Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

A few things to note here: > Jack Smith not only pushed for an unreasonable trial date of Jan 2024, he asked the Supreme Court to take the “extraordinary” step of bypassing the DC appellate court in deciding on Judge Chutkan’s immunity order, which denied all forms of presidential...

julie_kelly2's profile picture

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

907,411 subscribers

121,279 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

BREAKING— Trump DC mini-trial before election: Judge Tanya Chutkan has just authorized special counsel Jack Smith to file a massive 180-page brief explaining why Donald Trump should not be immune from prosecution for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. NOTE: The brief is expected to include sensitive materials like grand jury transcripts and witness interviews, which Trump's legal team opposes making public due to the potential political impact ahead of the 2024 election. NOTE: The brief could function like a "mini trial" on paper, laying out evidence justifying the charges against Trump. NOTE: Ultimately, Judge Chutkan will decide what, if any, of this information becomes public.
2:40

BREAKING— Trump DC mini-trial before election: Judge Tanya Chutkan has just authorized special counsel Jack Smith to file a massive 180-page brief explaining why Donald Trump should not be immune from prosecution for his actions surrounding the 2020 election. NOTE: The brief is expected to include sensitive materials like grand jury transcripts and witness interviews, which Trump's legal team opposes making public due to the potential political impact ahead of the 2024 election. NOTE: The brief could function like a "mini trial" on paper, laying out evidence justifying the charges against Trump. NOTE: Ultimately, Judge Chutkan will decide what, if any, of this information becomes public.

Simon Ateba

84,456 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING: Judge Chutkan rejected Trump's motion to dismiss his criminal charges based on a claim of "presidential immunity” on the same day a federal appeals court ruled that the former president can be sued for inciting the insurrection.
1:40

BREAKING: Judge Chutkan rejected Trump's motion to dismiss his criminal charges based on a claim of "presidential immunity” on the same day a federal appeals court ruled that the former president can be sued for inciting the insurrection.

All In with Chris Hayes

119,627 просмотров • 2 лет назад

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.
3:34

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.

KV Iyyer - BHARAT 🇮🇳🇮🇱

220,478 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The DC appeals court affirmed Judge Chutkan’s gag order of Trump. But the most important sentence in the 68-page opinion? The court’s declaration that Trump’s DC case - his prosecution for trying to overturn the election - will be over LONG BEFORE the 2024 presidential election.
0:56

The DC appeals court affirmed Judge Chutkan’s gag order of Trump. But the most important sentence in the 68-page opinion? The court’s declaration that Trump’s DC case - his prosecution for trying to overturn the election - will be over LONG BEFORE the 2024 presidential election.

Glenn Kirschner

50,413 просмотров • 2 лет назад

BREAKING: Special Counsel Jack Smith has just asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether a President has absolute immunity for crimes he/she committed while in office. Smith is trying to circumvent Trump’s appeal, which would possibly delay the trial until after the election. Smith has asked the SCOTUS to act quickly. If they do, it would likely mean that Trump would have to face trial in the January 6th case before the 2024 election. If they don’t, Trump might just get what he hopes for and delate the trial until after the election. (video from when the indictment against Trump was unsealed)
0:58

BREAKING: Special Counsel Jack Smith has just asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether a President has absolute immunity for crimes he/she committed while in office. Smith is trying to circumvent Trump’s appeal, which would possibly delay the trial until after the election. Smith has asked the SCOTUS to act quickly. If they do, it would likely mean that Trump would have to face trial in the January 6th case before the 2024 election. If they don’t, Trump might just get what he hopes for and delate the trial until after the election. (video from when the indictment against Trump was unsealed)

Ed Krassenstein

1,107,015 просмотров • 2 лет назад

.Dan Bongino: Judge Chutkan and DOJ's Jack Smith are expediting Trump's trial at an unprecedented rate, so his lawyers have 5 months to review 12,000,000 pages of evidence (about 65,000 pages per day) because this is the DNC's best chance to convict Trump before the 2024 election, with an activist judge and a 95% dem jury pool. "Somebody asked in the court, has there ever been another case this big in this district where you indicted a guy, and the trial was only five months later with no time to prepare... The prosecutors themselves responded that the government hasn't identified any cases in this district where the length of time between indictment and trial was roughly five months... There has never been a case ever that has been pushed from indictment to trial in five months, but let's start now with only one of the most important cases in American political history... Judge Chutkan is an embarrassment, and Jack Smith is a straight-up commie... The left loves it, and this is what they want. When your entire governing ethos is about abusing power as a collectivist, this is what abusing power looks like." Follow Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
2:45

