Order Granting Limited Extension Of Statutory Stay: Fill & Download for Free

Look at your state’s Rules of Civil Procedure (or criminal procedure) sections 59–62. Each Rule describes the conditions under which you can request the judge to look at your case again.But be careful - agreement between attorneys makes all data in the case irrelevant. Read your state’s Rules of Civil Procedure 15.4.Also, your attorney has no duty to represent yours or any other interests. Read the Introduction to the Rules of Professional Conduct, softbound.Be aware that there is a Rule 59 Court Scam going on - you’ll get a huge hearing but will be forced to pay for everything yourself by being declared “excessively vexatious” and in contempt of court….If you’ve come to the conclusion that all options for review in the lower courts are closed to you, you can file an Appeal. Be aware, the appeal justices have already been paid at the time your judge was paid. They’ll take any extra money you are willing to put in to your case, but don’t expect any new results.Below is an appeal I tried to submit. I named the judge as the appellee because she abused her discretion and that’s what the law says I should do. The judge issued an illegal arrest warrant against me out of jurisdiction and kept me in jail until my deadlines were over.But I filed this with my case and when I filed a Motion for Mistrial Investigation she was forced to retire….“I have amended this Response to include my concern that Virginia Fraser Able may have misrepresented herself to the judge as my attorney in unbundled services. As a GAL she can't participate in court in any capacity except through direct orders from a DORA regulated psychiatrist. No such orders are available.I'm concerned that Virginia Fraser Able has billed the State and also fraudulently got money from Mr. Stein, who may have erroneously believed that he was paying for an unbundled attorney for me. I believe that Virginia Fraser Able should lose her license for such double billing. The record of the case, as I will show, proves conclusively that I have never had attorney-client relationship with Virginia Fraser Able at any point, and no trust.At Permanent Orders I wasn't present at the beginning and worry that she might have introduced herself as an unbundled attorney. However, I'm recorded stating that I'm not aware of being a part of any agreements or of being represented by Virginia Fraser Able.In the case of Stein Vs. Stein I make three arguments, demonstrating that all dealings in division 4 constitute misconduct and sale of justice and are final and reversible at the Colorado Court of Appeals level:1) Court rulings from 1/11/15[1]; 6/9/15[2]; 6/12/15[3] are automatically reversible due to partial recordings along with the 1/29/15[4] Citation to Show Cause[5]2) The repeated appointments of a GAL from 5/6/14[6]; 6/17/14[7]; 9/23/14[8], and on any other occasions, are all automatically reversible at the Colorado Court of Appeals level regardless of any mistakes in the law[9].3) People Vs. Harlan Leigh Stein warrants a mistrial, retrial and criminal protection due to unrecorded hearings and plea deal. I request an extension of the statute of limitation on compensation for pain and suffering and future medical expenses.I conclude that in case Stein Vs. Stein all rulings by Judge Arkin are reversible, with Temporary Order[10] the only sustainable ruling. Judge White no longer presides and it is the duty of the Honorable Court to reopen People Vs. Harlan Leigh Stein for a retrial due manifest misconduct. Rulings by Judge Slade are likely automatically reversible due to lack of recording or on the merit or transcripts from a fully recorded administrative hearing. Partial recordings indicate misconduct. Partial transcripts, whether comissioned by a judge or any other individual may not be submitted and consideration of such partially recorded transcripts constitute misconduct and are objectionable due to the prohibition on sale of justice. I objected to the commissioning of any transcripts by the judge, and even in the case that such transcripts are part of the record of the case they must be ignored and treated as evidence of misconduct.Objections in any and all rulings with partially recorded or unrecorded hearings by the Trial Court judges are objectionable as over-litigation due to manifest misconduct. Participation by Mr. Stein is objectionable as over-litigation as misconduct is the topic of this appeal. The GAL is entirely excluded from proceedings as her appointment is automatically reversible and as the sale of justice is prohibited. Reversal should be automatic. I remind the Honorable Court of the cause of upholding justice.1) RULINGS CONCERING MARITAL CHATTELSOn 1/11/15[11] the Trial Court ruled that Mr. Stein may enter the marital home and assume any and all chattels through removal[12]. The order stated that he must have access to his personal affects only, and so it was[13]. I removed my personal affects from the home along with some furniture bought during the marriage but didn't conceal any of the chattels removed. I left the marital home during visitation for fear for my wellbeing[14]. An administrative contempt of court hearing was scheduled and heard continually on three dates 3/30/15[15]; 5/22/15[16] & 6/9/15[17]. The Trial Court "found" me guilty in a partially recorded hearing in a ruling that is automatically reversible[18]. The court repeated its ruling on 6/12/15[19], except that this time I was allowed to keep jewelry and some of my clothes. Mr. Stein was to assume all chattels, including my driver's license and Health Spending Account debit card[20]. The Trial Court in division 4 intended to have Mr. Stein stay in the marital home along with all chattels[21]. I would have no access to the home or chattels at any time before Permanent Orders due to fear or my life and incarceration[22]. Discussion of Mr. Stein's move into the marital home should be denied as sale of justice[23].GROUNDS FOR AUTOMATIC REVERSAL:·Partially recorded hearing, automatic reversal·Prohibition on sale of justice·Acceptance of "stipulations" by a GAL constitute sale of justice·The ruling is contradictory to, and overrules, Temporary Orders from division 7·Incarceration is an unusual and cruel punishment due to my injuries·Contempt of Court incarceration from division 5 misconduct·Prevention of the procedural constitutional right to be heard.·Standard of burden of proof standard not appliedThe 6/9/15[24] ruling of guilt complete with remedial and punitive in contempt of court is automatically reversible due to a partial recording. The ruling is final due to implementation of remedial measures. The administrative hearings on three dates, 3/30/15[25]; 5/22/15[26] and 6/9/15[27] constitute one continuous hearing. The ruling part misrepresented admissible testimonies from 5/22/15[28] and was arbitrary. The Designation of Record excludes all recordings and transcripts from partially recorded or unrecorded hearings. An automatic reversal is in due[29].The administrative hearing in division 5 held continually on four dates 3/17/15; 3/22/15; 3/30/15 & 4/16/15 is likely automatically reversible due to a partial recording. All transcripts and recordings are excluded. It is also reversible on its on merit at the Colorado Court of Appeals level in the unlikely event that a full recording becomes available[30].The Trial Court ruling from Stein Vs. Stein on 1/11/15[31] granting the first visit and removal of all chattels[32] and the 6/12/15[33] Trial Court ruling granting the second removal, are both reversible on the grounds that sale of justice contradicts the constitution. The Trial Court in division 4 prevented me from responding. Accepting Mr. Stein's counsel as a measure of justice contradicts the constitutional provision against sale of justice; it also contradicts the constitutional provision of the procedural right of a pro-se party to access the judicial branch[34]. A sale of justice exists in that my pleadings and objections aren't heard by the court with the result that my basic legal entitlements are waved by the Trial Court[35]. It is the jurisdiction of this Colorado Court of Appeals to review these independent Trial Court rulings[36].Granting of a stipulation by a GAL in the Trial Court is also automatically reversible at the Colorado Court of Appeals level due to prohibition on sale of justice while standards for Special Statutory Proceedings are in place[37]. What masquerades on record as orders granting stipulations are, in fact, independent[38] Trial Court rulings due to the provision for Special Statutory Proceedings. The GAL is prevented from exercising a C.R.C.P 15(4) agreement on my behalf as she isn't an attorney of record and does not represent my wishes. There no admissible psychological evaluations were commissioned or filed to justify the involvement of the GAL or prevention of my procedural constitutional right to be heard and uphold my own legal interests in court[39].Due to the provisions of Special Statutory Proceedings the judge isn't at liberty to accept such stipulations[40] short of a sale of justice[41]. She must use her own discretion[42]. Any objection by the Trial Court judge that I failed to object to Mr. Stein's counsel's motions is to be dismissed due to the sinister use of a GAL and the prevention of my procedural constitutional right to be heard, respond to Mr. Stein's pleadings[43] and have my pleadings reviewed.[44] It was the Trial Court judge's own duty to ask me questions and make sure I'm heard. No admissible legal grounds for prevention exist. This appeal excludes solicitation of new psychiatric opinions in arrears.[45]The 6/12/15[46] court ruling is additionally contradictory to the only procedurally sustainable ruling in the Stein Vs. Stein case and originates in division 7, Temporary Orders.[47] Temporary Orders grant me the use of the Honda Fit and the Flexible Health Spending Account debit card. The 6/12/15 order deprives me of both my driver's license and debit card. The order constitutes misconduct and sale of justice on these grounds as well.On all three grounds the three rulings from 1/11/15[48]; 6/9/15;[49] and 6/12/15[50] are final and appealable and reversible[51] procedurally at the Colorado Court of Appeals level.The attorneys were presented with a copy of the Motion to Stay on 6/22/15 and informed of the Appeals Court's Order to Show Cause, automatically staying the District Court case[52]. The 6/12/15[53] court ruling was properly appealed on 6/18/15[54]. Reversal of the 6/12/15 Trial Court ruling at the Colorado Court of Appeals level is essential to uphold the cause of justice. It is also my constitutional procedural right.2) REVERSAL CONCERNING APPOINTMENT AND INVOLVEMENT OF A GALGROUNDS FOR REVERSAL:·Partially recorded hearing, automatic reversal·No real sense in which I ever requested a GAL or changed my mind on this matter, consistent objection·Stipulations between attorneys constitute sale of justice due to lack of trust and lack of client-attorney relationship·Agreements between attorneys expire at Appeal 14CA904 due to lack of trust·Admission of a stipulation between a GAL and opposing counsel constitutes misconductOn 3/3/14[55] a former counsel, Bonnie Shields, filed a Motion for GAL. However, on 2/28/14[56] the counsel was ordered by me to terminate services[57], indicating lack of trust and lack of attorney-client relationship at the time the Motion for GAL was filed. The counsel was dismissed on 3/10/14[58] while I strongly opposed the appointment of a GAL.The counsel was replaced by Mr. Wolf[59]. Mr. Wolf didn't conduct consultations and misrepresented his dealings to division 7. He lost my trust shortly following appointment[60]. On 3/24/14[61] Mr. Wolf agreed to my request that he withdraw. The Trial Court was well aware that no trust and no attorney-client relationship existed between me and Mr. Wolf at the time[62]. Any arguments by District Court in division 4 to the effect that mutual agreement that Mr. Wolf withdraws constitutes trust are unsound. I urgently presented my request that Mr. Wolf be dismissed to division 7, preceding his own Motion to Withdraw[63]. It was the court's duty to terminate his services promptly as his lack of objection to the Trial Court judge's desire to appointment a GAL contradicted the provisions of Special Statutory Proceedings and his duty as an attorney[64]. No admissible opinions regarding imminent harm should a GAL not be appointed were presented to the court[65]. Keeping Mr. Wolf on my record constitutes sale of justice through misconduct.Mr. Wolf represented to the Trial Court that he himself didn't object to court's desire to appoint a GAL to me, but openly admitted that wasn't representing my own wishes and that I have never myself requested the appointment of a GAL[66]. As a lay person his lack of trust in me doesn't constitute legal grounds for the appointment of a GAL. Acceptance of his position by the Trial Court constitutes misconduct[67]. Mr. Wolf was dismissed upon appeal 14CA904.[68] Mr. Wolf's positions and stipulations are reversible in this case[69].There is no real sense in which it can be claimed that I have ever, myself, requested the appointment of a GAL or agreed to it, or that I changed my mind in this matter. In fact, the record shows a consistent objection to the appointment of a GAL[70]. There was explicit lack of trust and lack of attorney-client relationship, explicit and well known to the Trial Court judges, each time an attorney of record requested the appointment of a GAL[71] or neglected to object to it, constituting sale of justice.FIRST APPOINTMENTThe first appointment occurred on 5/6/14[72], in a partially recorded telephone conference, in division 4. A stipulation by the two attorneys was granted knowing that attorney-client relationship doesn't exist[73]. This was done as a sale of justice; with no admissible medical opinion as to the necessity of a GAL or of any imminent danger; and in contradiction to the protected status of Special Statutory Proceedings. The ruling is automatically reversible on both grounds: a partial recording and a stipulation. On 5/16/14[74] the guardian ad litem was granted general powers in complete contradiction to the record of this case[75]. The appointment was reversed upon appeal 14CA904[76].SECOND APPOINTMENTOn 6/17/14[77] the Trial Court judge in division 4 appointed a new GAL according to Mr. Stein's former request, available only in unrecorded telephone conference. She prevented me from being heard under the guise of shortage of time, but assured me that a hearing will be held. The hearing from 9/23/14[78] was partially recorded and is automatically reversible at the Appeals Court level for three reasons: partial recording; no record of me ever asking for a GAL; and a complete lack of admissible medical evaluations, either commissioned or submitted with the record of this case[79]. Any errors in the law are irrelevant and do not prevent appeals at the Colorado Court of Appeals.The two appointments from both hearings, from 5/6/14[80] and 9/23/14[81] are automatically reversible and constitute misconduct. All court rulings following those constitute sale of justice and are automatically reversible at the Colorado Court of Appeals level. These rulings are at the discretion of the judge alone, no stipulations by a GAL are admissible as I am unrepresented and C.R.C.P 15(4) contradicts