Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit: Appellant V
United States Court of Appeals For The First Circuit: Appellant V
17-2074
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Appellant
v.
Appellee
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
MOHAN A. HARIHAR
Mohan A. Harihar
[email protected]
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
p. (617) 921.2526
The Appellant, Mohan A. Harihar, who has been wrongfully forced to act as
disclosures:
evidenced civil and criminal misconduct directly related to Appeal No. 17-
shown that the complaint against the United States was necessarily filed
claims against TEN (10) Federal (District and Circuit) Court Judges. These
1
HARIHAR v US BANK et al, Lower Court Docket No. 15-cv-11880
1
litigation - HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Docket No.
17-cv-11109;
WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
JURISDICTION;
WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
JURISDICTION;
2
g. US Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - stands accused of
WITHOUT JURISDICTION;
3. The record also reveals evidenced claims against three (3) additional court
officers AND ALSO against representing counsel for the Appellee, who
3
4. The Appellant necessarily files this Appellate brief by the court ordered
5. Evidenced claims by the Appellant are believed to include (but are not
Barron for ruling without jurisdiction. The record clearly shows that
with each claim of evidenced Treason, the President has been notified by
6. Historically, aside from the Executive Office of the President (EOP), the
the US Senate;
2
Referenced parties will receive copies of the Appellant’s Brief via US Mail, E-
mail communication, and/or Social Media.
5
e. The House Judiciary Committee;
Parties are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the
8. Since filing the Notice of Appeal on October 26, 2017, the identity of the
presiding Circuit judges was UNKNOWN until just a few days ago, by
Presiding over that Appeal are Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and
Barron. A review of the record clearly shows that the Appellant has
9. The Appellant firmly believes, based on the evidenced record alone, that
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 TEN (10) Federal (District and Circuit) court
judges, to brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and pre-
10. The records of both cases will clearly reveal that the Appellant – Mohan
3
Incremental Treason claims recently filed against Circuit Judges - Torruella,
Kayatta and Barron on 1/24/18 are referenced in the related Appeal No. 17-1381,
and on 1/25/18 in this Appeal. For Judge Kayatta, the 1/25 filing constitutes a
THIRD (3rd) claim of Treason against him. For Judges Torruella and Barron, it
is a SECOND (2nd) claim of Treason against each.
7
have been afforded opportunities to take corrective action for erred
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................18
8
IV. THE DISTRICT (AND APPEALS) COURT FAILED TO
ADDRESS JURISDICTION ISSUES CONTINUOUSLY RAISED
BY THE APPELLANT…………………………………………22
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Harihar v. US Bank et al
(1st Cir. 2017) ……………………………………………….1, 6,7, 18, 24
United States v. Indoor Cultivation Equip from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply,
55 F.3d 1311, 1317 (7thCir, 1995) ……………………………………….17
Page v. Schweiker,
786 F.2d 150, 152 (3rd Cir. 1986) ………………………………………….17
Gordon v. Leeke,
574 F.2d 1147 (4th Cir. 1978) …………………………………………….22
Taylor v. O’Grady,
888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989) ………………………………….………….27
10
STATUTES:
RULES:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (4), and (6) ............................................4, 12, 13, 16, 17, 29
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1)(B)(viii) ………………………………………….….…….6
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
The Appellant - Mohan A. Harihar, states that he has UNLAWFULLY been given
NO ALTERNATIVE but to file this brief without the assistance of counsel. The
Kayatta and Barron, 2.) Lack of JURISDICTION and 3.) ALL variables
supporting (at minimum) the Motion to Vacate Dismissal with Damages, pursuant
11
to (at minimum) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), which stands UNOPPOSED by
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
Since initially bringing evidenced judicial misconduct claims dating back to
including the Appellant’s Brief.4 NOT EVEN ONCE, has this Federal
4
Reference is collectively made to filings within: 1.) this Appeal No. 17-2074, 2.)
the lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11109; 3.) the related Appeal No. 17-1381
(Harihar v. US Bank et al); 4.) the lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11880; 5.) the
Judicial Misconduct complaints filed with Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard; and 6.)
the Judicial Misconduct Petitions filed with the First Circuit Executive and the
Judicial Council.
