FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Plaintiff in Harihar vs. US Bank brings - Color of Law, Due

Process & Federal Tort Claims against the United States
Boston, MA, September 2, 2016 Motions were filed today in the US District Court (Boston, MA,
Docket No: 15-cv-11880, Harihar vs. US Bank et al) by the pro se Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar,
bringing several new claims against the United States. The Motion brings allegations including Color of
Law and Due Process violations, and Federal Tort Claims. Harihar has already called for the recusal of
Judge Allison D. Burroughs. Judge Burroughs has since refused to recuse herself. Harihar now seeks
to amend his existing complaint, adding the United States as a 15th Defendant in the $42B Lawsuit
filed over a year ago.
In his Motion, Harihar states, When Federal Judges fail to be impartial; When Federal and
State prosecutors refuse to prosecute fully supported criminal complaints; When Federal and
State Legislators ignore the supported complaints of its constituents; and when the Head of
the Executive Branch of the United States ignores requests to assign a special prosecutor;
These historical facts show clear cause for this Plaintiff to lose faith in all three (3) branches of
government. Still, it remains the Plaintiffs sincere hope, that this faith will ultimately be
restored, and that a mutual agreement will eventually be reached.

(Scroll down to view a copy of Harihars filed Motion, in its entirety.)

For Further Media Information Contact: Mohan A. Harihar
Email: mh.foreclosure1@gmail.com
Phone: 617.921.2526 (Mobile)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MOHAN A. HARIHAR
11880
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION NO: 15-cv-

vs.
US BANK NA, et al.
Defendants
PLAINTIFF MOTION ADDRESSING VIOLATION(S) TO DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
OF THE FOURTEENTH (14TH) AMENDMENT, COLOR OF LAW VIOLATIONS,
FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS, AND OTHERS

The Plaintiff, Mohan A. Harihar, respectfully files with the

Court, a second/additional response to Document No. 122. This
necessary filing addresses the following issues:

I.

Violation(s) to Due Process The decision made by Judge

Burroughs not to disqualify herself, now brings a violation
of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United
States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The
right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based,
not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause."). By not
disqualifying
given

another

herself
example

as
of

required
her

by

law,

"appearance

the
of

judge

has

partiality"

which, possibly, shows cause for further disqualification.

The Court is aware that two (2) complaints against Judge
Burroughs are now filed with the Judicial Council.

Aside from this new allegation, the Plaintiff respectfully

reminds

this

Court

that

for

over

five

(5)

years,

Violations to Due Process and Equal Protection Rights have

consistently
Commonwealth,

been

brought

only

to

be

to

the

ignored

attention
in

EVERY

of

the

related

Massachusetts Court.1

The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against
the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has
engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts
after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he
is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggests that he is
then

engaging

in

criminal

acts

of

treason,

and

may

be

engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate

commerce.

Related MA Courts include: Lowell District Court, Northeast

Housing Court, Middlesex Superior Court, the MA Appeals Court,
and the MA Supreme Court. Here, a jury trial will be presented
with a complete historical review of all related dockets,
transcripts, decisions, etc This necessary review will
identify and confirm numerous efforts by the Plaintiff to
address referenced Due process and Equal Protection Violations,
only to be ignored by the Court(s).
1

II.

Color of Law Violations (18 U.S. Code 242) have long been
alleged throughout the history of this litigation involving:
The Massachusetts State Judicial System, the Massachusetts
Attorney Generals Office (including, but not limited to
evidenced RICO allegations), and the Massachusetts Inspector
Generals Office. Now, Due Process/Color of Law allegations
involving the United States must additionally be addressed,
based

on

the

actions

(or

inaction)

of

the

Parties/Agencies/Department(s)/Office(s):

Judge

Burroughs,

The

The

Department

of

Justice,

US

following
Allison

D.

