Based on the text below, please draft a motion requesting protection order for the Respondent from the petitioner in the state of colorado. Any activities of the petitioner which fall under the category of harrasment or stallking the petitioner and cast a reasonable doubt on the intent of the Petitioner should be stated. 

[Respondent's previous motion]:

District Court, City and County of Denver, Colorado
1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202	


▲COURT USE ONLY▲
In re the Marriage of:

Vashita Jain,
Petitioner,
and
Rishabh Jain,
Respondent.	
Rishabh Jain
1590 Xavier St. Apt 303,
Denver CO 80204
574-742-2403
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Case No. 2024DR30398

Division 368

RESPONDENT'S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER'S REPLY TO MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Respondent Rishabh Jain, pro se, appearing specially and not submitting to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, files this sur-reply to Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Motion for Sanctions, Protective Order, and Dismissal with Prejudice, and in support thereof states:
I.	Introduction
Petitioner's reply fails to address the core issues of her misconduct, engages in an escalated attempt of harassment by orchestrating additional break-ins and threats over text messages by hired individuals, and instead presents a distorted narrative that misrepresents both the facts and Colorado law. This sur-reply aims to clarify these misrepresentations and underscore Petitioner's escalating pattern of harassment and abuse of process.
II.	Sequence of Events
1.	Factual Background: In August 2024, an unauthorized person left a foul-smelling substance at Respondent's door [Exhibit A]. For personal security, the Respondent installed a security camera inside his apartment. Based on the latest exhibits filed by the Petitioner (September 16, 2024), it appears that the server hired by the Petitioner, Peter Le, committed these acts on August 23 or August 24, 2024. These acts were repeated in an escalating pattern on September 13, 2024 including break-in into Respondent's apartment twice in his absence and then sending messages with threats and intimidation [Exhibit B].
2.	Harassing Email: Petitioner sent an email to Respondent's employer [Exhibit C] containing inflammatory statements about Respondent's character and improperly disclosed private medical information, in an apparent attempt to harm his professional reputation and employment status. The email accused Respondent of unproven, false and irrelevant statements claiming to cause Petitioner "mental and physical trauma," "mischievously evading" service, and lacking "ethical conduct" and "respect for both the sacred bond of marriage and the court of justice."
3.	Break-In and Threats: On September 13, 2024, an individual entered Respondent's apartment twice using a key, as confirmed by security footage. The individual was seen knocking on neighbors' doors, asking about Respondent's whereabouts. Respondent contacted the police, who responded and filed an internal report. The building manager confirmed that the intruder had a key [Exhibit D]. The only unaccounted key is in Petitioner's possession when she moved out.
4.	Threatening Messages: Later that night (September 13, 2024 11:34pm), Respondent received threatening text messages from an unknown person [Exhibit B] with a Houston Phone number <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_PHONE_NUMBER>, stating "I have something that belongs to you," "You might want to come and get it before I board my flight out of Colorado," and "Rishabh. I would not delay." These messages indicated the sender had been inside Respondent's apartment and knew his workplace. 
5.	Sender's Admission: The sender of the threatening messages later stated: "Well. You see. My job is to deliver a package. My instructions was to say was that I'm returning something that belong to you. I don't ask questions. I simply just do. People pay to get things done. I don't question the rules." [Exhibit B]
6.	Locks Changed: On September 14, 2024, the building manager changed the locks to Respondent's apartment.
7.	Questionable Service Attempts: In August 2024, Petitioner made inconsistent claims regarding her attempts to serve Respondent. In one instance, she alleged Respondent's residence was "locked" and inaccessible, but on another occasion, the alleged servers enter the building undeterred, and break into apartment without difficulty. Ever since then, both the Petitioner and the alleged servers have presented conflicted facts claiming attempt to serve, and made biased statements which are not true, and unduly biased. On the contrary, the Petitioner has been able to orchestrate break-ins into the apartment with a key in her possession.
These events have caused Respondent severe emotional distress and fear for his personal safety, warranting immediate judicial intervention and a thorough police investigation into the break-ins and threats.


