Request For Extended Reporting Endorsement: Fill & Download for Free

Please read Swarna Bharat Party's detailed policy on Justice systemEfficient and effective justice systemSwarna Bharat Party’s justice policyIn its 117th Report (1986), the Law Commission observed: “The Indian Judicial System is admittedly colonial in origin and imported in structure. Without even a semblance of change in the last four decades since independence, in its mode, method of work, designations, language, approach, method of resolving disputes, it has all the trappings of the system established by the foreign rulers.”All freedom must necessarily be bound by accountability. We are free to do what we please, so long as we do not harm others. The justice system ensures accountability. If we harm anyone, justice must be quick and proportionate so everyone involved can get on with their life. But today there are about 3.80 crore pendencies/arrears/backlogs and cases drag on for years altogether, depriving many citizens of justice and violating their fundamental rights to life and liberty.We will commission a first-principles review of the justice system, to report in two years. In the meanwhile, we will implement a suite of reforms, some of which are outlined below.1.1 An impeccably honest and high quality judiciaryOur judiciary must be above board and above suspicion. It is crucial that the judiciary be perceived to be absolutely honest, unbiased, and accountable. Unfortunately, influential people are able to manipulate the ‘justice’ system to avoid jail. Petitions of rich and influential people are heard within days (even hours), while matters related to the poor languish for years, often never being completed in an entire lifetime. Chief Justice P. Sathasivam of the Supreme Court has acknowledged in July 2013 that the judiciary is not untouched by corruption.[1] A strong stench of corruption is arising from the courts. Bribery and perjury have destroyed the roots of the justice system, making it less a justice system than a system of ‘match-fixing’.We will create systems to ensure an honest and unbiased judiciary.1.1.1 CRIME PUNISHABLE WITH DEATH TO BRIBE A JUDGE OR FOR A JUDGE TO TAKE A BRIBEBribing judges (and judges accepting bribes) is perhaps the worst of all crimes – since it can lead to the innocent being punished and the guilty going scot-free. There is no more heinous offender of liberty than a judge that is not impartial.We will make it a crime punishable by death to bribe any Sessions Judge, High Court Judge or Supreme Court, or for a judge to accept a bribe. Other – lower – judges too, shall be sternly punished, likewise.The government itself is a litigant in many cases and should be punished if it bribes the judiciary. A judge should receive only his salary and associated entitlements; no more. It will become a crime punishable by death of the relevant Chief Minister or Prime Minister for any government to give any additional pecuniary benefits to any judge – such as the allocation of government land at a subsidised cost – over and above the contractual amount.1.1.2 NON-DISCRETIONARY ENFORCEMENT OF PERJURY LAWSThe lackadaisical attitude of many judges towards perjury is a systemic abuse that is destroying the very foundations of the justice system. People submit false affidavits with impunity today, as judges do not seem to care. False statements and evidence are often recorded under the very nose of trial judges. ‘Witnesses’, who are bought, appear in multiple cases before the same judge, with impunity. As a result, only the honest now fear the judiciary. There is a deep sense of despair at the breakdown of the rule of law.We will legislate to require judges to mandatorily impose stiff penalties for perjury, with a minimum six month prison sentence. It will also become a criminal offence for judges to not penalise perjury. Repeat offenders – who are proven to have accepted false statements as true – will be cautioned through the senior courts and further failures will invite formal complaints and FIRs. Judges need to be held to account for the truth of any evidence they rely upon for a judgement.1.1.2.1 TRANSPARENCY IN THE APPOINTMENT AND TRANSFER OF JUDGESThe existing system of appointments to the superior judiciary, through a collegium of senior judges in High Courts and the Supreme Court suffers from perceived deficiencies in quality, being an in-house process.We will seek to discuss with the Supreme Court Chief Justice to identify and action any opportunities for improving the system of appointment of judges, including (if necessary) through reforms such as the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill and the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill. A key to judicial appointments should be the deep held commitment of judges to liberty, including freedom of speech.NO ONE TO BECOME A JUDGE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE AS A LAWYERCurrently there is no minimum practice requirement for becoming a judge in the district courts. People can directly appear after their law degree for an exam to become a judge. We will seek advice from the Supreme Court regarding imposing a requirement of significant case practice as a necessary pre-condition to appear in the exam in order to become a judge.1.1.2.2 INDEPENDENT COMMISSION FOR REMUNERATION OF JUDGESWe believe that most judges are poorly paid today relative to their private practice capability, creating incentives for corruption. But any corruption in the judiciary is fatal to the purpose of a justice system. We will establish an independent commission for remuneration of judges to advice on a market-comparable compensation framework. The framework should include incentives for quality, accuracy and speed of judgements. Given the extreme significance of this matter, we intend to accept without any delay the recommendations of such a commission. The people of India cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish in relation to such a critical requirement as justice.1.1.2.3 FREEDOM (JUSTICE) MINISTER TO BE PAID BASED ON QUALITY AND SPEED OF JUSTICEThe Justice Minister, like all Ministers, will be paid partly according to results. KPIs for the Minister would include targets for resolving the case backlog, as well as indicators of speed and quality.1.1.2.4 TRAINING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICEWithout a commensurate strengthening of training and orientation among judicial officers / judges and lawyers, a rapid increase in the number of judges can put a strain on the quality of judgements. We will significantly upgrade the existing training systems of judges with a focus not merely on any changes to the law, but on best practice court procedures, such as that:arguments should be heard soon after the close of evidence, as they take much less time than arguments advanced after a long interval (recommendation of the 77th Law Commission);trial courts judgments should be brief and not a show of learning, and yet deal with inconvenient contentions and crucial arguments by appraising the evidence, relevant statutory provisions and such authorities that have direct bearing;Order 17, Rule 1, CPC (which does not allow more than three adjournments) should be followed and dilatory tactics including frequent adjournments, delays in filing documents, delays in serving or evading service be firmly curbed;judgments should be pronounced within 30 days (Order 20, Rule 1, CPC) and decrees within 15 days; anda time limit should be enforced on unnecessary details, such as over-proving allegations or unduly prolix examinations and cross examinations of witnesses.1.1.2.5 INTERNAL REVIEW SYSTEM: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TIMELY JUSTICEWe will discuss with the Supreme Court options to introduce an internal review system to deal with complaints against judges and any unnecessary delays by judges.1.2 Timely, efficient and effective delivery of justice1.2.1 RAPID DISPOSAL OF CASES OF UNDER-TRIAL PRISONERSIt is a shame that thousands of under-trials are in jail for over ten years without their guilt having been established. We will cause a review of all cases of under-trial prisoners. Except for alleged crimes against person, they will either be freed on bail or permanently released if the time they have served is more than half the maximum statutory sentence.1.2.2 SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF JUDGESIndia currently has a ratio of around 13.5 judges for every one million persons. In developed countries, there are 130-135 judges for every one million persons. A judge needs to go into the details of the evidence and the law before deciding a case. Quality justice takes time. Without dramatically increasing the number of judges, we cannot deliver timely and quality justice to the people of India. The Supreme Court has directed an increase in the strength of judges to 50 per million in the subordinate judiciary. We believe this is an essential governance reform. We are committed to increasing the strength of judges to at least 50 judges per million within three years. Funds for this will be raised from recovery of efficient costs of the justice system through appropriate fees, and from rationalisation of the tax system.1.2.2.1 TRIPLING THE EXPENDITURE ON JUSTICE IN THREE YEARSKorea spends more than 0.2%, Singapore 1.2%, and the U.S. 1.4% of its GDP on justice. India, however, spent only 0.01% of the GDP on justice in 2000. What can be more absurd than this, that a core function of the government has been given such short shrift by successive governments in India? By cutting out unnecessary functions, we will redirect savings into core functions, one of the most important of these being justice. A quantum increase in expenditure on the justice system will be considered, at least tripling the current spending within three years, and much more in the future.1.2.3 FAST-TRACK OPTIONS1.2.3.1 FAST-TRACK COURTS TO DEAL WITH CORRUPTION/ CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MPSThis policy has been detailed earlier, and is a critical part of our commitment to ensure that only good people are able to become elected representatives.1.2.3.2 FAST-TRACK COURTS FOR CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST PERSONWe will create a fast-track system for crimes against person, with a maximum judgement time of 12 months from the date of reporting such crime, including a maximum of six months for investigation. Exceptions to this timeline will be investigated by a Judicial Commission and any necessary extensions given only in exceptional cases. Officials responsible for unnecessary delays will be punished.Terrorists and those who potentially pose a grave threat to the nation would be tried even more quickly through special courts.1.2.3.3 OTHER CASES REQUIRING TO BE FAST-TRACKEDWe will request the Supreme Court to strengthen its normal prioritisation mechanism. Cases requiring urgent attention/priority should be fast-tracked. This could include cases involving the death sentence; habeas corpus petitions; where orders have been passed staying other proceedings, or against orders of remand; cases involving senior citizens (whose timeline for justice is necessarily shorter); cases affecting custody of children; and motor vehicle accidents.1.2.4 MEASURES TO REDUCE PROCEDURAL DELAYS AND THE TIME AND COST OF JUSTICEWe will undertake a range of reforms to reduce justice system delays and costs. Illustratively, these include:1.2.4.1 PRE-LITIGATION MEASURESSection 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides for alternate dispute redressal mechanisms (ADRs). After issues are framed, cases can be referred to appropriate ADRs. Streamlining this process can reduce the time and other costs of justice.We will enhance the process to refer parties for counselling prior to commencing litigation, especially when there is scope for settlement. In general, all cases between two or more government agencies/departments should be settled outside courts – or through the inter-governmental machinery.We will create a regulatory regime that supports any private online dispute resolution initiatives for minor issues. In a competitive market, such systems are likely to be cheaper and quicker than comparable government systems.1.2.4.2 PLEA BARGAININGChapter 21 A of The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for pre-emption of trial for petty offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, through a mutually satisfactory disposition where the court directs the accused to pay an agreed compensation to the victim, and may either release the accused on probation or sentence the accused to up to half the minimum punishment prescribed for the offence in question.Unfortunately, plea-bargaining is rarely used in local courts. We will review the use of plea-bargaining and streamline it, excluding certain offences such as those committed against a woman or a child below the age of fourteen. This will significantly increase its use.1.2.4.3 STERN PUNISHMENT FOR FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION AND APPEALSThe government itself is a huge contributor to justice system delays. In matters where it is a party, it is common for the government to evade notices, reply to notices without application of mind, and unnecessarily appeal even when the laws are clearly in favour of the other party. Parties with deep pockets also waste a lot of judicial time, with vicious and frivolous cases and appeals, each of which is ultimately lost with strictures.The 192nd Report by the Law Commission (2005) outlined the concept of a vexatious litigant and proposed a draft bill, The Vexatious Litigation Prevention Bill. We will enact strong legislation to impose costs on parties engaging in frivolous litigation. In particular, we will make laws to stringently punish the senior-most government functionaries found responsible for vexatious litigation.Such penalties will also apply to police officers whose parking or other tickets are dismissed by courts.1.2.4.4 STOPPING ENDLESS APPEALSDue to slack judicial action, cases in India are often disposed without deciding the real issue. This results in endless appeals. Lawyers are also paid on a per-court appearance basis, and hence have little incentive to resolve cases. Procedural laws allow lawyers of clients who oppose the resolution of a case to submit endless interlocutory appeals. We will review and streamline civil and criminal procedures, to avoid such obfuscation of justice. We will regulate legal fees to require a cap on costs to be declared for each case by litigating lawyers to prevent their incentive to lengthen proceedings.1.3 Structural reforms of the judicial system1.3.1 MAKING THE SUPREME COURT MORE ACCESSIBLEGiven the heavy caseload and backlogs, as well as the time and costs imposed on litigants to travel to Delhi from distant states, there is much merit in decentralising the Supreme Court. The 2009 Law Commission recommended that the Supreme Court be split into a Constitution Bench in New Delhi and Cassation Benches in the four regions to deal with all the appellate work arising out of high court decisions. Though the Supreme Court has expressed reservations about any such radical re-structuring, we believe that one additional branch of the Supreme Court, initially in Bangalore, should be piloted in the first instance. Any concerns of the Supreme Court about capacity to govern the Cassation Benches can be addressed through close-circuit video conferencing, so regular private meetings can be held with the Chief Justice.1.3.2 INDEPENDENT PROSECUTING AGENCYWe will create an independent prosecuting body to ensure that police and investigative agencies have collated sufficient evidence and have reasonable prospects of securing conviction, before filing a charge sheet. This will also apply to cases filed by the government in civil matters and help minimise unnecessary government-created litigation. Internal review of processes and of any complaints received, and external audit of its performance would support other governance processes in place to ensure integrity and competence of this organisation.1.3.3 COMMERCIAL COURTSGiven the costly and time-critical nature of large commercial and contractual cases (such as IPR, mergers and acquisitions), we will set up Special Commercial Courts to fast-track such litigation, with a significantly higher fee. We will also appoint experienced and qualified judges on contract for technically complex cases. Such contractual judges could be hired from anywhere in the world.These actions will also empower our judicial system to increasingly take on the role of a global hub for arbitration and legal process outsourcing.1.3.4 MOBILE COURTS, LOK ADALATS, FAMILY COURTSFor relatively minor civil matters, we will set up mobile courts and encourage people to use the services of private arbitrators. We will increase Lok Adalats to one per 50 villages, and increase the number of Family Courts.1.3.5 PANCHAYATS TO JUDGE SIMPLE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERSToday, even petty cases tend to go before judges. We will pilot the use of panchayats for some minor civil and criminal issues, and minor land disputes. If successful, this would be rolled out, while always ensuring that panchayats abide by the norms of liberty and justice.1.3.6 PILOTING THE JURY SYSTEM IN CRIMINAL TRIALSAfter first speeding up criminal trials, we will consider ways to improve the quality of judgements, including by adopting a jury system in certain trials. There are some risks to a jury system, with many prevalent citizen prejudices that could distort justice. However, a jury system respects citizens’ judgement and can, in the longer run, result in fairer judgements as citizens’ education and the ability to assess evidence improves. We will pilot this system in relatively minor criminal matters and evaluate it before considering a broader rollout.1.3.7 PRIVATE COURTS FOR CERTAIN CIVIL MATTERSWe will enact laws to enable private (including online) arbitration and courts. Citizens will be able to choose in advance the use of such private courts as part of contracts such as for the construction of a house. Upon activating a dispute, the losing party will be required to pay penalties, including reasonable legal costs. This will create competition for justice (thus also keeping government courts on their toes) and lead to innovative, quicker justice. This will also, by reducing government court caseloads, ease justice system backlogs and save taxpayers significant amounts of money.1.4 Making the justice system more humane1.4.1 FREE HIGH QUALITY LEGAL AIDThe poor (those eligible for an NIT-type payment) will also be eligible for free high quality legal aid, the costs of which will be partially met through penalties imposed on the losing parties. No aid will be provided where it is determined by the legal aid system that the party is guilty.1.4.2 EASIER ACCESS TO BAILWe will make the option of bail for most charges (excluding crimes against person) mandatory and easier, to minimise unnecessary harassment of potentially innocent people.1.4.3 PRISON REFORMS INCLUDING REHABILITATION AND REDUCED RECIDIVISMPrison should be a place for a prisoner to repent the crime and to reform, to facilitate re-integration with society upon their release. We will introduce privatized prisons (with appropriate regulatory oversight) to be partly paid on reduced recidivism ratesImprisonment, being a restriction on freedom of movement, is itself a major punishment. There is no need for further cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners. We will also take measures to look after prisoners’ families, particularly of their children, to ensure that any ill-effects on their upbringing and self-confidence due to their parents’ imprisonment are minimized.1.4.4 REVIEW OF PRIVATE COSTS OF REPORTING CRIME AND REDUCING THESE COSTSThe effects of reporting certain violent crime, such as rape, on the mind, career, marriage prospects and social status of the complainant are often enormous. The victim thus gets further victimised. These reporting and social obstacles create incentives for significant under-reporting, thus emboldening criminals.We will review the private costs of reporting violent crime and introduce a range of laws and supports that make it easier to report and reduce the distress and costs (including social costs, such as through appropriate confidentiality) involved.1.4.4.1 LOOKING AFTER THE VICTIMS OF SERIOUS CRIMESWe will strengthen systems (largely through civil society institutions) to support and rehabilitate victims (and victim families), to ensure that they are reintegrated back into society at the earliest.1.5 Modernisation of lawsWe will modernise laws, particularly the penal laws. Some of the key modernisation issues are outlined below. Some others are mentioned elsewhere in this document, such as in relation to freedom of speech and property rights.1.5.1 GOVERNMENT TO BE LIABLE FOR HARM CAUSEDWe will legislate a duty of care that all government employees must ensure in their interactions with their clients. This will allow the government to be sued for damages where government servants, through their acts of commission or omission, harm citizens.1.5.2 REVIEW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT PROVISIONSJudges need powers to enforce decorum and demand discipline as part of the judicial process. However, there is a countervailing requirement to require constitutionally consistent restrictions on the exercise of these provisions, to limit any wilful misuse. Contempt of court provisions will therefore be reviewed and appropriate rules created to ensure these powers are deployed only in extremely limited cases.1.5.3 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FOR HEINOUS CRIMESFor heinous crimes (including serious cases of corruption, child abuse and rape), judges would be required to specifically justify any exception to capital punishment, once proof beyond reasonable doubt has been adduced. Capital punishment in such cases would create a deterrent effect.1.5.4 MINIMUM STANDARDS, NOT A UNIFORM CIVIL CODEArticle 44 of the Constitution contains a directive principle that the state shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.[We believe that a Constitution should not include policy mandates. Policy must remain the prerogative of elected governments. We respectfully do not agree with the policy outlined in this Article and will commend a more refined approach to the country, consistent with liberty.]In relation to the substantive content of Article 44, it is to be noted that most religions specify some level of details regarding marriage and divorce. These are personal matters involving the most intimate unit of human existence: the family. Religious obligations on families are outside the scope of a government’s jurisdiction. Even in non-religious personal arrangements about marriage, there is fundamentally no role for government. Families should be able to structure themselves without violating the life or liberty of family members or others. A marriage contract or sacrament is a matter of personal taste on which the state can have nothing substantial to say.The only role a state can have in this regard relates to establishing norm-setting minimum standards, such as a minimum age of marriage, minimum maintenance requirements upon divorce and minimum inheritance requirements in absence of a will. All that would be required would be for citizens to abide by the legislated minimum standards while complying with the mandates of their individual faiths.More broadly, since there is no role for the state in religion, we will review all religious (e.g. Hindu/ Muslim) legislation on the statue books and replace it with generic rules of accountability applicable to all citizens.1.5.5 STRONGER ACCOUNTABILITY: PRISONERS TO PAY FOR THEIR UPKEEPWe will introduce innovative methods and technologies to ensure that society doesn’t pay unduly for the upkeep of prisoners. In general, prisoners will be billed all costs of their upkeep. Where they have known resources and assets, payment will be required before they are released. For prisoners without any identifiable resources, the amount will be converted into a loan and recovered through the tax system.Wherever appropriate, prisoners will be required to serve the family or community they have harmed.1.5.6 MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT FOR GANG CRIMES AND VIOLENT SEXUAL CRIMESWe will enact mandatory minimum prison sentencing for gang crimes, violent or sexual offences against children, rape, robbery, murder, and all assaults involving serious injury to law enforcement officers. We will create a national registry for convicted child abusers so they can be readily tracked. Parole will be minimized for dangerous or repeat felons.1.5.7 STRONG LAWS AGAINST TORTUREDespite signing the Convention against Torture in 1997, India is yet to enact a law to ratify the treaty. We will introduce such a Bill at the earliest.1.5.8 REVIEW OF VICTIMLESS CRIMESUnder various victimless crime laws, people are punished even when they have not directly harmed anyone. Typically, this relates to dealing with, or consuming illegal drugs. In general, victimless crimes should not prompt punishment (even assuming that analysis demonstrates the value of such punishment) comparable with punishment for violent crime. We will review laws regarding victimless crimes for necessity, and where considered necessary, for appropriateness of punishment.1.5.9 SEXUAL ORIENTATION NOT A CRIMEWe object to Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalises homosexuality. This is proven to have a significant hereditary/ biological origin, and therefore is not only a matter of personal choice. We will abolish this ‘crime’, particularly also as it is victimless. Non-consensual gay sex will be captured by the normal provision regarding rape.We agree that gay couples that wish to live together in a marriage-like relationship, can legally and contractually do so. We also note that the state has a very limited role in determining the nature and form of marriage. To the extent customary, at present, this relationship will not be called marriage, to distinguish it from heterosexual marriage. The right to bring up adopted children will, however, not be available to this form of cohabitation, given the need to assess this issue further in the best interests of children. Such an evidence-based assessment, including extensive consultation with the community, will be commissioned in the second term of our government.1.5.10 ADULTERY NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCESection 497 of the IPC, a provision drafted in the Victorian era, treats adultery as a crime, which can be complained against only by the husband and never by the wife. We will move adultery from a criminal into a civil offence. Adultery is a form of breach of trust and should remain a ground for divorce, but is not a criminal matter. All sexual acts between consenting adults will be removed from the IPC.1.5.11 REFORM OF CHILD PROTECTION, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND DOWRY LAWSMost marriage-related complaints in India are considered to be criminal in nature. This is inappropriate. Except for matters involving physical violence and abduction, all other marriage issues will be moved into civil law.While many women face an oppressive environment at home and domestic violence needs to be punished, enough evidence has now accumulated that s.498a of the IPC, which addresses domestic violence and dowry deaths, is often misused due to the absence of checks and balances and its inbuilt stereotypical assumptions about gender roles. But no assumption of guilt should be inbuilt into the law. We will make offences under s. 498a bailable and compoundable, and require that any party that files a false case be mandatorily imprisoned for a minimum of three months, with all legal costs borne by the party that filed the false case.Since India is not a signatory of Hague convention on Private International Law, any marriage-related dispute between a foreign and Indian citizen is dealt as per Indian law. Further, current laws are unclear about the rights of the other marriage partner when one spouse takes away the children without consent. We will legally endorse the international convention to ensure international standards for child protection.1.5.12 STRONG ANIMAL PROTECTION LAWSWe will review and strengthen existing laws for animal protection. Animals consumed as food should be killed in as painless a manner as the state of knowledge permits. International best practice currently requires stunning before killing large animals. We will make humane killing mandatory in all abattoirs, with transitional provisions for local butchers that currently use customary (often brutal) techniques. Punishment for repeated inhumane killing of animals can extend to jail. The laws will also apply to temples and other