$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK Et Al (Appeal No. 17-1381) Brings Evidenced Argument Showing WELLS FARGO'S - ADMISSION of GUILT, Is NO "ERROR"

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
APPELLANT RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW EVIDENCE/INFORMATION;

(2) VALIDATE JUDICIAL OATH; (3) ADDRESS LEGAL CONSEQUENCES RE
JURISDICTION; AND (4) PETITION FOR RE-HEARING/TRANSFER
The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se and who is NOT A LEGAL
EXPERT, respectfully files this RESPONSE, as an EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF
CORRUPT CONDUCT continues to be exemplified by this Federal Judiciary. The most recent
example, evidenced in FULL PUBLIC VIEW is the August 7, 2018 attempt to re-issue a
JUDGEMENT ORDER,1 when Two (2) of Three (3) NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Judges
LACK JURISDICTION. Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee
Thompson have BOTH previously been identified as INFERIOR JUDGES - for their
collective failures to uphold the Constitution, numerous Federal Law(s), and their Judicial
Oath. A thorough review of the historical record will reveal a very clear and articulated
explanation of how the Appellant arrived at these conclusions. Neither Chief Judge Howard
1 See Exhibit 1
nor Judge Thompson have ever once denied or even attempted to argue, a single judicial
misconduct claim against them – including acts of TREASON. “When a judge knows that he
lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of
jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost.” Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller
v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.
What is clear to this Appellant (and should be to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER), is a
continued judicial effort - NOW by this NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Panel to brush aside
ALL Appellant motions in order to reach a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED
OUTCOME.
This First Circuit Court has continuously failed to address (and correct) judicial misconduct
claims which have long been evidenced in full public view. As a result, the INTEGRITY of this
Appeals (and the District) Court is severely damaged and the APPEARANCE OF
IMPARTIALITY has long been compromised. Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of
Federal Law, the conscious decision by this newly assigned Circuit panel to CONTINUE
IGNORING: (1) JURISDICTION; and (2) the Appellant’s evidenced judicial misconduct
claims - and instead issue an invalid judgment (at minimum) raises the following issues and
necessitates the following actions:
I. THE JUDGEMENT IS VOID
A. If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is
VOID, subject to vacation with damages, and can never be time barred.
B. A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked
jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.2A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).3 A party
seeking to void the judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting
subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s
exercise of jurisdiction over the claim amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial
power.”4 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the
judgment as void.5 A judgment may also be void under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered
in a manner inconsistent with due process.
The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments
IN EACH of the IDENTIFIED – EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES
(See Below). ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would suggest that VALIDATING
JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is certainly appropriate.
HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) exemplifies what
MAY be collectively considered one of the largest, and certainly most egregious
ABUSE OF AUTHORITY by a Federal Judiciary in US history. The argument can
certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to
be a set agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A.
2
Oldfield v. Pueblo De Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2009); Wendt, 431
F.3d at 412.
3
See Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d at 413 (4th Cir. 2005).
4
In re Valley Food Services LLC, 377 B.R. 207, 212 (8th Cir. 2007) citing Hunter v.
Underwood, 362 F.3d 468, 475 (8th Cir. 2004).
5
Id.; United States v. Tittjung, 235 F.3d 330, 335 (7th Cir. 2000).
Harihar, DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST RESOLUTION here, or in any
related litigation.
C. An order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void, and can be attacked in any
proceeding in any court where the validity of the judgment comes into issue. (See
Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608; Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24
L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh
(1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343, 61 L
ed 608.
D. "If a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn't any authority to grant, its
judgment is to that extent void." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 120c.) "A void judgment is
no judgment at all and is without legal effect." (Jordon v. Gilligan, 500 F.2d 701, 710
(6th Cir. 1974) "a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction."
(Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir. 1972).
E. A void judgment does not create any binding obligation. Federal decisions addressing
void state court judgments include Kalb v. Feuerstein (1940) 308 US 433, 60 S Ct 343,
84 L ed 370.
F. "Lack of jurisdiction cannot be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc. The only proper
office of a nunc pro tunc order is to correct a mistake in the records; it cannot be used to
rewrite history." E.g., Transamerica Ins. Co. v. South, 975 F.2d 321, 325-26 (7th Cir.
1992); United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1240 (7th Cir. 1990); King v. Ionization
Int'l, Inc., 825 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir. 1987). And Central Laborer’s Pension and
Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

