18-7752
IN THE
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Petitioner
v.
US BANK NA, et al
Respondents
____________
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF TO
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR*
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
*Petitioner, Pro Se Mo.harihar@gmail.com
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
20. Whether the unpublished denial of Application No.
18A554 (Request for STAY and Assistance with the
Appointment of Counsel)1 constitutes an erred
judgement, consistent with the pattern of corrupt
conduct evidenced by the lower Courts – at minimum
impacting Jurisdiction, warranting: (1) Clarification; (2)
Reconsideration; (3) cause for Recusal, if left uncorrected;
(4) cause for judicial removal and/or impeachment under
ARTICLE II, if left uncorrected; (5) cause for amendment
to the Petitioner’s related complaint against The United
States, Appeal No. 17-2074; and (6) cause for amendment
to the Petitioner’s related complaint against inferior
judicial officers – HARIHAR v HOWARD, Docket No. 18-
cv-11134?
21. Whether the continued, incremental actions by: (1) Bank
Respondents; (2) Respondent David E. Fialkow, Esq.; and
(3) Respondents – Jeffrey/ Isabelle Perkins in the
Middlesex Superior Court2 warrant amendment to the
original complaint (at minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2) and (3)?
22. Whether the evidenced failures by the inferior MA Land
Court Judge – Hon. Michael Vhay shows cause to amend
the original complaint, bringing additional claims
against the Respondent – Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (at minimum) under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(2), (3) and (4)?3
23. Whether the continued inaction/nonfeasance by the
Executive and Legislative branches of government
(Federal and State) shows cause to expand upon Due
Process/Color of Law violations, warranting amendment
to the original complaint and related federal litigation
(referenced above) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), (3) and
(6)?
1 See Exhibit 1
2 References the Middlesex Superior Court (MA) Docket No. 1981-CV-00050
3 References MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Questions Presented………………………………………. 1
Table of Authorities……………………………………….. 3
Opinions below................................................................ 4
Jurisdiction...................................................................... 5
Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved........ 6
Introduction to Supplement……………………………….7
Statement of the Case..................................................... 9
Reasons for Granting the Petition................................. 12
A. Failure to Grant Certiorari will Evidence a
Systemic Breakdown within the Judicial Branch
of Government.
Conclusion ...................................................................... 13
Supplement Appendix ……………………………………. 15
Proof of Service…………………………….……………..... 33
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases: Page
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. § 1915 ..........................................4,5,7,9,10,13
18 U.S.C. § 1831 .....................................................7,8,13
28 U.S.C. §455(a)…………………………….……..………5
28 U.S.C. § 144 …………………………….…………....…5
18 U.S.C. § 242…………………………….………..….…11
18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 ………………….…………….…..11
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) …………………………………...……5
Rules:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) ...................................................1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) .........................................1,12,13
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)……………………….....……...….1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6)……………………………..………1
Fed. R. App. P. 33…………..…….…………..…….…10,13
Local Rule 33………………………………….……..…10,13
3
IN THE
v.
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
_______________
OPINIONS BELOW
The order list: 586 U.S. (published February 19,
2019) shows an unpublished decision to Application
No 18A-554. A separate docket search reveals that
the STAY application and request for assistance
with the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C.
§1915 was denied without cause.
4
JURISDICTION
4 If found to be majority decision, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court
identify for the record - which five (5) Justices ruled in favor of denying Application No.
18A554.
5
necessary; and (2) Reconsideration will also determine
whether or not it becomes necessary to notify Congress
and the President under ARTICLE II, (at minimum)
citing grounds for removal and potentially,
impeachment. If ultimately it is found that one (1) or
more Justices: (a) have lost jurisdiction; (b) are
considered disqualified from ruling further in this
litigation; and (c) fail (or refuse) to recuse sua sponte, it
is the Petitioner’s interpretation that any further
ruling from an Inferior Justice will be considered as
“Warring against the Constitution of the Unites States”
- an act of Treason under ARTICLE III, Section 3.
Respectfully, please be advised - Should this occur, the
Court Clerk, the Respondents (along with their
respective counsel) and any Justice who maintains
their jurisdiction will be considered as witnesses to an
act of Treason. By Federal Law, it will again become
necessary for the Petitioner to notify the President of
The United States (POTUS) as well as Congress.
