have (for
reasons unknown) refused to bring criminal indictments.
This (in part) is the reason why the Petitioner necessarily
filed a separate lawsuit (as required by federal law) against
The United States for violations which include (but are not
limited to) RICO, Color of Law and Due Process violations.15

14See Exhibit 5
15The Petitioner references HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074. As a
reminder, this appeal included the recusal of the initial Circuit Panel, Circuit Judges:
Barron, Kayatta and Torruella. The replacement Circuit Panel, consisting of: Chief Judge
Howard, Circuit Judge Lipez and Circuit Judge Thompson is similarly considered as

13
This court is respectfully reminded that this newly
discovered relationship with MERS Inc. is not the only
improper relationship of record involving the US Attorney’s
Office (MA). The Petitioner restates that an improper
relationship has long been evidenced involving the US
Attorney’s Office (MA), the MA Attorney General’s Office,
and former Bank attorneys for the Respondents – WELLS
FARGO and US BANK – referencing the WestEdLegal
course entitled, “After the Bubble Bursts”. Collectively,
these improper relationships involving the US Attorney’s
Office (MA) and US Attorney Lelling himself are believed to
contribute (at least in part) to nonfeasance claims against
the Executive Branch.16
8. In the related state litigation – proceeding in the Middlesex
Superior Court (MA, Docket No. 1981-CV-00050), identical
patterns of corrupt conduct have now called for the recusal
of presiding Judge Kenneth J Fishman – who exemplified
unnecessary judicial delay by refusing to clarify the Court’s
jurisdiction and the void transfer order originating from the
MA Land Court. On March 19, 2019, Judge Fishman issued
an order, scheduling a Rule 16 Conference of all parties.
However, there was no reference to jurisdiction issues.
Therefore, based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of the law,
the order is considered void, as it is believed to have been
issued without jurisdiction. By issuing the order, Judge
Fishman is considered to have “Warred against the
Constitution” – an act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,
Section 3. As required by Federal law (and as a matter of
record), the Petitioner notified: (1) The Middlesex Superior
Court; (2) Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA); and (3) President
Trump (via www.whitehouse.gov).
9. On April 2, 2019, a new discovery revealed what appears to
be an improper relationship involving a property owned by
Judge Fishman and the Defendant – MERS, Inc. A
WylerOne MERS Mortgage Fraud Audit™️ reveals what
appears to be counterfeit or “shadow” mortgage accounts

inferior, for exemplifying the same identical pattern of corrupt conduct as the initial panel.
Therefore, the dismissal order associated with Appeal No. 17-2074 is considered VOID.
16 See Exhibit 6, to view the February 17, 2019 email delivered to Massachusetts Governor

Charlie Baker (R-MA), followed by the evidenced improper relationship, "After the Bubble
Bursts" that justifies the Petitioner’s RICO claim.

14
Registered in MERS and how they are distributed by
property address on the ENTIRE street of Clematis Rd in
Lexington, MA.17
10. On April 4, 2019, an Order was issued by the Superior
Court, indicating a date change for the Rule 16 Conference
to April 24, 2019 – and what appears to be the recusal of
Judge Fishman, with the announcement of the Hon. Judge
Maureen Hogan presiding. Again, there was no reference to
jurisdiction issues.
11. Collectively, the Petitioner’s evidenced claims against the
Respondents and (Federal/State) Judicial Officers indicate
what appears as the intention (at least in part) to
ultimately: (1) Avoid setting legal precedent for all parties
negatively impacted by illegal foreclosure; (2) Critically
damage the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret,
known as the “HARIHAR FCS MODEL” – designed to
deliver substantial economic growth to the Commonwealth
and The United States (including substantial relief to
illegally foreclosed homeowners Nationwide); and (3) Cause
greater harm and damages to the Plaintiff – Mohan A.
Harihar.
12. A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Request has just been
filed with the Office of the Attorney General on April 8,
201918, requesting the following information:
a. ALL records which led to the decision not to bring
criminal indictments for criminal complaints officially
filed by Mohan A. Harihar with the FBI and DOJ.
These evidenced allegations are directly associated
with the following civil complaints: (1) HARIHAR v
US BANK et al, SCOTUS Certiorari Petition No. 18-
7752; (2) HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES,
Appeal No. 17-2074; and (3) HARIHAR v HOWARD,
Docket No. 18-cv-11134;
b. ALL records involving mortgage-related abuses by
Mortgage Servicer/Bank lenders - WELLS FARGO
and US BANK NA (as Trustee);
c. ALL records involving securitization issues/
infractions associated with the RMBS Trust - CMLTI
2006 AR-1;

