
In its sentencing order, the court said the case was "profoundly disturbing" and qualitatively different from other cases of impersonation as it struck at the root of one of the foundational pillars of a democratic state, the judiciary.
In its sentencing order, the court said the case was "profoundly disturbing" and qualitatively different from other cases of impersonation as it struck at the root of one of the foundational pillars of a democratic state, the judiciary.

This article was originally published by an external source. Read the full story at the source.
Read Full Article at Source ↗