for the
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
MOHAN A HARIHAR )
)
Plaintiff )
) Docket No. TBD
v. )
)
CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD; )
CIRCUIT JUDGE JUAN R. TORUELLA; )
CIRCUIT JUDGE WILLIAM J. KAYATTA, )
JR; )
CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID J. BARRON; )
CIRCUIT JUDGE O. ROGERIEE )
THOMPSON; )
JUDGE ALLISON DALE BURROUGHS; )
JUDGE DENISE J. CASPER; )
JUDGE JON DAVID LEVY; )
JUDGE JOHN J. McCONNELL, JR.; )
CHIEF JUDGE JOSEPH N. LAPLANTE; )
MARGARET CARTER, ESQ.; )
JESSE M. BOODOO, ESQ.; )
KEVIN PATRICK POLANSKY, ESQ.; )
MATTHEW T. MURPHY, ESQ.; )
JEFFREY B. LOEB, ESQ.; )
DAVID GLOD, ESQ. )
)
Defendants )
I. PLAINTFF DISCLOSURE
ALL DEFENDANT’S named above have been given proper notice regarding the Plaintiff’s
intention to file suit and have been given an opportunity to reach a mutual agreement. All parties
have ignored this opportunity to reach agreement and have failed to ADDRESS, DEFEND or
DENY a single claim against them. Therefore, it becomes necessary to bring this complaint
before the Court. ALL claims against the listed Defendants have occurred within Court walls, as
01-17-90018;
Therefore, upon filing this NEW Civil Complaint, all dates, times and details of the Plaintiff’s
claims are considered already captured by Federal record, including the Appellate Briefs of the
referenced Appeals. This Court is already aware that the Plaintiff is NOT an attorney and has no
legal background aside from the related litigation. The complexity of issues in the referenced
litigation certainly raises a “TEXTBOOK” scenario for the Court’s assistance with the
appointment of counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Those complex legal issues are now
certainly compounded with the filing of this complaint. The Plaintiff will again seek assistance
with the appointment of counsel here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is also aware of
the Plaintiff’s state of INDIGENCY, therefore a waiver of associated court and service fees is
respectfully requested.1
The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this new complaint include (but are not limited
to): 1.) Evidenced allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the
Constitution, 2.) Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and 3.) Conspiracy claims
which are believed to impact matters of National Security. The evidenced allegations against
2018, Criminal Complaints were filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
against the TEN (10) identified Federal (Circuit and District) Court Judges. Therefore,
copies of this complaint are necessarily sent via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:
8. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (SIGTARP);
1
Motions are filed separately for: 1.) Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel and 2.) In
Forma Pauperis, waiver of filing/service fees.
10. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);
A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, as this judiciary’s effort to “promote
public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,” has irrefutably been
compromised. By informing the Public, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties
are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued
Plaintiff claims federal jurisdiction pursuant to Article III § 2 which extends the jurisdiction to
cases arising under the U.S. Constitution. 28 U.S. Code § 1331 - Federal question. The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States. Title 28 U.S. Code §1331 is also considered an appropriate basis
for jurisdiction in this action against referenced federal judicial officers, for claims arising from
violations of federal constitutional rights guaranteed in the fifth and fourteenth amendments to
the U.S. Constitution and redressable pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Narcotics Agents 403
Please be advised, since evidenced claims against named Defendants include: 1.) Fraud on
the Court, 2.) Judicial Fraud on the Court, 3.) Treason and other civil/criminal claims of
record – Litigation Privilege, Judicial Immunity, Sovereign (or any other form of)
Immunity is considered WAIVED. The Plaintiff seeks criminal charges against ALL
parties with the assistance of Federal Prosecutors and respectfully wishes to enjoin this
civil complaint with a criminal complaint and associated criminal charges. Evidenced
misconduct is also grounds for professional accountability, including (but not limited to)
disbarment and removal from the bench, where applicable. This Court is respectfully
reminded that for all misconduct claims related to the referenced litigation, the Department
of Justice (DOJ) has served as witness (either directly or indirectly) through the US
Attorney’s Office (MA), specifically, Assistant US Attorneys - Mary Murrane and Dina M.
Chaitowitz.
