LEGAL OPINION ON Advocate Sachin Pathak

CASE 47-2018: Major Deepak Rao & Paramilitary group “Tao Zen Dojo” & Academy of Combat Fitness & UCCA Commando Combat Academy  & ICS Fight Club Institute of Combat Studies

LEGAL OPINION ON Advocate Sachin Pathak

December 30, 2018

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights, in the face of the continued support of Advocate Sachin Pathak to the criminal behavior of Deepak Rao and his paramilitary group, and also in the face of the acts of discrimination that the Advocate Sachin Pathak has carried out, which constitutes malpractice that violates the rules and duties of legal professionals and also a violation of human rights, below it is determined if the facts exposed constitute an act of deepening the crimes carried out by Deepak Rao, who has already been previously sentenced Responsible for having committed a Violation of International Buddhist Law, Violation of the Rights of Buddhist Peoples, Violation of the Buddhist Ethical Precepts, Fraud, Militarism, Crimes against Peace, Violation of Cultural Heritage, High Treason against the Dharma, Supreme Offense against International Morality and the Sanctity of Life, Human Rights Violation and Terrorism.

Description of the Case

In 2018 Major Deepak Rao and his group “Tao Zen Dojo” joined the United Buddhist Nations Organization (UBNO), obtaining a free institutional membership. Then, they obtained a 66% discount scholarship to study an advanced course in Zen Buddhism. As a student, Deepak Rao demonstrated avidity and greed for a degree, which is contrary to Buddhist Ethics of Detachment. He also showed that he did not even have any basic and introductory knowledge about Zen. When the time came to an Evaluation, Deepak Rao received a practical and theoretical task, not only having to write a text with all the lessons learned during the course, but also having to perform a special task of teaching other people and recruiting them as members of the Sangha, which obviously would demonstrate his alleged qualities and knowledge as a Zen Teacher. The Buddhist University clarified him that those other students that he should recruit would receive great discounts (full scholarships to study for free). However, incredibly, Deepak Rao began to violently attack the Tutoring and the Buddhist University, saying that he had been swindled and that the whole process had been a conspiracy against him, even denying the right of the Sanghas to handle their own schools. Then, Deepak Rao and his colleagues began attacking the United Buddhist Nations Organization (UBNO), carrying out public defamations that attacked the honor and good name of Buddhist masters and spiritual communities (Sanghas). In the face of these cyber attacks the intervention of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee was made as a way of resolving the conflicts between the Buddhist University and the students, thus fulfilling the internal regulations of the Buddhist University. Precisely, Major Deepak Rao and his group “Tao Zen Dojo” joined UBNO after confirming that they accepted and were in agreement with the UBNO Constitution, with the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Buddhist Peoples and Spiritual Communities, and with the Internal Laws of the Maitriyana Buddhist Community. In these three legal instruments —accepted by Major Deepak Rao and his group— not only the right of the Buddhist Community to manage its own educational institutions is legitimized, but also the right and duty to resolve its internal conflicts through the International Buddhist Ethics Committee, so that there was at all times the explicit acceptance of Deepak Rao about the jurisdiction of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee. However, instead of showing good will and desire to fulfill the duty of solving conflicts through Buddhist Law, Deepak Rao and his group systematically carried out defamations and attacks through cyberspace, trying to destroy the integrity of the Buddhist cultural heritage and continuing to promote his paramilitary teachings to kill people, which constitute acts of Terrorism to the UBNO Constitution that he signed.

Preliminary Warning

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights evaluates violations of ethics and human rights, so its legal framework is the Buddhist Tribal Law and International Law. These procedures are millenarian and intrinsic to the system of self-government of the spiritual commune (sangha), although they possess the innovation of universal jurisdiction that allows analyzing violations of other communities and countries.

The legal cases end with a Judgment. However, when there is an aggravation of the sentenced conditions, an immediate ethical legitimacy is acquired to extend the Judgment by means of the issuance of legal acts, notifications, resolutions, statements, proclamations and legal opinions denouncing such aggravations.

