Non-Collusive Affidavit Form: Fill & Download for Free

This seems like a good time to visit what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is, what it does, and how it works relative to other warrants.The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA Act, outlines U.S. procedure for physical and electronic surveillance of foreign powers and their agents suspected of espionage or terrorism. What Is the FISA Act and Section 702?Another good explanation:The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, signed into law in 1978, requires the government, when eavesdropping on communications on domestic soil for national security purposes, to obtain permission from a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judge must agree that the target is probably an agent of a foreign power and will probably use the specific email accounts or phone numbers that the Justice Department wants to wiretap. How to Get a Wiretap to Spy on Americans, and Why That Matters NowThe judges are appointed solely by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court without any input from the President or the Senate.The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of eleven federal district court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. Each judge serves for a maximum of seven years and their terms are staggered to ensure continuity on the Court. By statute, the judges must be drawn from at least seven of the United States judicial circuits, and three of the judges must reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia. Judges typically sit for one week at a time, on a rotating basis. About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance CourtThe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is a secret court. The public is not permitted in the court, and its proceedings are not released to the public.This is pretty well known by now. So how does a FISA warrant differ from other search warrants or surveillance warrants? First, the FISC is a secret court, unlike any other Court. Other (non-FISC) courts regularly hear applications for wiretaps, communications data warrants, and GPS monitoring. Of course, All warrant applications are on an ex parte basis, meaning only the State is present. These applications are not open to the public.It’s not surprising that these are closed, ex parte applications. Their very purpose is to gather information without the target knowing about it. However, the affidavit upon which the application is based and a transcript of the discussion between the judge, the officers, and prosecutors is released.My experience in New Jersey is the vast majority of these applications are granted. In Utah, only 2% of warrant applications were denied. Tribune Editorial: Getting a warrant should be harder than it is FISA applications are almost always granted.A striking feature of proceedings at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is that the executive always wins. Between 1979 and 2012—the first thirty-three years of the FISC’s existence—federal agencies submitted 33,900 ex parte requests to the court. The judges denied eleven and granted the rest: a 99.97% rate of approval. Is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Really a Rubber Stamp? | Stanford Law ReviewIn courts other than the FISC, the defendant can contest the validity of a warrant by moving to suppress the evidence gathered from the warrant. This is called a Franks hearing, after Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978).To get a Franks hearing, the defendant must show:a) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory, and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.(b) If these requirements as to allegations and offer of proof are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required, but if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a hearing. 438 U. S. 171-172.However, it is the rare defendant who will ever get a Franks hearing in the FISC. The defendant who moves for a Franks hearing will never get the affidavits and supporting documents used in the application. The FISC will review the application in camera on an ex parte basis. That means in the judge’s chambers without the defendant’s attorneys present. This is actually in the FISA statute at 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f).A trial court upheld the constitutionality of the FISA statute. “The Court is not persuaded by the one outlier district court case which held that FISA, as it currently exists, violates the Fourth Amendment.”On the Admissibility of FISA-Derived Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions and United States v. Kashmiri (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2010) (denying motion to suppress FISA-derived evidence) - Journal of National Security Law & PolicyFISA applications are overwhelmingly granted, as are warrants in other courts. FISA applications are done ex parte, as are warrant applications in other courts. Where the FISC differs from every other court is in how it handles suppression motions. The FISC does not allow these motions to be litigated. The judge takes another look at the application with the prosecutor and makes a decision. The defendant cannot see the warrant application or argue.In my opinion, it’s a terrible law because the defendant cannot contest the validity of the warrant. The defendant has no recourse. However, the Congress just re-authorized FISA. They made it worse by broadening situations that don’t even require a warrant. Congress Renews Warrantless Surveillance—And Makes It Even WorseWhat is needed to get any warrant? What must be presented to the magistrate or judge? Much of the evidence by its nature is biased, such as information from anonymous informants or criminal informants.Reflecting this preference for the warrant process, the traditional standard for review of an issuing magistrate's probable cause determination has been that so long as the magistrate had a “substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]” that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, the Fourth Amendment requires no more. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).This is a fairly low bar. It has come about from the conservative Rehnquist Court decision. The FISA in its current form is a very draconian law. This is the law we have, because Congress voted for it. Now, all of a sudden in this particular case (and this case only) FISA is unfair, and the judges, prosecutors and FBI agents are an out of control cabal trying to harm President Trump.The FISA statute is deeply flawed as designed. However, there is no FISA abuse revealed in the Nunes memo. We know that the dossier was identified as being from a politically interested party. Nothing more than that was required to be told to the judge. We don’t know if the judge inquired further. We know that there was substantial evidence of Carter Page’s involvement with Russian officials and spies aside from the dossier. This constituted probable cause that there was a “substantial basis for concluding that a search warrant would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.”Evidence of Carter Page’s activities, derived from various sources including the dossier, would have been allowed to be considered in any court, not just the FISC. The problem is with the FISA statute, not how the evidence in this case was handled. Nunes tried to put lipstick on a pig, and he failed.I think the FISA Act is a travesty. However, Trump’s advocates believe it is only flawed in this case.