.Dan Bongino: Judge Chutkan and DOJ's Jack Smith are expediting Trump's trial at an unprecedented rate, so his lawyers have 5 months to review 12,000,000 pages of evidence (about 65,000 pages per day) because this is the DNC's best chance to convict Trump before the 2024 election, with an activist judge and a 95% dem jury pool. "Somebody asked in the court, has there ever been another case this big in this district where you indicted a guy, and the trial was only five months later with no time to prepare... The prosecutors themselves responded that the government hasn't identified any cases in this district where the length of time between indictment and trial was roughly five months... There has never been a case ever that has been pushed from indictment to trial in five months, but let's start now with only one of the most important cases in American political history... Judge Chutkan is an embarrassment, and Jack Smith is a straight-up commie... The left loves it, and this is what they want. When your entire governing ethos is about abusing power as a collectivist, this is what abusing power looks like." Follow Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

KanekoaTheGreat

1,100,211 просмотров • 3 лет назад

After another rebuke by SCOTUS (his 3rd loss before the high court in his ignominious career) in the immunity decision, Jack Smith was forced to cut 9 pages and one unindicted co-conspirator from his original J6 indictment. He went back to a DC grand jury in August 2024 and voila! Got a superseding indictment on the exact same 4 counts in the original indictment. In his underhanded way to circumvent SCOTUS’ presidential immunity guidance, Smith then referred to the president as a “candidate” for president—like he was going to pull one over on SCOTUS when the new indictment headed back to the high court. “See he was a candidate not a sitting president so immunity framework doesn’t apply!” Smith’s dishonesty is always off the charts but this is new level:
2:26

After another rebuke by SCOTUS (his 3rd loss before the high court in his ignominious career) in the immunity decision, Jack Smith was forced to cut 9 pages and one unindicted co-conspirator from his original J6 indictment. He went back to a DC grand jury in August 2024 and voila! Got a superseding indictment on the exact same 4 counts in the original indictment. In his underhanded way to circumvent SCOTUS’ presidential immunity guidance, Smith then referred to the president as a “candidate” for president—like he was going to pull one over on SCOTUS when the new indictment headed back to the high court. “See he was a candidate not a sitting president so immunity framework doesn’t apply!” Smith’s dishonesty is always off the charts but this is new level:

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸

225,088 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

CHEL DIOKNO: RULES SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO PROSECUTION, DEFENSE, SENATOR-JUDGES House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno says the rules governing the impeachment trial should be applied “equally” and “even-handedly” not only to the prosecution and defense, but also to members of the Senate Impeachment Court. “We do hope and we will continue to push for equality and even handedness in application of all the rules that would apply to the prosecutors and to the others who are part of the prosecution team at pati sa defense at pati rin sa mga membro ng impeachment court,” Diokno said. Asked if this includes the incident involving Senator Pia Cayetano’s use of an edited portion of his impeachment trial video, Diokno said they would wait for the presiding officer’s action on Monday before responding. News5 #VPSaraOnTrial
0:29

CHEL DIOKNO: RULES SHOULD APPLY EQUALLY TO PROSECUTION, DEFENSE, SENATOR-JUDGES House prosecutor Rep. Chel Diokno says the rules governing the impeachment trial should be applied “equally” and “even-handedly” not only to the prosecution and defense, but also to members of the Senate Impeachment Court. “We do hope and we will continue to push for equality and even handedness in application of all the rules that would apply to the prosecutors and to the others who are part of the prosecution team at pati sa defense at pati rin sa mga membro ng impeachment court,” Diokno said. Asked if this includes the incident involving Senator Pia Cayetano’s use of an edited portion of his impeachment trial video, Diokno said they would wait for the presiding officer’s action on Monday before responding. News5 #VPSaraOnTrial

Marianne Enriquez

10,413 просмотров • 14 дней назад

At PMQs today, I raised the case of Juliana Terlizzi, who was asked to pay £7,500 for the court transcript of her rapist's trial. Nobody should be charged thousands for the transcript of the trial in which they were the victim. Yet the government keeps refusing to right this wrong.
1:18

At PMQs today, I raised the case of Juliana Terlizzi, who was asked to pay £7,500 for the court transcript of her rapist's trial. Nobody should be charged thousands for the transcript of the trial in which they were the victim. Yet the government keeps refusing to right this wrong.