III.	Legal Analysis
1.	Petitioner's Actions Constitute Disturbance of Mental Peace and Jeopardize Respondent's Safety and employment
Petitioner's conduct rises to the level of disturbing Respondent's mental peace and jeopardizing his personal safety, which is prohibited under C.R.S. § 14-10-107(4)(b)(I) in domestic relations cases. The Colorado Supreme Court has interpreted this broadly to include actions causing emotional distress or interfering with a spouse's daily life. Petitioner denies misconduct or orchestrating the leaving a foul-smelling substance in Respondent's apartment. However, shortly after, on September 13, 2024, an individual broke into Respondent's apartment twice with a key that was last in Petitioner's possession.
a)	Break-Ins and Threats: On August 24, 2024, an individual left a foul-smelling substance at Respondent's door. On September 13, 2024, an individual broke into Respondent's apartment twice with a key that was last in Petitioner's possession. This person was seen knocking on neighbors' doors asking about Respondent's whereabouts. Respondent contacted the police, who filed an internal report. Later that night, Respondent received threatening text messages from an unknown number, indicating the sender had been inside his apartment, knew his workplace, and demanded an urgent meeting, implying a threat if Respondent did not comply.
b)	Stalking and Harassment: The sender of the threatening messages admitted to being hired to "deliver a package" to Respondent, stating "My job is to deliver a package. My instructions was to say was that I'm returning something that belong to you. I don't ask questions. I simply just do. People pay to get things done. I don't question the rules." (Exhibit B) This indicates Petitioner hired this individual to stalk and harass Respondent. Under Colorado's stalking laws, C.R.S. § 18-3-602, repeatedly contacting, surveilling, or threatening a person in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress constitutes stalking.
c)	Risk to Personal Safety: The break-ins and threats pose a serious risk to Respondent's personal safety. The intruder's access to Respondent's apartment, intimidation stating knowledge of his workplace, and threatening messages create a reasonable fear for Respondent's well-being. Respondent requests this Court to direct the police to conduct a thorough investigation into these incidents to identify the perpetrator and prevent further harm to Respondent.
d)	Impact on Immigration Status: Petitioner's actions also jeopardize Respondent's immigration status, which depends on his ability to maintain employment. Her attempts to disrupt his employment and reputation could lead to job loss, which would directly impact his legal status in the United States.
2.	Petitioner's Email to Respondent's Employer Was Harassment and Invasion of Privacy
The contents of the Petitioner's email to Respondent's acting manager went far beyond what was necessary for attempting service and constitute harassment and invasion of privacy, intending to cause personal harm and intimidation to Respondent by disrupting his employment.
a)	Inflammatory Statements: The email contained numerous inflammatory statements about Respondent's character that were irrelevant to service and appear calculated to prejudice his employer. Petitioner accused Respondent of causing her "mental and physical trauma," "mischievously evading" service, and lacking "ethical conduct" and "respect for both the sacred bond of marriage and the court of justice." These statements meet the definition of harassment under C.R.S. § 18-9-111 as per 1(c) [Class 1 misdemeanor], and, (e-h) [Class 2 misdemeanor].
b)	Unwarranted and Unnecessary Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information: Petitioner improperly accessed personally identifiable information of the Respondent on multiple occasions. This was irrelevant to service and appears intended to intimidate and harass Respondent. Respondent’s information has also been shared with hired (by Petitioner's account) intruders, who have used the information to stalk, intimidate and harass the Respondent.
c)	Intent to Harm Reputation: The inflammatory language and personal attacks in the email suggest an intent to harm Respondent's reputation and employment prospects. Courts have held that malicious intent can be inferred from the egregious nature of the conduct itself. Donovan v. Fiumara, 442 S.E.2d 572, 575 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
d)	The email from the Petitioner is now a documented incident and under consideration by the senior management. Since the email, the Respondent has had multiple interactions with co-workers, and strong reasons to believe that more people have been made aware of the incident. This has created an uncomfortable work environment and persistent state of anxiety which is not warranted.
3.	Petitioner's Lack of Remorse
Petitioner's reply lacks any acknowledgment of wrongdoing. Her attempts to justify her actions as necessary and legally sound are contradicted by the inflammatory allegations in her email to Respondent’s employer. These accusations have caused significant emotional distress and jeopardized Respondent's employment and immigration status.
4.	Petitioner Has Unclean Hands and Is Not Entitled to Equitable Relief
Petitioner's own misconduct precludes her from seeking equitable relief from this Court under the doctrine of unclean hands. "The elements of the unclean hands doctrine are: (1) the party seeking equitable relief must be guilty of conduct involving fraud, deceit, unconscionability, or bad faith; (2) the conduct must relate to the subject matter of that party's claim; and (3) the conduct must have injured the party against whom the doctrine is invoked." Salzman v. Bachrach, 996 P.2d 1263, 1269 (Colo. 2000).
Here, Petitioner's improper service attempts, harassing communications, misrepresentations to this Court, and involvement in the break-ins and threats against Respondent constitute unclean hands directly related to the divorce proceedings. Her fraudulent claims of diligent service, deceitful statements in the email to Respondent's employer, and unconscionable actions in stalking and threatening Respondent demonstrate bad faith and misconduct that has directly afflicted damage on the Respondent and threatened his safety. Finally, the Petitioner’s own conduct in the legal proceedings in India is disturbing and contradictory:
a)	Despite having been properly served, and being aware of the proceedings, the Petitioner claims not having received official communication as justification for lack of participation.
b)	Petitioner makes false statements before this Court that the hearing for the Indian Court case on the same matter scheduled for August 6, 2024 was postponed because the Respondent’s legal counsel didn’t appear. The order from the Honorable Delhi District Court, and the case status demonstrate continued deliberate false statements in this matter.