the provisions from Special Statutory Proceedings.All court rulings based on stipulations by a GAL are therefore reversible on this ground too, including court orders from 1/11/5[82] & 6/12/15[83]. I will now address the ruling from 3/19/15.The ruling from 3/19/15[84] is the automatically reversible granting of a stipulation by the GAL allowing her to act as an attorney of record against my will. My pleadings were never reviewed and I was prevented from participation in Pretrial and Permanent Orders hearing through gross misconduct[85].The Designation of Record excludes any and all transcripts and recordings from partially recorded hearings, including, and especially those solicited by judges, whether filed with the case or not. Any psychological evaluation ordered by District Court in arrears is objectionable on the grounds constitutes over-litigation and due to automatic reversals.3) PEOPLE VS. HARLAN LEIGH STEIN, MISTRIAL DUE TO MISCONDUCTLack of trust with attorneys of record dismisses any denial of the domestic assault of 10/11/13. The police report is complete with a confession by Mr. Stein himself and my injuries are consistent with the police's account of the assault[86]. The plea deal is manifestly inadmissible[87].Faulty recording in division 5 warrants an automatic mistrial. The hearing from 10/16/15[88] is unrecorded.An automatic mistrial, retrial and an automatic criminal protection order are in order. The Appeals Court is also in a position to extend the statue of limitation for claims of compensation pain and suffering and future medical expenses.I was physically prevented from being heard at the sealing of the case on 11/6/14. Surely a "behavior" would warrant a contempt of court order, not a pre-emptive prevention of the victim being heard. My interest in being heard is recorded and I have attached email communications to further corroborate my claims. (Exhibit 2)Public interest in mistreatment of victims of domestic violence has always been high, and peaked with the domestic assault by NFL player Ray Rice. The press suspected faulty statutes but have since diverted their attention to misconduct at the independent, self-regulating judicial branch.The domestic assault of 10/11/13 left me with fractures, bulging, slipped and ruptured disk, chips to left shoulder blade and thoracic spine and a concussion as well as fractures to my teeth. I must still attend exhausting physical therapy sessions, nearly two years later. I must see a physical therapist for a reformer Pilates session at least twice a week. I require an osteopathic adjustment at least once a week as if I lift anything at all I experience pain, lack of flexibility to my feet and knee problems. All of these injuries match in schedules and description the police report from 10/11/13.CONCLUSIONAutomatic reversal is appropriate for all rulings in all three cases[89] from the Douglas County Combined Courts[90]. In Stein Vs. Stein only the Temporary Orders[91] ruling is sustainable and should be upheld. Any argumentation by judges lack legal grounds as automatic reversals are in order[92].Over-litigation on my part is an impossibility, as I've been denied procedural constitutional right to access justice since 3/24/14[93] through misconduct.Mr. Stein is excluded as a party of interest due to the participation of the GAL through misconduct. The GAL is excluded from these proceedings as her appointment warrants automatic reversal[94].It is my right to be made aware of, and to respond to, any objections to automatic reversal in the unlikely event that any arise. All such arguments by district court are necessarily and manifestly groundless and meant to extend litigation[95].Please stay the District Court case continually and maintain jurisdiction under all circumstances.Date: 7/2/15 ___________________________________ Appellant Sigalit Stein3460 Colorado Ave. B3Boulder, CO 80303303-570-7993CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI certify that on 7/2/15 a true and accurate copy of the response to order to show cause was served on the District Court by hand to Douglas County District Court, 4000 Justice way, Castle Rock, CO 80109__________________________________________[1] Event ID: 195[2] Event ID: 259[3] Copy of Signed Order submitted on 7/2/15[4] Event ID: 204 & 205[5] Mr. Stein and his attorneys as well as the court appointed guardian ad litem are no a party to this appeal and may not participate.. They were duly informed regarding an automatic stay in the District Court case and were presented with a copy of the Motion to Accelerate and Motion to Stay on 6/22/15. A copy was mailed to them via USPS on 6/21/15. An affidavit is filed with this Appeals case.[6] Event ID: 81[7] Event ID: 114[8] Event ID: 170[9] Such automatic reversal allows me to represent myself pro-se in this Colorado Court of Appeals case. Mr. Stein is not a party as sale of justice is the matter of the Douglas County Combined Courts.[10] Event ID: 27, Magistrate Moss in division 7[11] Event ID: 195[12] I discuss the status of GAL stipulations in section 2. The GAL omitted the phrase "in situ" after the order that my husband secure his personal affects. The suggested order stated that the judge "observed behaviors" and therefore my safety and legal concerns, well known to the attorneys, won't be heard. The Trial Court judge as access to all of Mr. Stein's records of domestic assaults and knows that he repeatedly seals them only to assault again.[13] A signed orders was submitted on 7/2/15[14] Both in terms of safety and to avoid admission of groundless false allegations by the Trial Court. The Trial Court neglected a no-contact order and prevented me from being heard. Besides manifest misconduct, the Trial Court signed an order on Sunday for a "stipulation" that was filed on a Thursday, making it impossible to respond. Due to injuries from the domestic assault of 10/11/13 I still suffer a bulging, slipped and ruptured disk. I'm unable to run or push. Should Mr. Stein injure my disk in the course of a hug due to his malicious nature, I would spend lifetime in diapers and require surgery. As a matter of sale of justice the Trial Court consistently neglected any standards of burden of proof and engaged in arbitrary rulings by enforcing groundless false allegations by Mr. Stein's counsel and the GAL.[15] Event ID: 244[16] Event ID: 256[17] Event ID: 259[18] Mr. Stein is the more affluent spouse and the court should have erred on the side of allowing me to keep my personal chattels. The court tried various approaches and when nothing worked, simply contradicted the admissible evidence and legal requirements at ruling.[19] Signed Order submitted on 7/2/15. Due to fear for my life I didn't travel to District Court. The case is confidential and clerks were not in a position to disclose the Event ID. This is the only one missing prior to the case being automatically stayed on 6/19/15.[20] This contradicts the ruling of another judge, as I discuss later.[21] Event ID: 259 - "ATP brings up modification of temp orders. court cannot address issue since perm order are so close." RecurringSaleof justice in Trial Court division 4 means that Mr. Stein would either divert all chattels to a different location or get exclusive residence in the marital home due to his violent and dangerous nature. Incarceration was meant to prevent me from being prepared or present exhibits at Permanent Order. Mr. Stein's counsel disclosed this intention of the court, claiming that Mr. Stein would have to guard the property while I'm incarcerated.