IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

APPELLANT REPLY TO APPELLEES OPPOSITION TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Disclosure Statement of the Plaintiff - The Plaintiff respectfully prefaces this REPLY with the

following Disclosure statement:

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal and in the RELATED complaint

against The United States,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 is believed to impact matters of National Security. Therefore, copies of this

filed REPLY are sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to: The Executive Office of

the President (EOP), the US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz, US Attorney General -

Jeff Sessions, members of the US Senate and House of Representatives, the House

1
The related complaint references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-
11109.
Judiciary Committee, and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). A copy will also be

made available to the Public. THEREFORE, ALL AMERICANS serve as WITNESS to

these evidenced acts of misconduct (alleged). Parties are additionally informed for

documentation purposes, and out of the Appellants continued concerns for personal

safety/security.

After reviewing documents filed by Appellees/Defendants opposing injunctive (and any other)

relief deemed appropriate, the Appellant Mohan A. Harihar respectfully disagrees, and

necessarily files this REPLY based on the following:

1. The SUA SPONTE RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs - The record reveals

a host of well-articulated, evidenced reasons which ultimately brought the judges

recusal. They include the referenced decisions that wrongfully denied injunctive (and

other) appropriate relief to the Appellant/Plaintiff. The Appellant therefore has the right

to attack these related orders, which SHOULD be considered VOID.

Appellees/Defendants continue to ignore this recusal, its impact to this Appeal, and to

ALL related orders. They include (but are not limited to) the DISMISSAL order, orders

which failed to properly address the balance of hardships, and the Courts CLEAR

FAILURE to ASSIST WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. If there is even

the SLIGHTEST question with regard to reasons which led to the referenced recusal, the

Appellant respectfully DEMANDS a separate hearing with presence of an

independent court reporter.

 2. EVEN IF Recusal was not a Factor, the Appellant has clearly articulated

THROUGHOUT the record(s), supported LEGAL and FACTUAL reasons warranting

such relief. HOWEVER, the Appellees/Defendants as well as Judge Burroughs,

IGNORED these fact-based reasons. As is the case here, Appellees/Defendants attempt

to re-write the narrative in a false and deceptive manner to avoid accountability. This

Court is respectfully reminded that a portion of the Appellants original complaint

pertains to WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT from an ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE

AS IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, APPELLEES

MARTHA COAKLEY AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

The record reveals that the lower Court never even took steps to review the balance of

hardships and define the status quo. The record CLEARLY reveals the Appellants

VALID ARGUMENTS that support survival on the merits INCLUDING the four-

factor test, balance of hardships and preserving the status quo. The Appellant is also on

record for requesting MULTIPLE HEARINGS to provide further CLARIFICATION

to document how the Court could possibly have reached its decision(s) based on the

FACTS presented. These requests for hearings were consistently DENIED WITHOUT

CAUSE, contributing in part to the judicial misconduct complaint(s) against Judge

Burroughs. If after a thorough review of the record, there remain ANY questions/doubts

of ERRED judgment AND/OR VOID orders, a separate hearing with the presence of an

independent court reporter is again warranted.

This Court is respectfully reminded that in a $42B Lawsuit the Appellant merely sought an

injunction to re-establish housing and transportation conditions which existed prior to the
referenced ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE and WRONGFUL DISPLACEMENT. Nothing

more, nothing less.

3. Reimbursement of Legal Fees While the Appellant understands that the

reimbursement of legal fees does not fall under injunctive relief, the District court and

this Appeals court has clearly erred by failing to assist this Appellant/Plaintiff with the

appointment counsel under 28 U.S.C. 1915. Despite a TEXTBOOK SCENARIO

warranting the Courts assistance, the issue continues here still, and the Appellant has

made clear that his time is considered NO LESS VALUABLE than that of opposing

counsel. Therefore, the Appellant has charged legal fees which will continue to accrue

until: 1.) The Appellant has successfully secured counsel with the assistance of the Court,

2.) The Appellant has been able to successfully secure counsel on his own, or 3.) A

mutual agreement has been successfully reached with ALL parties, including The United

States. While the reimbursement of legal fees is ordinarily awarded following final

judgement, the ongoing litigation STILL warrants the appointment of counsel, and legal

fees CONTINUE TO ACCRUE DAILY. This Court SHOULD correct the past

erred judgements of record by finally assisting with the appointment counsel and

rightfully awarding reimbursement to the Appellant now, so that this litigation can

CONSRTUCTIVELY move forward. Doing so will also prevent the additional (and

likely a substantially larger) accrual of legal fees if reimbursement to the Appellant is

only addressed following a final judgement.

4. DEMAND for Accountability for Slanderous, Unfounded, and Continued Attacks

The Appellant has consistently provided EVIDENCED FACTS irrefutably

supporting EACH and every one of his CLAIMS ON RECORD, including matters of
 judicial misconduct. Appellees/Defendants continue to attach false, generic labels such

as: abusive litigant, frivolous, vexatious, baseless etc... without providing A SINGLE

VALID SUPPORTING ARGUMENT.

It is important to note with regard to ALL Judicial Misconduct Claims related to this

litigation, the accused officers of the Court HAVE NOT DENIED A SINGLE CLAIM,

INCLUDING ACTS OF TREASON. The RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs additionally

shows cause to re-affirm ALL misconduct claims against her, including SIX (6) claims

of treason for ruling without jurisdiction. If the Appellees/Defendants wish to

challenge ANY of these evidenced claims, the Appellant respectfully DEMANDS a

separate hearing with the presence of an independent court reporter. Upon

validation, this Court should assess the appropriate penalties against ALL

Appellees/Defendants, who clearly continue to act in BAD FAITH.

5. Jurisdiction here Remains an Issue The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that

JURISDICTION remains an issue. For synonymous reasons that ultimately brought the

recusal of Judge Burroughs, Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta, Barron, Thompson,

and Chief Justice Howard are considered to have LOST JURISDICTION and are no

longer allowed by law to rule in this (or any related) litigation. ANY attempt(s) to do so

here will be interpreted as acting without jurisdiction, and an Act of Treason under

ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

6. Remaining Questions What IS worthy of further discussion is determining the

percentage of liability between each of the Appellees/Defendants and the Court.

 CONCLUSION

Before any decision here is rendered, jurisdiction must first be re-established. Upon

doing so, based on the reasons stated within and consistently throughout the record, the

Appellant stands by his DEMAND for this Court to finally:

1. Correct prior erred judgements by granting the injunctive relief that re-establishes

a proper balance of hardships as it pertains to housing and transportation. Total

Updated Housing and Transportation Accrual (estimated) is $140,731.26. Please note

there will STILL remain a gap as it pertains to housing that will need to be

addressed in order to re-establish the status quo;

2. Assist the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1915;

3. Grant the Reimbursement of Legal Fees as stated. The calculation of Total Legal

Fees charged (estimated) thru week ending 10/28/17 is $5,320,000;

4. Assess Treble damages for acts proven to have been made in Bad Faith, bringing

the total due to the Appellant - $16,382,193.80 (If received on or before October

28, 2017).

Finally, for documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this court document to the

President, the email from The White House confirming receipt is attached (See Attachment A).

If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this REPLY, the Appellant respectfully restates

his DEMAND for a separate hearing with the presence of an independent court reporter.
Respectfully submitted this 17th Day of October, 2017.

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 17, 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:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod
David E. Fialkow
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Kurt R. McHugh
Jesse M. Boodoo

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Attachment A