17 See Exhibit 7.
18 See Exhibit 8.

15
d. ALL records showing results of the investigation into
the double funding/double pledging of mortgage loans
originated by Wyler Mortgage Group, LLC and all
information regarding the Whistleblower
Investigation No. TCR1396287669244. Please note,
several audits of MERS conducted by Ms. Wyler are
associated with SCOTUS Certiorari Petition No. 18-
7752.
13. It bears repeating where - if this Court reconsiders its
decision and grants both a STAY of judgement and
assistance with the appointment of counsel, there would
then be an opportunity to explore the First Circuit’s Civil
Appeals Management Plan (CAMP), governed by Rule 33 of
the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and First Circuit
Local Rule 33.0. Local Rule 33.0 mandates alternative
dispute resolution of all civil appeals. The purpose of the
CAMP program is to provide a confidential forum in which
to promote settlement where feasible, simplify the issues on
appeal, and address procedural questions and any other
matters that may assist in the disposition of the proceeding.
Since the Petitioner has repeatedly (and wrongfully) been
denied assistance under 28 U.S.C. §1915, the CAMP
program was previously not an available option. The
Petitioner respectfully reminds the Court that he has in
Good Faith, historically offered multiple opportunities to the
opposing parties in an effort to reach a mutual agreement.
Opposing parties have either denied or ignored all of the
Petitioner’s efforts. At minimum, exploring the CAMP
option would certainly aid with judicial economy moving
forward.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

A. Upon Review of this Certiorari Petition and its Two (2)


Supplements - a Failure to Ultimately Grant Certiorari will
Undoubtedly Confirm a Systemic Breakdown within Every
Level of the Federal (and State) Judiciary(s) – Including this
United States Supreme Court.

The Court is respectfully reminded that number one (1) reason


for granting Certiorari is the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court

16
claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). The record shows that this
irrefutable fact has been completely ignored by every presiding
judge, dating back to the District Court and which ultimately
led to the recusal of inferior Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. It
remains unclear as to why the District Court never voided the
Dismissal (and every other) order, following Judge Burroughs’
recusal.

Even if: (1) Application No. 18A554 is granted; (2) the


Petitioner is assigned counsel; and (3) all parties enter in to
mediation under Fed. R. App. P. 33 – it is the Petitioner’s
understanding that he is still under no obligation to reach an
agreement, considering the unopposed Fraud on the Court
claim(s) and what must result in a Default judgement in favor
of the Petitioner, with prejudice. However, the Petitioner is
aware that in a $42B lawsuit, a default judgement stands to
bring severe financial consequences to all Respondents. The
Petitioner makes clear that it has never been his intention to
bankrupt the Commonwealth or to potentially disrupt financial
markets. In fact, the Petitioner has evidenced that his IP/Trade
Secret was created to accomplish just the opposite – ultimately
providing a beneficial solution for: (1) all parties; (2) the
government; (3) this Nation’s Economy; and (4) illegally
foreclosed homeowners Nationwide. As a sign of his continued
Good Faith, Mr. Harihar MAY be willing to consider entering
into an agreement on the civil portions of this complaint.19

However, if ultimately a mutual agreement is not reached


through the CAMP program, this Court must grant Certiorari.

19The Court and the Respondents are reminded that if the parties are unable to reach a
mutual agreement, the dollar amount for damages is currently set at one percent (1%) of
the estimated value of the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, $42B.