religious places, bringing an end to animal sacrifice that is not assisted by modern technology.1.5.13 MAKING LAWS ACCESSIBLE AND CLEAR, THUS SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY1.5.13.1 LANGUAGE OF THE PEOPLE TO BE USEDWe will require the language of the people to be used in courts as far as ordinary civil and criminal matters are concerned.1.5.13.2 DEFINITIONS ACTAll legal definitions will be rationalised, stripped from existing legislation, and brought under a single Act. This will ensure consistency in the use of specific words in all legislation. All such terms will then be hyperlinked in electronic versions of the laws, so ordinary citizens can quickly identify their meaning.1.5.13.3 INDEXATION OF FINES, FEES AND PENALTIESWe will index fines, fees and penalties to the CPI. All such imposts will be converted into units, with the current unit values reflecting the changing value of the rupee.As part of this process, fines, fees and penalties that are set at outdated levels will be increased to reflect the current value environment, based also on cost recovery principles (with costs set at an efficient level).1.5.13.4 COMPUTERIZATION OF LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCEReady access to past judgements can help improve the quality of justice. In addition to computerization and publication of all relevant laws, all relevant jurisprudence will be digitised and published on the internet (making it fully searchable), to help improve the quality and speed of judgements. This would facilitate much shorter arguments and enable judgments to be expedited. More broadly, all modern technology will be actively used to support the justice system.1.5.13.5 TELECASTING COURT PROCEEDINGS ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERSExcept where matters of state security are involved, the Supreme Court will be required to telecast court proceedings on any Constitutional matter free of cost on social media and any private TV channel that wishes to broadcast these proceedings, so the people of India can better understand the framework and structure of our Constitution.1.5.14 REPEAL OF REDUNDANT LEGISLATIONA vast amount of irrelevant legislation remains on the Indian statute book. All laws, particularly pre-1947 laws will be reviewed for relevance and where found unnecessary, will be repealed within three years.1.6 Consumer protectionIt is bad business to be deceitful. ‘A habit of deceit is a mark of bad character, and bad character has a way of revealing itself no matter how cunning the individual. Deceit is both bad karma and bad business. Commerce [therefore] elevates manners and probity’. Information about a business’s character spreads across the society through gossip, newspapers and electronic media, legal case law, or even information that consumers may pay, for such as Consumer Reports in the USA. Strong business competition is a driver of good behaviour.However, there are cases where businesses cause a loss to buyers and either deny these losses, or ignore them, or themselves disappear. Such cases require specific action by the government. Where such losses are relatively minor, judicial remedy can be costly to everyone. We are committed to establishing a government led consumer protection agency that will deal with minor cases of misdemeanour by businesses and use persuasion and public shaming in cases of obvious damage. Where necessary, we will prosecute such businesses in the court of law on behalf of consumers.We will also regulate the minimal contractual requirements for various services so companies do not use the ‘fine print’ to exclude themselves from liability where they must take responsibility.

Please read your state’s Introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct, softbound. Attorneys have no liabilities. If they had any, the judges will abuse their discretion anyway. Attorneys in Colorado have been declared to be entirely unregulated.There is the Attorney Regulation Board, obviously a front. It is like writing letters to Santa. You imagine there is someone looking out for you. There is none. The courts want to make money - fast. If you have equity they’ll take it. If you don’t they’ll use you to access public funds.The way it works is that you write your complaint. Lisa Frankel in Colorado then sends a list of questions to the attorney in question. If you hit on any actual points (and there are hardly any) she’ll twist your complaint so the attorney can respond to a fabricated question. Then you get to answer. Then your complaint is dismissed.Below is my answer to Robert Wolf’s Response:Lisa FrankelColorado Supreme Court Attorney Regulation Counsel1300 Broadway, Suite 500Denver, CO 80203RE: Reply to Robert Wolf's Response, Case No. 14-1353Dear Ms. Frankel,I have no doubt that the public has no interest in the Rules of Professional Conduct. I'm sure the Rules aren't publicly available because someone would have caught on that DORA should regulate attorneys. I'm writing this for the public and legislators. When I file my civil law suit against Wolf I will specify to the Judge that any decision by the Bar Association should be disregarded.Wolf's performance:·Engaged in unethical filing of redundant and inefficient motions·Clueless regarding litigation·Did not disclose "attorney of record" - consumer fraud.·Misrepresented that immediate substitution of Shields to prevent GAL·Denies requesting a GAL without a hearing, but records show otherwise·Fraudulently denies the domestic assault·Misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, pursues Offender/Petitioner's intersts.·Lies about the dual protection order, can't misconstrue that it is in my interest.·Denies the domestic assault in order to transfer my case to division 4 to avoid Magistrate Moss, who saw me in court and heard Temporary Orders·It is unconstitutional for him to "decide" on justice.·Consumer and billing fraud·Putting party in physical danger, abusive, manipulative and unethical.·Misrepresents facts·Misrepresented that I've previously been removed form the court, referring to the time witnesses changed place at Temporary Orders·Misrepresents the Magistrate's position and rulings.·Lied to the party in regards to his dealings and goals, denies them, and didn't send electronic communications, stating that he needs to scan them first.·Libelous, abusive and dangerous.Regarding Wolf's PerformanceOn 3/4/14 I told Wolf that the Offender had a deferred sentence for third degree domestic assault with intention to cause harm. He said that since there is an arrest report and record of my injuries that he will easily get me the civil protection. He boasted that he an experienced litigator.He also claimed that unless I hire him "there will be a GAL," that he needs to substitute Shields instantly to prevent her from further intervention in my case. I signed a retainer. (Exhibit 23 - 3/4/14 date of retainer, 3/10/14, date of entering representation)Wolf's conduct shows that he is entirely unknowledgeable on the matter of the divorces and a GAL. Since he is extremely manipulative and abusive, this could be a cover-up for more serious behviors.Wolf denies requesting the appointment of a GAL without a hearing, however, Exhibit 1 shows that it was his pleading to appoint a GAL without a hearing that was accepted.Instead of preventing Shields from proceeding, he pursued the 3/10/14 phone conference with Shields, kept me in the dark about his activities, denied the domestic assault in contradiction to the police report (EXHIBIT 3) and MRI (EXHIBIT 5) and x-rays. The information regarding the misdemeanor case didn't change so Wolf can't explain why he changed his opinion all of a sudden. The truth is that Wolf and the Offender's attorney worked in tandem to increase litigation costs. Wolf kept himself on record by filing of redundant motions and his misrepresentation was denied by the court. On May 11th I mentioned the word "appeal" to Wolf for the first time and he got himself dismissed right away on 5/19/14, knowing that although the Bar Association will support attorneys preying on parties, there is an appeal system.I spoke to Wolf from a surgeon's office once, so he knew I was in need of cancer diagnostic surgery and that I suffer skeletal injuries.Regarding Damage to the Marital HomeShields threatened that I will pay for damages to the marital home. Wolf falsely alleged progressive damages to the marital home and Zapor was prepared to hire an advocate to charge my accounts for the alleged damage and sign my legal entitlements in a mediation agreement (Exhibit 10 - email of 5/27/14) Zapor falsely stated that she can't communicate to the court that seven neighbors testified no damage exists. Short of my appeal with the Appeals Court, I would have been out in the streets with a annular rapture, in need of cancer diagnostic biopsy, no safety, deprived of my savings and real estate titles as well as my marital estate.My Appeal was accepted by the court on 5/15/14 and I traveled there twice on 5/19/14 to make sure it is filed. That as the day Zapor got authority to sign any documents on my behalf. Due to the Appeal and a Motion to Stay Case Zapor didn't substitute Wolf with another self-serving attorney to collaborate with the fraud scheme. Instead I was able to file a Mistake, describing Wolf as a neglectful person. Exhibit 25. On 6/17/14 Judge Arkin stated that Shields disliking the party doesn't justify a GAL (oral telephone conference). The dislike was mutual, as x-generations consider baby boomers to be twisted.The position of the Attorney Regulation Board is that attorneys can file anything they want and the judge can decide on it. Lisa Frankel ignores the fact that the attorneys engaged in liable while preventing the party from communicating with the court. The entire thing is a consumer trap and DORA should assume attorney regulation. For attorneys to prevent victims of domestic violence of safety, security and all of their constitutional rights for increased litigation fees is in line with their notoriety in popular culture.In his Response to Motion for Periodic Inspections from 4/30/14 (EXHIBIT 8) Wolf does not mention that I'm a property manager by profession, he does not address the fact that the real concern of the Petitioner was that his office was disorganized. He invites mistakes, and encourages the Petitioner's attorney to respond for increased litigation costs instead.In Section 2 Wolf states "It is unclear why Petitioner waited nearly 6 months to become concerned about the property in Respondent's possession."The truth is that I'm a victim of domestic violence and the Petitioner/Offender should never get within a 100 yards of me or my residence. Wolf put my life in danger. The Offender is a sociopath and can't understand that a messy office is not on a par with life threatening situations. In the end, the Court ignored Wolf's filing and I was allowed to file a Reply pro-se after Zapor asked to resign.Exhibit 12 - In his email of 4/29/14 Wolf is interested in the periodic inspections. He wants a key to my residence for the Offender. He states that "some of the requests in the Motion are not unreasonable and are likely to be granted by the court... if the inspection is to be allowed, it should be... with you not in the house." Wolf knew that at the time there was an expensive bourbon collection in the house. The Offender regularly offers bottles to friend. I assume that beyond collaboration with another criminal attorney, Wolf was also waiting for his share of the bourbon.Wolf had photographs of my two immaculate premarital condos in my file. I lease and manage them myself. He had copies of my leases. I write my own Amendments. He knew that I filed a Response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage myself, complete with financial disclosure. Exhibit 6 is my pro-se filing of a Response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Exhibit 7 shows I've represented myself pro-se at a telephone conference and scheduled Temporary Orders myself. Additionally, he had in his possession the transcript of the Temporary Orders, proving that I can instantly calculate profits; I can hire vendors and manage tenants, study, and am licensed as a real estate professional.Exhibit 2 is the transcript of Temporary Orders, 1/27/14. Page 32 line 2- to page 36 line 25, I'm the witness: "A: I receive rental income from two properties. I pay HOA's on two properties.... I know that I filed my financial disclosure there was all these numbers up to September so there's only a few more months that you're not seeing.... the (mold) remediation was done sometime in October...I do have the receipt for that, yes.... Everything is receipted and documented and I'm happy to share anything that you would want...."Zapor falsely denied that she can bring it to the court's attention that seven neighbors had testified that there is no damage to the house. Wolf was also in a position to advise the court of the same but refused.In reality, an attorney of record is an unconstitutional entity created by the Bar Association as consumer trap and our legislators need to intervene.Regarding the GALMr. Wolf is lying - he specifically requested the appointment of a GAL without a hearing.EXHIBIT 1 - 4/20/14 - Status report filed by Wolf.Section 4. It is the position of Petitioner's counsel that a Sorensen hearing is not required before appointing a GAL based the determinations already made by the Court.Two faults - Wolf isn't representing my interest, but collaborates with another criminal attorney to increase prestige and litigation costs. He is invites mistakes by suggesting that the court made previous determinations.On 3/10/14 the Magistrate stated that she will give me time to be heard and that she would like to get the case back on track. Zapor's claims that I refuse to participate in hearings and that I've previously been removed from the court are probably in response to the Magistrate's expectations.I'm not sure how the attorneys moved the case to division 4. It could have been part of their interest in denying the assault. Judge Arkin never met me and has not been involved in the case. She didn't have the knowledge that Magistrate Moss had.Section 6 - Counsel for the Respondent agrees that appointment of a GAL for Respondent is appropriate and necessary.Bonnie Shields tried to fraudulently justify the appointment of a GAL, Wolf denies requesting it. He pretends to be ignorant to get off on lack of skill and care. It could be a regular technique for him. Exhibit 1 