False Zen, Advocacy of Violence and Unethical Leadership

In order to analyze the existence of an act of False Zen by Major Deepak Rao in this case, it is fundamental to offer the antecedents of violations of ethics carried out by the accused within the framework of Buddhist Law.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights considers that Major Deepak Rao suffers from Paranoia, so that he should not even be allowed to conduct paramilitary training.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights confirms that Major Deepak Rao is not trained in Zen Buddhism in any way, since as a student he has not demonstrated basic knowledge and he has even violently refused to be evaluated.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights denounces the fact that Major Deepak Rao has publicly lied about his graduation as a Zen Master and as Psychoanalyst, which is an act of fraud and a violation of cultural heritage that has been confirmed by both the Sanbo-Zen Sangha as well as by the Indian Psycho-Analytical Society.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal Human Rights agrees with the World Jeet Kune Do Federation that Seema Rao (India) is not a recommended instructor and should be avoided, since this individual and her husband Deepak Rao have perverted the Spiritual Way (Do) of Martial Arts by teaching how to kill people, even performing these perverse teachings along with Buddhist images.

By ignoring the human right to peace, which is intrinsic to Buddhism, Major Deepak Rao has positioned himself into a Path opposed to ethics and Buddhist Law, perverting morality, righteousness and non-violence in order to try to destroy the integrity of the International Buddhist Community.

Violations of Constitutional Law and Customary Law

After having ruled Major Deepak Rao‘s Responsibility in committing False Zen, Advocacy of Violence and Unethical Leadership, it is an inescapable ethical duty on the part of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee to establish whether after these violations Sachin PathakMajor Rao’s lawyer— would have committed Violations of Constitutional Law and Customary Law by claiming that the International Buddhist Ethics Committee has no legal basis.

The Tribal Law of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights is protected by international human rights instruments, such as ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007 (articles 5, 34 and 40) of which India is a signatory country. In addition, the Buddhist Tribal Law has 2600 years of history in India, being the oldest form of Customary Law of that country.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee is also constitutionally legal in India for being a Panchayat system or self-government of the Buddhist Community in order to resolve its internal affairs. In fact, Major Deepak Rao and Advocate Sachin Pathak would find themselves violating fundamental rights of the Constitution of India, such as Article 19 Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech; article 25 Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion; article 26 Freedom to manage religious Affairs; article 30 Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

On the other hand, when Advocate Sachin Pathak decided to ignore that his client Major Deepak Rao has accepted on three occasions the jurisdiction and legitimacy of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee, and he also decided to declare that the Buddhist Tribunal is illegal, this Advocate is not complying with his professional functions, violating Constitutional Law and Customary Law, and allowing his paramilitary client to try to destroy the integrity of the Sangha.

Violation of Canon Law

After having ruled the “Responsibility” in committing a Violation of Constitutional Law and Customary Law by Major Deepak Rao and Advocate Sachin Pathak, then it is necessary to analyze if such individuals would have committed a Violation of Canon Law, which is the legal system officially recognized by hundreds of millions of Buddhists around the world.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that all Buddhist spiritual traditions share the main ethical precept of refraining from killing sentient beings. In this way, in the Buddhist Law there are specific legal codes, such as the Mahayana Bodhisattva Code and its commitment to avoid any action that causes suffering, deciding not to kill but to nourish life.

The International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that the Theravada Vinaya Code possesses an essential system of Buddhist Law whose rules are called Patimokkha. There are detailed the four Parajika, which are the worst criminal offenses within the Buddhist Law, after which a member of the Spiritual Commune (Sangha) is expelled or excommunicated for committing the worst ethical and legal transgressions. In this case, the Theravada Canon Law considers that the four Parajika infractions are so serious that they do not require any ceremony or trial, since the penalty is an automatic expulsion, finding among them the prohibition of deliberately killing a human being or encouraging the advantages of death, which obviously includes inciting homicide, as Major Deepak Rao has done through his paramilitary trainings that by no means constitute Martial Arts, so that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing fallacies by claiming that his clients teach to kill people because they teach martial arts. According to the interpretative Canon called Vibhanga, homicide is also defined as putting an end to life or interrupting its continuity, whose clear examples include the realization or the advocacy of homicide. In conclusion, in Theravada Canon Law, killing or inciting the murder of a person is a Parajika crime, which causes automatic expulsion within the Buddhist Spiritual Community.