While initiating this Complaint in this District Court is considered proper, TRANSFER to a
different Circuit, or perhaps even REMOVAL to the US Supreme Court MAY likely be
necessary, considering: 1.) The severity of these evidenced allegations and 2.) TEN (10) Federal
(District and Circuit) Court judges, ALL from this First Circuit, are named Defendants. By
filing this complaint, the Plaintiff also shows INCREMENTAL cause for RECUSAL(S) in the
A. The Plaintiff
Name – Mohan A. Harihar
Street Address – 7124 Avalon Drive
City and County – Acton, Middlesex County
State and Zip Code – MA, 01720
Telephone Number – 617.921.2526 (Mobile)
E-mail Address – mo.harihar@gmail.com
B. The Defendant
Name – Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
C. The Defendant
Name – Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
D. The Defendant
Name – Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available’
E. The Defendant
Name – Circuit Judge David J. Barron
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
F. The Defendant
Name – Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
G. The Defendant
Name – Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
H. The Defendant
Name – Judge Denise J. Casper
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
I. The Defendant
Name – Judge Jon David Levy
Street Address – 156 Federal Street
City and County – Portland, ME
Zip Code – 04101
Telephone Number – 207.780.3356
E-mail Address – Not Available
J. The Defendant
Name – Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.
Street Address – 2 Exchange Terrace #234
City and County – Providence, RI
Zip Code – 02903
Telephone Number – 401.752.7200
E-mail Address – Not Available
K. The Defendant
Name – Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante
Street Address – 55 Pleasant Street
City and County – Concord, NH
Zip Code – 03301-3941
Telephone Number – 603.225.1423
E-mail Address – Not Available
L. The Defendant
Name – Margaret Carter, Esq.
Street Address – One Courthouse Way
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.748.9057
E-mail Address – Not Available
M. The Defendant
Name – Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney General)
Street Address – One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02108
Telephone Number – 617.727.2200 x 2592
E-mail Address – jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us
N. The Defendant
Name – Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)
Street Address – One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 01960
Telephone Number – 617.217.4720
E-mail Address – kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com
O. The Defendant
Name – Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)
Street Address – 303 Congress Street
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02210
Telephone Number – 617.426.5900
E-mail Address – mmurphy@casneredwards.com
P. The Defendant
Name – Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)
Street Address – 176 Federal Street
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02110
Telephone Number – 617.556.3871
E-mail Address – Not Available
Q. The Defendant
Name – David Glod, Esq. (Rich May, PC)
Street Address – 176 Federal Street
City and County – Boston, MA
Zip Code – 02110
Telephone Number – 617.556.3871
E-mail Address – Not Available
IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
After more than THREE (3) years of Federal litigation, the Plaintiff has evidenced - IN FULL
Federal Judiciary, ALL of which has been WITNESSED by the Clerk of the Court and by the
First, the Plaintiff references the RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, and the body
of evidence articulated by the Plaintiff – identifying this initial pattern of corrupt conduct that
eventually led to the judge’s recusal. Since then, the Plaintiff has identified the same (or similar)
patterns of corrupt conduct with NINE (9) additional Federal (District and Circuit) Court Judges,
including Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard. There have been TWO (2) additional RECUSALS
since then – 1.) Judge Jon David Levy recusal was announced (for reasons UNKNOWN) in
the March 14, 2018 order associated with Appeal No. 17-1381, and 2.) Most recently, Circuit
Judge David Barron recused himself sua sponte on May 18, 2018, after he allegedly “just
FARGO NA.