shows that Wolf's request to appoint a GAL was granted and that he is a liar.Since Magistrate Moss knew me, saw me representing myself three times, and heard testimony at Temporary Orders Wolf only had to say that the GAL is not necessary and she would have been happy to get the case back on course. Wolf had the transcript of the 3/10/14 telephone conference and would have known that much, except that he insists on misrepresenting the conversation.Mr. Wolf did not direct the court to vacate the GAL, nor did he direct the court towards a final decision on the matter of GAL. He is supposed to guide the case and represent my interests, but instead has the Offender/Petitioner make all the decisions.Wolf didn't strike the Motion for Periodic Inspections. It was unacceptable to the judges because a final hearing on the matter of the appointment of a GAL wasn't made. He didn't request that Offender pay for mental evaluation. He misrepresented all of his dealings to me knowing that he can keep himself using the retainer for as long as he would want. He had the Offender's attorney chose a GAL. I need a mental evaluation for the purpose of maintenance at Permanent Orders. Wolf specifically denies using the mental evaluation for this purpose.Exhibit 15 - Status Report of 3/21/14, Section 3 - this is the record Wolf did not send me for three weeks. It is electronic filing he falsely represents that he needed to scan it in order to mail it.Exhibit 27 - Response to Objection Motion to Withdraw - Wolf states "counsel can no longer effectively represent Respondent."Wolf is obviously manipulative, misusing the legal system for personal profit in a regular cooperation with the counsel of the opposing party. 'On the Matter of the Protection OrderSince the details of the criminal case have not changed: a third degree assault, a confession by the offender, x-rays recording injuries, etc; since I told Wolf I'm afraid for my life; and since he represented that he can easily get a protection order - how does he explain suddenly changing his story? He was retained because he said he could easily get a protection order. However, he wanted to move the case to division 4 and obtain victory for the Offender.In contradiction to Wolf's statement, we have never discussed the details of the assault even once. All he knew were the technical details - the charges and the injuries. The billing record reflects the same. He claimed to fly to Texas right after being retained and said he'd take the file with him on the plain. He came back ill and never returned any of my calls. 'Additionally, the Offender's confession to the police that he assaulted me because I asked questions is in line with the Incident Checklist. According to the checklist I submitted all incidents of violence were related to asking the Offender questions. So Wolf clearly lying, as he has confessed to the Judge.Rose Zapor falsely represents that the Magistrate dismissed the protection order because the assault can't be verified. This despite the fact that she knew there was an arrest report and documentation of the injuries (Exhibit 9 - email from 5/8/14.) This is in complete contradiction to what Wolf said - that he can easily obtain a protection order because there is an arrest report and documentation of injuries. Zapor states that I can't make my own decisions whenever she wants to pursue her interests. The Board refused to review a complaint against her stating that she can have any opinions she wants, despite documentation to the opposite. I would like the Board to reconsider their position and let me file a complaint against Zapor.Wolf wanted to change the date for the civil protection hearing because he wasn't available on the 17th, or because the Offender's attorney was in Israel on the 17th. This, although it would have worked in my favor that the Offender's attorney was gone and the Magistrate didn't allow him to participate via telephone. Exhibit 26 is the minute order. Knowing Wolf, it is possible that he denied the March 17 date as a favor to the Offender and his attorney. He has been exploitative since I signed the retainer agreement. But, of course, that is what the Attorney Regulation Board endorses and protects.Wolf either misunderstands court proceedings or pretends to. He was asked to handle the matter of the final appointment of a GAL first. He told me that Shields convinced the Magistrate that I'm a liar and that I must clear my name with a mental evaluation first. He said since my criminal protection was going to expire, that the Offender will sign a stipulation for a one sided temporary protection. He said that the Magistrate will revoke his license if he engaged in a frivolous motion for Civil Protection. He then proceeded to ridicule my need for protection. All these lies to keep me in the dark about his pursuit of the appointment of a GAL.Wolf engaged in a Motion for Periodic Inspections to allow the Offender back into the marital home. He pushed a two sided protection that puts my life in danger.Exhibit 20 - email from 3/24/14, just before asking Wolf to terminate services. I was under the impression that Wolf is filing for a protection order.Because of my skeletal injuries and the weight of paper, filing was impossible for me until August of 2014. I accidentally filed my only copy of the complete police report with the District Court in July as part of the domestic relations case. I ask the board to read the Offender's confession to his motivations to the assault. The policeman interrogating the Offender states that the Offender denied the assault at first, but later admitted to it.Mr. Wolf's claims that I'm dangerous to myself or to others are fraudulent and frivolous. I've seen a counselor continually since the assault, and on and off since 2010. All of the counselors are sworn to immediately report if they believe that I'm a danger to myself or to others. None of them ever have. Wolf Is libelous. Exhibit 21 is a treatment plan from Dr. Funt. Exhibit 22 is treatment plan from Dr. Zarou.Additionally, there is no record of us physically meeting after the 3/4/14 - so what is the basis for his allegations on? I once told him that if reading emails at $60 and $70 per email asking him to stop fraud constitute harassment then he should file for a protection order. The emails are enclosed as Exhibit 28. It shows Wolf is guilty of misrepresentation.Regarding the MagistrateWolf is counting on the Board to not read any of the Exhibits, or else he is counting on the Board to protect consumer traps and misrepresentation.Wolf has the transcript of the 3/1014 telephone conference. He is knowingly misrepresenting the facts. On 3/3/14 Shields said she would file a Notice of Withdrawal by 10:15 on 3/3/14. Based on her promise I went to court and filed a restraining order. I was told that Magistrate Moss is engaged in a long hearing and that I should go to division 2 instead. There a Magistrate granted temporary protection.On 3/10/14 Magistrate Moss apologized to Shields. She said that the electronic records from that day are missing and that she would not have heard my request for a protection hearing pro-se, since Shields was the attorney of record. This confirms Shields' claims that she is a neighbor of Judge Arkin. Magistrate Moss behaves