Inspector

Generals Office, and The Executive Office of the President

(Reference Document No. 121 Plaintiff Response to Order
(Doc. No. 120) and Call for Recusal). In addition to the
allegations against Judge Burroughs,

Pages 11-12 gives a

general overview of historical FACTS, revealing that this

Plaintiff has been betrayed not only by the Bank Defendants,
but also by the Commonwealth and the United States on
multiple

levels.

Allowing

the

Plaintiff

to

amend

the

existing complaint is both warranted and necessary; as is

the Courts assistance with the appointment of Counsel. The
Plaintiff

believes

that

successfully

asserted

Due

Process/Color of Law claim will likely reflect (at minimum)

the collective appearance of a scheme defining outrageous
government conduct.

III.

Federal

Tort

liable

for

Claims
the

Act

operations

Typically,
of

the

federal

government
agencies

is
and

employees.

Both terms are defined by statute found at 28

USC 2671.

Federal agencies associated with any of the

three branches of the government are responsible under the

act.

28 USC 2674 states that the United States shall be

liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a

private individual under like circumstances.
(b)

states

the

basis

for

claims

as

the

28 USC 1346
negligent

or

wrongful act or omission of any government employee while

acting within the scope of his employment.
virtually

every

kind

brought

against

against

the

of

private

government

negligence

action

individuals
whether

based

can
on

Consequently,
that
be

could

be

maintained

misfeasance

or

nonfeasance.

Here, the historical actions (or lack thereof) identified in

ALL

THREE

(3)

branches

of

government

individually

and

collectively, warrants amending the existing complaint to

include (at minimum) Federal Tort, Due Process, and Color of
Law Claims against the United States.

IV.

Plaintiffs Fear for Personal Safety and Well-Being The

Plaintiffs complaint addresses civil and criminal issues

related to US Foreclosure Crisis. Many Americans consider

this Foreclosure Crisis to be The largest case of FRAUD in
US history. It is believed by many, to involve elements of
corruption at a very high level. The Department of Justice
AND the MA Attorney Generals Office are BOTH on record as
stating that they WILL NOT protect this Plaintiff from the
criminal misconduct committed against him. The Plaintiff NO
LONGER FEELS SAFE walking down the street or in his own
apartment. When Federal Judges fail to be impartial; When
Federal

and

supported

State

criminal

Legislators

ignore

prosecutors

refuse

complaints;
the

When

supported

to

prosecute

Federal

and

complaints

fully
State

of

its

constituents; and when the Head of the Executive Branch of

the

United

States

ignores

requests

to

assign

special

prosecutor; These historical facts show clear cause for this

Plaintiff

to

government.

lose

faith

in

all

three

(3)

branches

of

Still, it remains the Plaintiffs sincere hope,

that this faith will ultimately be restored,

and that a

mutual agreement will eventually be reached.

V.

Plaintiffs Good Faith effort(s) to reach a mutual agreement

The

historical

record

will

certainly

show

that

this

Plaintiff has made numerous efforts, ALL IN GOOD FAITH, to

reach a mutual agreement with ALL PARTIES. These efforts

have

consistently

been

either

DENIED

or

IGNORED

by

ALL

fourteen (14) Defendants. With the United States added as a

fifteenth

(15th)

Defendant,

the

Plaintiff

respectfully

extends this same effort to reach a mutual agreement IN GOOD

FAITH.
The Plaintiff remains committed to seeking maximum civil AND
criminal penalties against ANY Defendant/responsible party
who chooses not to enter into a mutual good faith agreement.
Where applicable, penalties sought will include (but not be
limited to) licensure revocation and disbarment.

VI.

Certification and Closing

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I

certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief
that this Motion: (1) is not being presented for an improper
purpose,

such

as

to

harass,

cause

unnecessary

delay,

or

needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by

existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending,
modifying,

or

reversing

existing

law;

(3)

the

factual

contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so

identified,

will

likely

have

evidentiary

support

after

reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;

and (4) the Motion otherwise complies with the requirements of
Rule 11.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court addressing these very

serious, and sensitive circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,
Mohan A. Harihar