5.	Respondent Requests Sanctions and Dismissal to Deter Further Abuse
Respondent has suffered severe emotional distress, reputational harm, and threats to his personal safety from Petitioner's misconduct. The email from the Petitioner is now a documented incident and under consideration by the senior management. 
Sanctions, including dismissal, are necessary to deter further abuse and protect Respondent's rights. Lauren Corp. v. Century Geophysical Corp., 953 P.2d 200, 202 (Colo. App. 1998); C.R.S. § 13-17-102.
6.	Petitioner's Attempts at Service Were Not Diligent and Violated Colorado Law
Petitioner's claims of diligent service attempts are contradicted by evidence and fail to meet Colorado's legal requirements. Petitioner relies on C.R.C.P. 4(d) but has not established the necessary prerequisites for alternative service.
a)	Lack of Diligence: Petitioner provides no concrete evidence of the diligence required before resorting to workplace service. Her vague claims of "numerous attempts" at personal service, without specifics, do not satisfy the standard set forth in C.R.C.P. 4(d). Petitioner claimed that Respondent's residence was "locked" and inaccessible on August 15, 2024, yet on August 20, 2024, the Petitioner entered the premises and later orchestrated a break-in into the apartment with a key in possession without difficulty, as shown by security camera footage. This inconsistency undermines her claims of diligence.
b)	Improper Email Service: Rule 4(d) authorizes in-person delivery to an authorized individual, not service by email. Emailing documents to an acting manager is not contemplated by the rule.
c)	Failure to Seek Court Approval: Petitioner failed to seek court approval for alternative service, as required by C.R.C.P. 4(f). No motion was filed here. Petitioner's reliance on alleged evasion by Respondent does not excuse non-compliance with Rule 4's requirements. Willhite, 274 P.3d at 1241.

WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court GRANT his Motion for Sanctions, Protective Order, and Dismissal with Prejudice, and:
A.	Issue a protective order barring Petitioner and her agents from contacting Respondent's employer for any reason, and from further harassing or threatening Respondent;  
B.	Direct the police to conduct a thorough investigation into the break-ins and threats against Respondent;  
C.	Award Respondent his attorney fees and costs incurred in responding to Petitioner's improper actions;  
D.	Dismiss the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage as a sanction for Petitioner's misconduct; and
E.	Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2024.

Rishabh Jain, Pro Se  
1590 Xavier Street, Apt. 303  
Denver, CO 80204  
547-742-2043