as if she is afraid of Shields manipulative and vengeful endeavors with Arkin.Exhibit 19 is the transcript for the 3/10/14 telephone conference with Shields. Page 3 line 21- "THE COURT: ... and by the way, I did not grant the TPO, Magistrate Dumler was actually covering for me because I was home with a sick child, so I didn't even know about the TPO until I returned and this all came to a head, because obviously, I wouldn't have granted that, knowing that Ms. Shields is represented by, or excuse me, Ms. Stein was represented by Ms. Shields."However, magistrate Moss went on to authorize my pro-se request for the hearing and dismissed the Motion to Strike from Offender. It was Wolf who didn't vacate the Motion for GAL and therefore had to organize a Sorensen hearing - which he was entirely unqualified to do. He therefore charged me for issues which the Court rejected, and pursued the Offender's interests for lack of better understanding.Knowing how Wolf operates, I now believe that Wolf came up with the false allegation that "I was previously removed from the court." He must have been referring to the moment at Temporary Orders when witnesses were asked to step down and allow the next witness on. By his logic, the Offender was also "previously removed from the court."If Wolf, for whatever reason, felt that the transcript of Temporary Orders was important for purpose of the protection order, why didn't he disclose that before being retained?Regarding Temporary OrdersWhen Shields decided to file the Motion for GAL fraudulently, she prevented a strike against the Motion by stopping to collect house maintenance. Wolf was asked to file a pleading with the court to enforce temporary maintenance.Wolf didn't disclose that he may not be a divorce attorney at all, and may have no knowledge on the matter. He overcharged me for the transcript and didn't do anything.Regarding Billing FraudWhen Wolf sent my records over, I received nearly 10 copies of each pleading from both sides. This is an accounting fraud. Since the records are all electronic - why does Wolf represent that he needs to scan them before emailing them?He overcharged me for transcripts and emails and was incapable of handling the case anyway.He was asked to extend the date for the Motion for Periodic Inspections so I can respond to it once he is dismissed. He wasted my retainer extending it by a few days and then responding to it himself. Exhibit 4 is his Motion for Extension from 4/22/14 to 4/30/14. All the while, the court ignored him because he didn't arrange for a final hearing on the matter of the GAL.He filed a Motion for Withdrawal when he should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal. He then kept filing redundant motions every 20 days to prevent a decision on his withdrawal.Substituting Wolf was pointless as by now I realized that attorneys are self-regulating and respond to the same financial and social personal interests.Wolf's Reputation and ReviewsWolf's reputation in the divorce attorney community was bad before I hired him. Some attorneys may have taken a stronger stand to protect the public now because of his unethical, exploitative, manipulative and abusive misconduct, misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.Online he is only registered on paid websites and controls all reviews. He must have had family members write a couple.Shields counted on Wolf's misrepresentation when she tried to scare me into removing my online reviews on her. This is telling of his nature and networking. Exhibit 13 shows Shield's and Wolf's unethical collaboration to mislead and exploit their party.Regarding Keeping Himself on my RecordMr. Wolf, due to conflict of interests, did not respond properly to Mr. Japha's Objection to his withdrawal. Exhibit 10 is Petitioner/Offender's Objection to Wolf's Withdrawal.Section 2 - the Offender's counsel falsely represents that Wolf is in the middle of negotiations, knowing that Wolf should have filed a Notice of Withdrawal instead. There were no negotiations, because the dual protection that Wolf tried to bully me into signing puts my life in danger and gives the Offender a chance to kill me while excusing himself. Exhibit 18 is the stipulation for dual protection. It is impossible to claim that it represents the case correctly, or that it represents my interests.Wolf didn't state that he is unqualified to handle the matter of the GAL. It is likely because he knew he can't pursue the appointment of a GAL, knowing that I have an adjustment disorder, so he pretended to be ignorant.Wolf didn't state that since he was retained he spent time in Texas and then was ill and didn't even have a chance to look at the records. He states thus on 3/17/14 and doesn't remind the two judges of this fact.Exhibit 14 - Status Report, Section 1 - Respondent's counsel was traveling out of state from March 12-15, 2014.Section 4 - Respondent' counsel is currently out sick and has not yet had an opportunity to ... familiarize himself with the case..."It was March 24 when he was asked to terminate services after trivializing my need for safety.Just as the judge was going to make a decision on Wolf's 3/24/14 Motion to Withdraw, Wolf filed his "Motion to Reconsider Motion to Withdraw." Exhibit 16 - 4/20/14. Wolf isn't stating anything new to the court, but is creating a new cycle of motions. He was able to prevent his dismissal until 5/19/14. Exhibit 24 - Wolf finally dismissed.The two attorneys did everything in their power to create as much activity as possible and stay on the case. On May 11th I informed Wolf for the first time that I have an appeal in mind. He got himself dismissed at the first opportunity (5/18/14)In ConclusionAttorneys regularly misuse the legal system for profits and connections. If the GAL fraud scheme fails, the attorneys will tell Rabbi Deborah Bronstein that they tried their best and they will remain friends. However, Colorado citizens are left with pain, suffering and deprived of their constitutional rights. Two friends of mine told me that they had to back out of their marital estate and all of their legal entitlements. I hold the Bar Association accountable and will sue it.Shields fraudulently filed the Motion for GAL pretending that she didn't know the facts, Wolf pursued the same while pretending he has no understanding of GALs and court proceedings, Zapor played her part trying to prevent me from infiltrating the electronic record, deny me my marital estate, safety and savings.The Judge awarded Zapor full powers to sign anything on my behalf, ignoring the intention of the statutes. I am seeking a sponsor to revise them.I'm happy to supply any additional records to the Board upon request.Based on Wolf's demeanor as a bully he is likely to become more offensive, libelous and dangerous. However, I will not be intimidated. DORA will regulate attorneys eventually. Wolf will be sued in small claims court as well as Zapor. Shields will be sued in District Court. As soon as I'm able to get diagnosis and treatment for suspected cancer I will hold luncheons and educate people, and I will be able to collect signatures for a petition.As I've said, I'm in a position to sue the Bar Association and the Attorney Regulation Board for abuse of the public and personal pain and suffering.