17
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner – Mohan A. Harihar


respectfully states that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice
Stephen Breyer are considered to have lost jurisdiction and are
disqualified from ruling further in this litigation. Moving
forward, this Court should first: (1) Re-establish jurisdiction,
recognizing grounds for recusal and potentially, removal under
ARTICLE II, where applicable; (2) Once jurisdiction has been
re-established, this Court should re-consider its decision and
grant Application No. 18A554; (3) Once the STAY of judgement
is initiated and the Petitioner has successfully been appointed
counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915, there would then be an
opportunity to explore the First Circuit’s Civil Appeals
Management Plan (CAMP), governed by Rule 33 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure and First Circuit Local Rule 33.0.
(4) Provide the requested Clarification for the record, including
subpoenas for the purpose of investigating referenced MERS
Fraud audits20;

If efforts to reach a mutual agreement through the CAMP


program prove to be unsuccessful, the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari should be granted – at minimum, based on the
unopposed Fraud on the Court claims(s) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3).

If however, after re-establishing jurisdiction and following a


thorough review of the historical record, this Supreme Court
fails to acknowledge and re-affirm any of the Petitioner’s
evidenced claims, confirmation of a failed judicial system will
be evidenced by The United States of America. The Petitioner
believes he will then be compelled to bring this matter to the
attention of President Trump and the members of Congress.
Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of
Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims
pertain to: (1) Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers;
(2) Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) Criminal SEC

20Subpoenas are necessary to learn who funded and registered referenced MERS accounts,
including the MERS Employee associated with registering the account. The first seven
digits of the MIN (MERS Identification Number) reveals the identity of who registered that
account.

18
violations; and (4) matters believed to impact National/
Homeland Security, copies of this Certiorari Petition are
necessarily delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media)
to:
1. POTUS;
2. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
3. US Secret Service;
4. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
5. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
6. US Attorney General William Barr;
7. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C.
Duff;
8. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
9. Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Senate
Judiciary Committee;
10. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House
Judiciary Committee;
11. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
12. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
13. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
14. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)
A copy will also be made available to the Public and to media
outlets nationwide out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s
personal safety and security. If this Court has questions
regarding any portion of this Petition, or requires additional
information, the Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

Respectfully submitted.

Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner - Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

19
SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX
Second Supplement Petition for Certiorari
HARIHAR v US BANK, et al
Petition N. 18-7752

20
SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit 1, ……………………......................................................................... 22
Exhibit 2, ...................................................................................................... 27
Exhibit 3, ...................................................................................................... 34
Exhibit 4 ……………………………………………………………………………39
Exhibit 5 …………………………………………………………………………....44
Exhibit 6 …………………………………………………………………………….52
Exhibit 7 ……………………………………………………………………….…...59
Exhibit 8 …………………………………………………………………………....64

Addendum 1 Federal (and Local) Rule of Appellate Procedure 33……....... 69


Addendum 2 Article II………………………………………..…………………... 71

*Please note, all other Constitutional and Statutory references can be found
in Appendix B.

21
Exhibit 1

22
23
24
25
26
Exhibit 2

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Exhibit 3

34
35
36
37
38
Exhibit 4

39
December 3, 2018

The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.


Chief Justice
United States Supreme Court
One First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

I respectfully bring to your attention a recent development involving


ongoing litigation being brought before this Supreme Court and an
interpreted act of misconduct by the Honorable Justice Stephen Breyer. It
would appear (at least on its surface) that a pattern of corrupt conduct –
identical to that evidenced in the US District and Appellate Courts (First
Circuit), has now been evidenced by Justice Breyer on November 27, 2018.
The referenced litigation is HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-
1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880). The two (2) Applications that
were filed with this Court (prior to filing a Certiorari Petition) and which
ultimately warranted filing a formal complaint21 are:

21On December 2, 2018, a formal complaint was submitted via email communication to the
direct attention of Deputy Clerk Laura Wood (See attached email in its entirety). The
referenced litigation involves a lengthy list of extraordinary circumstances and unresolved
issues previously acknowledged by Justice Stephen Breyer on June 8, 2018. This list of
extraordinary issues includes evidenced claims against judicial officers including (but not
limited to) Treason, Economic Espionage and matters believed to impact National Security.
Therefore, parties copied on the email included:(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. POTUS was necessarily informed by
separate email, www.whitehouse.gov . The PUBLIC also received a copy of the referenced
email and attached documents out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s personal
safety and security.

40
1. Application No. 17A1359 – request for a 60-day timeline extension
for filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Granted); and
2. Application No. 18A554 – request for a stay of judgment until all of
the extraordinary circumstances and identified issues, previously
acknowledged by Justice Breyer, have been resolved (Application
denied without cause).