Sarah Olney

42,710 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || info@vendr.ng ||
9:20

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || [email protected] ||

Trending Explained

103,162 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨🚨🚨MAJOR BREAKING: A distinguished group of retired four-star generals and admirals from the U.S. military have submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to REJECT Donald Trump’s claims of absolute “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution tied to Jan. 6. THIS IS HUGE: The retired military personnel called January 6 an “assault” on the “foundational commitments” underpinning democracy and stated if Trump’s argument is allowed to succeed before them then it threatens “to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution.” The 38-page amicus brief features 19 authors, all of them decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. On April 25, the high court is poised to hear Trump’s question of immunity against prosecution for his alleged criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. and according to the brief, these are arguments that should be approached with extreme caution. “Our Constitution directs the people’s elected representatives in Congress to enact criminal laws that the executive is tasked with enforcing; allowing the President to violate those laws with impunity fundamentally distorts this constitutional allocation of powers,” they wrote. Boom!
1:47

🚨🚨🚨MAJOR BREAKING: A distinguished group of retired four-star generals and admirals from the U.S. military have submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to REJECT Donald Trump’s claims of absolute “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution tied to Jan. 6. THIS IS HUGE: The retired military personnel called January 6 an “assault” on the “foundational commitments” underpinning democracy and stated if Trump’s argument is allowed to succeed before them then it threatens “to subvert the careful balance between the executive and legislative branches struck in the Constitution.” The 38-page amicus brief features 19 authors, all of them decorated retired admirals, generals or secretaries from branches of the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force respectively. On April 25, the high court is poised to hear Trump’s question of immunity against prosecution for his alleged criminal conspiracy to subvert the results of the 2020 election. and according to the brief, these are arguments that should be approached with extreme caution. “Our Constitution directs the people’s elected representatives in Congress to enact criminal laws that the executive is tasked with enforcing; allowing the President to violate those laws with impunity fundamentally distorts this constitutional allocation of powers,” they wrote. Boom!

CALL TO ACTIVISM

1,185,889 просмотров • 2 лет назад

Earlier this morning, the Supreme Court dismissed my injunction application in which I requested the apex court to order a halt to full trials at the high courts while the Supreme Court is about to make a determination on my substantive writ challenging the constitutionality of conducting these full trials during the legal vacation. In his ruling, Justice Scott Pwamang said that while some cases are being treated differently and expeditiously, this would not amount to an infringement on the rights to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial. We have asked for a certified copy of the ruling to study and take advice. A date for the hearing of the substantive matter is yet to be fixed. We in the NPP believe that justice must not be selective and will continue to seek to have the selective application of laws addressed using the best means at our disposal. Video credit - The1957News
3:32

Earlier this morning, the Supreme Court dismissed my injunction application in which I requested the apex court to order a halt to full trials at the high courts while the Supreme Court is about to make a determination on my substantive writ challenging the constitutionality of conducting these full trials during the legal vacation. In his ruling, Justice Scott Pwamang said that while some cases are being treated differently and expeditiously, this would not amount to an infringement on the rights to equality before the law and the right to a fair trial. We have asked for a certified copy of the ruling to study and take advice. A date for the hearing of the substantive matter is yet to be fixed. We in the NPP believe that justice must not be selective and will continue to seek to have the selective application of laws addressed using the best means at our disposal. Video credit - The1957News

Kojo Oppong Nkrumah

29,399 просмотров • 6 дней назад

Charles Kanjama: Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing, you set it aside, or you order a new trial. This is the first time in my experience as a lawyer that the court has made a clear finding that the right to a fair trial was substantively violated but has failed to reverse the underlying outcome of that fair trial. The court said our hands are tied because impeachment is final; we cannot undo it. The court at that time said we can overturn the outcome of the impeachment, but today it has said once the impeachment is done, it cannot be overturned. There is a lot of inconsistency in the decision of the court #CitizenMondayReport
2:07

Charles Kanjama: Normally, when a right to fair trial or fair hearing is infringed, you invalidate the hearing, you set it aside, or you order a new trial. This is the first time in my experience as a lawyer that the court has made a clear finding that the right to a fair trial was substantively violated but has failed to reverse the underlying outcome of that fair trial. The court said our hands are tied because impeachment is final; we cannot undo it. The court at that time said we can overturn the outcome of the impeachment, but today it has said once the impeachment is done, it cannot be overturned. There is a lot of inconsistency in the decision of the court #CitizenMondayReport

Citizen TV Kenya

121,888 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🚨 TRIAL UPDATE: The biggest battle today wasn't about whether the judge would hear Lance Twiggs' testimony. The judge is going to review it either way. The fight was over whether the public should be allowed to hear it too. The defense argued that releasing parts of the interview could affect Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial, while the prosecution pushed to make more of the evidence public. From my perspective inside the courtroom, much of the day was spent on repeated objections and procedural arguments, which meant very little new evidence was presented publicly. Even so, the evidence the judge is reviewing still appears to be pointing toward a finding of probable cause. I'll keep covering what actually happens in court so people can follow the evidence instead of the rumors.
2:59