LACK OF JURISDICTION is just ONE (1) of (at least) TWENTY (20)
EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES associated with this Appeal (and
previously in the lower Court), as recognized by SCOTUS.6 This Court ALSO recognized
the ENTIRE list of unresolved issues (Below), following the recusal of Judge Barron, after
he disclosed having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO.7 A
review of the record will show that the Appellant has repeatedly brought this list of
extraordinary/unresolved issues before the Court, only to be IGNORED as if they do not
exist – EVEN NOW, as indicated by the attempt to issue a (VOID) judgment order. As a
respectful reminder and for documentation purposes, the list of extraordinary/unresolved
issues includes (but is not limited to) the following:
1. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues8;
2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;
3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;
4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);
5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting
acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;
6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s
Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE
6
Following the January 17, 2018 judgment issued by the initial panel, the Appellant filed a
motion with the Supreme Court requesting a timeline extension for filing his Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. On June 8, 2018, SCOTUS granted the motion, acknowledging the list extraordinary/
unresolved issues warranting such an extension.
7
The Court is respectfully reminded that the Appellant has requested additional disclosures
regarding the judge’s improper relationship, however, no information has been provided.
8
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National
Security;
7. 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;
8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT
claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);
9. 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;
10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not
limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;
11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;
12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his
personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,
as stated within the record;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the
presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;
20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to
DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.
It is a COMBINATION of these factors – RECUSAL AND THIS LIST OF
EXTRAORDINARY/UNRESOLVED ISSUES which initially led to withdrawing the
Mandate and Vacating Judgment. After reviewing this NEW Panel’s explanation (below),
there is now an INCREMENTAL EXAMPLE OF RECORD that shows a continued
INTENT to IGNORE the referenced list of extraordinary circumstances; and instead
brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome:
The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is denied.
See United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against judge separate from
the case under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic recusal can be obtained by
the simple act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000)
(similar); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not
disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him[.]").
Suggesting that automatic recusal is based solely on the act of suing a judge is a complete
misrepresentation of the facts and the associated case references (above) are therefore
improperly applied. The significance of tying the separate lawsuit to necessary recusal
comes from the Appellant’s evidenced arguments of record that irrefutably define the
referenced judges as INFERIOR. Any objective observer who reads through the Judgment
and compares it to the Appellant’s motion (and historical record) will undoubtedly agree:9
It is the failure(s) to uphold their Judicial Oath, the Constitution and Federal Law that: (1)
irrefutably disqualifies Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson; and (2) Voids the
Judgment. The civil and criminal complaints filed against them personally are secondary
contributing factors where collectively, the totality of these issues MUST result in their
disqualification. Any failure by this Court to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Thompson will further expose and re-affirm the failure to show impartiality.
II. DEMAND TO VALIDATE 28 U.S. Code § 453 - Oaths of justices and judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before
performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich,
and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon
me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars
against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a
judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124
U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of
treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.
9
See Exhibit 2, to view the Appellant’s Motion to Remove Inferior Circuit Judges, in its
entirety, filed July 29, 2018. Please note, the Appellant’s Motion has previously been made
available to the Public.
By issuing the August 7, 2018 Judgement Order (and for reasons stated within and
throughout the record), CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMPSON
and CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ have consciously disregarded their Judicial Oath of Office.
Therefore, the Appellant shows just cause for their removal from the Bench and
potential impeachment, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453.
III. INCREMENTAL Act of TREASON Under ARTICLE III
Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, it has been evidenced that Chief
Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - LACK
JURISDICTION to rule in this litigation. Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant
respectfully requesting clarification for their actions, these judges have refused to do so.
Instead, they have continued to rule in the absence of jurisdiction - as if some form of
exemption has allowed them to ignore their judicial oath, the Constitution and Federal
Law(s). The Appellant is NOT AWARE of any such exemption. Any judge who does not
comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that
Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not
fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200
(1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S.
v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia:
“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to
usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
Constitution.” See Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.
THEREFORE, by consciously issuing the JUDGEMENT order WITHOUT
JURISDICTION on August 7th, 2018, it is interpreted that Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Thompson have committed an INCREMENTAL act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,
Section 3 of the US Constitution. Serving as WITNESS to these incremental acts of
Treason, aside from the Appellant, are the following parties:
1. The Circuit Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter;
2. ALL Appellees/Defendants; and
3. Representing counsel to the Appellees/Defendants;
For the record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court - Any party (referenced above)
who refuses to serve as witness to these (NEW) evidenced claims of Treason will incur the
following incremental claims against them: 1.) MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S.
Code § 2382; 2.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
United States; and 3.) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S.
Code § 1831.
IV. LEGAL OBLIGATIONS of the CIRCUIT CLERK/CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE
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.
Therefore, there (AGAIN) is a clear expectation for Clerk Margaret Carter to similarly
acknowledge referenced jurisdiction (and other) issues, including the VOID judgement. A
Mandate CANNOT legally be issued when the judgement is considered void. Clerk Carter is
also expected to inform the Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg, of this latest development.
The Circuit Executive then must update the Administrative Office of US Courts,
considering the gravity of judicial misconduct issues.
Please be advised, EVEN BEFORE the referenced judgment and as a matter of record, these
referenced officers of the court personally witnessed prior act(s) of Treason under Article III,
and failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report
Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct contributes to existing
CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or
lack thereof), the Appellant has necessarily filed criminal complaints with the FBI and
states that these facts establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following
crimes have occurred: MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code §
371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; and ECONOMIC
ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831. Aside from criminal
accountability, Clerk Carter and Circuit Executive Goldberg are listed as DEFENDANTS in
the Appellant’s recently filed civil lawsuit – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, et
al., Docket No. 18-cv-11134. Professional complaints have also been filed with the
Administrative Office of US Courts, to the specific attention of Director James C. Duff.
Any continued failure(s) by the Circuit Clerk and/or the Circuit Executive to acknowledge
and report evidenced judicial misconduct shows cause to file new, or to expand upon existing
civil/criminal/professional claims.
V. DOJ OBLIGATIONS RE: EVIDENCED CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
The Appellant respectfully reminds the Court that CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS are already
filed with the FBI against CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD and CIRCUIT
JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON. Judges DO NOT have immunity from criminal
prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant clearly expects the DOJ to bring criminal charges
against ALL responsible parties, including referenced officers of the Court for the
evidenced criminal claims of record. Any CONTINUED failure by the DOJ to do so
shows cause to expand upon existing claims against The United States including (but
not limited to) Color of Law and Due Process violations.
VI. NEW JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT CLAIMS AGAINST CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ
By affirming the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s complaint, Circuit Judge Kermit V.
Lipez now similarly stands accused of judicial misconduct for his evidenced failure to uphold
his Judicial Oath, the Constitution and numerous Federal laws. As with the other accused
judicial officers, Judge Lipez is respectfully given the opportunity to initiate corrective
action, by (at the very least) informing the Court IF his was a minority opinion that disagreed
with the judgment order.
Respectfully, any failure by Judge Lipez to initiate corrective action will necessarily show
cause to: (1) File a NEW Judicial Misconduct complaint; (2) File a Criminal Complaint with
the FBI; (3) Amend the existing civil complaint against The United States (HARIHAR v.
THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and
(4) Amend the existing civil complaint – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
VII. NEW INFORMATION RE: APPELLANT – WELLS FARGO
Over the past two (2) weeks the Appellee – WELLS FARGO, has made National Headlines
on three (3) separate occasions, each of which bare impact to this litigation:
A. ADMISSION OF GUILT - In a regulatory filing, Wells Fargo has just revealed that a
“technical error” kept homeowners from qualifying for a mortgage loan modification.
“During the course of an internal review, we determined that an automated calculation

