HARIHAR Files DEMAND To Vacate Judgement, Recall Mandate & Amend Complaint, Following: (1) 2nd SCOTUS Timeline Ext and (2) Discovery of NEW Evidence

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117382882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 Entry ID: 6222311
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.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 28, 2018 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

HARIHAR Files DEMAND To Vacate Judgement, Recall Mandate & Amend Complaint, Following: (1) 2nd SCOTUS Timeline Ext and (2) Discovery of NEW Evidence

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

HARIHAR Files DEMAND To Vacate Judgement, Recall Mandate & Amend Complaint, Following: (1) 2nd SCOTUS Timeline Ext and (2) Discovery of NEW Evidence

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117382882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2018 Entry ID: 6222311

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT DEMAND TO VACATE JUDGEMENT, RECALL MANDATE, AND

I. SECOND SCOTUS TIMELINE EXTENSION

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

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

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;

pertaining to the IMPROPER relationship between recused Circuit Judge –

David Barron and Appellee – WELLS FARGO;

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

9. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily

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

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;

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

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

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

addresses INTENTIONAL MISSTATEMENTS OR OMMISSIONS OF FACT

THAT CONSTITUTE FEDERAL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS UNDER 18

expand upon his existing claims against Appellee – US BANK.

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

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

Harihar’s evidenced arguments in an apparent effort to reach a corrupt and pre-

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

Appellees (and their retained counsel of record).5

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

complaint(s) and expand upon existing Misprision claims.

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

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

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

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

the presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December, 2018.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai