Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.

com>

Criminal Complaint Filed Against 1st Circuit Clerk - Maria R. Hamilton

Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com> Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 1:42 PM
To: lwood@supremecourt.gov, susan_goldberg@ca1.uscourts.gov, pacermail@psc.uscourts.gov,
theresa.watson3@usdoj.gov, andrew.lelling@usdoj.gov, mary.murrane@usdoj.gov,
christina.sterling@usdoj.gov
Cc: "Constituent.services@state.ma.us" <constituent.services@state.ma.us>,
elizabeth_warren@warren.senate.gov, Nairoby_Gabriel@warren.senate.gov,
Nora_Keefe@warren.senate.gov, scheduling@warren.senate.gov, sydney_levin-
epstein@markey.senate.gov, june.black@mail.house.gov, maura.healey@state.ma.us, igo-
fightfraud@state.ma.us, ma-igo-general-mail@state.ma.us

To All Email Recipients,

The following criminal complaint has been submitted today, December 31, 2018, to
the FBI by phone against First Circuit Clerk, Maria R. Hamilton. Chief Justice Roberts
and Justice Breyer will receive a copy of this email, filed criminal complaint and
attached documents in a separate Petition delivered by US Mail.

I, Mohan A. Harihar, complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

DEFENDANTS: Maria R. Hamilton, Clerk for the US First Circuit Court of Appeals

CONTACT INFORMATION: John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1

Courthouse Way, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02210, 617.748.9057 (Phone).

ALLEGATIONS AND SUPPORTING FACTS: The crimes alleged against Clerk Hamilton
have occurred in the timeline associated with the (ongoing) litigation - HARIHAR v. US
BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880).

The evidenced allegations conclusively show that on December 28, 2018, Clerk
Maria R. Hamilton refused to accept and docket the Complainant’s filing, following
SCOTUS’ second acknowledgment of extraordinary, unresolved issues (Reference the
12/04/18 ruling by Justice – Stephen Breyer, Application No. 18A-585 including NEW
Discoveries filed 12/28/18 warranting the Court’s immediate attention). In the Clerk’s
12/28/18 Letter to the Complainant, Ms. Hamilton references an issued order dated
October 5, 2018, where the court stated that "no further filings from appellant will be
accepted in this appeal." However, as a matter of record, Ms. Hamilton is aware that
this referenced “order” is considered VOID, as it has been issued by an INFERIOR
replacement Circuit Panel that lacks the jurisdiction to issue such an order.
Furthermore, as a matter of record these Inferior Circuit Judges – including the Chief
Judge, Jeffrey R. Howard, stand formally accused of criminal violations including (but
not limited to): (1) Treason under Article III, Section 3; (2) 18 U.S. Code § 371 -
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; (3) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
(Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831; and (4) 18 U.S. Code Chapter 96 – RICO
violations.

Ms. Hamilton has failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Her
evidenced failure(s) to report Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct
additionally contribute to existing CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the
referenced litigation. These actions (or lack thereof) are believed to have contributed to
the Misappropriation of a Trade Secret (IP) designed to assist the United States with
economic growth/repair associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis. The complainant
believes that upon further investigation, additional claims against Ms. Hamilton are
likely and reserves the right to expand upon/file new claims if deemed necessary.

STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE: The Complainant states that these facts establish
probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following crimes have occurred: (1)
MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; (2) 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy
to commit offense or to defraud The United States; (3) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
(Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831 and (4) Color of Law/Due Process
violations. Supporting Documents are part of the Court record(s) associated with
the referenced litigation and include judicial misconduct complaints/petitions filed
with the Office of the Circuit Executive.