error may have affected the decision on whether or not to offer or approve some
mortgage modifications between April 13, 2010 and Oct. 20, 2015, when the error was
corrected,” the bank said in a statement. “We’re very sorry that this error occurred and
are providing remediation to the approximately 625 customers who may have been
impacted.”
This “Technical Error” had major consequences for many borrowers facing
financial difficulties.
“You’re talking about families who were under unbelievable amounts of stress already
from their economic situation,” says Julia Gordon, a national expert on foreclosure
and mortgage-related issues. “Losing your home is extremely traumatic for a family
and to have gone through that because of a mistake. I can’t imagine how I would feel
if that happened to me.”
This admission by Appellee – Wells Fargo is IDENTICAL to the Appellant’s original
Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.
From the beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the
Appellant articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO
BE DENIED SIX (6) SEPARATE TIMES. AFTER REVEIVING EACH DENIAL
LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as
to WHY his loan modification was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a
“CALCULATION ERROR MADE BY WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH
TIME, after learning of this “calculation error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo
could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve the loan modification. EACH TIME
(on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22) months), the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but
you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through
his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO
ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an intentional act designed to ultimately (and
illegally) foreclose on the Appellant.
These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the
Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and Appellee – WELLS FARGO were
recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the
Appellant/Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has
consistently DENIED THEIR DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE. Now, by this
admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his original
complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3)
Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee – WELLS FARGO has
purposefully tried to deceive this Court.
B. Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage Modifications - On
August 2, 2018, the 9th Circuit ruled that Wells Fargo & Co must face lawsuits by
homeowners who claim the largest U.S. mortgage lender refused to offer them permanent
mortgage modifications for which they had qualified. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said Wells Fargo was required under the federal Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) to offer loan modifications to borrowers who demonstrated their
eligibility during a trial period (Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al, 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 11-16234). “Miscalculations in loans modification reviews were
common before and during the financial crisis. And they remain an issue today” - Alys
Cohen, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Consumers should not
have to waive their legal rights and that way they can accept the payment and then
figure out whether more is needed,” Cohen says. “That was standard several years ago
when the regulators found systemic problems in loan modification reviews and set up
the independent foreclosure review process. Claims were not waived.”
This Court is respectfully reminded that as part of the record (paraphrasing):
1. The Appellant submitted as evidence a letter he received from a Vice President
for Wells Fargo, along with a $3000 check. The check was a reimbursement
(with interest) to the Appellant for his “Good Faith” payment that he was
INSTRUCTED to make in order to qualify for the loan modification – which he
never received. The letter, which was received approximately three (3) years
AFTER the ILLEGAL Foreclosure, issued an apology for its FAILURE(S) to
modify Mr. Harihar’s mortgage;
2. The Appellant’s Illegal Foreclosure was identified in two (2) separate
lawsuits. The first lawsuit was brought by 49 State AG’s against Defendants that
included the Appellee – WELLS FARGO. From the $25B settlement, the
Appellant received approximately $1200. The second lawsuit was brought by

Federal Bank Regulators who found systemic problems in loan modification
reviews and set up the independent foreclosure review process. From the $8B
settlement, the Appellant received approximately $800. In BOTH lawsuits, the
Appellant reserved the right to pursue additional civil remedies, if payments fell
short of the damages incurred. Similarly, State and Federal Prosecutors reserved
the right to pursue criminal claims. The purpose of this (and the related) civil
litigation is to recover the substantial remaining balance of damages rightfully due
to the Appellant.
C. $2.1B Settlement with DOJ Over Mortgage Abuses – This Court is respectfully
reminded of the Notice filed with this Court on August 3, 2018 after being informed of a
recent Press Release from the DOJ on Wednesday, August 1, 2018. This announcement
by the DOJ (at minimum) impacts this - and ALL RELATED LITIGATION
(paraphrasing):
1. RE-AFFIRMS the Appellant’s ALREADY-SUPPORTED argument(s)
pertaining to RMBS abuses/failures;
2. RE-AFFIRMS a history of MORTGAGE ABUSES by Appellee – WELLS
FARGO;
3. Recognizes the THREAT of PROSECUTION and IMPACT to RELATED
CIVIL LITIGATION;
4. Calls for DOJ CLARIFICATION and questions the UNNECESSARY DELAY
to bring CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS HERE; and