Collectively, the Petitioner has evidenced what is believed to be an


unprecedented, egregious abuse of power exemplified by the First Circuit
Appeals Court and the lower District Court. As evidenced by the record, a
review of the referenced Appeal and the related litigation shows: (a) There
have been a total of eight (8) recusals; (b) Eight (8) out of Ten (10) First
Circuit judges are considered disqualified, including Chief Judge Jeffrey R.
Howard; (c) Collectively, fourteen (14) judicial officers (combined District
and Circuit Court) stand accused of judicial misconduct and based on the
Petitioner’s interpretation of Federal law, are considered disqualified from
ruling further in this Appeal or any related litigation; and (d) Nine (9)
judicial officers stand accused of Treason under Article III, Section 3 of the
United States Constitution for continuing to rule without jurisdiction. The
accused judicial officers have failed to provide any valid response that
denies or refutes a single judicial misconduct claim, including Treason.

After acknowledging these evidenced claims on June 8, 2018, Justice


Breyer’s decision to now deny the requested stay of judgment (without
cause) reveals what is interpreted as a pattern of corrupt conduct, identical
to that evidenced in the lower courts. It also appears (at least on its surface)
that Justice Breyer intends now to similarly brush aside all future petitions
in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.

Public confidence in the Supreme Court and in the fair administration of


justice is vital to our democracy, and the best way to bolster that confidence

41
is to ensure that the highest court is committed to maintaining the highest
standards for integrity and impartiality.

After reviewing the Judicial Codes of Conduct, it is the Petitioner’s


interpretation that one concept is nearly universal: judges are required to
avoid both actual impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (“the
appearance standard”).22 In fact, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in
Caperton noted this commonality and further explained the importance of
such standards, in remarking that codes of conduct “serve to maintain the
integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law.”23 Respectfully, as evidenced
by the record, any objective observer who has followed this litigation from
the beginning will conclude: (1) a failure to adhere to such standards; (2)
that the integrity of the First Circuit Judiciary has long been compromised;
and (3) if left uncorrected, the integrity of The United States Supreme
Court will too, be considered compromised.

I respectfully seek your help in addressing: (1) these extraordinary,


unresolved issues; (2) the applicability of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges including the U.S. Supreme Court; and (3) how the Court holds
justices accountable to its ethical standards.

Your Honor, I love my country – The United States of America. I have


sworn an allegiance to our flag and to our Great Nation my entire life:

22 See, e.g., ABA MODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Canon 1 (2011) (“A judge shall
uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and
shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”); Raymond J. McKoski,
Judicial Discipline and the Appearance of Impropriety: What the Public Sees is What the
Judge Gets, 94 MINN. L. REV. 1914, 1985 (2010) [hereinafter McKoski, Judicial
Discipline] (noting that North Carolina and Oregon are the only two states to have
abandoned the appearance standard).
23 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Co., 556 U.S. 868, 889 (2009)

42
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.”

I pray that this pledge still has meaning.

Thank you for your attention to this very serious and sensitive matter.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

43
Exhibit 5

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Exhibit 6

52
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>

CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS - HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Docket No.


1981CV00050

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 2:37 PM

To: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>

Cc: lwood@supremecourt.gov, NewYorkComplaints Dojoig


<dojoig.newyorkcomplaints@usdoj.gov>, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov,
theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, christina.sterling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov,
Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, lori.trahan@mail.house.gov, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us,
igo-fightfraud@state.ma.us, maura.healey@state.ma.us, jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us,
chairmanoffice@sec.gov, CommissionerJackson@sec.gov, CommissionerPeirce@sec.gov,
CommissionerStein@sec.gov, Susan Goldberg <susan_goldberg@ca1.uscourts.gov>

Dear Governor Baker,

It again becomes necessary to bring to your attention the evidenced failure(s) of MA