🚨 TRIAL UPDATE: The biggest battle today wasn't about whether the judge would hear Lance Twiggs' testimony. The judge is going to review it either way. The fight was over whether the public should be allowed to hear it too. The defense argued that releasing parts of the interview could affect Tyler Robinson's right to a fair trial, while the prosecution pushed to make more of the evidence public. From my perspective inside the courtroom, much of the day was spent on repeated objections and procedural arguments, which meant very little new evidence was presented publicly. Even so, the evidence the judge is reviewing still appears to be pointing toward a finding of probable cause. I'll keep covering what actually happens in court so people can follow the evidence instead of the rumors.

Brandon Tatum

49,160 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

VIDEO | Delhi: On a letter sent to the CJI against the former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal over contempt of court, Advocate Dr. Monika Sharma says, “See, we wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India stating the following. We stated that a very unfortunate incident has happened. Now, what is the incident? The incident is that a person who got discharged from the CBI court, good for him, when the CBI challenged the case in the High Court and certain interim directions were passed by the High Court, he said, ‘No, no, no, I don’t like those interim directions.’ So he neither appealed against that order nor filed a review or revision, but he said, ‘Change the judge, change the bench, change the court.’ And he came out openly in public about it. It was all over the media that he was saying that this judge should not hear my case and some other judge should hear my case. Now, litigants cannot decide which judge will hear their case. It is the Chief Justice of the respective High Court who decides the roster, which judge will hear civil matters and which judge will hear criminal matters. Now here he says, ‘No, no, you change the judge.’ So the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court says, ‘No, there is no reason to change the judge. We are not changing the judge.’ He goes to the Supreme Court and files a petition saying, ‘Change the judge.’ Now you see, this is a very, very dangerous trend, not only for the judicial system but for our democracy. Now here, if you don’t like the order, you’re not challenging the order, you’re challenging the judge. And that too, you’re publicly humiliating and embarrassing the judge, that is wrong. So the number of people who have signed this letter, they are former and present vice-chancellors, IPS officers, lawyers, senior advocates, bar members, the High Court Bar Association’s former president, secretary, everybody has signed this letter saying this is a wrong precedent. It undermines the status, it undermines the dignity of the judiciary. Judicial officers should be allowed to work without any political pressure, without any pressure tactics. This amounts to forum shopping and bench hunting. This should be discouraged, and this is criminal contempt of court because you are attributing motives to the judge. So we have requested the Chief Justice of India to suo motu initiate criminal contempt proceedings against this person."
2:34

VIDEO | Delhi: On a letter sent to the CJI against the former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal over contempt of court, Advocate Dr. Monika Sharma says, “See, we wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India stating the following. We stated that a very unfortunate incident has happened. Now, what is the incident? The incident is that a person who got discharged from the CBI court, good for him, when the CBI challenged the case in the High Court and certain interim directions were passed by the High Court, he said, ‘No, no, no, I don’t like those interim directions.’ So he neither appealed against that order nor filed a review or revision, but he said, ‘Change the judge, change the bench, change the court.’ And he came out openly in public about it. It was all over the media that he was saying that this judge should not hear my case and some other judge should hear my case. Now, litigants cannot decide which judge will hear their case. It is the Chief Justice of the respective High Court who decides the roster, which judge will hear civil matters and which judge will hear criminal matters. Now here he says, ‘No, no, you change the judge.’ So the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court says, ‘No, there is no reason to change the judge. We are not changing the judge.’ He goes to the Supreme Court and files a petition saying, ‘Change the judge.’ Now you see, this is a very, very dangerous trend, not only for the judicial system but for our democracy. Now here, if you don’t like the order, you’re not challenging the order, you’re challenging the judge. And that too, you’re publicly humiliating and embarrassing the judge, that is wrong. So the number of people who have signed this letter, they are former and present vice-chancellors, IPS officers, lawyers, senior advocates, bar members, the High Court Bar Association’s former president, secretary, everybody has signed this letter saying this is a wrong precedent. It undermines the status, it undermines the dignity of the judiciary. Judicial officers should be allowed to work without any political pressure, without any pressure tactics. This amounts to forum shopping and bench hunting. This should be discouraged, and this is criminal contempt of court because you are attributing motives to the judge. So we have requested the Chief Justice of India to suo motu initiate criminal contempt proceedings against this person."

Press Trust of India

99,583 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад