Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/386352915/42B-Lawsuit-HARIHAR-v-US-BANK-et-al-Appeal-No-17-1381-Brings-Evidenced-Argument-Showing-WELLS-FARGO-S-ADMISSION-of-GUILT-is-NO-ERROR
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 11:48:08
Document Index: 215300545

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 453', '§ 2382', '§ 371', '§ 1831', '§ 2382', '§\n371', '§ 1831', '§1915']

$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) Brings Evidenced Argument Showing WELLS FARGO'S - ADMISSION of GUILT, is NO "ERROR" | Lawsuit | Complaint
"...This admission by Appellee – Wells Fargo is IDENTICAL to the Appellant’s original Claims of record, which include (but are not limited to) DECEPTIVE PRACTICES. From the beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the Appellant articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO BE DENIED SIX (6) SEPARATE TIMES. AFTER REVEIVING EACH DENIAL LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as to WHY his loan modification was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a “CALCULATION ERROR MADE BY WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH TIME, after learning of this “calculation error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve the loan modification. EACH TIME (on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22) months), the Appellee – WELLS FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an intentional act designed to ultimately (and illegally) foreclose on the Appellant. These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and Appellee – WELLS FARGO were recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant/Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has consistently DENIED THEIR DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE. Now, by this admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his original complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee – WELLS FARGO has purposefully tried to deceive this Court."
сохранитьСохранить «$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Appeal No...» для последующего чтения
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
JUDGEMENT ORDER,1 when Two (2) of Three (3) NEWLY ASSIGNED Circuit Judges
1 See Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties.2A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4).3 A party
power.”4 Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the
judgment as void.5 A judgment may also be void under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered
The record(s) show that the Appellant has CLEARLY set forth meritorious arguments
IN EACH of the IDENTIFIED – EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES
(See Below). ORDINARILY, Judicial economy would suggest that VALIDATING
JURISDICTION prior to moving forward with this appeal is certainly appropriate.
HOWEVER, what has been evidenced by the historical record(s) exemplifies what
MAY be collectively considered one of the largest, and certainly most egregious
ABUSE OF AUTHORITY by a Federal Judiciary in US history. The argument can
certainly be made, and should be clear to ANY objective observer, that there appears to
be a set agenda by this Federal Judiciary to ensure that the Appellant – Mohan A.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Harihar, DOES NOT receive a FAIR or JUST RESOLUTION here, or in any
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
EXTRAORDINARY, UNRESOLVED ISSUES associated with this Appeal (and
previously in the lower Court), as recognized by SCOTUS.6 This Court ALSO recognized
the ENTIRE list of unresolved issues (Below), following the recusal of Judge Barron, after
he disclosed having a FINANCIAL INTEREST with the Appellee – WELLS FARGO.7 A
review of the record will show that the Appellant has repeatedly brought this list of
extraordinary/unresolved issues before the Court, only to be IGNORED as if they do not
exist – EVEN NOW, as indicated by the attempt to issue a (VOID) judgment order. As a
respectful reminder and for documentation purposes, the list of extraordinary/unresolved
issues includes (but is not limited to) the following:
1. Continued REFUSAL to address, clarify and correct JURISDICTION issues8;
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
EXTRAORDINARY/UNRESOLVED ISSUES which initially led to withdrawing the
Mandate and Vacating Judgment. After reviewing this NEW Panel’s explanation (below),
there is now an INCREMENTAL EXAMPLE OF RECORD that shows a continued
INTENT to IGNORE the referenced list of extraordinary circumstances; and instead
brush aside all motions in order to reach a corrupt and pre-determined outcome:
The appellant's motion to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson is denied.
See United States v. Pryor, 960 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1992) (suit against judge separate from
the case under consideration; "It cannot be that an automatic recusal can be obtained by
the simple act of suing the judge."); In re Mann, 229 F.3d 657, 658 (7th Cir. 2000)
(similar); United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1986) ("A judge is not
disqualified by a litigant's suit or threatened suit against him[.]").
improperly applied. The significance of tying the separate lawsuit to necessary recusal
comes from the Appellant’s evidenced arguments of record that irrefutably define the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
referenced judges as INFERIOR. Any objective observer who reads through the Judgment
and compares it to the Appellant’s motion (and historical record) will undoubtedly agree:9
irrefutably disqualifies Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson; and (2) Voids the
Judgment. The civil and criminal complaints filed against them personally are secondary
contributing factors where collectively, the totality of these issues MUST result in their
disqualification. Any failure by this Court to disqualify Chief Judge Howard and Judge
Thompson will further expose and re-affirm the failure to show impartiality.
against that Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a
judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124
U.S. 200 (1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of
treason. U.S. v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
By issuing the August 7, 2018 Judgement Order (and for reasons stated within and
throughout the record), CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, CIRCUIT JUDGE THOMPSON
and CIRCUIT JUDGE LIPEZ have consciously disregarded their Judicial Oath of Office.