Attorney General MAURA HEALEY - to bring criminal indictments against named
Defendants in the above referenced litigation proceeding in the Middlesex Superior
Court. Respectfully, you are aware that this is nothing new, as I have regularly brought this
INACTION to your attention (as a matter of record) and previously to the attention of
Governor Patrick's administration over the past EIGHT (8) years. You are also aware that it
is this continued failure that has shown cause (at least in part) to include the
Commonwealth (and former AG Martha Coakley) as Defendants in the related Federal
Litigation now before SCOTUS (Reference HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Certiorari
Petition 18-7752). You are respectfully reminded that aside from evidenced Color of Law,
Due Process and (Unopposed) Fraud on the Court claims, I have evidenced RICO
claims involving: (1) the Massachusetts AGO; (2) the US Attorney's Office (MA); and (3) the
(former) representing law firm for Bank Defendants - US BANK and WELLS FARGO
(Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, LLP). Click on the attachment below to view the
evidenced RICO claim - "After the Bubble Bursts". This TEXTBOOK case of
COLLUSION identifies an IMPROPER relationship that - at least in part, provides an
irrefutable argument as to WHY criminal indictments have NEVER been brought by the MA
AGO.

53
And then there's the judicial misconduct that has been irrefutably evidenced by both the
Federal and MA State judiciaries - now TWICE acknowledged by the United States
Supreme Court. This includes formal TREASON claims under ARTICLE III, brought
against NINE (9) Federal judges. As required by Federal Law, I have notified you directly
following each violation, yet your office remains silent.

It has NEVER been my intention to expose such historic levels of corruption between
BANKING and GOVERNMENT. Evidenced failures in all three (3) branches of state and
federal government is the reason why we're in this legal position now. I've also never
intended to BANKRUPT this Commonwealth - considering if there is no agreement and the
law is actually upheld, the Commonwealth will be responsible for its portion of $42B
(excluding treble damages for evidenced RICO claims). Again, these evidenced
government failures bring us to where we are today. My legal intentions from the beginning
have been quite clear:

1. To recoup damages from MY ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE - as identified by the MA


AGO, DOJ and Federal Bank Regulators;
2. To recoup damages for MY Intellectual Property/Trade Secret known as the
"HARIHAR FCS MODEL"; and
3. To reach an agreement with the Commonwealth and the Federal Government to
potentially implement this Economic Model - helping all those negatively
impacted by illegal foreclosure while generating historic economic growth for
this Commonwealth and the Nation.

Please be advised, the Middlesex Superior Court has an opportunity now to correct some
of its past erred judgments and I'm now respectfully calling for the MA AGO to TIMELY
bring criminal indictments against ALL named Defendants in the referenced Docket
No. 1981CV00050. Should the Commonwealth initiate such corrective action, I will plan to
notify/update SCOTUS via a supplement to Petition No. 18-7752. Conversely, should this
collective pattern of corrupt conduct continue, SCOTUS will similarly be notified of this
NEW evidenced government failure, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).

For documentation purposes, a copy of this email will be filed with the Middlesex Superior
Court. Copies will also be made available to: (1) POTUS

(via www.whitehouse.gov); (2) the US Secret Service/ Department of Homeland Security;


(3) the DOJ; (4) members of Congress; (5) the Public; and (6) to media outlets nationwide
out of continued concerns for my personal safety and security. If you have any questions
regarding any portion of this email, or require additional information, please
advise. Governor Baker, thank you for your attention to this very serious and sensitive
matter. I look forward to your response.

GOD BLESS THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE UNITED


STATES OF AMERICA!

54
Respectfully submitted,

Mohan A. Harihar

7124 Avalon Drive

Acton, MA 01720

617.921.2526

Mo.harihar@gmail.com

After the Bubble Bursts.pdf


251K

55
56
57
58
Exhibit 7

59
60
61
62
63
Exhibit 8

64
65
66
67
68
Addendum 1

Rule 33. Appeal Conferences

The court may direct the attorneys—and, when appropriate, the parties—to
participate in one or more conferences to address any matter that may aid in
disposing of the proceedings, including simplifying the issues and discussing
settlement. A judge or other person designated by the court may preside over
the conference, which may be conducted in person or by telephone. Before a
settlement conference, the attorneys must consult with their clients and
obtain as much authority as feasible to settle the case. The court may, as a
result of the conference, enter an order controlling the course of the
proceedings or implementing any settlement agreement.

Local Rule 33.0. Civil Appeals Management Plan

Pursuant to Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the United


States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit adopts the following plan to
establish a Civil Appeals Management Program, said Program to have the
force and effect of a local rule.

