Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-2074
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Appellee )
)
The Appellant respectfully prefaces this EMERGENCY MOTION with the following
Disclosure statement:
The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in the Civil Complaint against THE UNITED
STATES, this associated Appeal, and in the RELATED Appeal,1 include (but are not limited
to) evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution,
Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and are believed to impact matters of
National Security. Therefore, copies of this filed MOTION are sent via email, social media
and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of the President (EOP), the US Inspector
1
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-cv-1381 (Also,
lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Senate and House of Representatives, the House Judiciary Committee, House Oversight
Committee and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be made
Parties are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who collectively for over two (2) years is STILL
wrongfully forced to represent himself as a PRO SE litigant, respectfully files this DEMAND
JUDICIAL DELAY. The historical record(s) reveals that the Appellant has repeatedly raised
jurisdiction issues dating back to at least AUGUST 2016, only to be IGNORED over and over
again. This is evidenced: 1.) Here, in this appeal; 2.) In the lower court docket no. 17-cv-
11109; 3.) In the related appeal no. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al; and 4.) In its
related lower court docket no. 15-cv-11880. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on
the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacating with damages, and can never
be time barred.
2
The Appellant calls reference to the Dismissal orders associated with Docket No.’s 17-cv-
11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also 15-cv-11880, HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al. which are considered issued WITHOUT JURISDICTION, as evidenced by the
historical record.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021; U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977): “Silence can
only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry
conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be
The lengthy (and still growing) list of evidenced claims identifying jurisdiction (and other) issues
has necessarily led to bringing Judicial Misconduct claims (all of which stand as
UNOPPOSED) against TEN (10) Federal (Circuit and District) Court Judges, and includes
misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (6 counts,
including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
misconduct including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
including (but not limited to) TREASON under ARTICLE III (1 counts,
8. US Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (US District Court (NH), serving as a member of
the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 90033);
9. US District Court Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. (US District Court (RI), serving as a
member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033);
10. US District Court Judge John David Levy (US District Court (ME), serving as a
member of the Judicial Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033);
VACATE JUDGEMENTS
These UNRESOLVED issues, evidenced by the historical record(s) include (but are not limited
The US Constitution alleged against FOUR (4) Federal (Circuit and District) Judges,
PURSUANT to 18 U.S. Code § 2382, brought against three (3) additional officers of
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
the Court3 and twenty-one (21) parties in the related litigation, HARIHAR v. US BANK
et al;
delaying WITHOUT CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to Assist with the
COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial
Code of Conduct;
9. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of
Law;
10. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
11. Failing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
3
Misprision of Treason claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2382 are filed against Circuit Clerk –
ROBERT M. FARRELL, Circuit Clerk MARGARET CLARK and Deputy Clerk –
MATTHEW A. PAINE;
4
The Appellant draws reference to the related case, Harihar v. US Bank et al, where the Court
(Both District and Appellate) repeatedly failed to acknowledge the CLEARLY EVIDENCED
and UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant, Mohan A.
Harihar. By Federal Law, a DEFAULT judgement in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant – Mohan
A. Harihar SHOULD HAVE already been issued.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
12. Failing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
13. Failing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his personal
14. Failing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as
Jurisdiction;
17. Failing to address repeated requests to TIMELY VALIDATE the referenced Dismissal
Order(s);
20. REFUSAL(S) to RECUSE by both Circuit and District Court judges. It is important to
note, that while US District Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs refused to recuse
IMMEDIATE RECUSAL for the EXACT SAME REASONS when assigned to the
is certainly recognized;
22. Failing to address the well evidenced and continued PATTERN of CORRUPT
A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.5A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however,
will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).6 A party seeking to void the
judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting subject-matter jurisdiction
over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claim
amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial power.”7 Only when the jurisdictional error is
“egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void.8 A judgment may also be void under
The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments IN
EACH of the issues listed in the prior section. ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would
suggest that VALIDATING JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is
certainly appropriate. HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) thus
far exemplifies what MAY be collectively considered the largest, and certainly most
can certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to be
a set agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar
5
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
6
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
7
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v.
Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).
8
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
When considering other reasons besides jurisdiction that justify relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)
is also considered applicable - referencing: 1.) The list of issues from the prior section, and 2.)
Property/Trade Secret protected under The Economic Espionage Act, and its perceived
IV. MOTIVE
arguments are certainly made to show an intention to prevent precedent(s) from being set, as
counsel. A just resolution in favor of the Plaintiff/Appellant would (at minimum) set
and Federal Bank Regulators. For example - If you have 4.2M potential lawsuits which
now can rely on precedent, each suit averaging $1M, total legal risk becomes $4.2T. Now
U.S.C. §1915.