5. This Court is reminded of EVIDENCED record demonstrating COLLUSION
BETWEEN BANK ATTORNEYS, US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (MA) and MA-
AGO10
The Court is respectfully reminded that this new information CONTRIBUTES to the existing
and UNOPPOSED – Fraud on the Court Claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), that articulates
that the related RMBS securitized Trust is VOID. This latest information re-affirms the
Appellee’s clear intent to deceive this Court.
VIII. CAUSE FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION – There is now a level of legal
concern, where a fair and just legal remedy is no longer thought to be possible – at least
through this First Circuit Judiciary. The Appellant has now evidenced for the record – IN
FULL PUBLIC VIEW, judicial misconduct by ELEVEN (11) Federal (District and Circuit)
Judges. There are ONLY THREE (3) remaining First Circuit Judges who are believed to be
qualified to rule in this litigation. Accused Officers of the Court HAVE NOT DENIED A
SINGLE MISCONDUCT CLAIM against them and the Appellant’s numerous requests for
TRANSFER have been DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE. Even with the list of
EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES acknowledged by SCOTUS and this
Appeals Court, it seems clear that this newly assigned Panel of Judges has NO INTENTION
TO INITIATE CORECTIVE ACTION.
NOW, with APPELLEE – WELLS FARGO’S recent admission of guilt making National
Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-
10 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman Brian Schatz
(D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo over the issue, but
Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells Fargo and said that he
expects answers by the end of the month:
1. When was the error in Wells Fargo’s HAMP underwriting tool first discovered?
What actions did Wells Fargo take when the error was first discovered? At that
time, did Wells Fargo examine whether the error impacted any customers?
2. What led Wells Fargo to examine the impact of the error on consumers who
applied for a loan modification? When did that examination begin and end? When
will Wells Fargo know the total number of impacted consumers, if the company
does not yet know?
3. Have the impacted customers been notified that they were harmed by Wells
Fargo’s error? If so, through what medium? Can you confirm that they received
this notification? If not, what steps will Wells Fargo take to ensure that impacted
customers are aware that they were harmed?
4. Has Wells Fargo notified impacted customers of the funds available to remediate
the harm that they suffered? If so, through what medium? What will customers
need to do to receive compensation?
5. What methodology did Wells Fargo use to determine that $8 million should be
accrued for remedying customers for the harms that resulted from this error?
6. Please provide details on the specific types of harm that Wells Fargo plans to
remediate for the impacted customers, and how Wells Fargo plans to make those
determinations.
7. What terms will Wells Fargo require impacted customers to agree to as a
condition of accepting remediation from Wells Fargo? Will Wells Fargo ask an
impacted customer to waive any legal rights?
8. Through HAMP, the Treasury Department provided financial incentives to
participating institutions who modified eligible troubled borrowers’ mortgages.
Did Wells Fargo receive any incentives for the customers who were impacted by
the underwriting tool error? If so, has Wells Fargo returned those financial
incentives to the Treasury?
9. Did Wells Fargo report the foreclosures or any missed payments that could be
directly or indirectly related to Wells Fargo’s errors to credit reporting agencies?
If so, will Wells Fargo commit to working with the credit reporting agencies to
remove these entries from borrowers’ credit reports?
10. Please provide information about the disposition of impacted customers’
foreclosed properties. Did Wells Fargo sell these properties? Does Wells Fargo
plan to reconnect families to their homes?
11. In the same quarterly report, Wells Fargo announced an increase in its common
stock dividend of 10% and a plan to buy back $24.5 billion of stock. Please
explain how the company made the decision to use these funds for shareholder
returns ahead of other uses, such as increasing consumer remedies or investing in
improving internal investigations and controls. How much is Wells Fargo
currently investing or planning to invest in improving internal controls and
consumer protection?
12. At this moment, can Wells Fargo say with confidence that it has identified and
disclosed all incidents of consumer harm across all of its business units? If not,
why not?
13. Should we conclude from the steady stream of news of consumer harm at Wells
Fargo that the bank is too big to have meaningful internal controls or policies to
prevent violations of law and consumer abuses?
These questions (and others) must now be answered here as well, as the Appellant has
evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has not been entirely truthful with
its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized, will be severe.
The gravity of this Discovery shows cause for removal and transfer before a
Congressional Panel.
IX. PETITION for WRIT of MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI – Collectively, the list of
extraordinary circumstances is unprecedented at the Circuit level, where JURISDICTION
issues alone will show cause to grant Mandamus/Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Based on his interpretation of Federal law, the Appellant believes he has exhausted all
possible avenues for legal remedy within this Court. However, the evidenced judicial failures
of record will ultimately show cause for SCOTUS to grant a Writ of Mandamus and/or a
Writ of Certiorari.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated within, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR has
CONCLUSIVELY evidenced as a matter of court record, a number of legal claims requiring (at
minimum) the following next steps:
1. Before anything else – JURISDICTION must be re-established, either: (a) in this Court
(if still a legal option), (b) by TRANSFER to another Circuit with jurisdiction, (c) by
REMOVAL to SCOTUS, or (d) by removal to a Congressional panel;
2. The ADMISSION OF GUILT by Appellee – WELLS FARGO re-affirms the
Appellant’s consistent claims and adds incrementally to his Fraud on the Court
claim(s). Therefore, the Court should bring a DEFAULT JUDGMENT, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), in favor of the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, with
prejudice and AWARD the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is
allowed by law;
3. The Appellant has also demonstrated that a Court with jurisdiction should ultimately
VACATE the referenced judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and AWARD
the Appellant the maximum reimbursement of fees and civil damages as is allowed by
law (It is unclear whether Conclusion #2 or Conclusion #3 has legal precedence);
4. That this Court should consider the existing Circuit Panel as INFERIOR Judges who are
WITHOUT JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED from ruling further in this, or
any related litigation;
5. That a Court with jurisdiction should finally acknowledge the COMPLEXITY OF
LEGAL ISSUES that warrant the Court’s assistance with the ASSIGNMENT of
LEGAL COUNSEL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

