Brazil: TRF-4 must return case against Lula from Atibaia site for final pleadings

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZILIAN NEWS AGENCY 247)

 

TRF-4 must return case against Lula from Atibaia site for final pleadings

The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region decides on Wednesday (27) on the case of the site of Atibaia against former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. The expectation is that the case will be referred to the final allegations phase. It is possible that the court annulled Gabriela Hardt’s judgment in this judgment, without judging the merits of the defenses, due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court (STF) on the order of speaking of whistleblowers and whistleblowers in first instance proceedings

(Photo: Lula site Atibaia)
 

247 – The judgment against former President Lula in the case of the Atibaia site may be redone.

The three judges of the 8th Class will assess whether, based on rulings by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court), the last stage of the prosecution – where the defendants give their arguments before the sentence (the final allegations) – should be redone. 

If the TRF-4 decides that the sentence should be redone, the process will return to the 13th Federal Court in Curitiba and return to the final allegations stage. In this case, the conviction of Lula to more than 12 years in prison would be annulled. 

It is possible that the court annulled Gabriela Hardt’s judgment in this judgment, without judging the merits of the defense’s appeals, due to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court (STF) on the speech order of whistleblowers and whistleblowers in first instance proceedings, informs journalist Felipe Bächtold in Folha de S.Paulo .  

Before presenting his final considerations in the criminal action, late last year, Lula’s defense asked to speak only after accused defendants, who had made charges against the petista. The judge denied that request at the time, but in October this year the Supreme Court acknowledged that this benefit is necessary to ensure broad defense to defendants who have not entered into a collaboration agreement. 

Ashrawi Accuses Israel of Expelling Witnesses to Its Oppressive Practices

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE SAUDI NEWS AGENCY ASHARQ AL-AWSAT)

 

Ashrawi Accuses Israel of Expelling Witnesses to Its Oppressive Practices

Tuesday, 26 November, 2019 – 12:30
HRW’s Omar Shakir at Ben Gurion Airport after being expelled from Israel. (File photo: AFP)
Tel Aviv- Asharq Al-Awsat
Israeli authorities expelled Monday Human Rights Watch (HRW) Israel and Palestine Director Omar Shakir after Israel’s Supreme Court had upheld the government’s deportation order on November 5 and gave him until November 25 to leave.

Israel argues that Shakir actively supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He denies that his HRW work and pro-Palestinian statements he made before being appointed to the HRW post in 2016 constitute active support for BDS.

Hanan Ashrawi, member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), slammed the deportation as an Israeli desperate measure to conceal its war crimes and violations.

Ashrawi said that expelling Shakir is a desperate action consistent with the unlawful practices of the occupation regime. She described it as an alarming wake-up call to all those who seek peace and justice for both sides that Israel will resort to extreme measures to hide the truth.

“Israel is getting rid of local and international witness of its crimes,” she warned.

HRW held a press conference in Jerusalem hours before Shakir’s departure flight and indicated that Shakir would continue his role remotely from Amman, Jordan, relying on a network of researchers in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to conduct fieldwork.

Shakir condemned the decision as an escalating assault on the human rights movement.

“If the Israelis can deport somebody documenting rights abuse without facing consequences, how can we ever stop rights abuse?” said Shakir.

Speaking at the conference, he said that Israel joins the likes of Venezuela and Iran in barring Human Rights Watch researchers, but it, too, will not succeed in hiding its human rights abuses.

“This decision shows why the international community must reboot its approach to Israel’s deteriorating human rights record. A government that expels a leading human rights investigator is not likely to stop its systematic oppression of Palestinians under occupation without much greater international pressure.”

My Thoughts On The Abortion Issue Both Good, Bad And Sideways

My Thoughts On The Abortion Issue Both Good, Bad And Sideways

 

Abortion, a very divisive issue here in the U.S. and I would guess it to be so all over the globe. As a Christian I did spend sometime looking through the encyclopedic Index of my King James Bible trying to make sure of the things I write concerning God’s Word on this issue. The ultimate opinion on this subject matter is God’s, not so much mine or yours. But for good conversation on this difficult matter this isn’t going to be a strictly “the Bible says” type of letter to you this evening. By the way, the word abortion is not found anywhere within the King James version of the Bible. I can not say with certainty that the word abortion isn’t found in any of the other translations of Scripture as there are some versions that I have not read cover to cover as I have with the King James.

 

I guess I am going to tackle this subject in three formats, 1.) my personal thoughts on the matter as if there was no Biblical or Spiritual thought, knowledge or concern on the matter. 2.) The way our Nations Supreme Court has looked at it. 3.) What God has said about it, His view. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge nor do I wish to be so, lets see where this train of thought, study and prayer takes us on this subject matter.