(a) Pre-Argument Filing; Ordering Transcript. Upon receipt of the Notice of


Appeal in the Court of Appeals, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals shall notify
Settlement Counsel of the appeal. Within 14 days after the case is docketed
in the Court of Appeals, appellant shall file with the Clerk of the Court of
Appeals, and serve on all other parties a statement, in the form of the
Docketing Statement required by Local Rule 3.0(a), detailing information
needed for the prompt disposition of an appeal. The Parties shall provide
Settlement Counsel with such additional information about the appeal as
Settlement Counsel may reasonably request.

(b) Pre-Argument Conference; Pre-Argument Conference Order.

(1) In cases where he may deem this desirable, the Settlement Counsel,
who shall be appointed by the Court of Appeals, may direct the
attorneys, and in certain cases the clients, to attend a pre-argument
conference to be held as soon as practicable before him or a judge
designated by the Chief Judge to consider the possibility of settlement,
the simplification of the issues, and any other matters which the
Settlement Counsel determines may aid in the handling or the
disposition of the proceeding.

69
(2) At the conclusion of the conference, the Settlement Counsel shall
consult with the Clerk concerning the Clerk’s entry of a Conference
Order which shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding.

(c) Confidentiality. The Settlement Counsel shall not disclose the substance
of the Pre-argument Conference, nor report on the same, to any person or
persons whomsoever (including, but not limited to, any judge). The attorneys
are likewise prohibited from disclosing any substantive information
emanating from the conference to anyone other than their clients or co-
counsel; and then only upon receiving due assurance that the recipients will
honor the confidentiality of the information. See In re Lake Utopia Paper
Ltd., 608 F.2d 928 (2nd Cir. 1979). The fact of the conference having taken
place, and the bare result thereof (e.g., “settled,” “not settled,” “continued”),
including any resulting Conference Order, shall not be considered to be
confidential.

(d) Non-Compliance Sanctions.

(1) If the appellant has not taken each of the actions set forth in section
(a) of this Program, or in the Conference Order, within the time therein
specified, the appeal may be dismissed by the Clerk without further
notice.

(2) Upon the failure of a party or attorney to comply with the provisions
of this rule or the provisions of the court's notice of settlement
conference, the court may assess reasonable expenses caused by the
failure, including attorney's fees; assess all or a portion of the appellate
costs; dismiss the appeal; or take such other appropriate action as the
circumstances may warrant.

(e) Grievances. Any grievances as to the handling of any case under the
Program will be addressed by the Court of Appeals, and should be sent to the
Circuit Executive, One Courthouse Way, Suite 3700, Boston, MA 02210, who
will hold them confidential on behalf of the Court of Appeals unless release
is authorized by the complainant.

(f) Scope of Program. The Program will include all civil appeals and review
of administrative orders, except the following: It will not include original
proceedings (such as petitions for mandamus), prisoner petitions, habeas
corpus petitions, summary enforcement actions of the National Labor
Relations Board, social security appeals, petitions for review from orders of
the Board of Immigration Appeals, or any pro se cases. Nothing herein shall
prevent any judge or panel, upon motion or sua sponte, from referring any
matter to the Settlement Counsel at any time.

70
The foregoing Civil Appeals Management Program shall be applicable to all
such cases as set forth above, arising from the District Courts in the Districts
of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, in which the
Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals on or after January 1,
1992; and all such cases arising from the District Court in the District of
Puerto Rico, in which the Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals
on or after January 1, 1993.

Addendum 2

Article II, Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

71
IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States


____________
No. 18-7752
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Petitioner,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
____________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
____________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, do swear or declare that on


this date, April 10, 2019 , as required by Supreme Court Rule 29 I
have served the enclosed SECOND SUPPLEMENT PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI on each party to the above proceeding or
that party’s counsel, and on every other person required to be served,
by depositing an envelope containing the above documents in the
United States mail properly addressed to each of them and with first-
class postage prepaid, or by delivery to a third-party commercial
carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days.:

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.

72
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.

73
Solicitor General of the United States
Attn: Solicitor General - Noel Francisco
Department of Justice, Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
202.514.2203

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

74

You might also like