IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

APPLICATION TO THE HON. STEPHEN BREYER, FOR AN EXTENSION OF

TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Petitioner hereby respectfully moves as a pro se litigant, pursuant to Rule

13(5) of the Rules of this Court, for an extension of time of 60 days, to and including

August 11, 2018 (Saturday), for the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari to

review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dated

January 17, 2018 (Exhibit 1), on which a timely petition for rehearing and for

rehearing en banc was denied on March 14, 2018 (Exhibit 2). The jurisdiction of this

Court is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

1. The date within which a petition for writ of certiorari would be due, if

not extended, is June 12, 2018.

2. On May 18, 2018, the Petitioner received a letter from the Clerk of the

First Circuit Appeals Court signifying the recusal of Circuit Judge David Barron, a

presiding judge in the referenced Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron’s recusal

impacts eight (8) issued orders, including the Judgment order. Petitioner was given
a timeline of June 8, 2018 to file a response and request relief. A response was

timely filed with Court on June 4, 2018 (Exhibit 3). In this filed response, the

Petitioner raises a number of unresolved issues, including (but not limited to): (1)

Jurisdiction, (2) Criminal claims and (3) matters perceived to impact National

Security.

3. Petitioner had previously filed for an Emergency Stay order with the

First Circuit on April 6, 2018, citing his intention to file a Petition for Certiorari

and the list of unresolved issues (including jurisdiction) that first, must be

addressed. The motion was denied, without valid cause. Now, with Judge Barron’s

recusal (collectively, the third recusal associated with this litigation) Petitioner’s

response again shows cause to question (at minimum) the validity of the judgment

itself. The response includes a motion requesting an Emergency STAY/Injunction

that temporarily suspends the timeline for filing his petition until ALL issues have

been resolved. However, considering the approaching deadline to file, the history of

this litigation and the gravity of issues involved, it is unclear whether the First

Circuit will issue a timely ruling.

4. The case presents substantial issues of law, among which include (but
are not limited to:

(1) whether jurisdiction issues were properly addressed by the First Circuit (and

District) Court; (2) whether under Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution, a

Circuit (or District) Court judge continued to rule after losing jurisdiction; (3)

whether Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Unopposed claims)

2
was properly addressed by the Court(s); (4) whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), a

Circuit judge(s) who has presided in the referenced appeal, failed to recuse

following jurisdiction (and other referenced) issues; (5) whether, under 18 U.S.C. §

1832 Circuit Judges failed to properly address evidenced Economic Espionage

claims and matters believed to impact National Security; (6) whether under 28

U.S.C. §1915 Circuit Judges failed to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully

denying or unnecessarily delaying without valid cause - repeated requests for the

Court to assist with the Appointment of Counsel; and (7) whether Circuit judges

(and previously the District Court) took appropriate action following the recusal of

US District Court Judge – Allison Dale Burroughs. Additional questions of law

warranting this Court’s attention can be found by referencing the June 4, 2018

response (Exhibit 3).

5. Petitioner requires the additional requested time to enable the First

Circuit to timely address and resolve all existing legal issues. Upon doing so, and if

it is even still necessary to file a petition with this Court, Petitioner is expected to

have retained experienced legal counsel to research the legal issues and to prepare

an appropriate petition for consideration by this Court.

6. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner hereby requests that an

extension of time to and including August 11, 2018, be granted within which

Petitioner may file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

7. Please be advised, based on the Petitioner’s interpretation of the

Federal Law, and considering a portion of his evidenced claims pertain to: (1)

3
Criminal misconduct involving judicial officers; (2) Economic Espionage and (3)

matters believed to impact National Security, copies of this Motion are delivered to

the President, DOJ and members of Congress. A copy will also be made available to

the Public out of continued concerns for the Petitioner’s safety and well-being.

8. If your Honor has any questions regarding any portion of this Motion,

or requires additional information, Petitioner is happy to provide upon request.