[22] Case 13M1767 warrants a reversal of sealing at the Colorado Courts of Appeals level. The Trial Court in division 4 prevented me from being heard in all of its rulings outside of partially recorded hearings. My safety concerns were not heard. Mr. Stein sealed more than one domestic assault record and sealing the 10/11/13 case means that he is in a position to assault again. My injuries make it impossible for me to tolerate even a small push. Herniation of disk L1-S5 would means lifelong dependency on diapers an a surgery.[23] All court rulings arbitrary and constitute misconduct as they depend on Mr. Stein's and the GAL's groundless allegations, preventing me from being heard and short of the standard of burden of proof.[24] Event ID: 259[25] Event ID: 244[26] Event ID: 256[27] Event ID: 259[28] Event ID: 256[29] No new evidence or arguments are admissible in this case. It is highly unlikely that all parts of this hearing were recorded. If they are, reversal is due at the Colorado Court of Appeals level based on procedural injunctions and rules of evidence. The case is still final and appealable as following the 6/12/15 ruling I pleaded for a reheating in a Rule 59 Review and was denied by the Trial Court. Considering consistent misconduct in division4 arehearing there would only lengthen litigation and lead to another appeal. For the sake of expedience this appeal should be reviewed.[30] I didn't know about the order as my mail often gets forwarded to Mr. Stein's new mailbox near the DTC Sheraton. Mr. Stein was in a position to remove the police report himself, as he did. The Trial Court judge engaged in misconduct.[31] Event ID: 195[32] Signed on a Sunday following a Thursday filing, depriving me from the right to object through sale of justice.[33] Signed Order submitted on 7/2/15[34] All appointments of a guardian ad litem constitute a sale of justice as well and are automatically reversible based on partially recorded hearings.[35] All accusations of misrepresentation should be held to the standard of proof - as I have represented myself pro-se well in this case up to Temporary Orders. As soon as division 4 took over I was prevented from accessing the judicial branch by misconduct. Long pleadings are a result of misconduct in division 4.[36] The contempt of court guilty ruling from division5 incase 14CV31041 following an administrative hearing on four dates - 3/17/15; 3/22/15; 3/30/15 & 4/16/15 - is also automatically reversible based on a partially recorded hearing, as the Designation of Record will show. It is also reversible based on the criteria for bail and filings in this case. I didn't know about the court order as my mail is often forwarded out to Mr. Stein's new address; Mr. Stein was in a position to remove the online posting of the police report himself, as he did, see filing from 4/15/15. I failed to show up because the attorneys wrote an email stating that they are canceling an irrelevant Trail date on 3/18/15 and I confused it with the 3/17/15 date for contempt of court.[37] Appointment of a GAL against the will of the party and short of an admissible psychiatric evaluation is an arbitrary use of absolute power. This is appealable at the Colorado Court of Appeals level. The GAL did not uphold my legal interests in court, and the Trial Court judge engaged in sale of justice. These are all grounds for automatic reversal.[38] Therefore Mr. Stein isn't a party in this appeal. Him and his counsel were made aware of the Notice of the Motion to Stay and the Order to Show Cause from 6/19/15 on 6/22/15.[39] Whimsical appointment of a GAL is automatically reversible as it constitutes an arbitrary use of absolute power. Any claims regarding expediency are automatically objectionable, as a properly conducted dissolution of marriage would have concluded on June of 2014 and no later than September. The appointment of a GAL constitutes, in and of itself, excessive litigation. Even on the subject of chattels, the parties could have easily agreed on a division, with the provision that the courts view the less affluent party with favor, and no lengthy contempt of court were needed.[40] The Trial Court judge in division 4 was obligated to hear me and not issue rulings. The statement, borrowed from a proposed order that was part of the stipulation, that she observed "behaviors" constitutes sale of justice and isn't a legally bonafide reason to prevent a party from being heard short of an admissible medical opinion that wasn't solicited or filed in this case.[41] I have a right to be informed of any arguments by District Court and to respond, as it is evidently clear that a sale of justice occurred.[42] If a Trial Court judge, at her own discretion, decides to deprive me of my basic legal entitlements, to my own personal affects, to freedom and to an equitable part in my marital estate this is appealable at the Colorado Court of Appeals level. These are grounds for a recusal and I request the judge to expedite proceedings by voluntarily recusing her position after muting all parts of my appeal - vacating the GAL and reversing all of her rulings.[43] I discuss the Motion to Expand the Authority of the GAL from 3/19/15 later.[44] The 1/11/15 ruling was signed on a Sunday following a Thursday filing of the stipulation, preventing me from being heard without any legal grounds. See also Event ID235, aTrial Court ruling from 3/19/15 discussed in section 2, expanding the authority of the GAL, again preventing me from being heard and constituting a sale of justice.[45] No admissible psychiatric test exists for paranoid schizophrenia within six months of extremely stressful conditions, such as a judge engaged in misconduct. Six months of safety required and an additional 8 weeks for the results to come back. The provisions of Special Statutory Proceedings contradict the appointment of a GAL short of a conclusive opinion. I have never personally requested the appointment of a GAL and the burden of proof is on Mr. Stein. Additionally, the choice of an evaluator must exclude bias and a judge engaged in misconduct should not be in a position to solicit one. This is all appealable at the Colorado Court of Appeals.[46] Signed court order was submitted on 7/2/15.[47] Event ID: 29 from 1/27/14 granting me the use of the Honda Fit, the use of the Flexible Health Savings debit card as well as the use of the marital home following a fully recorded hearing with transcript submitted to the court on 7/17/14 Event ID: 136-139. The Trial Court ruling from 7/21/14 that there is no difference between the oral and written Temporary Orders is faulty as the Oral orders specify, additionally, that Mr. Stein file taxes jointly and share the refund. The Trial Court ruling from division 4 that the GAL determine my needs in terms of residence is arbitrary, contradictory to, and overrules Temporary Orders from division 7.[48] Event ID: 195[49] Event ID: 259[50] Signed Order submitted 7/2/15[51] While Colorado Statutes state that the court err on the side of awarding more chattels to the less affluent spouse, there is no need to discuss Colorado Statutes in relation to this appeal and for the purpose of reversal. However, I did enclose documents showing that Mr. Stein is in possession of substantial marital assets and investments (Exhibit 1). I estimate our financial marital estate at $900k in addition to shared titles to the marital home inSedaliaand the Honda Fit. Mr. Stein is in possession of monthly earnings of $22k-$25k monthly (including salary from SAPAmerica) while my monthly income is $733 from rental of two premarital condos and an additional income of $1200 in maintenance from Mr. Stein.[52] This is self evident, as the civil department of the Boulder Sheriff's office didn't enforce the 6/12/15 ruling due to lack of jurisdiction.[53] Signed order submitted on 7/2/15[54] The current appeal.