Second, the Plaintiff has clearly identified and articulated throughout the record a breakdown in
the PROCESS for addressing judicial misconduct; warranting the involvement of the First
Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg and the Administrative Offices of US Courts. Further
investigation is certainly needed to determine exactly why TEN (10) Federal Judges have gone
against their Judicial Oath in the referenced litigation to reach a corrupt and pre-determined
outcome. The Plaintiff has clearly articulated throughout the record several supported arguments
which likely contributed (at least in part) to their UNLAWFUL decisions:
2. To avoid setting legal precedent that would assist 4.2M illegally foreclosed homeowners
Secret designed to economically benefit The United States.2 Based on the Plaintiff’s
interpretation of the law, parties who consciously choose to engage in such conduct –
STATES;
Collectively, the Plaintiff has evidenced that these officers of the Court are considered
INFERIOR judges, showing cause to include them as Defendants in this complaint. The Clerk
of the Court – Margaret Carter is included as a Defendant for her decision to consciously remain
silent after personally witnessing this pattern of judicial misconduct and the COMPLETE
Defendants are representing attorneys in the related litigation where UNOPPOSED Fraud on the
Court claims shows cause to now include them in this new complaint. Litigation privilege is
waived when an evidenced (and UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court Claim is presented as part of
the record. Once JURISDICTION has been re-established in the related litigation (and here), it
2
References the HARIHAR FCS Model©, an economic framework designed to assist The
United States with economic growth/recovery stemming from the US Foreclosure Crisis.
is the Plaintiff’s intention to enjoin this complaint with HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, along
Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 reads as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute,
subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be
liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for
redress.
The events giving rise to the Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
1. HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, Appeal No. 17-1381 (Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-
11880) and;
2. HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court Docket
No. 17-cv-11109).
The listed Defendants are associated with the referenced ongoing litigation, as one (1) of the
following:
The Plaintiff addresses each Defendant Group separately, providing a factual pattern that gives
Allison Dale Burroughs4; 2.) Judge Denise J. Casper5; 3.) Circuit Judge Juan R.
Torruella6; 4.) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.7; 5.) Circuit Judge David J.
Barron.8 As a general rule, judges cannot be held liable for money damages for acts done in
the exercise of his judicial function, within the limits of his jurisdiction, no matter how
erroneous, illegal or malicious his acts may be (48A Corpus Juris Secundum §86).
Kalb v. Luce, 291 N.W. 841, 234, WISC 509. In the referenced litigation, the record
CORRUPT CONDUCT, where presiding judges have ALL blatantly refused to uphold
Federal laws, brushing aside all claims in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined
Counsel;
f. Ignoring or failing to address Complainant’s repeated concerns for personal safety and
security;
k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC § 2671, 28 USC § 2674 and
28 USC § 1346;
n. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs
The record CONCLUSIVELY shows that ALL referenced presiding judges (including
Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard) have previously LOST JURISDICTION to rule in the
referenced litigation for ONE (1) or more of the evidenced claims listed above and
Federal law, any judge who rules without jurisdiction is considered to have committed an
compliance with Federal Law, the Plaintiff informed: 1.) The Court, 2.) Governor Charlie
Baker (R-MA) and 3.) The President of The United States. Serving as witness to these
evidenced claims of Treason include: 1.) Asst. US Attorneys – Mary Murrane and Dina
Chaitowitz, 2.) Clerk of the Court - Margaret Carter and 3.) All Defendants in the
Since initiating his original Federal complaint in 2015, a thorough review of the record will
reveal that the Plaintiff has attempted to address jurisdiction issues with presiding judges
(and through judicial misconduct complaints) in OVER FIFTY (50) separate court filings,
9
The Plaintiff recognizes that the record now reflects THREE (3) Recusals: 1.) US District
Court Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, 2.) US District Court Judge Jon David Levy, and most
recently on Friday May 18, 2018, Circuit Judge David J. Barron, who has acknowledged a
FINANCIAL INTEREST with Defendant/Appellee – WELLS FARGO NA.
ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN BLATANTLY IGNORED. Not only is this
UNACCEPTABLE, but this valid argument alone indicates that these referenced judges
have LOST their jurisdiction to rule in this (or any related) litigation and are considered as
INFERIOR judges.
Aside from evidenced Treason claims, the Plaintiff has made abundantly clear (including in
the referenced disclosure of this complaint) that based on his interpretation of the Law, his
evidenced claims include Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and matters
which are believed to impact NATIONAL SECURITY. A thorough review of the record
will reveal that NOT ONCE, does ANY presiding judge, Chief Justice Howard, or any other
referenced Federal judge EVER even reference the words: TREASON, ECONOMIC
cause to (at minimum) include CONSPIRACY and CIVIL RICO claims against referenced
Federal Judges.
2. An Officer of the Court who IS NOT a presiding Judge but has issued an Order in
the referenced litigation – References: 1.) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and 2.)
Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson. A thorough review of the record will reveal an
identical pattern of corrupt conduct to that of presiding judges that (at minimum)
evidences 1.) Continuing to rule after losing jurisdiction, 2.) RICO Violations, 3.)
Conspiracy Claims, 4.) Due Process Violations; 5.) Economic Espionage and other
claims.
Both Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson have issued orders in the referenced
Appeals where they failed to address and/or uphold Federal Rules and continued to rule
after losing jurisdiction.
References: 1.) Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard, 2.) Circuit Judge Juan R.
Torruella; 3.) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr.; 4.) Circuit Judge David J.
Barron, 5.) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, 6.) Judge Jon David Levy, 7.)
Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. and 8.) Chief Judge Joseph N. LaPlante, as members
Here, a thorough review of the filed Judicial Misconduct Complaints and Petitions again
reveals the same (and/or similar) patterns of corrupt conduct, where Chief Judge Howard
and members of the Judicial Council have failed to recognize a SINGLE EVIDENCED
claim of judicial misconduct. Here too, despite disclosures and reference to matters
4. An Officer of the Court with the title – “Clerk of the Court” – Per the direction of the
Circuit Executive’s Office, the Plaintiff submitted to the direct attention of Circuit
Executive – Susan Goldberg, a formal complaint against First Circuit Clerk of the
Court – Margaret Carter. As Clerk, Ms. Carter is aware first-hand, of the evidenced
evidenced allegations have ALL occurred within Court walls, each action observed
The law clerks’ duty of confidentiality ends when a clerk believes a federal judge(s)
has done something wrong outside of the deliberative process. The confidentiality
guidelines for law clerks are intended to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The
fundamental goal of the confidentiality guidelines would be subverted if the rules forced
law clerks to be silent about judicial misconduct. WHEN A JUDGE engages in illegal
activities or inappropriate behavior (as is the case here), that’s clearly NOT what’s
intended to be confidential.
For Ms. Carter, her conscious decision to IGNORE evidenced judicial misconduct
Based on the evidenced claims of record before you, and under the CODE OF
numerous infractions by Clerk Margaret Carter with regard to the following Canons:
Therefore, the Plaintiff has shown just cause to include Clerk Margaret Carter in this civil
complaint.
2.) Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq., 3.) Matthew T. Murphy, Esq., 4.) Jeffrey B. Loeb,
Esq. and 5.) David Glod, Esq. The evidenced and UNOPPOSED FRAUD ON THE
COURT CLAIMS of record indicate that referenced counsel has waived litigation
privilege and any other assumed form of immunity. Counsel has served as witness to
referenced Treason and other judicial misconduct claims and has chosen to remain silent.
Collectively, the Plaintiff shows cause to raise multiple civil claims here against
referenced attorneys, at minimum for the following: 1.) Civil RICO violations, 2.) Civil
Conspiracy claims, 3.) Economic Espionage violations and 4.) Fraud on the Court
claims, pursuant to FRCP 60 (b)(3). The Plaintiff has already filed CRIMINAL claims
against referenced attorneys with the FBI and makes clear that he seeks to enjoin this
V. ISSUES RAISED
Based on the evidenced allegations described above, the Plaintiff shows cause to (at
1. Judicial Fraud on the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4), and (6)
4. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum) 28 USC § 2671, 28 USC § 2674
BOODOO);
PARTIES).
The Plaintiff retains the right to expand upon and/or amend this complaint: 1.) Once jurisdiction
has been established and 2.) Once the Court has assisted the Plaintiff with the Appointment of
Counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Irreparable injury to the Plaintiff is clearly articulated in the
referenced docket(s), and in conjunction with the filed SF-95 form (associated with HARIHAR
1915;
c. Issue a STAY order pertaining to the timeline for petitioning the US Supreme
Court, as it relates to Appeal No. 17-1381 until ALL issues related to the Appeal
have been resolved. Currently, the Plaintiff’s deadline for filing his petition for
Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court is set for Tuesday, June 12, 2018.
requests that the Court update The US Supreme Court to ensure that any
2. Issue equitable relief for proportionate civil damages as described in the related civil
litigation;
5. Issue ANY OTHER relief as this Court deems appropriate and just;
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;
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.
Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com