6. Since the judgment is considered VOID, there are several MOTIONS which are still
pending, BEGINNING WITH the Appellant’s Emergency Motion for an Injunction
and to re-establish a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.;
7. The Appellant also requests timely clarification regarding his right to file a Petition
for re-hearing, pursuant to FRAP Rule 40. Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of
Federal law, filing the petition at this time is NOT believed to be necessary, since the
referenced judgment is considered VOID. If somehow it is determined that filing a
petition for re-hearing becomes necessary, the Appellant respectfully requests that this
response ALSO serve as said petition; also requesting that the Court accept this oversized
petition as compliant with FRAP Rule 40(b), considering the number and severity of
issues. Re-stating that the ever-increasing complexity of legal issues warrants the Court’s
assistance with the assignment of Counsel;
8. A Court with jurisdiction should assess maximum professional penalties against ALL
Appellees (where applicable), including (but not limited to) disbarment.
9. With regard to the related CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS of record, the Appellant
requests an official update for the record - from the DOJ stating their timeline for
bringing criminal indictments against ALL responsible parties.
10. With regard to the Appellant’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, Mr. Harihar had
previously requested a formal meeting with POTUS for the purpose of potentially
implementing a program designed to bring substantial economic benefit to The United
States. A scheduling update from the Executive Branch is respectfully requested.
11. With regard to the Appellant’s ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED PROPERTY, Mr.
Harihar should be allowed to (at minimum) establish a free and clear Quiet Title in his
name ONLY. Appellees – JEFFREY AND ISABELLE PERKINS should be given a
48-hour timeline to vacate the premises, under the supervision of the Middlesex County
Sherriff’s Department.
12. Finally, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR should be allowed to legally return to
HIS HOME, located at 168 Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852, without any further
unnecessary delay.
The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s consideration and attention to these very serious
matters. For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE/MOTION to the
attention of POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 4) with the filed Court
copy. A copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC
out of the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a
question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional
supporting information upon request.
Respectfully submitted this 16th Day of August, 2018.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
APPELLANT MOTION FOR RECUSAL/REMOVAL OF INFERIOR/DISQUALIFIED