[55] Event ID: 39[56] Event ID: 30[57] The counsel purposely stalled on timely filing the civil protection pleading.[58] Event ID: 48[59] Event ID: 51[60] Keeping an attorney on record where there is no trust violates procedural constitutional rights of parties. No lay person and not even a professional psychiatrist are in a position to dismiss this mistrust as a mental disease. The courts have never been able to obtain admissible medical opinions supporting the appointment of a GAL. All available medical opinions strongly oppose any appointment or involvement of a GAL and support my right for pro-se representation. At this point in the case misconduct is manifestly clear and the Trial Court judge in division 4 should recuse her position in this case.[61] Event ID: 61 requesting the court to accept Mr. Wolf's Motion to Withdraw due to lack of trust and lack of attorney-client relationship and due to fear for my life. The criminal protection from case People Vs. Harlan Leigh Stein, 13M1767, was still in place until 3/27/15 and I was eager to represent my interest in a civil protection order pro-se.[62] Event ID: 60 & 61[63] My request Event ID 60; Mr. Wolf's Motion to Withdraw, stating lack of trust on my part, Event ID 61. Mr. Wolf's statement regarding lack of trust on his part doesn't constitute admissible psychiatric opinion and is entirely irrelevant in terms of appointment of a GAL. Mr. Wolf's duty was to file for a dismissal from the case and oppose the appointment of a GAL. He was kept on the case by misconduct by the Trial Court in division 4. The NY times recently published an article regarding problems with attorney licensing, as the Rules of Professional Conduct are not part of the law.[64] As the case progressed, the intention of the Trial Court to wave my legal entitlements through prevention of procedural constitutional right by misconduct becomes undeniable. Reversal should be automatic.[65] Accepting Mr. Wolf as a measure of justice constitutes sale of justice and misconduct.[66] Event ID: 62, Mr. Wolf's Motion to Withdraw[67] Transcripts of telephone conferences were commissioned and paid for in full in a Designation of Record that excludes transcripts and recordings from partially recorded hearings. Transcribing Solutions submitted no transcripts of telephone conferences.[68] Event ID: 98[69] As a matter of sale of justice, Mr. Wolf denied the domestic assault of 10/11/13, along with the confession by Mr. Stein, recorded in the police report and well documented injuries. The stipulation regarding civil protection was reversed and once the criminal case reopens I will seek civil protection pro-se and free from sale of justice. My claim for compensation for pain and suffering stems in part from prevention of a civil protection order. The stress of fear for my life retarded the healing and recovery process by creating more inflammation and the tightening of the fascia.[70] Hence the 3/19/15 Motion to Expand the Authority of the GAL is automatically reversible as it grossly misrepresents my position and the Trial Court in division 4 prevented me from being heard on the matter. The court ruling in this matter constitutes an arbitrary use of absolute power and a misconduct.[71] On 3/10/14 Mr. Wolf assured me that he intends to object to the appointment of a GAL. My trust broke as soon as I received a delayed copy of a position statement that misrepresents my position. Trust broke on all levels, and the court was informed.[72] Event ID: 80[73] Event ID:114. Ahalf hour telephone conference that is fully recorded, and the complete transcript was submitted at appeal 14CA1852.[74] Event ID: 87[75] I'm a licensed real estate broker, the owner of two premarital rental properties who manages her own properties exclusively including all accounting. I'm a member of BARHA and CAI, a former teacher, a former OA manager and a current Board of Directors on an OA. I'm a safe driver with no criminal record whatsoever, a graduate of theBoulder CitizenPoliceAcademy, have a Master's Degree, etc.[76] Event ID: 98 Such appointments for personal gain, beyond mere disregard to the law and the justice system, constitutes a betrayal of public trust. I will request the recusal of the Trial Court judge in division4.[77] Event ID:114 Afull recording and a complete transcript were commissioned on 10/21/14 and filed with appeal 14CA1852.[78] Event ID: 170[79] A 2 hour mental evaluation was commissioned to diagnose the 4 cognitive difficulties conspicuous in their absence. I suffered chest pains due to chest crowdedness in movement of the ribs due to the domestic assault. The GAL separated me from the osteopath I was seeing and I suffered setbacks to my health. I wasn't able to show up to the meeting as I was under instructions to go to the ER should any pain arise due to effort. The Court Evaluator who is also a mental evaluator spoke to me for an hour and studied independent treatment notes and two treatment plans. He was forced to object to the appointment of a GAL as harmful to me. The Trial Court judge excluded his admissible medical opinion and didn't record the hearing. The ruling is arbitrary and misrepresents testimonies. The expert felt that mental evaluation wasn't necessary because the record of the case excludes the appointment of a GAL.[80] Event ID: 80[81] Event ID: 170[82] Event ID: 195, allowing Mr. Stein to secure by removal any and all chattels[83] Signed order submitted on 7/2/15. Order for Mr. Stein to remove all of my personal chattels to the marital home, in an insecure removal in which I wasn't heard, where he was to take possession of them.[84] Event ID:235, astipulation regarding the authority of the GAL that contradicts the provisions of Special Statutory Proceedings and constitutes sale of justice and misconduct on the part of the Trial Court judge in division 4.[85] Event ID: 235 The GAL then proceeded by filing a list of witnesses for Permanent Orders on 1/15/15 that excludes financial expert opinions and medical expert opinion. This constitutes sale of justice and gross misconduct on the part of the Trial Court judge in division 4. These are grounds for recusal. See Exhibit 2. Virginia Fraser Able is notorious for interviewing parties in partially recording hearings. She'll ask "What day was it when you were married." If the person says "Tuesday" she'll declare "That's fraud. I checked and you got married on a Thursday." The judge will then record her arbitrary rulings insinuating that documents presented by the party are fraudulent. Her minute orders will reflect the same. These are grounds for recusal.[86] Some medical documents were filed with the Trial Court and others are filed separately with this case.[87] An all Jewish Orthodox jury contradicting the evidence in this case on retrial will attract public interest and will not prevent civil compensation for pain and suffering or future medical and health expenses. It should not prevent a civil protection order in county court short of misconduct.[88] Exhibit 3[89] The Honorable Court is not in a position to make determinations in terms of psychology. Amendment of the authority of the judicial branch has recently captured public opinion along with misconduct by federal justices. Any lay psychiatric "evaluations" by justices constitute misconduct. The Designation of Record proves misconduct by all three Trial Court judges.[90] The chief justice of the 18th district, Chief Judge Samour, should dismiss the chief justice in division 1 of Douglas County Combined Courts, Judge King, if he wishes to maintain the trust of the public.