---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Mohan Harihar <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 12:14 PM
Subject: 2nd Request for Congressional Intervention RE: Judicial Misconduct Claims within the First
Circuit US Courts
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], NewYorkComplaints Dojoig <[email protected]>,
[email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
[email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Dear Senator Warren and Congresswoman Tsongas,

On August 4, 2017, I - Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully delivered to your attention the attached email
(below), addressing evidenced judicial misconduct claims against five (5) Federal Judges within the First
Circuit. As of today, August 21, 2017, despite follow-up phone calls to both offices, I have yet to receive a
return phone call (or email communication) regarding this serious matter. The evidenced claims are now
brought against a total of Nine (9) Federal Judges, ALL within the First Circuit, and include Chief Justice
Howard, and members of the Judicial Council who failed to hold accountable evidenced
misconduct claims against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.

These EVIDENCED allegations collectively include (but are not limited to):

1. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915 Assistance with the Appointment of Counsel;

2. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court;

3. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;

4. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 1832 Misappropriation of Trade Secrets/Economic

Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;

5. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;

6. Ignoring or failing to address the litigant's repeated concerns for personal safety and security;

7. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 2382; Misprision of Treason;

8. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 4; Misprision of a Felony;

9. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III, Section 3, of the United
States Constitution;

10. Ignoring EVIDENCED claims believed to impact matters of National Security;

 11. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC 2671, 28 USC 2674 and 28 USC
1346;

12. Color of Law violations, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 242;

13. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1964;

14. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from Docket No.
17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES;

15. Evidence within the record demonstrating Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

16. Refusal to RECUSE;

17. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to Plaintiff/Appellant/Complainant, Mohan

A. Harihar;

18. False Statements; and others.

As a reminder, my legal intentions remain unchanged: (1) To hold parties accountable for damages
resulting from MY IDENTIFIED ILLEGAL FORECLOSURE, and (2) Ultimately gain agreement with The
United States regarding the Intellectual Property (IP)/Trade Secret known as The HARIHAR FCS Model.
Numerous opportunities have been afforded to ALL parties in the referenced litigation - INCLUDING THE
UNITED STATES, to seek MUTUAL AGREEMENT. It appears (at least on its surface), rather than do so, an
evidenced effort is made (in part) to prevent a precedent from being set, and to ensure that the IP/Trade
Secret is damaged permanently.

This PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT within the Federal Judiciary CAN NOT be allowed to continue
without legal consequence. Doing so threatens the MORAL FABRIC of this great Nation. As one (1) of
your constituents, I again respectfully request your assistance in bringing this urgent matter to the
attention of Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, and to the attention of The President. Any
FAILURE to do so will show cause to question whether this pattern of corrupt conduct extends BEYOND
the Federal Judiciary to the Legislative branch of government.

Attached for reference are two (2) additional documents:

1. A copy of the Judicial Misconduct Complaint - filed today via US Mail with the Circuit Executive
of The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals;

2. The Appellant Brief, filed with the US Court of Appeals on Monday, August 14, 2017. This brief
will assist in providing an updated summary of the litigation associated with HARIHAR v. US
BANK, et al, Appeal No. 17-1381.

A RESPONSE from both offices is respectfully requested on or before this Friday, August 25th, 2017. For
documentation purposes, and out of concerns for my personal safety and security, the following parties
(referenced below) are copied on this communication, and a copy is necessarily made available to the

1
public. Separate Notices will also be filed with: (1) the referenced Appeal and (2) the referenced FTCA
complaint against The United States.

Thank you, in advance for your assistance with this urgent matter.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

Respectfully,

Mohan A. Harihar

7124 Avalon Drive

Acton, MA 01720

617.921.2526 (Mobile)

cc

The Executive Office of The President (EOP)

US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz

US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions

US Senator Ed Markey, (D-MA)

Governor Charley Baker, (D-MA)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

2
 Judicial Council of the First Circuit

COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OR DISABILITY

To begin the complaint process, complete this form and prepare the brief statement of facts
described in item 4 (below). The Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings,
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, contain information on what to include in
a complaint (Rule 6), where to file a complaint (Rule 7), and other important matters. The Rules
are available in federal court clerks= offices, on individual federal courts= websites, and on
www.uscourts.gov.

Your complaint (this form and the statement of facts) should be typewritten and must be legible.
For the number of copies to file, consult the local rules or clerk=s office of the court in which your
complaint is required to be filed. Enclose each copy of the complaint in an envelope marked
ACOMPLAINT OF MISCONDUCT@ or ACOMPLAINT OF DISABILITY@ and submit it to
the appropriate clerk of court. Do not put the name of any judge on the envelope.

1. Name of Complainant: MOHAN A. HARIHAR___________________________

Contact Address: 7124 Avalon Drive_____________________________________
Acton, MA 01720______________________________________
Daytime telephone: (617) 921.2526_________________________________________
2. Name(s) of Judge(s): Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante___________________________
Court: US District Court (NH), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint No.
90033
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge John J. McConnell, Jr.____________________________
Court: US District Court (RI), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint
No. 90033
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge John David Levy_________________________________
Court: US District Court (ME), serving as a member of the Judicial
Council for the First Circuit, Judicial Misconduct Complaint
No. 90033_________________________________
Name(s) of Judge(s): Judge Juan R. Torruella, Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., Judge
David J. Barron, Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, Chief Justice
Jeffrey R. Howard ____________________________
Court: US Court of Appeals (First Circuit) _______________________
3. Does this complaint concern the behavior of the judge(s) in a particular lawsuit or lawsuits?

3
 [ X ] Yes [ ] No
If yes, give the following information about each lawsuit:

Court: US District Court (Boston, MA) _________________________

Case Number: 15-cv-11880_________________________________________
Docket number of any appeal to the 1st Circuit: Appeal No. 17-1381______________
Are (were) you a party or lawyer in the lawsuit?
[ X] Party [ ] Lawyer [ ] Neither

If you are (were) a party and have (had) a lawyer, give the lawyers name, address, and

telephone number: The Complainant has unfairly been given NO alternative but to

represent himself as a pro se litigant. ________________________________________

4. Statement of Facts

The judicial misconduct claims (alleged) against the eight (8) referenced Federal Judges stem
from documented actions within the records of: Harihar v. US Bank (Docket No. 15-cv-11880),
its related Appeal (Appeal No. 17-1381), and also include the actions (or lack thereof) of the
Judicial Council associated with Judicial Misconduct Complaint No. 90033 against Judge Allison
Dale Burroughs. Collectively, these evidenced claims additionally impact the related complaint
filed by Mohan A. Harihar against the United States, Docket No. 17-cv-11109, showing cause to
(at minimum) expand upon existing conspiracy claims. The Complainant respectfully states that
evidenced judicial misconduct includes (but is not limited to) the following:

a. Failure/Refusal to uphold 28 U.S.C. 1915 Assistance with the Appointment of

Counsel;
b. Failure/Refusal to uphold Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court;
c. JUDICIAL Fraud on the Court;
d. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 1832 Misappropriation of Trade
Secrets/Economic Espionage Act, and resulting impact to National Security;
e. Refusing to CLARIFY decisions;
f. Ignoring or failing to address Complainants repeated concerns for personal safety and
security;
g. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 2382; Misprision of Treason;
h. Failure/Refusal to uphold 18 U.S. Code 4; Misprision of a Felony;
i. Failure/Refusal to address evidenced Acts of TREASON, under Article III, Section 3, of
the United States Constitution;
j. Ignoring EVIDENCED claims believed to impact matters of National Security;
k. Federal Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum): 28 USC 2671, 28 USC 2674 and 28
USC 1346;
l. Color of Law violations, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 242;
m. Civil RICO Claims pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1964
n. Ignoring the impact of the sua sponte RECUSAL of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from
Docket No. 17-cv-11109, HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES;
4
 o. Evidence within the record demonstrating Unnecessary Judicial Delay;
p. Refusal to RECUSE;
q. Demonstrated INTENT to cause increased hardship to Plaintiff/Appellant/Complainant,
Mohan A. Harihar;
r. False Statements; and others.

Please be advised, this partial list claims evidenced within the record(s) shows cause to conclude
that the INTEGRITY of both this US District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals is
compromised. Jurisdiction is also impacted.

It SHOULD appear clear to ANY OBJECTIVE OBSERVER, that a deep-seated favoritism or

antagonism does exist in the First Circuit, making fair judgment impossible. It would appear (at
least on its surface), that elements of corruption may exist here; and that an effort is being made
by nine (9) Federal Judges, to brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and
predetermined outcome. At this stage, it is unclear whether the referenced judges are part of a
greater conspiracy designed to (in part) ultimately prevent the successful implementation of the
Complainants Intellectual Property/Trade Secret The HARIHAR FCS Model. What does
appear clear is that this matter MUST now be brought to the attention of: (1) The President,
(2) Congress, (3) the House Judiciary Committee, (4) US Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
(5) US Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Therefore, along with filing this complaint with
the Clerk of the Court, the Complainant respectfully seeks the assistance of US: Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA), to bring this
matter to the attention of Congress. Copies of this filed complaint are additionally delivered to
referenced government officials (above) via certified US mail/email communication and/or social
media.

Finally, the Complainant has made clear that by pursuing these evidenced and irrefutable claims,
he has reason to fear for his safety and well-being. It appears (at least on its surface) that these
referenced members of the Federal Judiciary INTEND to cause the Complainant, and
ultimately The United States harm. Therefore, for documentation, safety and security reasons, a
copy of this judicial misconduct complaint is made available to the Public.

5. Declaration and signature:

I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements made in this complaint are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge.

(Signature)__MOHAN A. HARIHAR_____________________ (Date) __8/19/2017________

5
 No. 17-1381

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

US BANK NA; RMBS CMLTI 2006 AR-1; COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS; HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C.; NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP; PETER HALEY; MARY DAHER; KEN
DAHER; DAHER COMPANIES; JEFFREY PERKINS; ISABELLE PERKINS;
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; KURT MCHUGH; MARTHA COAKLEY; K&L
GATES LLP,

Defendants, Appellees,

DAVID E. FIALKOW, Esq.; JEFFREY PATTERSON, Esq.,

Defendants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

BRIEF OF APPELLANT
MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Mohan A. Harihar
[email protected]
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
Dated: August 14, 2017

6
 APPELLANT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, acting pro se, respectfully makes the

following disclosures:

1. This appellate brief addresses the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court

Claim(s) of the Appellant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). It is

UNCLEAR why the filing of a brief is necessary, since Appellees and

Defendants HAVE NO DEFENSE in an Appeal, and the filing of

EITHER brief is considered MOOT. Despite multiple efforts by the

Appellant requesting clarification (on record), presiding Judges Torruella,

Kayatta, Barron; Judge Thompson, and Chief Justice Howard have refused

to clarify why it is necessary for the Appellant to even file his Brief.