CIRCUIT JUDGES – CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD AND
CIRCUIT JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON
The Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR, acting pro se, respectfully files this MOTION,
following the Court’s July 26, 2018 NOTICE11, which informed the parties of: (1) a newly
assigned Circuit panel of judges; and (2) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that the case will be
submitted on the briefs without oral argument. The Appellant objects to both the panel selection
(at least in part) and a pre-mature submission without oral argument, as a number of critical (new
and previously identified) issues remain:
I. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges Assigned to Panel are Inferior/ Disqualified
On July 26, 2018, the Court’s NOTICE, delivered to ALL parties via E-mail communication,
identified the NEW panel of Circuit Judges as: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2)
11
See Exhibit 1
Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez.
HOWEVER, based on the historical record of this litigation, BOTH Chief Judge Howard
AND Judge Thompson are considered as INFERIOR JUDGES – having been previously
DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or any related litigation. The Appellant has clearly
evidenced as part of the record, numerous judicial infractions indicating (at minimum): (1) a
failure to show impartiality; (2) a failure to uphold Federal Law(s) and their judicial
oath; and (3) a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT revealing an
intention to further harm the Appellant, and collectively this Nation. As a respectful
reminder, this Court has recently VACATED the judgment associated with this Appeal based
on the RECUSAL of Judge Barron AND this PARTIAL LIST of judicial infractions by
referenced Federal Judges:
1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues12;
2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;
3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;
4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);
5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting
acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;
6. 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;
12
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.
7. 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;
8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT
claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);
9. 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;
10. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not
limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;
11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;
12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;
13. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law;
14. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;
15. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;
16. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;
17. Refusing to address the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s REPEATED concerns for his
personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;
18. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant,
as stated within the record;
19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the
presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to
DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.
Please be advised, a thorough review of the record will show that neither Chief Judge
Howard nor Judge Thompson have DENIED or REFUTED a single one (1) of the claims
listed above. It remains unclear as to HOW this Court could possibly have approved the
selection of this panel, considering its recent ACKNOWLEDGMENT of JURISDICTION
and list of other extraordinary issues.
THEREFORE, the Appellant calls for Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson to
RECUSE themselves; and for the Court to re-assign/replace the panel vacancies with Circuit
Judges who are considered to have jurisdiction (if applicable). As a matter of record, the
Appellant has now brought EVIDENCED claims of judicial misconduct against TEN (10)
Federal (District and Circuit) judges associated with this litigation – IN FULL PUBLIC
VIEW. SIX (6) out of TEN (10) First Circuit Judges are considered WITHOUT
JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY related litigation: (1)
Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella (RECUSED)13; (3)
Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)14; (4) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee
Thompson; (5) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta (RECUSED), Jr.; (6) Circuit Judge
David J. Barron (RECUSED). Please be advised, the Appellant has previously requested
13
Following the recusal of Judge David Barron, Judges Torruella and Kayatta
removed/recused from the initial panel for reasons which include (but are not limited to) the
list of extraordinary circumstances listed above.
14
The record shows that Judge Lynch was previously RECUSED by Chief Judge Howard for
reasons UNKNOWN.
and is still waiting for additional details and DISCLOSURES regarding the IMPROPER
FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP between Judge Barron and the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO. It is also unclear as to whether additional and/or similar improper relationships exist
within this First Circuit Judiciary. The current re-assignment of this panel continues to
critically damage the INTEGRITY of this Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Appellant will
show further cause to: (1) Transfer this Appeal to another Circuit with jurisdiction; or (2)
Considering the severity of issues (including the perceived impact to National Security),
transfer to a Congressional panel.
II. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges are DEFENDANTS in a Separate, Civil Complaint
filed by the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR (PLAINTIFF)
This Court is aware that there is related (Federal) litigation, aside from this Appeal:
A. HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074 (Lower Court
Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and
B. HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al, Docket No. 18-cv-
11134.
CLEARLY, there exists a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when TWO (2) of the newly
assigned panel judges (Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson) are DEFENDANTS
in a separate lawsuit brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The
Appellant requests for clarification as to HOW this conflict could possibly have been
overlooked.
III. Two (2) of Three Circuit Judges Stand Accused of TREASON Under ARTICLE III
This Court (and the AMERICAN PUBLIC) is well aware that as a matter of record,
evidenced TREASON claims have now been brought against SEVEN (7) Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. These accused officers of
the Court include Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson.
NOT ONE (1) accused officer of the Court has denied a single Treason claim, and
POTUS has been regularly copied on ALL Court filings (as is required by Federal Law)
since the evidenced Discovery of Treason claims in August 2015.
IV. Two (2) of Three (3) Circuit Judges have CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Filed with the
FBI against them.
The evidenced Treason and other serious criminal claims alleged against Chief Judge
Howard and Judge Thompson have shown cause for the Appellant to file Criminal
Complaints with the FBI and the DOJ. CLEARLY, this contributes further to a
CONFLICT OF INTEREST in being assigned as a panel member to this Appeal.
V. CONTINUED JURISDICTION ISSUES
The record shows that the Appellant has filed well over FIFTY (50) + court documents
which raise a JURISDICTION issue(s), ALL of which have been IGNORED by
referenced Federal (District and Circuit) Judges. The referenced July 26, 2018 email
communication and NOTICE issued by the Court signifies that JURISDICTION STILL
HAS NOT BEEN RE-ESTABLISHED. It remains UNCLEAR as to whether this First
Circuit can legally re-establish jurisdiction. Ignoring jurisdiction issues (at minimum) shows
cause to transfer this Appeal to another Circuit.
VI. Remaining Circuit Judges WITH Jurisdiction
The remaining Circuit Judges who MAY be considered to still have jurisdiction here are
believed to include: (1) Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya; (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin;
(3) Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl; and (4) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. After the
recusal/removal of Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson, the Appellant believes that the
list of Circuit Judges (above) are the ONLY REMAINING First Circuit Judges who MAY
be legally eligible to serve on a panel in this Appeal. With the filing of this Motion, the
Appellant respectfully calls for the Court to clarify for the record the selection process for its
assignment of Circuit Judges.
VII. DEMAND for INJUNCTION
The July 26, 2018 Notice issued by the Clerk of the Court – Margaret Carter, states the
following,
“This is to advise you, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that this case will be submitted on
the briefs without oral argument.”
It would appear (at least on its surface) that in addition to jurisdiction issues, an effort is
being made by this First Circuit Court to IGNORE the Appellant’s motion(s) for an
Injunction and issues associated with recently vacated orders. As previously stated, the
Appellant respectfully calls for a new panel (with jurisdiction) to address these legal matters
PRIOR to moving forward with this Appeal. Since the Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and
has NO LEGAL background, one of the first issues to address (once jurisdiction has been
established) is ASSISTING MR. HARIHAR with the APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and re-establishing a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.
Finally, the Appellant reminds the Court of his filed response to the July 17, 2018 order, which
included a GOOD FAITH OPPORTUNITY to REACH AGREEMENT with ALL
PARTIES. The Appellant respectfully expects a documented ANSWER from ALL Appellees
NO LATER THAN this Friday, August 3, 2018.