[91] Event ID: 27[92] Inability to uphold one's interests in court doesn't constitute legal grounds for the appointment of a state-funded GAL when the motion is filed by the opposing counsel. Stipulations aren't grounds for appointment of a state-funded GAL. Nothing short of admissible psychiatric evaluations constitutes sufficient grounds for the appointment of a GAL - and the Trial Court was helpless in obtaining those due to independent treatment notes obtained by me in the course of over one year. These treatment notes are filed with the Stein Vs. Stein case. DORA would sanction the license of anyone trying to endorse the appointment of a GAL.[93] Event ID: 60 my request to dismiss Mr. Wolf so I can access justice.[94] Any and all involvement by the GAL would constitute misconduct on the part of the Honorable Court and sale of justice and automatically qualifies me for an appeal at the Supreme Court level. I trust the Honorable Court to automatically reverse all rulings and hearings.[95] There is a harmful error in the minute order from the unrecorded Initial Conference Hearing from 8/28/13 (Event ID: 6). Mr. Stein was represented by Mr. Uslan while I arrived pro-se. A copy of his retainer agreement with Mr. Stein is filed with Appeal 14CA1852, as well as notes from Bonnie Shields testifying to the same. Mediation notes from 11/22/13 properly represent Mr. Uslan as Mr. Stein's counsel. I also filed my Financial Disclosures pro-se (Event ID: 12).

Under Indian law, the legal rights and the restrictions imposed on foreign nationals depend on whether they are categorized as residents or non-residents.Entry into India generally requires a valid visa granted by an Indian Mission (that is, consulate of the Indian embassy) abroad. Furthermore, foreign nationals who enter India must register themselves with the Foreign Regional Registration Office (FRRO) within 14 days of arrival if they intend to reside in India for a consecutive period of more than 180 days.The entry, stay and exit of foreign nationals into India are primarily governed by the following laws (among others):Passport (Entry into India) Act 1920, read with the Passport (Entry into India) Rules 1950.Foreigners Act, 1946.The Registration of Foreigners Act 1939, read with the Registration of Foreigners Rules 1992.EMPLOYMENT VISAAn Employment visa is granted to a foreigner who is a highly skilled and/or qualified professional. Employment Visa shall not be granted –(i) for jobs for which qualified Indians are available and(ii) for routine, ordinary or secretarial/clerical jobs.Employment visa is not granted to a citizen of Pakistan.The foreign national being sponsored for an employment visa in any sector should draw a gross salary in excess of Rs. 16.25 lakhs per annum. However, this condition of annual floor limit on income will not apply to:(a) Ethnic cooks employed by foreign Missions in India (this will not apply to ethnic cooks employed in commercial venture),(b) Language teachers (other than English language teachers) / translators (this will not include teachers employed to teach particular subjects in foreign language),(c) staff working for the concerned Embassy/ High Commission in India,(d) foreigners, eligible for ‘E’ visa for honorary work with the NGOs registered in the country without salary,(e) foreign teaching faculty employed in the South Asian University and the Nalanda University, and(f) Circus artists.Duration of Employment VisaCategoryDuration of Employment(i) A foreign technician/expert coming to India in pursuance of a bilateral agreement between the Government of India and the foreign government, or in pursuance of a collaboration agreement that has been approved by the Government of IndiaDuration of the agreement or for a period of five years, whichever is less, with multiple entry facilities(ii) Highly skilled foreign personnel being employed in the IT software and IT enabled sectorsUp to three years or term of assignment, whichever is less, with multiple entry facilities(iii) Foreigner coming for employment not covered in (i) or (ii) aboveUp to 2 (two) years or the term of assignment, whichever is less, with multiple entry facilityRegistration: If the Employment visa is valid for a period of more than 180 days, the foreign national concerned should register with the FRRO/FRO concerned within 14 days of arrival. In the case of Employment Visa issued for a period of 180 days or less, registration is not required with FRRO/FRO.Extension of Employment Visa: The Employment visa may be extended by the FRRO / FRO concerned beyond the initial visa validity period, up to a total period of 5 years from the date of issue of the initial Employment Visa, on a year to year basis.BUSINESS VISAA Business visa is granted to a foreigner for the following purposes –(i) Foreign nationals who wish to visit India to establish an industrial/business venture or to explore possibilities to set up an industrial/business venture, other than Proprietorship Firms and Partnership Firms, in India.(ii) Foreign nationals coming to India to purchase/sell industrial products or commercial products or consumer durables.(iii) Foreign nationals coming to India for technical meetings/discussions, attending Board meetings or general meetings for providing business services support.(iv) Foreign nationals coming to India for recruitment of manpower.(v) Foreign nationals who are partners in the business and/or functioning as Directors of the company.(vi) Foreign nationals coming to India for consultations regarding exhibitions or for participation in exhibitions, trade fairs, business fairs etc.(vii) Foreign buyers who come to transact business with suppliers/ potential suppliers at locations in India, to evaluate or monitor quality, give specifications, place orders, negotiate further supplies etc., relating to goods or services procured from India.(viii) Foreign experts/specialists on a visit of short duration in connection with an ongoing project with the objective of monitoring the progress of the work, conducting meetings with Indian customers and/or to provide technical guidance.(ix) Foreign nationals coming to India for pre-sales or post-sales activity not amounting to actual execution of any contract or project.(x) Foreign trainees of multinational companies/corporate houses coming for in-house training in the regional hubs of the concerned company located in India.(xi) Foreign nationals coming as tour conductors and travel agents and / or conducting business tours of foreigners or business relating to it, etc.(xii) Foreign academicians/ experts coming under GIAN (Global Initiative for Academic Networks).(xiii) Crew members of scheduled/ non-scheduled flights operated by scheduled airlines, nonscheduled and chartered flights operated by non-scheduled airlines and special flights.(xiv) Foreign nationals intending to visit India to participate in cultural events/ activities with remuneration. [Such foreign nationals intending to visit India to participate in cultural events/ activities for short duration without remuneration may be granted Entry (X-Misc.) Visa.](xv) Foreign nationals who are engaged in commercial sports events in India on contract (including coaches) like Indian Premier League, Indian Soccer League, etc. with remuneration. They may be granted ‘B-Sports’ Visa with multiple entry facility for 13 appropriate period. Such a foreign national shall comply with all the statutory obligations like payment of taxes, etc.Conditions for grant of Business Visa(i) The foreign national should be a person of assured financial standing (sufficient proof of his/ her financial standing and expertise in the field of intended business will be checked thoroughly while granting the visa).(ii) The foreign national should not be visiting India for the business of money lending or for running a petty business or petty trade or for full time employment in India, etc.