6
Additional Constitutional and Statutory Provisions may
also apply (including Articles II and III), considering the
interpreted matters pertaining to National Security,
Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831, Treason –
ARTICLE III and other evidenced claims. The Petitioner
respectfully re-states that the enormity of complex legal
issues associated with this litigation (at minimum)
certainly calls into question this (as well as the lower)
Court’s failure/refusal to assist him with the
appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915.
7
lower courts – indicating a systemic breakdown in the
Federal (and State) Judiciary.
Respectfully, this Court is reminded that: (1) Justice
Breyer has twice granted a timeline extension to the
Petitioner based on this very list of extraordinary,
unresolved issues; and (2) The initial First Circuit
Panel6 was forced to recuse (in part) for their
failure/refusal to address and resolve these identified
issues.
This Court is respectfully reminded that: (1) there has
been an unprecedented eight (8) federal recusals
associated with this litigation; and (2) Evidenced
misconduct claims have been formally brought against a
total of fifteen (15) federal judges – indicating what
clearly appears to be a systemic failure within the
Judicial Branch of Government.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the Petitioner’s
evidenced claims against both the Respondents as well
as named judicial officers include some of the most
severe crimes known to our Nation, including (but not
limited to): (1) Treason under ARTICLE III; (2)
Economic Espionage - 18 U.S.C. § 1831; (3) RICO
claims, and others. Yet, a thorough review of all court
documents shows that neither the Respondents nor the
presiding judge(s) have ever even mentioned these
words – as if there is the expectation that these
evidenced claims will ultimately be brushed aside in
order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome.
This is currently evidenced at every level of the Federal
(and State) Judiciary – which as of right now, includes
this United States Supreme Court.
The Petitioner respectfully makes clear that unless
these issues are justly resolved, he does not have faith
6The initial First Circuit Panel (recused) consisted of: (1) Circuit Judge David Barron, who
also admitted to an improper relationship with the Respondent – WELLS FARGO; (2) Juan
R. Torruella; and (3) William J. Kayatta, Jr. The replacement, inferior Circuit Panel,
consisting of: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson;
and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez – refused to recuse, dismissing the Petitioner’s
Appeal No. 17-1381 without jurisdiction.
8
in this panel to deliver a just (and impartial) decision to
Petition No. 18-7752.
9
erred judgement will impact jurisdiction, showing
cause to (at minimum) bring a formal misconduct
complaint(s).
7
References MA Land Court Docket No. 18MISC000144
8
References the Middlesex Superior Court (MA) Docket No. 1981-CV-00050
10
of the Commonwealth. The Petitioner therefore
shows cause to amend his original complaint, (at
minimum) expanding upon Due Process and
Color of Law violations under 18 U.S.C. § 242
against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Petitioner also shows cause to amend his
related complaint – HARIHAR v HOWARD
(Docket No. 18-cv-11134), adding Judge Michael
Vhay as a Defendant.9;
b. A thorough review of all documents filed in the
Middlesex Superior Court by Respondents: (1) Wells
Fargo; (2) US BANK; (3) Jeffrey Perkins; and (4)
Isabelle Perkins – indicates the apparent expectation
(as if by knowledge) that the presiding judicial officer
will ultimately brush aside the Petitioner’s evidenced
jurisdiction and transfer claims, ultimately arriving
at a corrupt and pre-determined outcome. Therefore,
the Petitioner (at minimum) shows cause to amend
the original complaint, expanding upon existing
Fraud on the Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b)(3).
7. On Sunday, February 17, 2019, the Petitioner delivered
an email communication to Governor Charlie Baker (R-
MA),10 which addressed the following:
a. The continued failures of the MA AGO11 to bring
criminal indictments against named Respondents;
b. A reminder of the evidenced RICO claims
involving: (1) the Massachusetts AGO; (2) the US
Attorney's Office (MA); and (3) the (former)
representing law firm for Bank Respondents - US
BANK and WELLS FARGO (Nelson Mullins Riley
and Scarborough, LLP). Click on the attachment
below to view the evidenced RICO claim12 - "After
the Bubble Bursts". This textbook case of collusion
identifies improper relationships that - at least in
part, provides an irrefutable argument as to why
9 Please be advised, it has recently been brought to the Petitioner’s attention that an
improper relationship is believed to exist between Judge Michael Vhay and MERS Inc.