2. The Appellant Brief addresses PRIMARILY, the evidenced Fraud on the

Court claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). While there is a

SUBSTANTIAL amount of incremental facts supporting the Appellants

consistent claims on Appeal (as documented within the record), they are

also interpreted as moot, based on the unopposed Rule 60(b)(3) claim,

and what by law MUST result in a default judgement. Should it become

necessary to provide the Court with additional facts supporting appeal, the

Appellant will (at minimum) require an extended timeline to do so, re-

stating his request for assistance to appoint counsel, and the Courts

approval to exceed the Certificate of Compliance limits as needed.

7
3. The Appellant necessarily files this Appellate brief by the court ordered

deadline of August 14, 2017, and still as a pro se litigant, despite providing

the First Circuit US Court of Appeals with a TEXTBOOK example

warranting assistance with the appointment of counsel pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. 1915. This refusal to assist the Appellant with the appointment of

counsel shows a failure to uphold Title 28 U.S.C. 1915 and the judicial

machinery of the court. It exemplifies an incremental act made in BAD

FAITH by officers of the Court representing The United States -

ensuring fundamental unfairness that impinges on the Appellants DUE

PROCESS rights. Presiding Judges Torruella, Kayatta, Barron; Judge

Thompson, and Chief Justice Howard have all denied to clarify their

decisions refusing to assist the Appellant with the appointment of

counsel.

4. Evidenced claims by the Appellant are believed to include (but are not

limited to) matters of National Security, and include infractions to the

Economic Espionage Act of 1996, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1832, and

acts of TREASON under ARTICLE III, warranting the intervention of

BOTH Congress and the Department of Justice, to address associated

criminal components. Evidenced Treason claims also warrant notifying

The President of The United States.

5. This is a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in the US District Court

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109,

8
 pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 26 (a)(1)(B)(viii). The documented judicial

actions exemplified in this appeal warrant an expansion of claims against

The United States in the related docket.

6. Since presiding Judges: Torruella, Kayatta, Barron have previously (at

minimum) ignored the Appellants Fraud on the Court claims, they are

considered to be without jurisdiction and disqualified by law to rule further

on this Appeal, or any related matter. Based on the Appellants

interpretation of the law, a judge who rules without jurisdiction is

considered to have committed an Act of Treason under ARTICLE III of

the Constitution. Therefore, the Appellant respectfully re-states his demand

for their immediate RECUSAL, and intends to bring Treason claims

against ANY party who attempts to act without jurisdiction.

7. The Appellant firmly believes, based on the record alone, that a deep-

seated favoritism or antagonism does exist here, making fair judgment

impossible within this First Circuit. It would appear (at least on its surface),

that elements of corruption may exist; and that efforts have been made thus

far by NINE (9) Federal judges, to brush aside all motions in order to

reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome. ANY objective observer

would certainly agree, and giving the Appellant no choice but to proceed

as a pro se litigant re-affirms that argument, and further strengthens

existing conspiracy claims in the related complaint, HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109.

9
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....6

BRIEF OF APPELLANT .7

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .7

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS .10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................12

STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................... 17

ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 17

I. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO CORRECTLY

ASSIST MOHAN A. HARIHAR WITH THE
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND OTHER
REQUESTED INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.17

II. APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS FAILED TO FILE ANY

OPPOSITION TO FRAUD ON THE COURT
CLAIMS23

III. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO CORRECTLY

ADDRESS EVIDENCED FRAUD ON THE COURT
CLAIMS....26

IV. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ADDRESS THE

APPELLANTS CLAIMS REGARDING THE
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, ECONOMIC
ESPIONAGE, AND IMPACT TO NATIONAL
SECURITY26

10
 V. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED THE
APPELLANTS COMPLAINT27

VI. THE IMPACT OF RECUSAL FROM THE RELATED CASE,

HARIHAR V. THE UNITED STATES, DOCKET NO. 17-CV-
11109.28

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 28

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

11
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen

2014 NY Slip Op 03294.16

Cox v. Burke,
706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ....10

Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.,

892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) .11

Bulloch v. United States,

763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985) ..12

Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) .19

STATUTES:

28 U.S.C. 1915 ...................................................................................2,14,19,20

18 U.S.C. 1832 .............................................................................................9,15,26
28 U.S.C. 1291.7
28 U.S.C. 455(a)10,27
28 U.S.C. 144 ..10,27
26 U.S.C. 860G(d)(1)24
18 U.S. Code 238218
18 U.S. Code 4..18

RULES:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) .......................................................................1,7-10,14,23,28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1)(B)(viii) ...3

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION:

Article III, Section 3.2,3,18,26

12
 BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Appellant Mohan A. Harihar, who has UNFAIRLY been given NO

ALTERNATIVE but to represent himself pro se, respectfully calls for this Court

to recognize the UNOPPOSED Fraud on the Court claims evidenced against ALL

Appellees/Defendants, and grant a DEFAULT order and final judgment of

permanent injunction IN FAVOR of the Appellant, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(3).

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The record of this Appeal reveals that the presiding Judges - Torruella,

Kayatta, and Barron have previously failed to (at minimum) address Fraud on the

Court Claims, referenced in the lower court docket, and with the expanded claims

documented earlier in this Appeal. Since the beginning of the Appeal process, five

(5) additional Federal Judges (nine in total), including Chief Justice Howard have

also either ignored these Rule 60(b) claims or suggested, without cause that they are

frivolous. When asked to clarify their decisions, these referenced judges have refused

to do so. Motions for recusal have been either DENIED or IGNORED, including

the respectful DEMAND for TRANSFER of the Appeal to another Circuit. This

clear failure to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court is irrefutable, on record,

and certainly impacts jurisdiction here (at minimum) under 28 U.S.C. 1291. With

the filing of the Appellant Brief, eight (8) incremental judicial misconduct

complaints will necessarily be filed with the Clerk of the Court. The extent of

13
evidenced judicial misconduct claims against nine (9) Federal Judges (ALL within

the First Circuit)1, suggests that elements of both CORRUPTION and

CONSPIRACY exist; warranting (at minimum) the immediate notification of

Congress, the House Judiciary Committee, and the President. Formal

communication (on record) has now been delivered to US Senator Elizabeth

Warren (D-MA) and Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) requesting their

immediate assistance with bringing this matter to the attention of Congress.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the District Court failed to assist the Appellant with the

appointment of counsel and other requested injunctive relief?

2. Whether Appellees/Defendants failed to file opposition to Fraud on the

Court Claims?

3. Whether the District Court failed to (at minimum) correctly address the

evidenced Fraud on the Court claim(s) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3)?

4. Whether the District Court failed to address the Appellants claims

regarding the Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Economic

1
The referenced NINE (9) officers of the Court include: US District Court
Judges - Allison Dale Burroughs, Chief Judge Joseph N. Laplante (NH), Judge
John J. McConnell, Jr. (RI), and Judge John David Levy (ME), First Circuit Judges
- Juan R. Torruella, William J. Kayatta, Jr., David J. Barron, O. Rogeriee
Thompson and Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard.

14
 Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S. Code 1832, and its resulting impact to

National Security?

5. Whether the District Court improperly dismissed the Appellants

complaint?

6. Whether the RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs in the related complaint

impacts this Appeal, Dismissal Order, and all related

Orders/Judgements?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, addresses the District Courts abuse of

discretion and wrongful dismissal of his complaint seeking: (1) Damages resulting

from his identified illegal foreclosure, including the recovery of his property, (2)

Damages resulting from the Misappropriation to his Intellectual Property also

considered a Trade Secret(s) protected under the Economic Espionage Act, (3)

Professional accountability including (but not limited to) licensure revocation and

disbarment, where applicable, and (4) Criminal accountability for related criminal

offenses, including (but not limited to fraud).

On July 3, 2016, the Appellant filed with District Court a motion which

included Fraud on the Court claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) against ALL

Appellees/Defendants. NO opposition by ANY party was ever filed, and the judges

order of denial failed to even address the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) claim. Since that

15
time, requests for Judge Burroughs recusal per 28 U.S.C. 455(a), AND 28 U.S.C.

144 were denied (twice), and repeated efforts to address Fraud on the Court Claims

continued to be ignored. If there was ANY question regarding the validity of the

Rule 60(b) claim, Appellees and Defendants had nearly one year to ADDRESS,

DEFEND, or DENY such claims. They DID NOT, as is clearly reflected within the

record.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3) - fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. That cheaters

should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of

our society and one of the underpinnings of our legal system.2

The basic standards governing fraud on the court are reasonably straightforward. As

set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):

The requisite fraud on the court occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and

convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme

calculated to interfere with the judicial systems ability impartially to adjudicate a

matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the

2
Florida Bar Journal, February, 2004 Volume LXXVIII, No. 2, p.16
16
presentation of the opposing partys claim or defense. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.,

892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . .

Fraud on the court as described in Cox typically refers to substantive, not procedural,

misconduct. The same is true here as it pertains to clear title. ALL fourteen (14)

Appellees/Defendants were aware that clear title did not exist with Mr. Harihars

property and collectively participated in a scheme to defraud the him of HIS

HOMESTEAD. The Court is well aware that this is not an isolated incident. The

Appellant is able to conservatively provide 4.2 million other examples of this

scheme, as described by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal

Bank Regulators.

A summary overview of the scheme begins with the RMBS Trust which, as detailed

in the Appellants filed opposition, has no legal standing to Mr. Harihars property.

Every action following is impacted and therefore is moot/void: ranging from

collecting monthly mortgage payments, to foreclosure, resale, etc... As previously

detailed, ALL Appellees/Defendants have benefited from the alleged scheme against

the Mr. Harihar, either personally or financially; Litigation privilege should not

apply when there is no legal standing, nor should sovereign immunity. The

Defendant Trust, Bank Defendants, attorney and law firm Defendants, Defendant

Real Estate Brokers and Defendant Homebuyers have benefitted financially from the

alleged scheme when they had no legal standing to do so; resulting in severe

detriment to Mr. Harihar. The Appellant believes the Commonwealth, the

17
Department of Justice, and the Federal Judiciary have refused to prosecute and

correct erred judgments (at minimum) out of fear of setting a precedent for the

Nation. Regardless, their failure to hold parties accountable is unacceptable.

Allowing this evidenced misconduct to continue without consequence threatens

the well-being of this Nation.

As a general proposition, substantive misconduct provides grounds for default with

prejudice because it more clearly and directly subverts the judicial process (Bulloch

v. United States). The Appellant/Plaintiff had respectfully called for the District

Court to schedule the required evidentiary hearing to determine whether the conduct

forming the basis for Defendant default was willful or done in bad faith or was

deliberate and in contumacious disregard of the courts authority. Not a single piece

of opposition is on record by any Appellee/Defendant, and the District Court has

continuously ignored the claim(s) as if never mentioned.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

While the PRIMARY argument of the Appellants brief focuses on the Fraud on the

Court Claim(s), the collective pieces of the EVIDENCED argument portray a far

greater scheme (alleged). The Court is respectfully reminded, that the Appellants

Foreclosure, is one (1) of 4.2M illegal foreclosures associated with this Nations

Foreclosure Crisis, and as identified by the Department of Justice, Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, and Federal Bank Regulators. The US Foreclosure Crisis is

18
considered by many to be the LARGEST CASE OF FRAUD IN THE HISTORY

OF THE UNITED STATES. The financial risk associated with the crisis has been

estimated as high as $60T (Trillion). Although there have been National Settlements

ex. The $25B National Mortgage Settlement (in conjunction with 49 State

Attorneys General), the $8B settlement involving Federal Bank Regulators, and

others, those who have been damaged most THE ILLEGALLY FORECLOSED

HOMEOWNER, has received the least in financial compensation. In most cases,

LESS THAN $2000, after losing their home, and much more. While these foreclosed

homeowners are allowed by law to pursue additional damages, the majority

(including this Appellant) do not have the financial resources to retain counsel

never mind for an indefinite period of time. The majority also do not have the legal

knowledge, resources or time to consider pursuing legal action as a pro se litigant.

For those who attempt to do so, it is widely considered an IMPOSSIBLE (or highly

improbable) task. The Banking industry knows it, the Government knows it, Real

Estate Professionals know it, and most Americans know it. IF EVER, there were to

be a case that helps to better close the gap in damages to the illegally foreclosed

homeowner, that precedent would have substantial impact to this Nation. For

example, if you have a pool of 4.2M illegally foreclosed homeowners, and each of

those homeowners decided to bring a lawsuit supported by precedent, there would

likely be an increased trend of new legal actions filed in both state and federal courts.

If the average lawsuit seeks $1M in damages, the total risk becomes $4.2T(Trillion).

19
Now comes the Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who after spending over 4 years

addressing this matter at the state level, brings a new complaint (with merit) to the

US District Court, and an argument that warrants the Courts the assistance with the

appointment of counsel. If the Court rightfully assists with the appointment of

counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, the risk of setting precedent is increased

substantially. Therefore, judges have apparently taken it upon themselves to ensure

that does not happen, to the extent of breaking their judicial oath to do so, including

acts of treason, as evidenced. Along with denying counsel, other injunctive relief is

also denied without cause, ensuring greater imbalance of hardship, weighing

heavily in favor of the Appellant.

Next, after reviewing the content of Appellees/Defendants Motions to Dismiss, the

Appellant brings evidenced Fraud on the Court claims, where not only is there no

opposition filed, but the Court ignores the claim(s) as if never mentioned, suggesting

the possibility (at minimum) of collusion between the Court and

Appellees/Defendants. Despite continuous efforts to address Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(3), ALL parties the District Court, and this Appeals Court have completely

ignored the claim(s). Now, Appellees/Defendants are prohibited by law to

address an unopposed claim on appeal.

Adding now to the substantive nature of the Appellants claim is the damage to his

Intellectual Property (IP) an economic framework designed to assist The United

20
States and Illegally Foreclosed Homeowners with repairing damages suffered from

the US Foreclosure Crisis. The IP, referred to as the HARIHAR FCS Model, has

merit, having been successfully presented to multiple parties (including, but not

limited to) the Congressional offices of both US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-

MA) 3, US Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA)4, Deputy Chief Counsel

(former) of the House Financial Services Committee Gail Laster (D-MA), and

the Executive Office of the President (EOP) (under the Obama Administration)

per the specific request of Vice President Joe Biden. Successfully implemented,

the FCS model is designed to conservatively deliver over $5T of economic growth

to the US, without the need of ANY new legislation, or a single US tax dollar to

implement. It will additionally help to bring substantial assistance to those who have

suffered greatly from illegal foreclosure. The IP is therefore considered a TRADE

SECRET, where the Misappropriation of a Trade Secret is protected under the

Economic Espionage Act, 18 U.S. Code 1832. Both Appellees/Defendants as

well as the Court have COMPLETELY IGNORED these claims entirely.

THEREFORE, as with the Fraud on the Court claims, Appellees/Defendants

HAVE NO DEFENSE to address claims of Economic Espionage in an

Appellee/Defendant Brief.

3
The FCS Model was successfully presented to Senior Economic Advisor Bruno
Freitas.
4
The FCS Model was successfully presented to Director (former) Brian Martin.
21
For the reasons exemplified here in this summary, in the rest of this Appellant Brief

and throughout the record, there are numerous examples that show specifically how

the District Court improperly dismissed the Appellants complaint. Now, in the

related filed complaint HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-

11109, the same presiding Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, has recently RECUSED

herself for the SAME EXACT REASONS that warranted recusal here. Her recusal

now certainly impacts ALL related orders/judgments, rendering them VOID, and

thus certainly impacting this Appeal. There is now heightened concern regarding

unnecessary judicial delay within the District Court to initiate corrective action

following recusal.

Taking shape now is what appears to be a grand scheme of historic proportion to

prevent illegally foreclosed homeowners from recovering damages, and that

prevents the implementation of an economic framework that would certainly bring

historic growth to this Nation (CDR Creances S.A.S. v Cohen). Evidenced concern

extends beyond the Federal Judiciary. Legislators who have been outspoken about

the corruption within Wall Street, have been silent here, and the DOJ is on record

as saying they will not prosecute evidenced crimes committed against this

American Citizen. The Appellants official requests for the Appointment of a

Special Prosecutor, Assembly of a Grand Jury, and a FULL criminal

investigation has also been seemingly ignored. As an AMERICAN CITIZEN,

thats UNACCEPTABLE.

22
 STANDARD OF REVIEW

The evidentiary standard applied by the federal courts is sufficient to protect

the integrity of our judicial system, and discourage the type of egregious and

purposeful conduct designed to undermine the truth-seeking function of the courts,

and impede a party's efforts to pursue a claim or defense. In order to demonstrate

fraud on the court, the non-offending party must establish by clear and convincing

evidence that the offending party has acted knowingly in an attempt to hinder the

fact finder's fair adjudication of the case and his adversary's defense of the action

(McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at 445, citing Skywark v. Isaacson, 1999 WL 1489038,

*14 [SD N.Y. Oct. 14, 1999, No. 96 CIV. 2815(JFK) ] affd 2000 WL 145465, *1

[SD N.Y. Feb. 9, 2000). A court must be persuaded that the fraudulent conduct,

which may include proof of fabrication of evidence, perjury, and falsification of

documents concerns issues that are central to the truth-finding process (McMunn,

191 F Supp 2d at 445). Essentially, fraud upon the court requires a showing that a

party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to

interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by

improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the

opposing party's claim or defense

(McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at 445, quoting Aoude, 892 F.2d at 1118] ). A

finding of fraud on the court may warrant termination of the proceedings in the non-

23
offending party's favor (see e.g. McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at 462 [[defendant]

deserves harsh sanction of dismissal]; Shangold, 2006 WL 71672, at *5 [plaintiff's

fabrication of evidence warrants dismissal]; Hargrove v. Riley, 2007 WL 389003,

*11 [same]; DAG Jewish Directories, 2010 WL 3219292, at *5 [same] ). For when

a party lies to the court and [its] adversary intentionally, repeatedly, and about issues

central to the truth-finding process, it can fairly be said that [the party] has forfeited

[the] right to have [the] claim decided on the merits (McMunn, 191 F Supp 2d at

445). Therefore, once a court concludes that clear and convincing evidence

establishes fraud on the court, it may strike a pleading and enter a default judgment .

ARGUMENT

I. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ASSIST THE APPELLANT

WITH THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND OTHER
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

In the lower Court, the Appellant consistently made clear that he is not an attorney

and has no legal background. The factually supported issues involved are CLEARLY

too complex for the Appellant to present entirely without the assistance of

experienced legal counsel. Experienced legal expertise is required in a number of

areas including (at minimum):

a. Treason allegations, and potential impact to National Security;

b. Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony), 18 U.S. Code 2382, 18 U.S. Code

4
24
c. Fraud on the Court (Judicial and Defendant);

d. Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Espionage;

e. Historical litigation pertaining to the US Foreclosure Crisis;

f. Securities Fraud - specifically referencing (but not limited to) Residential

Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) associated with the US Foreclosure

Crisis;

g. Real Estate/Foreclosure Law

h. Litigation involving State and Federal Government

i. US District Court Trial Court Litigation

j. Appellate Court Litigation

k. Judicial Misconduct

l. Violations to Due Process

m. Color of Law Violations

n. Civil Conspiracy Claims

o. Federal Tort Claims

It is completely UNREALISTIC to expect ANY pro se litigant to successfully

litigate this matter in its entirety, considering the number of complex subjects

requiring legal expertise. Also, when the Commonwealth (AND the United States)

are in reality two (2) of the opposing parties (as is the case here) and when the

interests of the indigent litigant, although not involving his personal liberty, are

fundamental and compelling, due process and fundamental fairness require a

presumption in favor of appointed counsel.

25
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that under

28 U.S.C. 1915(d) the district court has broad discretion to appoint counsel and

that the denial of counsel "will not be overturned unless it would result in

fundamental unfairness impinging on due process rights. The court said that the

district court's decision must "rest upon the court's careful consideration of all the

circumstances of the case, with particular emphasis upon certain factors that have

been recognized as highly relevant to a request for counsel.

The following factors have additionally contributed, leaning heavily towards the

necessary appointment of counsel:

1. Merits of the Appellants Claim;

2. Position to investigate crucial facts;

3. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are represented

by persons trained in the presentation of evidence and in cross-examination;

4. Capability of the Appellant to present his case. The court of appeals quoted

Gordon v. Leeke, "If it is apparent to the district court that a pro se litigant has a

colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it, the district court should appoint

counsel to assist him.;

5. The district court should consider the complexity of the legal issues the

claim(s) raises. When the law is so clearly settled that counsel will serve no purpose,

the court should deny a request for counsel. When, however, the law is not clear,

justice will be better served if both sides are represented by persons trained in legal

analysis.
26
While the Appellant understands that assistance with the appointment of counsel is

rare, it SHOULD be recognized that the Courts assistance per Title 28 U.S.C. 1915

is clearly warranted at the District Court level, and even more so at the Appellate

level. By refusing to assist the Appellant with the appointment of counsel, the

presiding judge exemplified (at minimum) Prejudice and an Act of Bad Faith against

this Appellant (28 U.S. Code 144), choosing NOT to support or uphold the Judicial

Machinery of the Court. ANY objective observer would entertain reasonable

questions about the judge's impartiality, and conclude that a fair and impartial

hearing is unlikely. The Appellant respectfully disagreed with the lower courts

decision, questioning where exactly the bar has been set to assist with the

appointment of counsel, AND exactly how Judge Burroughs could possibly have

arrived at her conclusions. The Appellants requests for clarification was repeatedly

IGNORED/DENIED.

