Gold and black circular emblem with K logo and text reading Learn in Truth Knowing Justice Always transparent sun rays border
Pragmatic Home Page for Pragmatic Memorandum of Law (LKJMOL), updated 11.04.2026, from the Law Offices of Lalit K Jain Esq: Law continues due process of law until Courts end scapegoatings, scammings and other Injustices. Both lawyers and nonlawyers in all jurisdictions are free to use in, and attach to, their legal briefs this pragmatic Home Page, the pragmatic Memorandum of Law (LKJMOL) and the Redacted Transcript because it reminds all Courts to administer equal Justice under the basic law and end scapegoatings, scammings and other Injustices. Their legal briefs must prove Injustices by abusing discretion that applied inapplicable laws to fictions as facts for using discretion to apply applicable laws to facts as truths. Learn and live in truth knowing Justice always insures nature. Signed Lalit K Jain Esq.
View this page as PDF
Pragmatic LKJMOL by LKJESQ, updated 11.04.2026: scripted by Lalit K Jain Esq (LKJESQ), this pragmatic Memorandum of Law (LKJMOL) does not create attorney-client relationships, guarantees, and/or duties when used in and attached to legal briefs. Yet it reminds all courts to administer equal Justice under the basic law that gives no authority or jurisdiction to commit scapegoatings, scammings and other Injustices. End abusing discretion to apply inapplicable laws to fictions as facts like marital presumptions to commit or perpetuate scapegoatings (blaming others for wrongdoings they did not commit) and other Injustices as unlawful unpragmatic jurisprudence (JIP). Use discretion to apply applicable laws to facts as truths like DNA-matches as lawful pragmatic truthisprudence (TIP). Remember that zeal above candor by lawyers, fraud on the courts, lack of jurisdiction and/or authority and abusing due process of law as due process of lie may make void decisions, orders and/or judgments (DOJs) dangerous nullities. Order compensatory and punitive reliefs against those benefiting from their own wrongdoings. SCOTUS Rule 10 review is discretionary. Footnotes cite People v Onuorah, the ABA Model Rules, Demjanjuk v Petrovsky, Michoud v Girod, Hammond v Hopkins, Elliott v Lessee of Piersol, Riggs v Palmer and Imperator Realty Co. v Tull. Signed Lalit K Jain Esq.
View the LKJMOL as PDF
About the Founder

Lalit K. Jain, Esq.

Founder & Principal Attorney — Law Offices of Lalit K. Jain, Esq.

Older man with bald head wearing dark suit, white shirt, and blue tie against gray background

Lalit K. Jain, Esq. is an attorney who scripted the pragmatic Memorandum of Law (“LKJMOL”) for use in their legal briefs by all litigants (both pro se or self-represented and represented by lawyers) to help courts, with no right to commit or perpetuate scapegoatings (blaming others for wrongdoings they did not commit) and other Injustices even if courts scapegoat LKJESQ for this legal help. End abusing discretion to apply inapplicable laws to fictions as facts like marital presumptions for Injustices perpetuating unlawful unpragmatic jurisprudence (“JIP”). Use discretion to apply applicable laws to facts as truths like DNA-matches for equal justice under law to perpetuate lawful pragmatic truthisprudence (“TIP”).

Need Legal Representation?

If you believe you are still enduring Injustices perpetuated by the courts, then, please click Review My Case and send Case Review Request. We help all litigants: both pro se or self-represented and represented by lawyers.

Review My Case

Contact

Credentials & Experience

Education

  • B.L.(Hons), Gold Medalist — graduated at the top of his law school class, achieving academic distinction beyond traditional honors classifications.

Professional Designations

  • Creator of Truthisprudence® — a legal philosophy helping courts to apply applicable laws.
  • Author of the Pragmatic Memorandum of Law (“LKJMOL”) — a memorandum for legal briefs helping courts to apply applicable laws.

Admissions

  • New York State Courts
  • Courts in India
  • U.S. District Courts
  • U.S. Tax Court
  • Supreme Court of the United States

Practice Areas

  • All areas of law.
Request a Case ReviewCall 718-316-5921

Below is the New York City Queens County Criminal Court in the case of People v Onuorah in which the legally, ethically, morally and constitutionally duty bound trial Court made prompt self-reversal and self-correction of its judicial errors to be the historic judicial proof thereof. The Constitution of the United States (“COTUS”) requires all Federal, State and local courts in all jurisdictions, even after a lapse of more than twenty years, more so when fraud before, during and/or after due process of law made courts commit such errors, to use competent evidence and applicable law, ensure impartiality, due process, equal protection and establish Justice without scapegoating because, on appeals against such errors, even the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) rarely grants petitions made for seeking such reversals and corrections.

Criminal MatterCriminal Court

People v. Onuorah

In this case, the public prosecutor failed to charge the motorist under the right section and Judge Zoll first convicted him for void closing and then made prompt self-correction to acquit him for valid closing.

Click here to download the redacted transcript.