Therefore, the Appellant shows just cause for their removal from the Bench and
potential impeachment, pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 453.
Based on the Appellant’s interpretation of Federal Law, it has been evidenced that Chief
Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson - LACK
JURISDICTION to rule in this litigation. Despite multiple efforts by the Appellant
respectfully requesting clarification for their actions, these judges have refused to do so.
Instead, they have continued to rule in the absence of jurisdiction - as if some form of
exemption has allowed them to ignore their judicial oath, the Constitution and Federal
Law(s). The Appellant is NOT AWARE of any such exemption. Any judge who does not
comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States, wars against that
Constitution and engages in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. If a judge does not
fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200
(1888), he is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S.
v. Will; Cohens v. Virginia:
“You have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to
usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the
Constitution.” See Cohen v. Virginia; U.S. v. Will.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Section 3 of the US Constitution. Serving as WITNESS to these incremental acts of
Treason, aside from the Appellant, are the following parties:
For the record, the Appellant respectfully reminds the Court - Any party (referenced above)
who refuses to serve as witness to these (NEW) evidenced claims of Treason will incur the
following incremental claims against them: 1.) MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S.
Code § 2382; 2.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud
United States; and 3.) ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S.
Code § 1831.
judicial misconduct. WHEN A JUDGE engages in illegal activities or inappropriate
behavior (as is the case here), that’s clearly NOT what’s intended to be confidential.
Therefore, there (AGAIN) is a clear expectation for Clerk Margaret Carter to similarly
acknowledge referenced jurisdiction (and other) issues, including the VOID judgement. A
Mandate CANNOT legally be issued when the judgement is considered void. Clerk Carter is
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
also expected to inform the Circuit Executive – Susan Goldberg, of this latest development.
The Circuit Executive then must update the Administrative Office of US Courts,
considering the gravity of judicial misconduct issues.
referenced officers of the court personally witnessed prior act(s) of Treason under Article III,
and failed/refused to report these crimes, as required by Federal law. Their failure(s) to report
Treason and other witnessed acts of Judicial Misconduct contributes to existing
CONSPIRACY (and other) claims as stated in the referenced litigation. By their actions (or
lack thereof), the Appellant has necessarily filed criminal complaints with the FBI and
states that these facts establish probable cause indicating that (at minimum) the following
crimes have occurred: MISPRISION OF TREASON 18 U.S. Code § 2382; 18 U.S. Code §
371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States; and ECONOMIC
ESPIONAGE (Economic Espionage Act) 18 U.S. Code § 1831. Aside from criminal
accountability, Clerk Carter and Circuit Executive Goldberg are listed as DEFENDANTS in
the Appellant’s recently filed civil lawsuit – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE HOWARD, et
al., Docket No. 18-cv-11134. Professional complaints have also been filed with the
Administrative Office of US Courts, to the specific attention of Director James C. Duff.
Any continued failure(s) by the Circuit Clerk and/or the Circuit Executive to acknowledge
and report evidenced judicial misconduct shows cause to file new, or to expand upon existing
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
filed with the FBI against CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD and CIRCUIT
JUDGE O. ROGERIEE THOMPSON. Judges DO NOT have immunity from criminal
prosecution. Therefore, the Appellant clearly expects the DOJ to bring criminal charges
against ALL responsible parties, including referenced officers of the Court for the
evidenced criminal claims of record. Any CONTINUED failure by the DOJ to do so
shows cause to expand upon existing claims against The United States including (but
not limited to) Color of Law and Due Process violations.
By affirming the judgment dismissing the Appellant’s complaint, Circuit Judge Kermit V.
Lipez now similarly stands accused of judicial misconduct for his evidenced failure to uphold
his Judicial Oath, the Constitution and numerous Federal laws. As with the other accused
judicial officers, Judge Lipez is respectfully given the opportunity to initiate corrective
action, by (at the very least) informing the Court IF his was a minority opinion that disagreed
with the judgment order.