6. It is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, that if the Complainant had experienced legal

counsel representing him from the beginning whether with, or without the

assistance of the Court, this litigation would be in the position it finds itself in now.

It is FAR MORE LIKELY that by now, the process would STILL be in the lower

court, well past the Discovery phase, potentially with additional claims, and on a

TIMELY path to a jury trial. It is also entirely plausible, that by now a settlement

agreement between ALL parties, INCLUDING the UNITED STATES, would have

been reached.

27
7. By refusing to assist with the appointment of counsel, the lower court has not

only caused increased hardship to the Appellant, but has also WASTED over two

(2) years of the litigants (Appellant and Appellees/Defendants) and the Courts time.

The Appellants time should be considered no less important than that of opposing

counsel. These clearly evidenced FACTS demonstrate ACT(S) of BAD FAITH,

made by the United States against Mr. Harihar. The Appellant has submitted to both

the District Court and the Appeals Court, a DEMAND for the reimbursement for

COSTS and FEES, and has yet to receive a timely payment from the United States

Treasury Department. The United States has respectfully been informed, that (at

minimum) the referenced legal fees will continue to accrue until either:

a. The Court RIGHTFULLY assists with the appointment of counsel; or

b. The Appellant is able to secure legal counsel on his own.

8. Appellants Inability to thus far retain legal counsel on his own For nearly

six (6) years, the Appellant has reached out to a countless number of law firms, in

an effort to secure and retain legal counsel. These efforts have been unsuccessful,

not because the claims lack merit, but primarily for the following reasons:

a. Conflict of interest (Usually with one of the Bank defendants, or the

government);

b. Unwilling to consider a contingency agreement;

c. Not equipped to handle a case of this magnitude;

d. Fear of negative repercussion The Appellants complaint is tied to what

many (worldwide) consider the largest case of FRAUD in US history, and exposes
28
corruption at a very high level. The Appellant has found that many law firms are

fearful that if they choose to represent him, they are likely to face some form of

negative repercussion.

10. The continued refusal to assist with the appointment of counsel shows cause

to expand upon existing claims against the United States in the related complaint,

HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES. The Court is aware that ALL three (3)

branches of government have previously received notice of the Appellants legal

intentions, including the required SF-95 form. The Appellant has offered the United

states an opportunity to seek agreement, and has made multiple efforts

(unsuccessfully) through both the lower court and this Appeals Court to get a

response. The lower court has ignored the Appellants allegations against the United

States and his efforts to seek agreement as if they were never mentioned. Counsel is

needed to assist with addressing these issues involving the United States, whether it

is in reaching a mutual agreement, or continued legal action(s).

II. APPELLEES/DEFENDANTS FAILED TO FILE ANY OPPOSITION

TO FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS

Appellees are now faced with the reality that IF THE LAW IS UPHELD, their

DEFAULT is IMMINENT, since both the evidenced Fraud on the Court AND

Economic Espionage claims stand as UNOPPOSED. This SHOULD be fairly

straightforward - Appellees realize they have NO RECOURSE in this appeal,

therefore CANNOT address in an Appellee brief and re-direction back to the lower

29
Court would provide NO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE. Therefore, based on

these FACTS ALONE, this Court MUST find ALL Appellees in DEFAULT with

prejudice, pursuant to (at minimum) Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3).

EVEN IF Appellees/Defendants had attempted to file opposition, the Appellants

argument is supported by the sworn testimony of Nationally recognized FRAUD

EXPERT - Lynn Szymoniak has stated under oath in her lawsuit that, Defendants

used fraudulent mortgage assignments to conceal that over 1400 MBS trusts, each

with mortgages valued at over $1 billion, are missing critical documents, meaning

that at least $1.4 trillion in mortgage-backed securities are, in fact, non-mortgage-

backed securities. Because of the strict laws governing of these kinds of

securitizations, theres no way to make the assignments after the fact. Activists have

a name for this: securitization FAIL. The Department of Justice is well aware of

this FACT, as is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Every securitization requires the creation and funding of a securitization trust

that must take physical possession and control of the trust property on or before the

closing date of the trust. The securitization trustee is the sole and exclusive legal

title holder of the thousands of promissory notes, original mortgages and

assignments of mortgage. This transfer of the trust property, the legal res, to the trust

at or around the loan origination is a necessary condition precedent to a valid

securitization. It is necessary for several reasons.

30
First, someone must be the legal owner of the mortgage loan. Only the legal owner

of the loan has the legal right to sell mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to

investors. Second, actual physical transfer of ownership is necessary because the

cash flows that go from the homeowner through the securitization trust to the MBS

purchasers are tax exempt. If the trust does not perfect legal title by taking physical

possession of the notes and mortgages, the Internal Revenue Code, specifically 26

U.S.C. 860G(d)(1), provides for a 100 percent tax penalty on those non-complying

cash flows. Third, the legal ownership of the loans must be bankruptcy remote

that is, because bankruptcy trustees have the right to reach back and seize assets from

bankrupt entities, the transfer to the trustee must be clean and no prior transferee in

the securitization chain of title can have any cognizable interest in the loans. For

this reason, all securitization trusts are special purpose vehicles (SPVs) created

for the sole purpose of taking legal title to securitized loans and all securitization

trustees represent and certify to the MBS purchasers that the purchase is a true sale

in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 140. But it

never happened. No securitization trustee of any securitized mortgage loan

originated from 2001 to 2008 ever obtained legal title or FASB 140 control of

any securitized loan.

