____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________
Rule 23 of the Rules of this Court; (2) under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) for a stay of
judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated
August 7, 20181; and (3) 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for transfer of this civil action to The
United States Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §
1. The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be due is
January 28, 2019, following the recent timeline extension granted by your Honor on
December 4, 2018. This timeline extension was granted after your Honor
Application No.’s 17A1359, 18A554, 18A585 and in a recent letter to Chief Justice
d. Refusal(s) to recuse;
Wells Fargo;
judicial officer in this First Circuit (or with the lower) Court(s).
Constitution;
2 See Exhibit 2 to view the Appellant’s 12/3/18 Letter to Chief Justice Roberts, in its entirety.
2
Espionage claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and (3) matters
Oath;
Hardships;
3
q. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy
Against Rights;
False Statements;
Deprivation of Rights;
2. A review of the historical record will reveal that upon your Honor’s
that the First Circuit began to initiate corrective action by withdrawing the issued
Mandate and vacating the referenced Judgment. However, the series of events that
4
3. More than three (3) weeks after your Honor granted a second timeline
extension, no further corrective action had been initiated by the First Circuit. On
December 28, 2018 the Petitioner filed a motion calling for the First Circuit to: (1)
Recall the Mandate; (2) Vacate the Judgment and (3) Allow the Petitioner to amend
4. Later that same day, December 28, 2018, the Petitioner received a
letter via email communication from the First Circuit Clerk – Maria R. Hamilton.4
In the clerk’s letter, 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 the record shows it has been issued by an
inferior replacement Circuit Panel that lacks the jurisdiction to issue such an order.
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.
3 See Exhibit 3
4 See Exhibit 4
5
Hamilton has failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Her
referenced litigation. These actions (or lack thereof) are believed to have
Crisis. The Petitioner believes that upon further investigation, additional claims
against Ms. Hamilton are likely and he reserves the right to expand upon/file new
5. The Petitioner states that these facts involving the First Circuit Clerk
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 -
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
filed with: (1) the Office of the First Circuit Executive; and (2) the Administrative
Office of US Courts. The Petitioner has now formally filed a criminal complaint
against Clerk Maria R. Hamilton with the FBI,5 with copies of the complaint
necessarily delivered to the attention of: (1) POTUS; (2) Director James C. Duff
5 See Exhibit 5
6
(Administrative Offices of US Courts); (3) The DOJ; (4) members of Congress and
the First Circuit Court, the Petitioner shows cause to: (1) amend his (separate)
original complaint against The United States (Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court
Docket No. 17-cv-11109), expanding (at minimum) upon evidenced Color of Law,
Due Process and RICO violations; and (2) add Ms. Hamilton as a Defendant to the
Honor is respectfully reminded that the dismissal orders associated with each of
these civil complaints are considered void, as the Petitioner has evidenced for the
record that they too have been issued by inferior judicial officers who lack
jurisdiction.
Honor’s denial of Application No. 18A554 (initial request for a Stay of Judgment),
the Petitioner believes that your Honor may have intended to allow the First
Court has no intention of resolving these issues or correcting its erred judgement(s).
be resolved before moving to a higher Court. The First Circuit’s refusal to resolve
7
these identified issues and initiate corrective action intentionally prevents the
8. Therefore, since all possible remedies from the lower courts have been
exhausted, the Petitioner hereby requests that your Honor grant; (1) a Stay of
Judgement; and (2) the removal/transfer of the Appeal to this Court in order to
Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1)
Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage and (3)
matters believed to impact National Security, copies of this petition are necessarily
a. POTUS6;
6 See Exhibit 6
8
h. Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) House Judiciary
Committee;
Committee;
A copy will also be made available to the Public and to media outlets nationwide
out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and well-being. If your Honor
Respectfully submitted,
Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
January 5, 2019
9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
___________________________________
Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E. Fialkow, Esq. and
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.
Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com