And that’s JUST the beginning… The historical record shows that EVERY PRESIDING
JUDGE (along with Defendants/Appellees) associated with this litigation has failed to even
mention or reference the words Economic Espionage, National Security, or the Appellant’s
deliver $5T in Economic growth to the United States. As a matter of record, the Court, and
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
ALL parties are well-aware of meritorious presentations the Appellant has made to
numerous government offices including (but not limited to): the Congressional offices of
Deputy Chief Counsel (former) of the House Financial Services Committee – Gail Laster,
and the Executive Office of the President (EOP) (under the Obama Administration) – per
While further investigation is certainly warranted, the argument for MOTIVE can again be
made, where Officers of the Court have conspired to damage the Appellant’s Intellectual
Nevertheless, whatever the motive, there is NO justification for their misconduct. To the
extent that referenced District and Circuit judges have so egregiously abused their authority,
the Court should certainly vacate the judgements in both affected cases9 and award maximum
Morrison v. Coddington, 662 P. 2d. 155, 135 Ariz. 480 (1983): Fraud and deceit may arise
from silence where there is a duty to speak the truth, as well as from speaking an untruth. In
regard to courts of record: “If the court is not in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, but of
9
Reference is made to this case, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, and also to
HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
some special statutory jurisdiction, it is as to such proceeding an inferior court, and not aided
Smith's Leading Cases, 816: In regard to courts of inferior jurisdiction, “if the record does not
show upon its face the facts necessary to give jurisdiction, they will be presumed not to have
existed.”
the above quotes. Therefore, the meaning of fraud should be noted: Fraud. An intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some
matter of fact… which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it
to his legal injury. … It consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with
intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him injury… (Emphasis added)
–Black’s Law Dictionary Fifth Edition, page 594. Then take into account the case of McNally
v. U.S., 483 U.S. 350, 371-372, Quoting U.S. v Holzer, 816 F.2d. 304, 307 Fraud in its
elementary common law sense of deceit… includes the deliberate concealment of material
public… and if he deliberately conceals material information from them he is guilty of fraud.
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
V. CONCLUSION
COURT and others go UNANSWERED AND IGNORED for a year and a half, there is just
cause to (at minimum): 1.) Attack the Court’s integrity; 2.) Vacate impacted Judgement(s),
and considering the severity of issues 3.) Bring these matters to the attention of the President,
While the Appellant realized that undertaking this MONUMENTAL legal battle would
likely be a long road, NEVER did he anticipate the level of corruption so blatantly
evidenced by this judiciary. The Appellant makes clear that – based on the historical record, he
has understandably LOST ALL FAITH in this FEDERAL JUDICIARY to uphold the law,
and is certain that ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER would reach the same conclusion.
THEREFORE, for the reasons stated within and by the evidenced record(s), the Appellant –
Mohan A. Harihar respectfully calls for a Court - WITH JURISDICTION to: 1.) VACATE
referenced judgements which are considered VOID, and 2.) AWARD the Appellant the
HARIHAR v THE UNITED STATES (Appeal No. 17-2074) it is clear that there is only one
(1) party – the Appellee, that bears responsibility. However, in the related case, HARIHAR v.
US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381), the argument can be made that while the record reveals
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT, such egregious abuse evidenced by this Federal Judiciary MAY
either: 1.) Supersede the referenced DEFAULT, or 2.) Proportionately assess damages payable
by Appellees/Defendants AND the United States. There is also CLEAR EXPECTATION for
the Court to assess professional licensure penalties (including, but not limited to disbarment)
against referenced Defendants/Appellees where it is warranted and for the Department of Justice
(DOJ) to TIMELY provide an update with regard to the Appellants RELATED CRIMINAL
complaints of record.
Finally, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully states that once these referenced
judgements have been appropriately vacated and damages have been rightfully awarded as
stated, the intention remains to align with The United States for the purpose of implementing the
paving the way to historical economic growth and prosperity for our great Nation.
For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this document to the President,
confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment A) with the filed Court copy. A duplicate
copy of this motion is also filed under the related Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this Motion, the Appellant is happy
to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate, hearing and with the
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Attachment A
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
Case: 17-2074 Document: 00117237305 Page: 17 Date Filed: 12/23/2017 Entry ID: 6140483
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 23, 2017 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following
registered CM/ECF users:
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com