[Recent filing by the Petitioner]:
1
I, Vashita Jain, Petitioner, pro se, respectfully request this Honorable Court to consider the Petition
for Dissolution of Marriage and Summons as served upon Respondent, Rishabh Jain, or in the
alternative, to allow service via publication and retain authority to grant spousal maintenance,
attorney fees, and property division. In support of this Motion, Petitioner states as follows:
1. Diligent Efforts to Serve the Respondent:
 The Petitioner has made exhaustive efforts to personally serve the Respondent, in full
compliance with the applicable rules of civil procedure. These efforts are documented
through four affidavits of non-service, filed with this Court on May 10 (Exhibit 1), July 15
(Exhibit 2), and two on August 19, 2024 (Exhibits 3 and 4). Despite multiple attempts at the
Respondent's known residence and workplace, the Respondent has willfully evaded service.
 The Petitioner additionally engaged the server Peter Le to attempt service at alternative
locations frequently visited by the Respondent, including:
 Edgewater Library at 1800 Harlan St., Edgewater, CO 80214, on August 16, 2024, at
3:25 PM MDT (Exhibit 5).
 Belmar Library at 555 S Allison Pkwy, Lakewood, CO 80226, on August 16, 2024, at
3:10 PM MDT (Exhibit 6).
These locations were chosen based on the Respondent’s known habit of charging his
electric vehicle and working remotely from the library. Unfortunately, the Respondent’s
car “ARV-H01,” was not present at the time of the attempts, and the library staff declined
District Court, City & County of Denver, Colorado
1437 Bannock Street, Denver, CO 80202
In re the Marriage of: COURT USE ONLY
Vashita Jain,
Petitioner,
and
Rishabh Jain,
Respondent.
Vashita Jain
4065 S Braeswood Blvd, Apt 252
Houston TX 77025
346-397-9779
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Case No. 2024DR30398
Division: 368
MOTION TO CONSIDER PETITION AND SUMMONS AS SERVED OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, GRANT SERVICE BY
PUBLICATION WITH RETENTION OF
COURT'S AUTHORITY
DATE FILED
September 16, 2024 12:29 AM
FILING ID: A97A32C34E365
CASE NUMBER: 2024DR30398
2
to provide any information about his presence.
 Upon being informed by the leasing office of the Xavier Landing apartments that the
Respondent is rarely seen at his apartment and often returns home late at night, the Petitioner
asked the server, Peter Le, to attempt service late in the evening. On August 24 and August
25, 2024, Peter Le waited outside the Respondent’s apartment between 11 PM and 1:30 AM,
but the Respondent could not be located (Exhibits 7, 8, 9).
 As the Petitioner is on the lease for the Respondent’s current residence and retains a key to
the apartment, the Petitioner consented to an attempt by another server, Victor Lopez, to
enter the apartment to verify the Respondent’s presence. On entering the premises, with a
neighbor as a witness and after notifying the police, Victor observed the apartment to be
vacant at the time. The Respondent, alerted by surveillance cameras, contacted law
enforcement. The police, who were aware of the civil matter, documented the event and
advised the Respondent that legal documents had been left at his door. A sheriff had also left
a notice on the Respondent’s door following a previous service attempt (Exhibits 10 and 11).
Full police reports, available under “CAD 24-500152” and “CAD 24-500223,” are accessible
for the Court’s review
2. Evidence of Intentional Avoidance of Service by the Respondent:
The Respondent has demonstrated a clear intent to avoid service, as evidenced by his actions since
the initiation of this case. The Petitioner delivered the summons and case documents to the
Respondent at the time of filing, and the Respondent confirmed receipt. However, instead of
complying with the legal process, the Respondent has actively sought to obstruct the case, attempting
to dismiss it on multiple grounds and thereby obstruct justice. The Respondent’s active participation
in the case demonstrates his full awareness of the proceedings, further supporting the argument that
he is intentionally evading service to delay and undermine the legal process.
3. Pending Affidavits and Delays:
The Petitioner is awaiting the arrival of additional affidavits documenting further service attempts.
Delays in processing these affidavits has been unavoidable, and they will be submitted to the Court
upon receipt to provide further evidence of the Respondent’s continued evasion.
4. Good Faith Efforts:
The Petitioner has acted in good faith and with due diligence, making exhaustive efforts to serve the
Respondent personally. However, due to the Respondent’s ongoing evasion, personal service has
become impracticable. The Petitioner requests that the Court consider these substantial efforts and
either deem the Petition and Summons as served, or in the alternative, authorize service by
publication under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 4(g).
5. Retention of Authority for Spousal Maintenance and Attorney Fees:
Should service by publication be authorized, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court retain
jurisdiction to rule on spousal maintenance, attorney fees, and property division. The Respondent’s
ongoing evasion has placed the Petitioner, a student facing significant financial hardship, at a severe
disadvantage. Justice requires that the Respondent not be allowed to evade these essential
determinations by obstructing service.
3
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A. Consider the Petition and Summons as served upon the Respondent, based on the diligent efforts
made to effectuate service.
OR
B. In the alternative, authorize service by publication as permitted under Colorado Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(g).
C. Retain the Court’s authority to grant spousal maintenance, attorney fees, and equitable property
division, regardless of the service method.
Respectfully submitted by,
Petitioner’s signature
Vashita Jain, Pro Se
4065 S Braeswood Blvd, Apt. 252
Houston, TX 77025
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED_EMAIL_ADDRESS>