Good thing you’re only asking for “the biggest lies” and not “all the lies.”And I want to preface my response by noting that not everyone who tells a “lie” is lying. If someone sincerely believes a falsehood, then repeating it is not a lie, since only a falsehood told with intent to deceive is a lie, and I honestly believe that many of the falsehoods spread about the Restoration (of the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ, i.e. “Mormonism”) are spread by people who honestly believe they’re telling the truth when they repeat the falsehood.So since we can’t often judge a person’s intent, I’d rather just change the word “lie” to “falsehood” in the question so I can answer without trying to judge the intentions of those telling the falsehoods. That said, here’s my list of the biggest falsehoods that I imagine are lies at least in some cases:FALSEHOOD: Mormons “just believe.”Even though the things we believe may seem fantastical to non-believers, we Latter-day Saints believe that God gave us reason and intelligence in order to FIND and KNOW truth. A worldview rooted in the teachings of Jesus Christ through prophets is an elegant one with extraordinary explanatory power. Restored doctrine includes these gems: “The glory of God is intelligence” and “Man cannot be saved in ignorance.” In our Church, there is a strong and direct correlation between education levels and church activity and faithfulness. Most of the tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints I know are curious, teachable, knowledgeable, open-minded, and well-informed. Here is one man’s story of how he came to accept Mormonism. It is very revealing about how Latter-day Saints not only DO NOT “JUST BELIEVE” but instead “ONLY BELIEVE” after much study, thought, and reasoning that leads us to discover faith as the most certain and reliable path to impactful knowledge in life. See Inquiry beyond Reason.FALSEHOOD: Mormons were violent people and thus deserved and initiated the violent persecutions they received.Anyone who believes this is willfully ignorant of history. See Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints as a starting point in your studies.FALSEHOOD: No one but Joseph Smith saw the golden plates or angels.This is a favorite of South Park creators Stone and Parker, who have repeated this in a South Park episode as well as in their Broadway Play “The Book of Mormon.” It’s as false as false can be. Eleven men besides Joseph Smith saw the golden plates and left affidavits that they had seen and handled the plates. Their testimony has never been impeached. Three men saw the plates AND the same Angel Moroni that Joseph saw. See Testimony of Three Witnesses. See also See Testimony of Eight Witnesses. There is also a record of a woman, Mary Whitmer, who was shown the plates by the angel Moroni.Oliver Cowdery was the chief scribe for most of the translation of The Book of Mormon, and also saw numerous angels, including Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Moses, Noah, Elijah, and Elias. About these times, he wrote - and I am including it herein because I find it to be a compelling second witness to Joseph Smith’s story and a compelling refutation of the falsehood in current question:These were days never to be forgotten—to sit under the sound of a voice dictated by the inspiration of heaven, awakened the utmost gratitude of this bosom! Day after day I continued, uninterrupted, to write from his mouth, as he translated with the Urim and Thummim, or, as the Nephites would have said, ‘Interpreters,’ the history or record called ‘The Book of Mormon.’To notice, in even few words, the interesting account given by Mormon and his faithful son, Moroni, of a people once beloved and favored of heaven, would supersede my present design; I shall therefore defer this to a future period, and, as I said in the introduction, pass more directly to some few incidents immediately connected with the rise of this Church, which may be entertaining to some thousands who have stepped forward, amid the frowns of bigots and the calumny of hypocrites, and embraced the Gospel of Christ.No men, in their sober senses, could translate and write the directions given to the Nephites from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up His Church, and especially when corruption had spread an uncertainty over all forms and systems practiced among men, without desiring a privilege of showing the willingness of the heart by being buried in the liquid grave, to answer a ‘good conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’After writing the account given of the Savior’s ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given ‘Arise and be baptized.’This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon Him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us His will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement!While the world was racked and distracted—while millions were groping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld, our ears heard, as in the ‘blaze of day’; yes, more—above the glitter of the May sunbeam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature! Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, ‘I am thy fellow-servant,’ dispelled every fear. We listened, we gazed, we admired! ’Twas the voice of an angel from glory, ’twas a message from the Most High! And as we heard we rejoiced, while His love enkindled upon our souls, and we were wrapped in the vision of the Almighty! Where was room for doubt? Nowhere; uncertainty had fled, doubt had sunk no more to rise, while fiction and deception had fled forever!But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, ‘Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!’I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage. No; nor has this earth power to give the joy, to bestow the peace, or comprehend the wisdom which was contained in each sentence as they were delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit! Man may deceive his fellow-men, deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, till naught but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind. The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel, the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior’s goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry; and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that day which shall never cease.”—Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1834), pp. 14–16.NOTE: Cowdery is a particularly impressive witness because he was an intelligent and humble man who split with Joseph Smith and was excommunicated but still never denied his testimony. After his excommunication, he was an attorney who was well-respected in the community. In his later years after Joseph died, he re-joined the Church and was welcomed back by Brigham Young.FALSEHOOD: Mormons aren’t Christian.Anyone who says this is simply begging the question by using the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.Oxford defines Christians as “A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.” Latter-day Saints have clearly received a Christian baptism, since they are baptized by immersion as Jesus was, and they are baptized “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”That renders the second qualification moot, since the definition says “or.” And it is in the second part of the definition that you have the debate. So if the only qualifier were “believer in Christianity,” then the modern “Christians” would be correct - Latter-day Saints are actually NOT believers in modern “Christianity” - we are believers in Jesus Christ.In fact, we believe that Jesus himself, in a revelation to Joseph Smith, declared at least some of the creeds of Christianity to be “abominable in [His] sight.” In other words, Latter-day Saints believe Jesus sees traditional Christianity and their acceptance of the man-made doctrine of the Trinity as contrary to the truth and God’s holy will.There are many falsehoods told about the restored doctrines and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by those other Christians and ex-Mormons who don’t really understand our doctrine and teachings. Most of them, I’m sure, truly believe the lie that “Mormons aren’t Christian,” because to believe that Latter-day Saints are Christian would require the more zealous among them to abandon some of their most cherished beliefs, for example, that faith in Jesus Christ is all that is required for complete salvation. They obviously can’t include the “heretical Mormons” in their idea of heaven, so they have to exclude us from their idea of having faith in Jesus Christ.Please note that even calling us “Mormons” has always been a way to marginalize us as outsiders and strangers to Christianity - as if we placed more emphasis on “Mormon” than Jesus, or on the Book of Mormon than the Bible. That’s the reason the President of the Church today, Russell M. Nelson, has said that the Church and Latter-day Saints should stop self-identifying as “Mormon” and instead use the more accurate term “Latter-day Saint.” See The Name of the Church and Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - WikipediaFALSEHOOD: Mormons believe in polygamy and many still practice it.Anyone who believes this is uninformed about both Church doctrine and history.The Book of Mormon has only one passage that mentions polygamy, and it’s a particularly revealing one:Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.- Jacob 2: 24–30Clearly, the Lord says that if he wants to “raise up seed,” he will command “this people” to practice polygamy, otherwise they are to have but one wife. As the descendant of numerous polygamists in the late 19th Century, I for one am glad that the Lord commanded latter-day prophets to teach the practice of polygamy for a season in order to increase the size of the faith community who were facing the rigors of the settlement of much of the Western frontier, and then also initiated the painful reversal of the commandment and practice in 1890.The truth is that the restored doctrine is “one wife” and polygamy was the exception, only for a limited period of time as commanded by God.FALSEHOOD: There is no evidence for MormonismThis falsehood arises because most people reject the evidence and make strenuous efforts to falsify it, not because there isn’t any. I find that whenever I encounter someone telling this whopper, they are in fact working hard to refute and rebut the evidence they say doesn’t exist!Considering the definition of evidence makes it clear that there is a LOT of evidence:“evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”In Law - “Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court.”To say that there is no evidence for Mormonism is to assert that there is no body of fact or information or personal testimony or material objects that supports the origins of the faith as told by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and the dozens of others who were involved in those origins. This position is so clearly and absurdly false and at odds with fact and history as to be risible.Supporting Latter-day Saint beliefs and propositions as true are a broad and deep abundance of historical fact, documentation, history, testimony, doctrine, science, philosophy, and reasoning. So many, in fact, that any attempt to list them is as inadequate as an attempt to document the evidence for Christianity itself, all of which evidence we also consider evidence for our beliefs.To give but a few examples, I’ve already quoted Oliver Cowdery as a second witness to the events that Joseph Smith describes in his personal history. Two witnesses to a number of events, told independently, but each story corroborating the other, without contrary evidence of collusion or attempted deception, is considered