For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE to the attention of
POTUS, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Exhibit 2) with the filed Court copy. A
copy will also be made available to the FBI, DOJ, OIG, Congress and to the PUBLIC out of
the Appellant’s continued concerns for his personal safety and security. If there is a question
regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Appellant is happy to provide additional supporting
information upon request.
Respectfully submitted this 29th Day of July, 2018.
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 16, 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

$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK Et Al (Appeal No. 17-1381) Brings Evidenced Argument Showing WELLS FARGO'S - ADMISSION of GUILT, Is NO "ERROR"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK Et Al (Appeal No. 17-1381) Brings Evidenced Argument Showing WELLS FARGO'S - ADMISSION of GUILT, Is NO "ERROR"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

APPELLANT RESPONSE/MOTION TO: (1) ADDRESS NEW EVIDENCE/INFORMATION;

EXPERT, respectfully files this RESPONSE, as an EGREGIOUS PATTERN OF

v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.

What is clear to this Appellant (and should be to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER), is a

ALL Appellant motions in order to reach a CORRUPT and PRE-DETERMINED

IMPARTIALITY has long been compromised. Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of

necessitates the following actions:

I. THE JUDGEMENT IS VOID

jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.2A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

exercise of jurisdiction over the claim amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial

in a manner inconsistent with due process.

IN EACH of the IDENTIFIED – EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES

(See Below). ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would suggest that VALIDATING

JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is certainly appropriate.

ABUSE OF AUTHORITY by a Federal Judiciary in US history. The argument can

Harihar, DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST RESOLUTION here, or in any

L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 l ED 897; Windsor v. McVeigh

Annuity Funds v. Griffee, 198 F.3d 642, 644(7th cir. 1999).

LACK OF JURISDICTION is just ONE (1) of (at least) TWENTY (20)

EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES associated with this Appeal (and

he disclosed having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO.7 A

extraordinary/unresolved issues before the Court, only to be IGNORED as if they do not

respectful reminder and for documentation purposes, the list of extraordinary/unresolved

issues includes (but is not limited to) the following:

1. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues8;

2. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

3. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

4. Refusal(s) to RECUSE (other than those already recognized);

5. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

6. Refusing to address OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE: a.) the Appellant’s

Intellectual Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE

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

the Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

8. Refusing to address the EVIDENCED and UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT

claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

9. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

Code of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

11. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

12. Refusing to address the clearly evidenced IMBALANCE OF HARDSHIPS;

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

personal SAFETY AND SECURITY;

as stated within the record;

19. Refusing to address DEMAND(S) for CLARIFICATION HEARINGS, with the

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

20. Failing to address evidenced argument(s) as FACT – PRIOR to moving to

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

It is a COMBINATION of these factors – RECUSAL AND THIS LIST OF

EXTRAORDINARY/UNRESOLVED ISSUES which initially led to withdrawing the

there is now an INCREMENTAL EXAMPLE OF RECORD that shows a continued

INTENT to IGNORE the referenced list of extraordinary circumstances; and instead

treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.

throughout the record), CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMPSON

potential impeachment, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453.

III. INCREMENTAL Act of TREASON Under ARTICLE III

Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - LACK

JURISDICTION to rule in this litigation. Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant

v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia:

THEREFORE, by consciously issuing the JUDGEMENT order WITHOUT

Thompson have committed an INCREMENTAL act of TREASON under ARTICLE III,