(iii) The foreign national shall comply with all other requirements like payment of tax liabilities etc.Duration of Business Visa & other conditionsCategoryDuration of Employment(i) Citizens of the United States of America or Canada or Japan or United Kingdom or South Africa10 years validity with multiple entry facility(ii) Nationals of 30 countries i.e. Iran, Egypt, Libya, Qatar, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia, Kuwait, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, Turkey, Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea), Lebanon, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Belarus, Somalia, South Sudan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Sri LankaDuration of visa will be decided by the concerned Indian Missions/ Posts subject to a maximum of 5 years(iii) Nationals of Bangladesh, China and Pakistanprovisions as available in the bilateral agreements/ policy guidelines, as issued from time to time, will be applicable(iv) Nationals of other countriesMultiple entry Business Visa may be granted for a period of 5 years as a default option.This visa shall be issued with the stipulation that “continuous stay during each visit shall not exceed 180 days and registration not required.”*In the case of urgent request, the Indian Missions/ Posts may provide visa for business travel within 48 hours of application.VISA FOR DEPENDENTS(a) No dependent visa will be granted to parents/ other family members of a minor child below 18 years of age coming on Student Visa. However, parents/ other family members of such a minor child can be granted any other type of visa subject to their fulfilling the eligibility conditions for the same.(b) In the case of a foreign national coming on Student visa for higher education (graduation and above) and on Research visa, spouse and minor children accompanying the foreign national may be granted dependent visa of appropriate sub-category. Its validity shall be co-terminus with the validity of the visa of the latter or for such shorter period as may be considered necessary by the Indian Mission/Post. Such family members may also obtain Student/ Research Visa, if required, subject to their fulfilling the conditions laid down for the grant of such visa.(b) Dependent visa of spouse and minor children of a foreign national who is granted Student /Research visa may be extended by the FRRO/ FRO concerned beyond the initial validity period co-terminus with the visa of the principal visa holder subject to no adverse inputs against the said foreign national.(c) Visa of dependents of foreign nationals coming on Employment, Business, Student, Research Visa etc. can be converted into Student/Research Visa within the country by the FRRO/ FRO concerned provided such dependents fulfill the conditions laid down for the grant of Student/Research Visa.(d) ‘X’ (Entry) Visa of a foreigner who has been studying on Entry Visa can be converted to Student Visa by the FRRO/ FRO concerned on attaining the age of 16 years or after 12th Standard subject to fulfillment of the conditions for grant of Student Visa.(e) ‘X’ (Entry) Visa of foreigners born to Indian nationals may be converted to Student Visa by the FRRO/ FRO concerned subject to verification of the PIO status.CA | COMPANY FORMATION | COMPANY REGISTRATION | PAYROLL | HOSPITAL

The process of criminal justice has some serious consequences on an individual’s life, primarily on the right to life and personal liberty. Each and every institution built by humans is prone to fallibility, therefore, this applies to the decisions rendered by courts as well. Resultantly, there should be specific provisions in place so as to scrutinize the decisions of lower courts in order to obviate the scope of a miscarriage of justice. Realizing this aspect, there are certain provisions that have been included in the criminal procedure on appeal against a judgment or order of criminal courts. CrPC contains elaborate provisions on appeals starting from Section 372 to Section 394.Howbeit, there are certain cases in which there is no right to appeal. The legislators bore this in mind and incorporated the concept of review procedure called revision in the legislature so as to completely avoid any miscarriage of justice for even those cases where the right of appeal has been barred by CrPC. Section 397 to Section 405 includes the powers of revision granted to the higher courts and the procedure to exercise these powers. It must be noted that these powers are extensive as well as discretionary by their very nature.In a general sense, the appeal is a legal right conferred upon parties, however, revision completely depends on the discretion of a criminal court, which means that it is not a right as such. In criminal cases, at least one appeal is granted to an accused by the legislature, whereas there is no such right in instances of revision. In fact, the courts have many times discussed the difference between an appeal and a revision. In the case of Hari Shankar vs Rao Ghari Chowdhury, the Supreme Court held that “the distinction between an appeal and a revision is a real one. A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on the law as well as fact unless the statute conferring the right of appeal limits the rehearing in some way as. The power to hear a revision is generally given to a superior Court so that it may satisfy itself that a particular case has been decided according to law.”APPEALThe word “appeal” has not been defined in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter CrPC), however, it can be described as the judicial examination of a decision, given by a lower court, by a higher court. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines appeal as “a legal proceeding by which a case is brought before a higher court for review of the decision of a lower court”.It needs to be pointed out that except for the statutory provisions laid down by CrPC or any other law which is in force, an appeal cannot lie from any judgment or an order of a criminal court. Thus, there is no vested right to appeal as such as even the first appeal will be subjected to statutory limitations. The justification behind this principle is that the courts which try a case are competent enough with the presumption that the trial has been conducted fairly. However, as per the proviso, the victim has a right to appeal against any order passed by the Court under special circumstances comprising of a judgment of acquittal, a conviction for lesser offense or inadequate compensation.In the case of Satya Pal Sigh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the father of the deceased has a locus standi to present an appeal to the High Court under the proviso of Section 372, as he falls within the definition of “victim”, to question the correctness of judgment and order of an acquittal of accused.Generally, the same sets of rules and procedures are employed to govern the appeals in the Sessions Courts and High Courts (the highest court of appeal in a state and enjoys more powers in matters where the appeal is permissible). The highest court of appeal in the country is the Supreme Court and hence, it enjoys the most extensive discretionary and plenary powers in the cases of appeals. Its powers are largely governed by the provisions laid down in CrPC, Indian Constitution, and the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction), 1970.The law provides a person who has been convicted of a crime to appeal to the Supreme Court or the High Court or the Sessions Court as per the circumstances. In the case of Arun Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Honourable Supreme Court held that if the High Court found that the view was taken by the