Professional Documents
Culture Documents
18-7752
IN THE
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Petitioner
v.
US BANK NA, et al
Respondents
____________
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
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
3
IN THE
v.
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
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.
6
right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress or
the Legislature may not withhold.”
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.
“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.’
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.
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
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.”
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.
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
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:
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.
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.
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
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
*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
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).
41
is to ensure that the highest court is committed to maintaining the highest
standards for integrity and impartiality.
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.”
Thank you for your attention to this very serious and sensitive matter.
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>
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:
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
54
Respectfully submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
55
56
57
58
Exhibit 7
59
60
61
62
63
Exhibit 8
64
65
66
67
68
Addendum 1
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.
(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.
(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
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
____________
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
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