5
Judge Burroughs was initially assigned on 6/16/17 to Docket No. 17-cv-11109,
and RECUSED herself on 6/19/17.
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). When asked to clarify their decisions, these referenced
judges have refused to do so. Motions for recusal have been either DENIED or
clear and continued failure to uphold the judicial machinery of the Court is
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Burroughs?
13
Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 1832, and its resulting impact
to National Security?
DISCOVERY?
Article III?
Conspiracy claims?
10. Whether the District Court erred in its assessment that Mr. Harihar
OF JUSTICE?
discretion and wrongful dismissal of his complaint seeking: (1) Damages resulting
from his identified illegal foreclosure, including the recovery of his property, (2)
14
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 with the assistance of
Federal Prosecutors for related criminal offenses, including (but not limited to)
The Appellant has evidenced that after filing the required SF-95 form with the
STATEMENT OF FACTS
IDENTICAL to those which ultimately disqualify Judge Casper from issuing any
order associated with Mr. Harihar’s complaint against The United States. These
contributing factors include (but are not limited to): 1.) Failing to VOID orders
6
The SF-95 states: “This Claim has been filed via email communication with: The
Executive Office of the President (EOP), US Inspector General – Michael
Horowitz, Department of Justice (DOJ), Judicial Council of the First Circuit, US
District Court (Boston, MA), US Attorney’s Office (MA), US Senator Elizabeth
Warren (MA), US Senator Ed Markey (MA), and US Congresswoman Niki
Tsongas (MA), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).”
15
CLARIFY decisions when requested, in separate hearings with the presence of an
independent court reporter, 6.) Refusing to RECUSE under 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 144, 7.) Exemplifying judicial fraud upon the court by failing to
uphold Federal law, the Judicial Oath, Judicial Code of Conduct and the judicial
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Since there are NO filings of record by counsel representing The United States (aside
from the Notice of Appearance), ALL evidenced arguments involving the Appellee
Dismissal with damages, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (4) AND (6). The
Appellant respectfully references the Motion to Vacate Judgment, filed with THIS
States, Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron denied the motion
evidenced arguments indicate what MAY be considered the most egregious abuse
UNACCEPTABLE.
7
Reference the 1/23/18 order, considered issued without jurisdiction by Circuit
Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron.
16
STANDARD OF REVIEW
if the underlying judgment is void, it is a per se abuse of discretion for a district court
to deny movant’s motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b)(4). Antoine v.
Atlas Turner, Inc., 66F.3d 105, 108 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Indoor
Cultivation Equip from High Tech Indoor Garden Supply, 55 F.3d 1311, 1317
(7thCir, 1995)). See also Charles Alan Wright, Arthru R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane,
Federal Practice and Procedure §2862 (2d ed. 1995) (There is no question of
discretion on the part of the court when a motion is under Rule 60(b)(4).
“As many circuits have recognized the absence of discretion under Rule 60(b)(4)
necessitates de novo review.” Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Caramica Europa II, Inc.,
160 F.3d 849, 852 (1st Cir. 1998); Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005(5thCir.
406, 409 (10th Cir. 1995); Indoor Cultivation Equip., 55 F.3d @ 1317; Export
Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir, 1995); Page v.
Because Judge Casper denied the Plaintiff’s due process of law, she had to disqualify
herself, which she refused to do; she clearly acted ― outside of her legal powers.
17
Carter, 136 F.3d at 1005 (citation omitted); see also Antoine, 66 F.3d at108 (quoting
ARGUMENT
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
144, for the EXACT reasons that warranted her recusal from Harihar v. US Bank, et
al, Docket No. 15-cv-11880. Judge Burroughs’ recusal from this lower court docket
dismissal, and all other orders associated with this appeal. The Appellant draws
7/19/17, the REPLY to Court Order – Document No. 13, filed 9/5/17, and the
REPLY to the Dismissal Order – Document No. 16. The Appellant has made
several attempts to address the impact of recusal during this Appeal process, only to
and without cause, refusing to allow the Plaintiff to use the Court’s Electronic
18
filing system (ECF). It is unclear exactly how Judge Casper reached her decision
court documents and to provide litigants with immediate notification of any new
currently granted by both this US District Court, and also the US Court of Appeals,
to the Plaintiff; in the related Docket No. 15-cv-11880, Harihar v. US Bank, et al;
and Appeal No. 17-1381. There has been NO reason or cause to suspend or revoke
here.