THEREFORE a.) The securitized trust CMLTI 2006 AR-1 can make NO

LEGAL CLAIM to the APPELLANTS referenced property located at 168

Parkview Avenue, Lowell, MA 01852; b.) Since the Trust cannot make a legal
31
claim to the property, it had no right to collect any monies from the Appellant or to

foreclose on the Appellant; c.) If the Trust had no right to foreclose, it also had no

right to re-sell the property, thereby making the foreclosure sale VOID. Despite

bringing these CRITICAL FACTS to the attention of every related MA State

Court, US District Court and this US Appeals Court, it has been IGNORED, and

only adds to support (at minimum), the Appellants conspiracy and Tort claims.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO CORRECTLY ADDRESS

FRAUD ON THE COURT CLAIMS

Similarly, this too, is fairly straightforward. The record clearly shows that Judge

Burroughs NEVER addressed the Appellants Rule 60(b) claims, intentionally

REFUSING to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court. This refusal to uphold

Federal law in itself disqualified Judge Burroughs from ruling further in this

litigation, and was a primary factor in bringing a judicial misconduct complaint

against Judge Allison Dale Burroughs.

IV. THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO ADDDRESS THE

APPELLANTS CLAIMS REGARDING THE MISAPPROPRIATION
OF TRADE SECRETS, ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE AND IMPACT TO
NATIONAL SECURITY

By failing to address claims alleging the Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

and Economic Espionage under (at minimum) 18 U.S.C. 1832, the presiding

judge failed to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court, exemplifying yet another

reason why she has been disqualified by law to rule further here. There is obviously
32
increased concern when the Appellant raises issues that MAY impact matters of

National Security, and both the Appellees/Defendants as well as the presiding judge

offer NO RESPONSE as indicated by the record.

V. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DISMISSED THE

APPELLANTS COMPLAINT

The Appellant addresses in this brief only a portion of the reasons supporting

the improper dismissal of his complaint. The collective reasons that clearly

evidence judicial misconduct within the record include (but are not limited

to):

A. Judicial Prejudice/Bias;

B. Judicial Fraud on the Court;

C. Treason to the Constitution (6 allegations);

D. Refusal to Recuse (2 allegations);

E. Refusal to Assist with the Appointment of Counsel;

F. Failure to maintain a Balance of Hardships and CAUSING

INCREASED HARDSHIP to the Plaintiff;

G. Unnecessary Judicial Delay;

H. Color of Law violations;

I. Conspiracy Claims

33
Since raising allegations of Judicial Misconduct including six (6) counts of

Treason, there has been NO attempt to ADDRESS, DENY, or DEFEND a single

claim, over the course of one (1) year by Judge Burroughs.

VI. THE IMPACT OF RECUSAL FROM THE RELATED CASE,

HARIHAR V. US BANK, DOCKET NO. 17-CV-11109

On June 19, 2017, three (3) days after being assigned the related case HARIHAR

v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket no. 17-cv-11109, Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

has RECUSED herself, sua sponte, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a), AND 28 U.S.C.

144, for the EXACT reasons that warranted her recusal from Harihar v. US Bank,

et al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. Judge Burroughs recusal in the related case shows

cause to VOID ALL RELATED orders/judgements, which includes the dismissal,

and all other orders associated with this appeal. Four (4) weeks after recusal, the

District Court had yet to initiate corrective action in addressing related orders, and

the Appellant necessarily filed a Motion to Vacate orders on July 19, 2017. Now,

nearly 8 weeks following recusal, the District Court still has not initiated corrective

action, exemplifying clear and unnecessary judicial delay.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this Court should OVERTURN the District Courts

dismissal of Mohan A. Harihars complaint, ruling in favor of the Appellant, and

bringing a DEFAULT order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(3), and final

34
judgment of permanent injunction IN FAVOR of the Appellant. The Court should

concur that the default was willful or executed in bad faith or was deliberate and in

contumacious disregard of the courts authority, and shows intent to ultimately harm

The United States. Therefore, the Court should award the Appellant treble monetary

damages, full reimbursement for all related costs and associated legal fees

throughout this litigation, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. The

Court should also assess appropriate professional penalties against ALL

Appellees/Defendants, including (but not limited to) licensure revocation and

disbarment, where applicable. It remains the Appellants full intention to continue

full pursuit of related criminal claims evidenced against ALL parties.

The Appellant is grateful for the Courts consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Mohan A. Harihar
[email protected]
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Dated: August 14, 2017 p. (617) 921.2526

35
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE UNDER FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)

I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of

Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B) because: (1) this brief contains 6264 words excluding

the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii); and (2) this brief

complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. 32(a)(5) and the type

style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared

in 14 point proportionally spaced using Times New Roman font.

/s/ MOHAN A. HARIHAR

Mohan A. Harihar

36
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 14, 2017 I electronically filed the

foregoing Brief of the Appellant with the United States Court of Appeals for the

First Circuit by using the CM/ECF System. I certify that the following parties or

their counsel of record are registered as ECF filers and that they will be served by

the CM/ECF system:

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
[email protected]
No. 17-1381

37