Accordingly, in 2017 the United Buddhist Nations Organization organized the Eighth Buddhist Council in 2600 years of Buddhist tradition, agreeing and approving the Buddhist Convention on Human Rights which establishes the following with respect to the right to life: “Article 1 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right to a peaceful life, which will be protected by Buddhist Law at all times. (…) Article 35 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right to life (…) Article 51 – The Buddhist Communities affirm that every person has the right that his/her constitutional guarantees or natural rights never be suspended, especially the right to life”.

All this leads to the conclusion that Major Deepak Rao and Advocate Sachin Pathak have committed a Violation of Canon Law.

Discrimination and Slander

After having ruled the Responsibility to commit a violation of Canon Law by Major Deepak Rao and Advocate Sachin Pathak, it must be analyzed if such individuals would have committed acts of Discrimination and Slander for reasons of religion or Spirituality, which constitutes a new human rights violation.

First, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing acts of discrimination by claiming that a spiritual master hides his identity by using a Buddhist name, and that his presence is only an online existence.

Second, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing supreme acts of discrimination by claiming that he questions the Buddhahood of a Buddhist master.

Third, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing fallacies by claiming that when Deepak Rao, Ritesh Reddy and Vivek Gupta completed their courses the Buddhist University asked them to enroll students with money. This systematic slander comes only from the persecutory delusions of Deepak Rao‘s mind, because these three students were clarified that they were going to provide full scholarships (100% discount) for new enrollees. In addition, it is a lie that Ritesh Reddy and Vivek Gupta completed their courses, since they only studied 6 modules, and the courses have duration of 24 modules, therefore they decided to abandon their studies at the time when Deepak Rao had his psychotic break.

Fourth, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing acts of discrimination by claiming that the International Buddhist Ethics Committee is false because there are online forums with critical opinions, since there is evidence that the paramilitary group of Deepak Rao is the author of such defamations and cyber attacks.

Fifth, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing acts of slander by stating that the presidency of the Buddhist Tribunal has confessed that this is not a legal body or court of justice, which not only is a lie but is also a discrimination against the Buddhist Law and its legal tribal procedures that have 2600 years of history and that are indigenous procedures preceding the Law of India. The fact that the International Buddhist Ethics Committee is not a State institution does not invalidate it nor does it declare it an illegal institution, since affirming this kind of postulates constitutes an act of discrimination. But even before the possibility that the Ethics Committee was not a Buddhist Law institution and it was a private institution, which is not true, even with that possibility, this fact would not mean it is an illegal institution, because it would be an International Arbitration institution fully legal in the commercial field of Private International Law.

Sixth, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing acts of discrimination by questioning whether the Presidency of the Committee is not professionally trained as a judge, which obviously can be demonstrated before any legal body through delivering four international study certificates that give proof of such training.

Seventh, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that Advocate Sachin Pathak is committing acts of slander by claiming that the Committee has carried out acts of blackmail and illegal activity only because it carried out ethical evaluations of world leaders, all of which constitutes a false accusation by the Advocate Sachin Pathak, which is so serious that he would deserve to lose his professional license.

Eighth, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee confirms that the threats of Advocate Sachin Pathak about the fact that his clients will communicate with the presidents of Venezuela and Thailand —who have committed crimes against humanity in a systematic and widespread way— with the aim of carrying out criminal actions against the presidency of the Committee for alleged “defamation”, would be nothing more than mere threats that absolutely lack any knowledge on International Law, since the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights always publishes the evidence of each legal Case, and as long as there is proof, any ethical evaluation or analysis on human rights cannot be considered as an act of defamation since it will be legally understood as a truthful expression.