IF – the motion to file electronically had rightfully (and timely) been granted, an
email would have been received on August 11, 2017, immediately notifying the
Plaintiff. Instead, the order was received by mail on August 18, 2017 – ONE
WEEK LATER, and taking away an entire week for a pro se litigant to respond
there’s cause to suggest that denying the use of ECF (without cause) is viewed as
incremental ACT of BAD FAITH by a tenth (10th) officer of the Court, acting on
behalf of The United States. Left uncorrected, it: 1.) Shows an act of prejudice/bias
by Judge Casper, and grounds for RECUSAL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a) and
28 U.S.C. § 144; 2.) Shows cause to expand upon existing claims of judicial
19
misconduct claims against The United States; 3.) Clearly reinforces the complexity
of issues thus warranting assistance with the appointment of counsel; and 4.) Re-
The Appellant addresses repeated judicial errors made by both the lower court
AND this Appeals Court DENYING WITHOUT CAUSE his requests for
1. The Appellant has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND and does not have the
2. Based on the claims listed in the submitted SF-95 form and the
the Due Process Clause; b.) Color of Law Violations; c.) Civil/Criminal
RICO Violations; d.) Federal Tort Claims; e.) Treason to the Constitution; f.)
Fraud on the Court (Judicial); g.) Judicial Misconduct; h.) Evidenced Acts
made in BAD FAITH; i.) Misprision (of Treason, and of a Felony); j.)
20
Misappropriation of Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Espionage;
3. When THE UNITED STATES is the OPPOSING PARTY (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
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
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
21
6. Whether the search for truth will be better served if both sides are
examination;
7. Capability of the Appellant to present his case. The court of appeals quoted
litigant has a colorable claim but lacks the capacity to present it, the
8. The 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
8
The Appellant references the Lower Court Document No. 3, filed on 6/14/17
denied by Judge Casper, the recently filed – EMERGENCY MOTION TO
VACATE DISMISSAL W/DAMAGES,8 filed 12/24/17
22
Since initially bringing evidenced judicial misconduct claims dating back to
including the Appellant’s Brief of the related Appeal.9 NOT EVEN ONCE, has
Judge Casper AND Circuit Judges - Torruella, Kayatta and Barron are
claims previously filed by the Appellant against ALL TEN (10) referenced court
NOWHERE in the record is there a single reference by Judge Casper to: 1.) the
9Reference is collectively made to filings within: 1.) this Appeal No. 17-1381, 2.)
the lower court Docket No. 15-cv-11880; 3.) the related Appeal No. 17-2074
(Harihar v. The United States); 4.) the lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109; 5.)
the Judicial Misconduct complaints filed with Chief Justice Jeffrey R. Howard; and
6.) the Judicial Misconduct Petitions filed with the First Circuit Executive and the
Judicial Council.
23
Appellant’s Intellectual Property/Trade Secret, 2.) Economic Espionage or 3.)
of the record in the related complaint clearly articulates the Appellant’s evidenced
claims, and the premature move to dismissal here exemplifies incremental failures
The Appellant respectfully reminds this court that the related complaint – Harihar
Tort Claims, pursuant to (at minimum) 28 U.S. Code § 1346; 2.) Judicial Fraud
7.) Violations to Due Process (14th Amendment); 8.) Color of Law Violations
(42 U.S. Code § 1983 and 18 U.S. Code § 242; 9.) Civil/Criminal RICO
Violations (at minimum 18 U.S. Code § 1964); 10.) Misprision (of Treason, and
of a Felony, 18 U.S. Code § 1832 & 4); 11.) Failure to acknowledge evidenced
Securities Fraud; and 12.) Judicial Misconduct and evidenced acts of BAD
prior to discovery shows (at least on its surface), that elements of corruption may
exist here; and that an effort is being made – by these officers of the Court, to brush
Torruella, Kayatta and Barron. These evidenced techniques include (but are not
limited to): 1.) Failure to consider the possibility of (related) erred judgments; 2.)
Ignoring the Law; 3.) Citing Invalid Law; 4.) Ignoring the Facts; 5.) Ignoring
Issues; 6.) Corruptly calling a complaint "frivolous" and denying motions with no
valid explanation whatsoever; 7.) Block Filing of Motions and Evidence; 8.)
10.) Violating the Judicial Oath of Office and the Code of Judicial Conduct; 11.)
TACTICS detailed within the record constitute obvious errors that warrant
25
VIII. THE ISSUED DISMISSAL ORDER CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF
TREASON UNDER ARTICLE III
The Appellant draws reference to the lower court docket, Document No. 16 -
Michael Chaitowitz and Clerk Margaret Carter both serve as witness to this act
of treason. The record shows that the President has been notified of Treason claims,
Kayatta and Barron have IGNORED these (and other) evidenced claims of
Treason.
In the issued order, Judge Casper states: “…the Court rejects the Plaintiff’s
assessment is incorrect. The Court is reminded that the recusal of Judge Burroughs
shows cause for the Appellant to attack all related judgments that SHOULD be
against TEN (10) Federal Judges for their failure(s) to uphold the judicial
machinery of the Court. What has been evidenced by the historical record(s)
thus far exemplifies what MAY be collectively considered the largest, and
US history. The argument can certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY
Based on the evidenced record supporting EACH and EVERY claim brought by
the Appellant, it is unclear exactly HOW Judge Casper could have arrived at such a
her refusal to clarify a single decision shows cause to question her judgment.
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must
satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct.
1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11,13 (1954).
“Recusal under Section 455 is self -executing; a party need not file affidavits in
support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the
stated circumstances. “Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion
asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated
that “We think that this language (455(a)) imposes a duty on the judge to act sua
Judges do not have the discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are
bound to follow the law. Should the judge not disqualify himself as required by law,
27
then the judge has given another example of this “appearance of partiality”, which,
possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the
disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance
any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would
appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are no legal force or effect.
If you are a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to
and, under the law it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges
follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S.
Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that is states
circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if
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.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity from their criminal acts.
Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts;
For the reasons stated above, and as detailed throughout the record(s),
makes clear that ANY attempt made by Presiding Judges Torruella, Kayatta,
been re-established, this Court (or a Court with jurisdiction) should OVERTURN
the Appellant, pursuant (at minimum) to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 60(b)(4). The
Court should concur that the referenced actions by officers of the Court were willful
court’s authority, and shows intent to ultimately harm – not only the Appellant, but
also 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, punitive and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
The Court (or Congress) should also assess appropriate professional penalties
against ALL responsible parties, including (but not limited to) licensure revocation
continue full pursuit of related criminal claims evidenced against ALL parties.
ONCE AGAIN, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully calls for the
Prosecutor, in order to move forward with the pursuit of these criminal claims.
29
In closing, the Appellant – Mohan A. Harihar respectfully states that once these
referenced judgements have been appropriately vacated and damages have been
rightfully awarded as stated, the intention remains to align with The United States
economic growth and prosperity for our great Nation. The Appellant is grateful for
Respectfully submitted,
30
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 6070 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
I hereby certify that on January 29, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing
brief of the Appellant to 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:
Dina M. Chaitowitz
Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7125 Avalon Drive
[email protected]
No. 17-2074
ADDENDUM
ADDENDUM TABLE OF CONTENTS
Addendum 2
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(1)
The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford
counsel.
Addendum 3
28 U.S.C. § 1291 - Jurisdiction
The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the
district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District
of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin
Islands, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The
jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be
limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 1295 of this
title.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 929; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, § 48, 65 Stat. 726;
Pub. L. 85–508, § 12(e), July 7, 1958, 72 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 124,
Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 36.)