10 See Exhibit 3 to view the email communication delivered to Governor Charlie Baker (R-
11
criminal indictments have never been brought by
the MA AGO or the Department of Justice
(DOJ).13
c. Concerns over the Governor’s inaction/
nonfeasance, since bringing evidenced Treason
claims under ARTICLE III to his direct
attention (as required by Federal Law).
13See Exhibit 3 to view the evidenced improper relationship, "After the Bubble Bursts"
that justifies the RICO claim (Following the 02/17/2019 email to Gov. Charlie Baker (R-
MA).
12
markets. In fact, the Petitioner has evidenced that his IP/Trade
Secret was created to accomplish just the opposite – ultimately
providing a beneficial solution for: (1) all parties; (2) the
government; (3) this Nation’s Economy; and (4) illegally
foreclosed homeowners Nationwide. As a sign of his continued
Good Faith, Mr. Harihar MAY be willing to consider entering
into an agreement on the civil portions of this complaint.14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should first: (1) provide
the requested Clarification for the record; (2) Re-establish
jurisdiction for the record, recognizing grounds for recusal and
potentially, removal under ARTICLE II, where applicable; (3)
Once jurisdiction has been re-established, this Court should re-
consider its decision and grant Application No. 18A554; (4)
Once the STAY of judgement is initiated and the Petitioner has
successfully been appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. §1915,
there would then be an opportunity to explore the First
Circuit’s Civil Appeals Management Plan (CAMP), governed by
Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and First
Circuit Local Rule 33.0.
14The Court and the Respondents are reminded that if the parties are unable to reach a
mutual agreement, the dollar amount for damages is currently set at one percent (1%) of
the estimated value of the Petitioner’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, $42B.
13
violations; and (4) matters believed to impact National/
Homeland Security, copies of this Certiorari Petition are
necessarily delivered (via US Mail, E-mail and/or social media)
to:
1. POTUS;
2. US Secret Service - Director Randolph D. Alles;
3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz;
4. SEC Chairman - Jay Clayton;
5. US Attorney General William Barr;
6. Admin. Office of US Courts – Director James C.
Duff;
7. US Attorney Andrew Lelling (MA);
8. Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Senate
Judiciary Committee;
9. The Honorable Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) House
Judiciary Committee;
10. Governor Charlie Baker (R-MA);
11. US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA);
12. US Senator Ed Markey (D-MA); and
13. US Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA)
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 security. If this Court has
questions regarding any portion of this Petition, or
requires additional information, the Petitioner is happy
to provide upon request.
Respectfully submitted.
Mohan A. Harihar
Petitioner - Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
14
SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX
Supplement Petition for Certiorari
HARIHAR v US BANK, et al
Petition N. 18-7752
15
SUPPLEMENT APPENDIX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
*Please note, all other Constitutional and Statutory references can be found
in Appendix B.
16
Exhibit 1
17
18
Exhibit 2
19
List of Twenty-Three (23) Extraordinary, Unresolved
Issues Acknowledged by Justice Stephen Breyer
the Constitution;
(6);
20
9. Refusing to address evidenced unopposed claims of Judicial
Oath;
Deprivation of Rights;
21
19. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as fact,
criminal indictments;
22
Exhibit 3
23
Mohan Harihar <moharihar@gmail.com>
24
And then there's the judicial misconduct that has been irrefutably evidenced by both the
Federal and MA State judiciaries - now TWICE acknowledged by the United States
Supreme Court. This includes formal TREASON claims under ARTICLE III, brought
against NINE (9) Federal judges. As required by Federal Law, I have notified you directly
following each violation, yet your office remains silent.
It has NEVER been my intention to expose such historic levels of corruption between
BANKING and GOVERNMENT. Evidenced failures in all three (3) branches of state and
federal government is the reason why we're in this legal position now. I've also never
intended to BANKRUPT this Commonwealth - considering if there is no agreement and the
law is actually upheld, the Commonwealth will be responsible for its portion of $42B
(excluding treble damages for evidenced RICO claims). Again, these evidenced
government failures bring us to where we are today. My legal intentions from the beginning
have been quite clear:
Please be advised, the Middlesex Superior Court has an opportunity now to correct some
of its past erred judgments and I'm now respectfully calling for the MA AGO to TIMELY
bring criminal indictments against ALL named Defendants in the referenced Docket
No. 1981CV00050. Should the Commonwealth initiate such corrective action, I will plan to
notify/update SCOTUS via a supplement to Petition No. 18-7752. Conversely, should this
collective pattern of corrupt conduct continue, SCOTUS will similarly be notified of this
NEW evidenced government failure, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).