strong evidence in a court of law, so why not for the Restoration? Besides, it’s not as if Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery are the only two witnesses of visions, revelations, and angelic visitations in these latter days. There are so many such testimonies in the journals kept by early Latter-day Saints that the only thing critics can assert is mass delusion, mass hysteria, etc. And yet that doesn’t really offer a satisfactory explanation for the many miracles that happen in the lives of most devout Latter-day Saints even today - at least not for those of us who have experienced such miracles.What’s more, any careful consideration of the Book of Mormon itself, along with nd its content and origins must be considered evidence - in fact, strong and even compelling evidence, however easily dismissed it may be based on shallow and superficial facts and reasoning.In fact, to build the case that there is no evidence for the Restoration / Mormonism, one must stereotype millions of intelligent Latter-day Saints as sheep, dupes, blind faith believers, or ignorant - as countless non-Mormons, ex-Mormons, and anti-Mormons do, in one way or another in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance arising from the abundance of evidence that most believers spend a lifetime discovering, each new discovery reinforcing each previous discovery. And that is NOT, as critics contend, confirmation bias. I’m a published expert on critical thinking, and a natural-born skeptic. I’m aware of what I believe and why I believe it - but more importantly, I’m aware of what I don’t know and why what I don’t believe (yet) because there isn’t compelling evidence supporting it.So I’ll draw the line separating the “biggest lies” from “all the other lies” there, and leave it at that. The history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Book of Mormon challenge anyone who encounters and investigates them.The claims of Joseph Smith and those who were witnesses to the miracles of the Restoration are just as challenging to modern culture as the claims of early Christianity were challenging to all who encountered and investigated the claims of the apostles and other witnesses. And the tact that martyrs died in defense of their faith makes the claims of the Restoration similar to the claims of the early apostles and saints as well.Therefore, it should be no surprise that those who don’t want to believe sometimes come up with convenient fictions and peculiar conceits in their effort to protect their own worldview and paradigms against the mountain of evidence that any honest investigator of the Restoration inevitably encounters.

SC holds Prashant Bhushan guilty of contempt for his tweets In a strongly worded judgment, a three-judge bench headed by justice Arun Mishra said that the allegations levelled in the tweets against the court and CJI are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the court and such conduct is not expected from Bhushan, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing at the Bar.Updated: Aug 15, 2020 00:33 ISTBy Murali Krishnan, Hindustan Times New DelhiAn attack on the Supreme Court will hamper not just the confidence that the public has in the Supreme Court but will also shake the confidence that judges of other courts in the country have in the Supreme Court. (Hindustan Times)Advocate Prashant Bhushan’s tweets of June 27 and June 29 , one criticising Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde and the other raising questions about the conduct of former CJIs and the court are based on distorted facts and have the effect of destabilizing the foundation of the Indian judiciary, the top court ruled on Friday, holding the activist lawyer guilty of criminal contempt of court in a decision that provoked extreme reactions.In a strongly worded judgment, a three-judge bench headed by justice Arun Mishra said that the allegations levelled in the tweets against the court and CJI are malicious in nature and have the tendency to scandalize the court and such conduct is not expected from Bhushan, who is a lawyer of 30 years standing at the Bar.“The Indian judiciary is not only one of pillars on which the Indian democracy stands but is the central pillar. An attempt to shake the very foundation of constitutional democracy has to be dealt with an iron hand,” the bench which also comprised justices BR Gavai and Krishna Murari said. The quantum of punishment — contempt could mean a fine and up to six months in prison — will be decided on August 20.While some supported the court’s actions, pointing out Bhushan’s own support for such actions in 2017 when the court took high court judge from Tamil Nadu, Justice CS Karnan, to task for making allegations against Supreme Court judges, others said the court was being a tad touchy in seeing comments against individual judges as those against the court.The view aired by Bhushan is not different from the views held by many people. That the court had to pick out two of Bhushan’s tweets and hold him guilty of criminal contempt smacks of insecurity from the realisation that the image of court in public eyes is very low. It seems like an attempt to scare people into respecting the court,” senior resident fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Alok Prasanna Kumar, who is also a member of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms, of which Bhushan is a convener, told HT.