Respectfully, any failure by Judge Lipez to initiate corrective action will necessarily show
cause to: (1) File a NEW Judicial Misconduct complaint; (2) File a Criminal Complaint with
the FBI; (3) Amend the existing civil complaint against The United States (HARIHAR v.
THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-2074, Lower Court Docket No. 17-cv-11109); and
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
(4) Amend the existing civil complaint – HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R.
HOWARD, Docket No. 18-cv-11134.
Over the past two (2) weeks the Appellee – WELLS FARGO, has made National Headlines
on three (3) separate occasions, each of which bare impact to this litigation:
From the beginning and previously throughout FOUR (4) years of state litigation, the
Appellant articulated his 22-month efforts to acquire a loan modification – ONLY TO
BE DENIED SIX (6) SEPARATE TIMES. AFTER REVEIVING EACH DENIAL
LETTER – Mr. Harihar would follow-up with Wells Fargo to get further explanation as
to WHY his loan modification was denied. Upon further review, it was disclosed that a
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
“CALCULATION ERROR MADE BY WELLS FARGO” caused the denial. EACH
TIME, after learning of this “calculation error,” Mr. Harihar asked if Wells Fargo
could CORRECT THEIR ERROR and approve the loan modification. EACH TIME
(on six (6) different occasions over twenty-two (22) months), the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO REFUSED to correct THEIR ERROR stating, “I’m sorry Mr. Harihar, but
you’ll have to start the process over again, from the beginning.” CLEARLY, through
his own experience, the Appellant has reason to believe that this was NO
ACCIDENTAL ERROR - but an intentional act designed to ultimately (and
illegally) foreclose on the Appellant.
These evidenced claims are supported, since ALL phone conversations between the
Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR and Appellee – WELLS FARGO were
recorded for “training and accuracy purposes.” Despite multiple efforts by the
Appellant/Plaintiff to force their production, the Court(s) (Both State and Federal) has
consistently DENIED THEIR DISCOVERY WITHOUT CAUSE. Now, by this
admission, the Appellant (at minimum): (1) shows cause to amend his original
complaint; and (2) has provided incremental evidence supporting his Rule 60(b)(3)
Fraud on the Court Claim(s), re-affirming that the Appellee – WELLS FARGO has
purposefully tried to deceive this Court.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 17 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
VIII. CAUSE FOR CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION – There is now a level of legal
FULL PUBLIC VIEW, judicial misconduct by ELEVEN (11) Federal (District and Circuit)
Judges. There are ONLY THREE (3) remaining First Circuit Judges who are believed to be
qualified to rule in this litigation. Accused Officers of the Court HAVE NOT DENIED A
SINGLE MISCONDUCT CLAIM against them and the Appellant’s numerous requests for
TRANSFER have been DENIED WITHOUT CAUSE. Even with the list of
Headlines, Congressional leaders are actively speaking out. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-
10 See Exhibit 3 – The West LegalEd Course entitled, “AFTER THE BUBBLE BURSTS.”
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 18 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
MA) is literally calling for the CEO of Wells Fargo to resign. Congressman Brian Schatz
(D-HI) said that he hopes that regulators take action against Wells Fargo over the issue, but
Schatz also laid out the following lengthy list of questions for Wells Fargo and said that he
expects answers by the end of the month:
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 19 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 20 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
evidenced for the record that Appellee – Wells Fargo has not been entirely truthful with
its admission of guilt and totality of consequences which, once realized, will be severe.
The gravity of this Discovery shows cause for removal and transfer before a
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 21 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 22 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
for re-hearing, pursuant to FRAP Rule 40. Based on Mr. Harihar’s interpretation of
Federal law, filing the petition at this time is NOT believed to be necessary, since the
referenced judgment is considered VOID. If somehow it is determined that filing a
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 23 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 24 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 25 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 26 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 27 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
following the Court’s July 26, 2018 NOTICE11, which informed the parties of: (1) a newly
identified the NEW panel of Circuit Judges as: (1) Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2)
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 28 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson; and (3) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez.
