Affidavit Of Forgery: Fill & Download for Free

It is protected by most banking laws to keep anyone's signature from being exposed to the public so there is no risk of forgery by anyone. The liability issue is too significant and affidavit of fraud can easily be filed.

It is evident that Supreme Court of India is passing through a great credibility crisis. Never in the History of India, four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court held a press-conference against their own Chief Justice and made the following remarks:It's an extraordinary event in the history of this institution. The administration of the Supreme Court is not in order.Many things that are less than desirable have happened in the last few months.Unless this institution is preserved, democracy will not survive in this country.All the four judges failed to persuade CJI that certain things are not in order and therefore you should take remedial measures. Unfortunately our efforts failed. And all four of us are convinced that democracy is at stake and many things have happened in recent past.[1]The laws of impeachment can be found in Articles 124 (4), (5), 217, and 218 of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and corresponding rules.These provisions allow for removal of a Supreme Court or High Court judge on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.If four Judges of the Supreme Court have made some allegation against the CJI, it can’t be brushed aside.According to law, the removal proceedings (impeachment) against a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court can be initiated in either House of Parliament. For this, a notice of a motion to remove the judge has to be signed,If emanating from the Lok Sabha, by not less than one hundred members,If emanating from the Rajya Sabha, by not less than fifty members.[2]It is evident that the motion started from Rajya Sabha and signed by more than 50 members.These are the 5 charges mentioned against the CJI in the notice:In Prasad Education trust case, “prima facie evidence suggesting that CJ Dipak Misra may have been involved in the conspiracy of paying illegal gratification in the case”.CJ Misra “dealt on the administrative as well as judicial side, with a writ petition which sought an investigation into a matter in which he too was likely to fall within the scope of investigation since he had presided over every bench which had dealt with this case” which ”violated the first principle of the Code of Conduct for judges”CJ Misra “…appears to have antedated an administrative order dated 6th November 2017 which amounts to a serious act of forgery/fabrication”CJ Misra “acquired land while he was an advocate, by giving an affidavit that was found to be false and despite the orders of the ADM cancelling the allotment in 1985, surrendered the said land only in 2012 after he was elevated to the Supreme Court”CJ Dipak Misra “abused his administrative authority as master of roster to arbitrarily assign individual cases of particular advocates in important politically sensitive cases, to select judges in order to achieve a predetermined outcome”[3]These charges are serious in nature and also verifiable.However, the Vice President as the Chairman of RS rejected the motion itself stating: “I am of the view that the allegations are neither tenable nor admissible…, He further added, “..allegations emerging from the present case have a serious tendency of undermining the independence of the judiciary”.[4][4][4][4]He has thus effectively eliminated the very possibility of debate or voting in the Parliament.I have no doubt in my mind that the impeachment motion was bound to be defeated in Parliament since there is no possibility of Opposition parties mustering the support of two-third members in both Houses of Parliament.However, it should not have been rejected by the VP and allowed to be discussed in Parliament.The Vice President can’t suppress the right of the Parliament to discuss matters of national importance.While the legality of the matter can be tested only in the Supreme Court, such an order only shows the total disregard of the opinion of the opposition parties by the ruling party.Footnotes[1] Supreme Court crisis: All not okay, democracy at stake, say four senior-most judges[2] Impeachment of Judges: A rigorous process and a history of fruitless attempts[3] CJI Dipak Misra impeachment: The five charges and 10 observations rejecting them[4] Venkaiah Naidu rejects motion to remove CJI, Congress to challenge order in Supreme Court - Times of India ►[4] Venkaiah Naidu rejects motion to remove CJI, Congress to challenge order in Supreme Court - Times of India ►[4] Venkaiah Naidu rejects motion to remove CJI, Congress to challenge order in Supreme Court - Times of India ►[4] Venkaiah Naidu rejects motion to remove CJI, Congress to challenge order in Supreme Court - Times of India ►

No, because they’re complete forgeries:“Archaeologists and historians quickly concluded that the objects were forgeries. On July 28, 1911, professorFrederick Starr of the University of Chicago declared in the Detroit News that the so-called relics were fakes. Mary Robson, who lived in a room next door to Scotford's sons Percy and Charles, stated that the boys manufactured more "relics" all the time. In 1911, Scotford's stepdaughter signed an affidavit in which she stated that she had seen him making the objects.The finds attracted the interest of LDS Church members, and in 1909, Mormon scientist James E. Talmageparticipated in a "dig" and then thoroughly tested the artifacts in his lab back in Utah. His investigations led him to label the artifacts as frauds. In August 1911, he published a work on his findings titled "The 'Michigan Relics': A Story of Forgery and Deception."Scotford and Soper never confessed, but no more objects were found after they died.Recent developmentsProfessor Albert Emerson came out to the sites to get a better look at the "artifacts" that he dubbed "bad enough in the photographs." Labeling them "bogus" from the hieroglyphics to the characters that were turned upside-down, Emerson said that a primitive artist would never make as many mistakes, such as a dragon without a tail.More recent studies conducted by Professor of Anthropology Richard B. Stamps, of the Michigan Historical Museum, indicate that the artifacts were made with contemporary tools.Current historians tend to agree that Scotford and Soper joined forces to sell the fake relics for personal profit.”Thanks Wikipedia!For some reason, there’s been another surge in Michigan hoaxes since the 1980s, as well as some ridiculous “History Channel”-type “documentaries” (remember the Mayan Apocalypse?)Here’s an article on the most recent tablet to be sensationalized:The Newberry TabletConclusion? It’s yet another hoax.