Addendum 4
18 U.S. Code § 1832 - Theft of trade secrets
(a)Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to a product or
service used in or intended for use in interstate or foreign commerce, to the
economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or
knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly—
(1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or
conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;
(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs,
downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits,
delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;
(3) receives, buys, or possesses such information, knowing the same to have
been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization;
(4) attempts to commit any offense described in paragraphs (1) through (3);
or
(5) conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense
described in paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do
any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
shall, except as provided in subsection (b), be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(b)Any organization that commits any offense described in subsection (a) shall be
fined not more than the greater of $5,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen
trade secret to the organization, including expenses for research and design and
other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby
avoided.
(Added Pub. L. 104–294, title I, § 101(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3489; amended
Pub. L. 112–236, § 2, Dec. 28, 2012, 126 Stat. 1627; Pub. L. 114–153, § 3(a)(1),
May 11, 2016, 130 Stat. 382.)
Addendum 5
28 U.S.C. §455(a) - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Addendum 6
28 U.S.C. § 144 - Bias or prejudice of judge
Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and
sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal
bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge
shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such
proceeding.
The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of
the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for
failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any
case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is
made in good faith.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 898; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 65, 63 Stat. 99.)
Addendum 7
28 U.S. Code § 1346 - United States as defendant
(b)(1)Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts,
together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone
and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of
civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on
and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under
circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the
claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission
occurred.
Addendum 8
18 USC Chapter 73 – Obstruction of Justice
18 U.S. Code § 1503(a)
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or
communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit
juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be
serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate
judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any
such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or
indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such
juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate
in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or
corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication,
influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede,
the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If
the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case,
and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or
physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the
offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term
that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.
Addendum 9
18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a
court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known
the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII,
§ 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Addendum 10
42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to
be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction
thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in
equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial
capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was
violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any
Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317,
title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
Addendum 11
18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by
reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if
bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such
acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon,
explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or
both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11,
1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat.
4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b),
title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147;
Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507,
3511.)
Addendum 12
18 U.S. Code § 1964 - Civil remedies
(a)The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and
restrain violations of section 1962 of this chapter by issuing appropriate orders,
including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest himself of any interest,
direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing reasonable restrictions on the future
activities or investments of any person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting
any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged
in, the activities of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or ordering
dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise, making due provision for the rights
of innocent persons.
(b)The Attorney General may institute proceedings under this section. Pending
final determination thereof, the court may at any time enter such restraining orders
or prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the acceptance of satisfactory
performance bonds, as it shall deem proper.
(c)Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of
section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States
district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of
the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee, except that no person may rely upon
any conduct that would have been actionable as fraud in the purchase or sale of
securities to establish a violation of section 1962. The exception contained in the
preceding sentence does not apply to an action against any person that is criminally
convicted in connection with the fraud, in which case the statute of limitations
shall start to run on the date on which the conviction becomes final.
(d)A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the United States in any
criminal proceeding brought by the United States under this chapter shall estop the
defendant from denying the essential allegations of the criminal offense in any
subsequent civil proceeding brought by the United States.
(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IX, § 901(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 943; amended
Pub. L. 98–620, title IV, § 402(24)(A), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3359; Pub. L. 104–
67, title I, § 107, Dec. 22, 1995, 109 Stat. 758.)
Addendum 13
Federal Practice and Procedure §2862 (2d ed. 1995) - Void Judgment
Primary Authority
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
Forms
West's Federal Forms § § 4951 to 5010
Rule 60(b)(4) authorizes relief from void judgments. Necessarily a motion under
this part of the rule differs markedly from motions under the other clauses of Rule
60(b). There is no question of discretion on the part of the court when a motion is
under Rule 60(b)(4).[FN1] Nor is there any requirement, as there usually is when
default judgments are attacked under Rule 60(b), that the moving party show that
he has a meritorious defense. [FN2] Either a judgment is void or it is valid.
Determining which it is may well present a difficult question, but when that
question is resolved, the court must act accordingly
Addendum 14
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion
and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Addendum 15
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
(a) Required Disclosures.
(1) Initial Disclosure.
(B) Proceedings Exempt from Initial Disclosure. The following
proceedings are exempt from initial disclosure:
(viii) a proceeding ancillary to a proceeding in another court;
Addendum 16
Article III, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be
convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt
act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no
attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the
life of the person attainted.