The Petitioner is grateful for this Court’s consideration of his request.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner – Pro Se
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

June 6, 2018

4
Exhibit 1
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117243937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2018 Entry ID:
6144225

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

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.
__________________

Before

Torruella, Kayatta and

Barron, Circuit
Judges.
__________________

JUDGMENT

Entered: January 17, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar ("Harihar") appeals from the district court's decisions

dismissing his foreclosure-related claims. The appellees have moved for summary
disposition on the grounds that Harihar has not presented a substantial question
for review in his opening brief. We grant the appellees' motions for summary
disposition and affirm the judgment of the district court.
 We bypass the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellees regarding the scope of
the appeal. See United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59, 64 n.5 (1st Cir.) (noting that
"[t]he defects in the notice of appeal do not bear upon Article III subject matter
jurisdiction"), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 161 (2017). Harihar has offered no
argument in his opening brief to suggest reversible error in the district court's two
decisions granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. Harihar has thus waived
any Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117243937 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2018
Entry ID: 6144225

challenge to the district court's disposition of the merits of his claims. See Best
Auto Repair Shop, Inc. v. Universal Ins. Grp., 875 F.3d 733, 737 (1st Cir. 2017)
(affirming merits decision on waiver grounds where appellants failed to address
the decision in opening brief).

We have reviewed the other claims of error identified in Harihar's opening brief
and conclude that they lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court in all respects. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.0(c).

Harihar's pending Demand for Entry of Default Judgment is denied. We deny

Harihar's remaining pending motions as repetitive of previous requests for relief
that the court has already denied, or as moot. The appellees' and Defendants
Jeffrey S. Patterson and David E. Fialkow's requests for attorney's fees and other
relief is denied.

Affirmed.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar

David E. Fialkow
Jesse Mohan Boodoo
Kurt R. McHugh
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod

-2-
Exhibit 2

-3-
Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117265613 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 Entry ID:
6156474

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit
_____________________

No. 17-1381

MOHAN A. HARIHAR,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

US BANK N.A.; 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.
__________________

Before
Howard, Chief Judge,
Torruella, Lynch1, Thompson,
Kayatta and Barron, Circuit Judges.
__________________

ORDER OF COURT

1
Judge Lynch is recused from this matter and did not participate in its determination.

-4-
 Entered: March 14, 2018

Pursuant to First Circuit Internal Operating Procedure X(C), the petition for
rehearing en banc has also been treated as a petition for rehearing before the
original panel. The petition for rehearing having been denied by the panel of
judges who decided the case and the petition for rehearing en banc having been
submitted to the active judges of this court and a majority of the judges not having
voted that the case be heard en banc, it is ordered that the petition for rehearing
and petition for rehearing en banc be denied.

Case: 17-1381 Document: 00117265613 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2018 Entry ID:
6156474

The Motion Requesting MA AGO Clarification Regarding Filed Criminal

Complaints, which we construe as a request for an order from this court, is denied.

By the Court:

/s/ Margaret Carter, Clerk

cc: Mohan A. Harihar

David E. Fialkow
Jesse Mohan Boodoo
Kurt R. McHugh
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod

-5-
Exhibit 3

-6-
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

)
MOHAN A. HARIHAR, )
)
)
Appellant )
) Case No. 17-1381
v. )
)
US BANK, et al )
)
Defendants/Appellees )
)

APPELLANT RESPONSE TO THE MAY 18, 2018 RECUSAL OF

CIRCUIT JUDGE DAVID BARRON

APPELLANT DISCLOSURE

The gravity of serious legal issues addressed in this Appeal (lower court Docket No. 15-

cv-11880), and in the RELATED Appeal,2 include (but are not limited to): 1.) evidenced

allegations of TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution, and 2.)

Economic Espionage pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1832, which are believed to impact matters of

National Security. The evidenced allegations against referenced officers of the Court

include CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - On March 19, 2018, Criminal Complaints were

2
The related Appeal references HARIHAR v. THE UNITED STATES, Appeal No. 17-cv-
2074 (Also, lower court Docket No. 17-cv-11109).

-7-
filed with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) against the TEN (10) identified Federal

(Circuit and District) Court Judges. Therefore, copies of this RESPONSE are necessarily sent

via email, social media and/or certified mail to the:

1. Executive Office of the President (EOP);

2. The Department of Justice (DOJ);

3. US Inspector General - Michael Horowitz (OIG);

4. US Attorney General - Jeff Sessions;

5. Members of the US Senate and House of Representatives;

6. House and Senate Judiciary Committees;

7. House Oversight Committee;

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

9. Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief

Program (SIGTARP);

10. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC);

11. Federal Trade Commission (FTC);

12. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS);

13. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).

A copy will also be made available to the PUBLIC, as this judiciary’s effort to “promote

public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process,” has irrefutably been

compromised. By informing the Public, ALL AMERICANS serve here as WITNESS. Parties

-8-
are additionally informed for documentation purposes, and out of the Appellant’s continued

concerns for personal safety/security.

COMES NOW the Appellant, who files this timely RESPONSE after being notified on May

18, 2018 of the RECUSAL by Circuit Judge David Barron. The announcement of this recusal

raises a number of issues, including (but not limited to) the following:

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted;

II. This Court MUST Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale Burroughs

and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in similar fashion;

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES;

IV. Impacted Litigation;

V. Impacted Orders;

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari;

VII. Relief Requested

__________________________________________________________________

I. Additional Details Leading up to Recusal is Warranted

After reviewing the referenced 5/18/2018 letter3 announcing the recusal of Judge David

Barron, the explanation provided is considered insufficient, in that far more detail is required

in order to fully understand ALL factors leading up to this recusal. The Appellant

respectfully requests that Judge Barron provide for the record a detailed explanation of

3 See Attachment A

-9-
 exactly HOW, at this time he came to find out about a Financial interest in the

Appellee/Defendant – Wells Fargo. While the Appellant does not necessarily question the

conflict itself, there is cause to question the timing of its discovery. This Appeal was initiated

in April 2017 – therefore, further validation is needed to confirm all details related to the

judge’s “newly discovered” financial interest in Appellee, Wells Fargo;

II. This Court MUST NOW Address the PRIOR Recusals of Judge Allison Dale

Burroughs and Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch in Similar Fashion

This Court is aware that the announced recusal of Judge Barron is the THIRD (3rd)

RECUSAL associated with this litigation. On June 19, 2017, the first Judge to recuse was

Judge Allison Dale Burroughs from the RELATED case – HARIHAR v THE UNITED

STATES, Docket No. 17-cv-11109. Despite multiple documented efforts by the Appellant,

the record will conclusively reveal multiple failures by BOTH the District and Appellate

Courts to address and remedy the list of resulting conflicts and impacted orders associated

with this recusal.

The second recusal was announced by Chief Judge Howard, who recused Circuit Judge

Sandra Lynch from ruling on the 3/14/2018 decision for reasons UNKNOWN.4

III. This Court MUST Finally Address ALL previously referenced, and STILL

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Aside from the issues related to the referenced recusals, this Court is reminded of the list

of existing issues which, as evidenced by the record, have been IGNORED by this Court

4
The 3/14/18 Order referenced the Appellant’s Petition for re-hearing en banc. Questions are
raised regarding not only the recusal of Judge Lynch, but also regarding the jurisdiction of other
judges issuing the referenced order(s).

-10-
 - BEGINNING WITH JURISDICTION ISSUES. This Court AND the American

Public have now witnessed the following acts, EACH of which constitute judicial

misconduct – bringing to this Appellant (and likely to ANY OBJECTIVE

OBSERVER) a heightened state of ALERT and OUTRAGE:

A. Continued REFUSAL to address/clarify JURISDICTION issues5;

B. Refusing to clarify referenced Judgments;

C. Refusing to clarify the referenced Mandate;

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

E. Continuing to issue orders after LOSING JURISDICTION - EACH constituting acts of

TREASON under ARTICLE III, Section 3 of the Constitution;

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

Property (IP) Rights, b.) Evidenced ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE claims pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 1832 and c.) matters believed to impact National Security;

G. Refusing to exercise judicial discretion by wrongfully denying or unnecessarily delaying

WITHOUT VALID CAUSE - repeated requests for the Court to assist with the

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

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

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

5
The record shows that the Appellant has filed over FIFTY (50) + court documents which raise
a JURISDICTION issue, ALL of which have been IGNORED by referenced Federal (District
and Circuit) Judges.

-11-
I. Refusing to address evidenced UNOPPOSED claims of JUDICIAL FRAUD on the

COURT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) and clear violations to the Judicial Code

of Conduct and Judicial Oath;

J. Refusing to address identified DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS, including (but not

limited to) refusing a TRIAL BY JURY;

K. Ignoring requests for a GRAND JURY;

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

M. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color

of Law;

N. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 Conspiracy Against Rights;

O. Refusing to address Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1001 Fraud and False Statements;

P. Refusing to address Title 42 Sec. 1983, Civil action for Deprivation of Rights;

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

SAFETY AND SECURITY;

R. Refusing to promptly reimburse accruing Legal (and other) Fees due to the Appellant, as

stated within the record;

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

presence of an INDEPENDENT COURT REPORTER;

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

DISCOVERY and PREMATURELY moving for Dismissal.

-12-
IV. Impacted Litigation

This Court must now address ALL litigation, associated orders and misconduct

complaints impacted by Judge Barron’s recusal, not just Appeal No. 17-1381. Judge Barron

is also a presiding judge in the RELATED APPEAL No. 17-2074 – HARIHAR v. THE

UNITED STATES, and as a member of the JUDICIAL COUNCIL, has contributed to

orders associated with related judicial misconduct complaints.

This Court is now aware that on May 30, 2018, the Appellant filed a NEW Complaint

with the District Court against multiple Defendants including TEN (10) Officers of the

Court who are considered to be INFERIOR JUDGES (Reference Docket No. 18-cv-

11134, HARIHAR v. CHIEF JUDGE JEFFREY R. HOWARD, et al). Judge Barron

is listed here as a Defendant and as an inferior judge. The DEMAND is now respectfully

made to address ALL referenced litigation and judicial misconduct complaints impacted

by recusal.

V. Impacted Orders

The Appellant first addresses the EIGHT (8) impacted orders of Appeal No. 17-1381:

A. ORDER OF COURT Entered: June 5, 2017 - Here, the appellant's motions for

appointment of counsel, for a stay, and for entry of default are denied. ALL requests

here have been denied WITHOUT VALID CAUSE, even when clarification and

reconsideration had been respectfully requested. With the recusal of Judge Barron

(and the previous RECUSAL of Judge Burroughs), the Appellant shows cause to

attack this order and have it VOIDED by the Court. Before any attempt to re-address

-13-
the issues contained in the original motion, the Court is respectfully reminded that

JURISDICTION remains an issue. The remaining TWO (2) presiding Circuit Judges

– Judge Torruella and Judge Kayatta are considered to have ALREADY LOST

JURISDICTION to rule in this or ANY RELATED litigation. Once jurisdiction has

been properly restored, evidenced arguments supporting the Appellant’s motion (at

minimum) SHOULD result in the following:

1. THE COURT SHOULD initiate corrective action for these publicly

evidenced errors, beginning with actions two (2) thru five (5) listed below. IF

corrective action is initiated here, there MAY be opportunity to amend or

withdraw judicial misconduct (and other) complaints (if allowed by law). Any

failure to initiate corrective action here will certainly contribute to the ongoing

effort calling for their immediate removal from the Bench;

2. An ORDER granting the Appellant assistance with the appointment of counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915. Once experienced legal counsel has been

retained, the Appellant reserves the right to further amend this response as

deemed necessary;

3. An ORDER granting a STAY of ALL collection activity against the

Appellant while litigation is ongoing;

4. VACATING the existing Judgment and Mandate Order.

5. ISSUING a DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR of the APPELLANT –

MOHAN A. HARIHAR with prejudice, based on the PUBLICLY

EVIDENCED AND UNOPPOSED FRAUD on the COURT claims under

-14-
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). There is NO grey area here. Furthermore,

Appellees/Defendants have NO ALLOWABLE ARGUMENT since the

record reveals NO PRIOR ARGUMENT;

B. Once corrective action is initiated (as described above), the remaining orders6

associated with this Appeal No. 17-1381 are perceived as MOOT. The Appellant

restates that he retains the right to amend this response, if only partial corrective action

is initiated or as deemed necessary.

VI. Impact to Appellant’s US Supreme Court Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Based on Judge Barron’s recusal, the reasons stated above and throughout this Appeal,

shows absolute cause to initiate corrective action. Once these critical errors have been

corrected (as described by the Appellant), there will no longer be a need to petition the

US Supreme Court. HOWEVER, until corrective action is initiated, the due date for

filing the Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is fast approaching on June 12,

2018. THEREFORE, with the filing of this response, the Appellant respectfully requests

that the Court issue an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend

the timeline for filing his petition until ALL unresolved issues have been appropriately

addressed.

VII. Relief Requested

WHEREFORE, the Appellant – MOHAN A. HARIHAR respectfully requests the

following relief, based on these referenced reasons impacted by recusal:

6
Remaining orders impacted by recusal (Appeal No. 17-1381 ONLY) include orders issued on
the following dates: July 31, 2017, August 8, 2017, March 14, 2018, April 4, 2018 and April
11, 2018 Orders, as well as the January 17, 2018 Judgment.

-15-
 A. Initiate corrective action by assisting the Appellant with the Appointment of Counsel

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915;

B. Consider ALL referenced orders associated with this Appeal VOID;

C. ISSUE an EMERGENCY STAY ORDER, that would temporarily suspend the

timeline for filing his petition with the Supreme Court until ALL unresolved issues

have been appropriately addressed and resolved in this Appeals Court.

D. VACATE the Judgment and Mandate ORDER associated with this Appeal;

E. ISSUE a DEFAULT JUDGMENT - IN FAVOR of the APELLANT, MOHAN A.

HARIHAR with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3);

F. Issue an order for additional relief to the Appellant for: 1.) Punitive damages, 2.)

Declaratory relief and 3.) ANY OTHER relief deemed appropriate by the Court;

G. Issue an order for a reimbursement of legal fees (and ALL associated costs) as

previously described by the Appellant;

H. Appropriately address for the record, related issues pertaining to (at minimum)

evidenced CRIMINAL misconduct, Economic Espionage and National Security

and others. This will require the input from the Executive Branch of Government,

including (but not limited to): 1.) The President, 2.) The Department of Justice

(DOJ), 3.) The FBI, 4.) specific Congressional Committees.

The Appellant is grateful for the Court’s efforts to address and initiate the referenced corrective

action(s). For documentation purposes, after sending a copy of this RESPONSE to the attention

of The President, confirmation of its receipt is attached (See Attachment B) with the filed Court

-16-
copy. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this response, the Appellant is happy to

provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and with the

presence of an independent court reporter.

Respectfully re-submitted this 4th Day of June, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

-17-
Attachment A

-18-
-19-
Attachment B

-20-
-21-
-22-
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 4, 2018 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court
using the CM/ECF System, which will send notice of such filing to the following registered
CM/ECF users:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David Glod
David E. Fialkow
Kevin Patrick Polansky
Matthew T. Murphy
Kurt R. McHugh
Jesse M. Boodoo

Mohan A. Harihar
Appellant
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

-23-
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
____________
No. TBD
____________
MOHAN A. HARIHAR,
Applicant,
v.
US BANK, et al
Respondents.
___________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
___________________________________

I, Mohan A. Harihar, a pro se litigant, hereby certify that copies of the

attached Application to Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, for an Extension of Time
to File a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit were served on:

David E. Fialkow, Esq. (K&L Gates, LLP)

State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 261-3126
david.fialkow@klgates.com

Counsel for Wells Fargo NA, US Bank NA, David E. Fialkow, Esq. and
Jeffrey S. Patterson, Esq.

Jesse M. Boodoo, Esq. (MA Office of the Attorney General)

One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
617.727.2200 x 2592
jesse.boodoo@state.ma.us

Counsel for Commonwealth of MA and Martha Coakley, Esq.

Kevin Patrick Polansky, Esq. (Nelson Mullins, LLP)
One Post Office Square, 30th Floor
Boston, MA 01960
617.217.4720
kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com

Counsel for Nelson Mullins LLP and Peter Haley, Esq.

Matthew T. Murphy, Esq. (Casner & Edwards, LLP)

303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
617.426.5900
mmurphy@casneredwards.com

Counsel for Ken and Mary Daher (Daher Companies)

Jeffrey B. Loeb, Esq. (Rich May, PC)

176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.556.3871
JLoeb@richmaylaw.com

Counsel for Jeffrey and Isabelle Perkins

Kurt R. McHugh, Esq. (Harmon Law Offices, PC)

150 California Street
Newton, MA 02458
617.558.8435
kmchugh@harmonlaw.com

Counsel for Harmon Law, PC and Kurt R. McHugh, Esq.

Service was made by Priority/Express USPS mail on June 6, 2018.

Mohan a. Harihar
Petitioner
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526
Mo.harihar@gmail.com