Conclusion

In 2015 President Manan Kumar Mishra of the Bar Council of India (BCI) made the surprising revelation that 30% of Indian lawyers are false and hold fraudulent degrees in Law. Even, according to the BCI, 20% of lawyers practicing in the courts of India do not have valid certificates in Law, degrading the quality of the profession. In this sense, even the New Delhi minister of justice, Jitender Singh Tomar, was arrested for possessing a false title in Law after a claim made by the Bar Council of India (BCI). Therefore, given the bad behavior of Advocate Sachin Pathak, there is a high probability that he also forms part of that 30% of false Indian advocates.

On the other hand, Advocate Sachin Pathak would be violating several rules of conduct of the Bar Council of India (BCI), which states that advocates must adhere to the highest professional standards of probity and honor; they must reflect their privileged social position that derives from the nobility of the profession of administration of justice; they must provide a compassionate, moral and legal service; they must show respect towards the court as an essential condition for the survival of a free community; they must refuse to act illegally or improperly against the opposing party; they must prevent the illegal or improper behavior of their clients against the opposing party; they must refuse to represent clients who insist on unfair or inappropriate means, not blindly following the instructions of their clients; they must refrain from outrageously damaging the reputation of the opposing party on false bases.

In agreement, the Indian National Bar Association confirms that the essence of the profession of the advocate involves maintaining intellectual and ethical standards for the dignity of the profession, complying with certain rules of conduct. However, Advocate Sachin Pathak would also be unfulfilling these rules, such as not being part of a case in which the client is fabricating evidence; not present dishonest claims or defenses; not insult the opponent; not use unfair methods against the opponent as unnecessary attacks against his reputation; maintain honor, dignity and respect for the court; not make insinuations against the judge; present a case with fidelity and honesty; do not make lies, perjuries or false statements as evidence; maintain the highest standards of ethics and morality; do not perform harassment tactics; maintain cordiality towards the opponent; and communicate only with the opposing party’s lawyer.

Ergo, faced with the aggravation of the circumstances previously sentenced in the “Major Deepak Rao Case”, the International Buddhist Ethics Committee dictates that:

  1. Advocate Sachin Pathak is declared in Contempt of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee.
  2. The “Responsibility” of Major Deepak Rao and Advocate Sachin Pathak in committing False Zen, Advocacy of Violence and Unethical Leadership, Violations of Constitutional Law and Customary Law, Violation of Canon Law, Discrimination and Slander is condemned.
  3. The Bar Council of India is required to expel this advocate through the Disciplinary Committee.
  4. It is required that the President of India answer the proclamation that the International Buddhist Ethics Committee has previously sent him, having to fulfill his duty and not to attempt against the International Buddhist Community, so that he should cancel the honorary degree of Major owned by Deepak Rao, since this honorary rank would be used to carry out and validate criminal activities.
  5. Indian Army is called to answer the communication sent by the International Buddhist Ethics Committee dated December 20, 2018, when the Indian Army was formally asked to answer the following questions: Is the Indian Army supporting the violent attacks of Major Deepak Rao against the UBNO International Buddhist Community? Is the Indian Army against the existence and self-determination of the Buddhist Schools and their human right to education? Is the Army of India against the Maitriyana Buddhist Community and its ethical spiritual practices? Is the Indian Army against the Buddhist activities on Human Rights and World Peace? By refusing to issue a formal position before these formal consultations, this could be interpreted as the Indian Army‘s full support for the violations of Ethics and Human Rights by Major Deepak Rao.
  6. It is stated that in the event that the Indian Army decides to protect and provide impunity for the attacks of Major Deepak Rao, then legal action will be taken against the Indian Army for human rights violations.
  7. A call is made for the government of India to follow the ethical and legal example of R. Ambedkar and not to try to infiltrate or carry out attacks against the International Buddhist Community (Maha-Sangha), especially taking into account the historical background of the Hindu governments which for centuries have committed several genocides against the Buddhist communities, depriving them from their territories, temples, monuments and cultures, which represented the destruction of the Buddhist Civilization in India.
  8. The urgent intervention of the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, is requested in order to reach a peaceful and adequate resolution of the conflicts.

Always with spirit of reconciliation (maitri),

H.E. Master Maitreya Samyaksambuddha

President of the International Buddhist Ethics Committee & Buddhist Tribunal on Human Rights

One thought on “LEGAL OPINION ON Advocate Sachin Pathak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s