Please be advised, the severity of these evidenced claims including Treason are
perceived to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies of this
criminal complaint are necessarily delivered to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2)
SCOTUS; (3) Director James C. Duff (Administrative Offices of US Courts); (4) The
DOJ; (5) members of Congress and other appropriate
offices/agencies/committees. The PUBLIC and media sources nationwide will
also receive a copy for documentation purposes and out of continued concerns
for the Complainant’s personal safety and security.
Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (mobile)
mo.harihar@gmail.com

3 attachments
12-28-18 Letter from 1st Circuit.pdf
849K
SCOTUS Timeline Ext Docketed w Appels Court 12-12-18.pdf
614K
Appellant DEMAND for Vacating Judgement.pdf
729K
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )

APPELLANT DEMAND TO VACATE JUDGEMENT, RECALL MANDATE, AND

AMEND ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, FOLLOWING: (1) SECOND SCOTUS TIMELINE
EXTENSION; AND (2) DISCOVERY OF NEW EVIDENCE

I. SECOND SCOTUS TIMELINE EXTENSION

On December 4, 2018, United States Supreme Court Justice – Stephen Breyer granted for a

SECOND time, a timeline extension for the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar to file his

Petition for Writ of Certiorari.1 This second extension was again granted based on the list of

extraordinary, unresolved issues associated with this Appeal that STILL remain, following

the recusal of the initial Circuit panel; and as a matter of record, the continued judicial

failures evidenced by the replacement (and similarly inferior) Circuit panel. On December

11, 2018, this Court recorded as part of the docket, the referenced timeline extension from

SCOTUS. However, it remains unclear as to WHY – after three (3) weeks since the

SCOTUS ruling, there has been NO EFFORT by this Court to resolve ANY of the

referenced extraordinary issues, beginning with: (1) RE-ESTABLISHING

1
A 60-day timeline extension was granted to the Appellant to file his Petition for Writ of Certiorari on or before
Monday, January 28, 2019 (See Exhibit 1).
 JURISDICTION; (2) VACATING the JUDGEMENT; (3) RECALLING the

MANDATE; and (4) RECUSAL of the inferior, replacement Circuit panel.

As a respectful reminder, a PARTIAL list of the referenced extraordinary, unresolved issues

- now TWICE acknowledged by Justice Breyer (and recently brought to the attention of

Chief Justice Roberts)2 includes the following:

1. Refusing to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE;

5. Refusing to provide for the record additional details requested by the Appellant

pertaining to the IMPROPER relationship between recused Circuit Judge –

David Barron and Appellee – WELLS FARGO;

6. Refusing to clarify whether or not the same (or similar) improper relationships

warranting recusal exist with any other judicial officer in this Circuit (or with

the lower) Court(s).

7. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

8. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National

Security;

2
See Exhibit 2 to view the Appellant’s 12/3/18 Letter to Chief Justice Roberts, in its entirety.
9. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

delaying WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist

with the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

10. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the

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

11. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on

the COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the

Judicial Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

12. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but

not limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

13. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under

Color of Law;

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

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

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

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

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

20. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the

Appellant, as stated within the record;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

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

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

II. DISCOVERY OF NEW EVIDENCE AND INCREMENTAL MISCONDUCT

A. Please be advised, the Plaintiff has recently been made aware of an approved

Criminal Complaint filed with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission),

involving four (4) parties including Appellee – US BANK. The APPROVED TA-2

Form was submitted for reporting activities of Transfer Agents pursuant to Section

17A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.3 The SEC criminal complaint

addresses INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS OR OMMISSIONS OF FACT

THAT CONSTITUTE FEDERAL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS UNDER 18

U.S.C. 1001 and (2) 15 U.S.C. 78ff(a).4 Based on this new discovery, the Appellant

shows cause to amend his original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and to

expand upon his existing claims against Appellee – US BANK.

B. The Appellant respectfully informs the court of related developments in the

Massachusetts Land Court that reveal patterns of corrupt conduct identical to that

evidenced in these Federal proceedings (as well as in related State courts) - by the

presiding Judge Michael Vhay. A thorough review of the referenced Land Court

Docket No. 18-MISC-000144 (including recorded transcripts) will reveal the

judge’s failure to uphold multiple MA State laws – similarly brushing aside Mr.