Sessions Judge to acquit the appellants was manifestly wrong, moreover, it even led to miscarriage of justice, therefore, the High Court was correct in setting aside this acquittal and convicting them.The State Government has been empowered to direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal against the sentence on the grounds of inadequacy to either the sessions court or the High Court, however in only those cases where the trial for conviction has not been held by the High Court. This shows that this right to appeal against sentences on the grounds of inadequacy has not been granted to the victims or the complainants or any other person. Moreover, it is mandatory for the Court to give the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any enhancement of the sentence in the interest of justice. The accused has the right to plead for his acquittal or a reduction in the sentence while showing cause.Similarly, the District Magistrate and the State Government have the powers to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal in case of an acquittal to Court of Sessions, and the High Court, respectively, subject to certain conditions. A two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Satya Pal Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh that the victim cannot file an appeal against an order of acquittal without obtaining the leave of the High Court.The accused has been given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court if the High Court has reversed an order of his acquittal on appeal by convicting him, thereby, sentencing him to imprisonment for life or for ten years or more, or to death. Understanding the relevance of a criminal appeal being made to the Supreme Court, the same law has also been laid down in Article 134(1) of the Indian Constitution under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, has also been passed by the legislature in consonance with Article 134(2) of the Indian Constitution to confer additional powers on the Supreme Court to entertain and hear appeals from the High Court under certain conditions.A similar right to appeal has been granted to one or all accused persons if more than one person has been convicted in a trial and such order has been passed by the court.However, there are certain circumstances under which no appeal shall lie. These provisions have been laid down under Section 265G, Section 375 and Section 376 of the CrPC.As to the finality of the judgments and orders passed on appeal, CrPC makes them final except in some cases. This shows how paramount importance is given to appeals.REVISIONThe word “revision” has not been defined in CrPC, however, as per Section 397 of CrPC, the High Court or any Sessions Judge have been empowered to call for and examine the records of any proceeding satisfy oneself:as to the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, whether recorded or passed, andas to the regularity of any proceedings of an inferior court.Moreover, they have the power to direct the execution of any sentence or an order to be suspended. Not just this, but to even direct to release the accused on bail or on his own bond if the accused is in confinement. They may even order an inquiry subject to certain limitations. It is clearly evident that the appellant courts have been granted such powers so as to obviate any failure of justice.The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the context of this provision, held in the case of Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr that “the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.” The same Court, further explaining this provision, held in the case of State Of Rajasthan vs Fatehkaran Mehdu that “the object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.”The High Court has the power to take up a revision petition on its own motion i.e. suo moto or on the petition by an aggrieved party or any other party. The Allahabad High Court held in the case of Faruk @ Gaffar vs the State Of U.P. that “whenever the matter is brought to the notice of the Court and the Court is satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case, a case is made out for exercising the revisional powers suo motu, it can always do so in the interest of justice.”There are certain statutory limitations that have been imposed on the High Court for exercising its revisional powers as per Section 401 of CrPC, however, the only statutory requirement to exercise this power is that the records of the proceedings are presented before it, after which it is solely the discretion of the Court:An accused is to be given due opportunity to hear him and on order cannot be passed unless this is followed.In instances where a person has forwarded a revisional application assuming that an appeal did not lie in such a case, the High Court has to treat such application as an appeal in the interests of justice.An application of revision cannot be proceeded with if it has been filed by a party where the party could have appealed but did not go for it.The High Court, as well as the Sessions Court, may call for the record of any proceeding of any inferior criminal Court situated within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence, etc. Thus, the Sessions Judge could examine the question in relation to the inadequacy of sentence in view of the powers conferred on him by Section 397(1) of CrPC.The difference between the powers of the High Court and the Sessions Court is that the Sessions Judge can only exercise revisional powers which he has called for by himself, whereas the High Court has the power to take up a revisional matter by itself or when it is brought to its knowledge. The powers of a Sessions Court are the same as that of the High Court while dealing with revisional cases. The Madras High Court in the case S. Balasubramaninan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu held that “a Sessions Judge can entertain an application in revision against sentence and enhance the sentence in revision in certain cases.” It has also been previously held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Alamgir vs State of Bihar that “in respect of enhancement of sentence in revision the enhancement can be made only if the Court is satisfied the sentence imposed by the trial Court is unduly lenient, or that in passing the order of sentence, the trial court has manifestly failed to consider the relevant facts”CONCLUSIONIt can thus be clearly seen that through the process of appeals, a person gets an opportunity to get any legal or factual error in an order or judgment corrected. Nevertheless, appeals against any judgment, or order, or sentence of a criminal court can only be preferred when it has been specifically provided in the statutes. Thus, the right to appeal can only be exercised within the limits laid down by CrPC or any other law which is in force and hence, this is a constricted right. As far as the decision to appeal is considered, it is discretionary except in cases when an accused person has been sentenced to death by Sessions Court. Not only this, there are certain cases as well in which appeal is not allowed at all, in fact, the judgment, or order, or sentence delivered by the criminal court will attain finality.Moreover, there is no doubt that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is quiet extensive. In fact, it can be said that no form of any judicial injustice can permeate through this power. It has been held in various decisions that the High Court is allowed to exercise its inherent powers when dealing with cases of revision. These inherent powers apply to both substantive as well as procedural matters. However, it cannot re-examine any evidence.