“There is a world of difference between an allegation that Supreme Court is a poor defender of democracy and a statement alleging corruption or collusion with other arms of state. The former is protected by freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution while the latter can be penalised by a law protected under Article 19(2) which provides for exceptions to free speech. The tweets in question fall under the latter category,” Supreme Court lawyer Kanu Agrawal said.Bhushan himself was unavailable for comment but in his defence to the court in his affidavit filed on August 2 had said that “I am entitled to form, hold, & express (opinion) under Article 19(1)(a)”.The court observed that Indian judiciary is considered by the citizens as the last resort when they fail to get justice elsewhere. An attack on the Supreme Court will hamper not just the confidence that the public has in the Supreme Court but will also shake the confidence that judges of other courts in the country have in the Supreme Court.Further, if a malicious attack against the highest court is not dealt with the requisite degree of firmness, “it may affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations”, the court added.Bhushan who is part of the institution of administration of justice should have protected the majesty of law; instead he indulged in an act which tends to bring to the institution of administration of justice, the court noted.India’s contempt of court law is derived from British law, but in 2013, the United Kingdom abolished ‘scandalizing judiciary’ as a form of contempt of court on the grounds that this went against the freedom of expression while retaining other forms of contempt like behaviour causing disruption or interference with court proceedings.The court had also initiated contempt proceedings against Twitter but the same was closed on Friday after the court was satisfied with the social media platform’s explanation that it is only an intermediary and had also suspended the controversial tweets immediately after the top court initiated the case.Bhushan posted two tweets, one against the Supreme Court on June 27 and another against CJI Bobde on June 29.Mehek Maheswhari, an advocate, filed a petition before the Supreme Court on July 9 seeking initiation of contempt of court proceedings against Bhushan for the tweets. As per law, a contempt petition filed by a private individual should have the consent of the Attorney General before it can be listed before the Supreme Court for hearing.Maheswari’s petition did not have such consent but the court decided to proceed suo motu (on its own) with the contempt case after the registry brought the petition to the notice of the court on the administrative side.The court listed the case for the first time on July 22 and issued notice to Bhushan the same day.Bhushan’s first tweet, reproduced in the court order, said: “When historians in the future look back at the last six years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the SC in this destruction, and more particularly the role of the last four CJIs.”The second referred to the Bobde and was also cited in the order. It said: “The CJI rides a Rs 50-lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without wearing a mask or helmet, at a time when he keeps the SC on lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice!”Bhushan refused to apologise for his tweets, contending they are protected by the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. He cited the speeches on dissent made by Supreme Court judges DY Chandrachud on February 15 and Deepak Gupta on February 24 to buttress his case.In defence of his perception that the Supreme Court aided in destruction of democracy, Bhushan referred to the press conference held by four judges – justices Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph -- of the Supreme Court in January 2018 against the manner in which cases in Supreme Court were being assigned to selected benches.Regarding the tweet of June 27, the apex court held that tweet is directed against the Supreme Court and gave an impression that the apex court and its four CJIs had a major role in the destruction of democracy in the last six years.“There is no doubt that the tweet tends to shake the public confidence in the institution of judiciary. The tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI,” the court said.Regarding the June 29 tweet, the court said that it was intended to give an impression that the CJI kept the Supreme Court shut denying fundamental rights to citizens even though the court was functioning through video conferencing.However, this, the court, held was patently false because the court was functioning through video conferencing though physical functioning of the court was suspended due to Covid-19.“Immediately after suspension of physical hearing, the Court started functioning through video conferencing. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from March 23 till August 4 is 879. During this period, the Court has heard 12748 matters. In the said period, this Court has dealt with 686 writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution,” the judgment highlighted.Thus, the two tweets were not fair criticism of the functioning of the judiciary, or made in good faith or public interest, the court held.“In our considered view, the said tweet undermines the dignity and authority of the institution of the Supreme Court of India and the CJI and directly affronts the majesty of law…. The tweets which are based on the distorted facts, in our considered view, amount to committing criminal contempt,” it ruled.Another suo motu contempt petition is pending before the same bench against Bhushan for calling past chief justices corrupt in a 2009 interview to Tehelka magazine.Bhushan, in that case, had offered an explanation for his statements but the Supreme Court refused to accept it and ruled, on August 10, that it will proceed with the case. That case is now listed for hearing on August 17.Minutes after he was held guilty of contempt of court on Friday, Bhushan along with senior counsel Dushyant Dave appeared before another bench headed by justice L Nageswara Rao in a public interest litigation seeking inquiry into the alleged non-transparent manner in which the central government handled the Covid crisis.That matter was adjourned for detailed hearing next week.