For documentation purposes, a copy of this email will be filed with the Middlesex Superior
Court. Copies will also be made available to: (1) POTUS
25
Respectfully submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
26
27
28
29
Addendum 1
The court may direct the attorneys—and, when appropriate, the parties—to
participate in one or more conferences to address any matter that may aid in
disposing of the proceedings, including simplifying the issues and discussing
settlement. A judge or other person designated by the court may preside over
the conference, which may be conducted in person or by telephone. Before a
settlement conference, the attorneys must consult with their clients and
obtain as much authority as feasible to settle the case. The court may, as a
result of the conference, enter an order controlling the course of the
proceedings or implementing any settlement agreement.
(1) In cases where he may deem this desirable, the Settlement Counsel,
who shall be appointed by the Court of Appeals, may direct the
attorneys, and in certain cases the clients, to attend a pre-argument
conference to be held as soon as practicable before him or a judge
designated by the Chief Judge to consider the possibility of settlement,
the simplification of the issues, and any other matters which the
Settlement Counsel determines may aid in the handling or the
disposition of the proceeding.
30
(2) At the conclusion of the conference, the Settlement Counsel shall
consult with the Clerk concerning the Clerk’s entry of a Conference
Order which shall control the subsequent course of the proceeding.
(c) Confidentiality. The Settlement Counsel shall not disclose the substance
of the Pre-argument Conference, nor report on the same, to any person or
persons whomsoever (including, but not limited to, any judge). The attorneys
are likewise prohibited from disclosing any substantive information
emanating from the conference to anyone other than their clients or co-
counsel; and then only upon receiving due assurance that the recipients will
honor the confidentiality of the information. See In re Lake Utopia Paper
Ltd., 608 F.2d 928 (2nd Cir. 1979). The fact of the conference having taken
place, and the bare result thereof (e.g., “settled,” “not settled,” “continued”),
including any resulting Conference Order, shall not be considered to be
confidential.
(1) If the appellant has not taken each of the actions set forth in section
(a) of this Program, or in the Conference Order, within the time therein
specified, the appeal may be dismissed by the Clerk without further
notice.
(2) Upon the failure of a party or attorney to comply with the provisions
of this rule or the provisions of the court's notice of settlement
conference, the court may assess reasonable expenses caused by the
failure, including attorney's fees; assess all or a portion of the appellate
costs; dismiss the appeal; or take such other appropriate action as the
circumstances may warrant.
(e) Grievances. Any grievances as to the handling of any case under the
Program will be addressed by the Court of Appeals, and should be sent to the
Circuit Executive, One Courthouse Way, Suite 3700, Boston, MA 02210, who
will hold them confidential on behalf of the Court of Appeals unless release
is authorized by the complainant.
(f) Scope of Program. The Program will include all civil appeals and review
of administrative orders, except the following: It will not include original
proceedings (such as petitions for mandamus), prisoner petitions, habeas
corpus petitions, summary enforcement actions of the National Labor
Relations Board, social security appeals, petitions for review from orders of
the Board of Immigration Appeals, or any pro se cases. Nothing herein shall
prevent any judge or panel, upon motion or sua sponte, from referring any
matter to the Settlement Counsel at any time.
31
The foregoing Civil Appeals Management Program shall be applicable to all
such cases as set forth above, arising from the District Courts in the Districts
of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, in which the
Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals on or after January 1,
1992; and all such cases arising from the District Court in the District of
Puerto Rico, in which the Notice of Appeal is received in the Court of Appeals
on or after January 1, 1993.
Addendum 2
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall
be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
32
IN THE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
____________
33
Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney
General)
One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us
34
Solicitor General of the United States
Attn: Solicitor General - Noel Francisco
Department of Justice, Room 5614
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20530–0001
202.514.2203
Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
35