UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. TBD
v. )
)
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Defendant(s) )
)

PLAINTIFF MOTION REQUESTING ASSISTANCE WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1915

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully requests the Courts assistance with

the appointment of counsel. First, the Plaintiff respectfully informs the Court that this complaint

is related to subject matter and associated allegations found within related dockets here in:

1. The District Court (Docket No. 15-cv-11880),

2. The Appeals Court (No. 17-1381),

3. The Judicial Misconduct Petition pending before the Judicial Council of the First Circuit,

Complaint No. 01-16-90033.

The Plaintiffs request to assist with the appointment of counsel is based on the following:

1. The Plaintiff has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND does not have the financial means to

retain counsel. Both of these FACTS have been recognized by this District Court and the

Appeals Court.
2. Based on the claims listed in the submitted SF-95 form and the additional/expanded

allegations raised against the United States since, legal expertise is required in the

following areas in order to proceed in a FAIR and BALANCED manner - ultimately in

the PURSUIT OF JUSTICE (including, but not limited to):

a. Violations to the Due Process Clause;

b. Color of Law Violations;

c. Civil/Criminal RICO Violations;

d. Federal Tort Claims;

e. Treason to the Constitution;

f. Fraud on the Court (Judicial);

g. Judicial Misconduct;

h. Evidenced Acts made in BAD FAITH;

i. Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony);

j. Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Espionage;

k. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;

l. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential

Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure Crisis;

m. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law;

n. Litigation involving State and Federal Government;

o. US District Court Trial Court Litigation;

p. Civil Conspiracy Claims

q. Obstruction of Justice Claims.

3. When the United States is the OPPOSING PARTY (as is the case here) and when the
 interests of the indigent litigant, although not involving his personal liberty, are

fundamental and compelling, due process and fundamental fairness require a presumption

in favor of appointed counsel. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit acknowledged that under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d) the district court has broad

discretion to appoint counsel and that the denial of counsel "will not be overturned

unless it would result in fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights.

The court said that the district court's decision must "rest upon the court's careful

consideration of all the circumstances of the case, with particular emphasis upon certain

factors that have been recognized as highly relevant to a request for counsel.

4. Merits of the Plaintiffs Claim;

5. Position to investigate crucial facts;

6. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented by

persons trained in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination;

7. Capability of the plaintiff to present his case. The court of appeals quoted Gordon v.

Leeke, "If it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a colorable claim but

lacks the capacity to present it, the district court should appoint counsel to assist him.;

8. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the claim(s) raises.

When the law is so clearly settled that counsel will serve no purpose, the court should

deny a request for counsel. When, however, the law is not clear, justice will be better

served if both sides are represented by persons trained in legal analysis.

9. While the Plaintiff understands that assistance with the appointment of counsel is rare, it

SHOULD be recognized that the Courts assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 is clearly

warranted here, in what many would certainly consider as a TEXTBOOK case example.
 10. Refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel will show cause to expand upon

existing claims against the United States. The Plaintiffs filed complaint brings multiple

claims against the United States. The Court is aware that ALL three (3) branches of

government previously received notice of the Plaintiffs legal intentions, including the

required SF-95 form. The Plaintiff (through related litigation) previously offered the

United States opportunities to seek agreement, with multiple efforts (unsuccessful)

through the District court to get a response. Counsel is needed to assist with addressing

these issues, whether it is in reaching a mutual agreement, or continued legal action(s).

Refusing to assist the Plaintiff/Appellant with the appointment of counsel will show cause

to expand upon existing (and potentially new) claims against the United States.

Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my

knowledge, information, and belief that this Notice: (1) is not being presented for an improper

purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) is supported by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or

reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so

identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further

investigation or discovery; and (4) the Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule

11.
If the Court has even the slightest question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Plaintiff is

happy to answer and provide additional clarification upon request.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of June, 2017.

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