HOWEVER, based on the historical record of this litigation, BOTH Chief Judge Howard
AND Judge Thompson are considered as INFERIOR JUDGES – having been previously
DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or any related litigation. The Appellant has clearly
evidenced as part of the record, numerous judicial infractions indicating (at minimum): (1) a
failure to show impartiality; (2) a failure to uphold Federal Law(s) and their judicial
oath; and (3) a CONTINUED PATTERN OF CORRUPT CONDUCT revealing an
intention to further harm the Appellant, and collectively this Nation. As a respectful
reminder, this Court has recently VACATED the judgment associated with this Appeal based
on the RECUSAL of Judge Barron AND this PARTIAL LIST of judicial infractions by
referenced Federal Judges:
1. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues12;
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 29 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 30 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
JURISDICTION and are DISQUALIFIED to rule in this, or ANY related litigation: (1)
Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard; (2) Circuit Judge Juan R. Torruella (RECUSED)13; (3)
Circuit Judge Sandra L. Lynch (RECUSED)14; (4) Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee
Thompson; (5) Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta (RECUSED), Jr.; (6) Circuit Judge
David J. Barron (RECUSED). Please be advised, the Appellant has previously requested
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 31 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
and is still waiting for additional details and DISCLOSURES regarding the IMPROPER
FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP between Judge Barron and the Appellee – WELLS
FARGO. It is also unclear as to whether additional and/or similar improper relationships exist
within this First Circuit Judiciary. The current re-assignment of this panel continues to
critically damage the INTEGRITY of this Circuit. If left uncorrected, the Appellant will
show further cause to: (1) Transfer this Appeal to another Circuit with jurisdiction; or (2)
Considering the severity of issues (including the perceived impact to National Security),
transfer to a Congressional panel.
assigned panel judges (Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson) are DEFENDANTS
in a separate lawsuit brought by the Appellant/Plaintiff – MOHAN A. HARIHAR. The
Appellant requests for clarification as to HOW this conflict could possibly have been
This Court (and the AMERICAN PUBLIC) is well aware that as a matter of record,
evidenced TREASON claims have now been brought against SEVEN (7) Federal (District
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 32 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
and Circuit) Judges for RULING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. These accused officers of
the Court include Chief Judge Jeffrey R. Howard and Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson.
NOT ONE (1) accused officer of the Court has denied a single Treason claim, and
POTUS has been regularly copied on ALL Court filings (as is required by Federal Law)
since the evidenced Discovery of Treason claims in August 2015.
Complaints with the FBI and the DOJ. CLEARLY, this contributes further to a
CONFLICT OF INTEREST in being assigned as a panel member to this Appeal.
The record shows that the Appellant has filed well over FIFTY (50) + court documents
which raise a JURISDICTION issue(s), ALL of which have been IGNORED by
referenced Federal (District and Circuit) Judges. The referenced July 26, 2018 email
communication and NOTICE issued by the Court signifies that JURISDICTION STILL
HAS NOT BEEN RE-ESTABLISHED. It remains UNCLEAR as to whether this First
Circuit can legally re-establish jurisdiction. Ignoring jurisdiction issues (at minimum) shows
cause to transfer this Appeal to another Circuit.
believed to include: (1) Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya; (2) Circuit Judge Michael Boudin;
(3) Circuit Judge Norman H. Stahl; and (4) Circuit Judge Kermit V. Lipez. After the
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 33 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
recusal/removal of Chief Judge Howard and Judge Thompson, the Appellant believes that the
list of Circuit Judges (above) are the ONLY REMAINING First Circuit Judges who MAY
be legally eligible to serve on a panel in this Appeal. With the filing of this Motion, the
Appellant respectfully calls for the Court to clarify for the record the selection process for its
“This is to advise you, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(b), that this case will be submitted on
the briefs without oral argument.”
It would appear (at least on its surface) that in addition to jurisdiction issues, an effort is
being made by this First Circuit Court to IGNORE the Appellant’s motion(s) for an
Injunction and issues associated with recently vacated orders. As previously stated, the
Appellant respectfully calls for a new panel (with jurisdiction) to address these legal matters
PRIOR to moving forward with this Appeal. Since the Appellant IS NOT a legal expert and
has NO LEGAL background, one of the first issues to address (once jurisdiction has been
established) is ASSISTING MR. HARIHAR with the APPOINTMENT of COUNSEL
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and re-establishing a BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS.
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 34 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 35 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 36 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 37 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 38 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 39 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 40 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 41 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117327159 Page: 42 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Entry ID: 6191274
I hereby certify that on August 16, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Документы, похожие на «$42B Lawsuit - HARIHAR v. US BANK et al (Appeal No. 17-1381) Brings Evidenced Argument Showing WELLS FARGO'S - ADMISSION of GUILT, is NO "ERROR"»