3
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is a law governing the secondary trading of securities in the United States
of America. A landmark of wide-ranging legislation, the Act of '34 and related statutes form the basis of regulation
of the financial markets and their participants in the United States. The 1934 Act also established the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the agency primarily responsible for enforcement of United States federal securities law.
4
See Exhibit 3 to view the referenced SEC Criminal Complaint in its entirety.
 Harihar’s evidenced arguments in an apparent effort to reach a corrupt and pre-

determined outcome. The Appellant now shows cause to amend his original

complaint – at minimum, expanding upon existing: (1) Judicial Fraud on the court;

(2) Due Process; and (3) Color of Law Violations here against the Appellee -

Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These evidenced claims of record additionally

show cause to amend the separate complaint – HARIHAR v CHIEF JUDGE

JEFFREY R. HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134; expanding upon the list of

judicial defendants and adding a Tort claim(s) against MA Land Court Judge Michael

Vhay.

C. The named Defendants in the Land Court case include Appellees: (1) WELLS

FARGO; (2) US BANK; (3) Mr. Jeffrey Perkins; and (4) Mrs. Isabelle Perkins.

Collectively, the Defendant’s arguments of record are consistent with the history of

this litigation that at minimum, support Mr. Harihar’s Fraud on the Court claims

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Therefore, the Appellant shows cause to amend his

original complaint and expand upon existing fraud on the court claims against these

Appellees (and their retained counsel of record).5

D. 18 U.S. CODE § 2382 – MISPRISION OF TREASON – the MA Land Court

record will show that formal Treason claims have been filed (by Mr. Harihar) against

Judge Michael Vhay under ARTICLE III Section 3. Serving as witnesses to these

acts of Treason are referenced Appellees, their retained counsel and the MA Land

Court Clerk – Jennifer Masello, all of whom have consciously chosen to remain

5
The Appellant references the retained counsel of Bank Defendants WELLS FARGO and US BANK – David E.
Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP) and Jeffrey Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC). BAR complaints already filed against
referenced counsel will similarly be updated.
 silent. Therefore, the Appellant shows cause to amend his original Federal

complaint(s) and expand upon existing Misprision claims.

Therefore, without any further UNNECESSARY JUDICIAL DELAY (and only AFTER re-

establishing JURISDICTION), the Appellant respectfully calls for this Court to initiate

following actions:

1. RE-ESTABLISH JURISDICTION;

2. VACATE the referenced Judgment;

3. RECALL the Mandate;

4. The RECUSAL of the Inferior Circuit Panel;

5. Based on newly discovered evidence (as described within) – Issue an Order

ALLOWING the Appellant to AMEND his original complaint.

6. The Appellant respectfully requests an UPDATE from the Department of Justice

(DOJ) regarding - forthcoming criminal indictments associated with his filed criminal

complaints.

7. REMOVAL/TRANSFER to SCOTUS, pursuant to (at minimum) 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) -

Since Eight (8) out of Ten (10) – 80% of First Circuit Judges are now considered

DISQUALIFIED to rule further in this, or any related litigation - a second replacement

panel is not an allowable option and this judiciary has made clear that it has no intention

of correcting its evidenced errors. Therefore, this continued pattern of corrupt conduct

warrants removal/transfer to The Supreme Court of the United States.

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of the MOTION to the attention of POTUS,

confirmation of receipt from The White House is attached (See Exhibit 4) with the filed Court

copy. A copy will additionally be delivered to: (1) SCOTUS via email delivery6; (2) Chief

Justice John Roberts via US Mail; (3) Members of Congress; (4) the DOJ; (5) the PUBLIC

and to media sources nationwide, out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal

safety and security. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this motion, Mr. Harihar is

happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with

the presence of an independent court reporter.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration in this very serious and sensitive matter.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December, 2018.

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

6
For documentation purposes, a copy of this motion will sent be via email delivery to US Supreme Court Deputy
Clerk Laurie Wood.