1.) My personal thoughts. If I did not know what God’s Word says, nor had I ever heard of others opinions argued on the radio and TV, I believe the following would most likely be my thoughts on this matter. I believe there is nothing that can be considered joyous about an abortion. It would be something that a person would not want to have to do even in a case of rape or incest if there is anything even slightly decent about the person at all. I believe that by the end of the first trimester (3 months) should be long enough for a person to make up their own mind about doing it, or not. I believe that there is no excuse for Partial Birth abortions. If a pregnancy has gone far enough that the baby has any reasonable chance of being born alive instead of being aborted then aborting the child should be considered as first degree murder unless the mothers life is in serious trouble if she continues the pregnancy. My ‘no’ to abortion would have to also cover aborting any child that through our medical knowledge tells us will be in anyway ‘deformed’. If a child has active brainwaves and a heart beat, then it is a living Soul from God. To put an end to it life from that point on should have to be considered as first degree murder, at least that is my personal opinion on this matter. Maybe it is just my lack of knowledge but I do have a question. The news media often talks about how thousands of couples are on the waiting list to be able to adopt a child, especially a newborn baby. Why is it that the ‘Right To Life’ supporters can’t somehow work with the politicians to make the rules easier for people to adopt? This would/should end the need for the ‘black market’ baby industry. To me this seems like it should be a ‘hand in glove’ resolution, a perfect working relationship.

 

2.) The law of our Country concerning abortion, what the U.S. Supreme Court has stated as the law. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in the “Roe verses Wade” decision that said abortion was to be legal in our Nation. Plus they have ruled many times since then on many different type of challenges in favor of “the woman’s right” to choose whether to give birth or to abort a child. I believe that Americas two most important documents are the Scriptures and the Constitution, in that order. It is plain and it is obvious to anyone who studies into this matter that the Constitution was written by men who considered themselves to be Christians. So they wrote it from a Christian view point. But they also wanted there to be a separation of Church and State. On the one side of the coin so that the State could not dictate to the Churches how they could worship as with England’s ‘Church of England’. On the other side of the coin they did not want a State Church being allowed to be giving orders to the Government on how they were allowed to govern. Nor were they in favor of one ‘Faith’ being in a position where all the people had to belong to one Faith.

 

3.) I am going to put down on paper a few Scriptures that I hope will help you think about what the Holy Spirit has to say on this matter. Jeremiah 1:5, God speaking to Jeremiah. “Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a Prophet unto the nations.”

Luke 1: 15, this is from God in reference to John the Baptist, the last half of the verse. “and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mothers womb.”

Mark 10: 14 and 15, This is Jesus speaking to His Apostles. “Let the little children come unto Me and do not forbid them; for as such is the Kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God (the Holy Spirit) as a little child does, he shall not enter therein.”

Matthew 18: 6—Jesus speaking to His Disciples. “But whosoever shall offend (hurt) one of these little ones which believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” 18: 7 “Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence comes!”

I will finish this section with one last verse. 1 John 3: 15—The Apostle John speaking. “Whosoever hates his brother is a murderer: and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”

Justice is higher than simply following the rules of man because the rules are often unjust, but if we put the rules of God first in our heart, they will save our Soul. Man kind can only kill our body, they can only condemn our Soul if we give it to them to destroy. So, consider, which Judge should we fear the most? For the Holy Spirit is the teacher and the counselor to the true followers of Christ.

Well, thats it, I hope you enjoyed the read, I hope that it was able to evoke some thoughts within your heart and Soul. I hope that you and your loved ones are able to have a great evening, God bless.

 

 

Appeals court hands Trump another loss, saying Congress can seek his tax returns

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

Appeals court hands Trump another loss, saying Congress can seek his tax returns

Washington (CNN)An appeals court has denied for the second time President Donald Trump’s attempt to stop an accounting firm from turning over his financial documents to the House, making it the second tax case Trump’s lawyers say they are taking to the Supreme Court.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals said on Wednesday that a panel of eight judges out of 11 voted against allowing Trump to continue his appeal.
The decision is another loss stacked against Trump, after federal judges have repeatedly rebuked him and greenlighted the House’s effort as it also pursues his impeachment. The case, if Trump loses again with the Supreme Court, could deliver his tax returns or closely related financial documents into the hands of House Democrats.
The opinion reiterates the strong signal the court sent last month, when it upheld a lower court ruling that Trump’s longtime accounting firm Mazars USA must comply with a House subpoena of his tax documents and turn over eight years of accounting records.
Trump’s attorney Jay Sekulow said Wednesday that they will appeal the decision to Supreme Court, noting “well reasoned dissent” from three judges to Wednesday’s opinion.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the new ruling in a statement Thursday, saying, “once again, the courts have resoundingly reaffirmed the Congress’s authority to conduct oversight and consider legislation on behalf of the American people.”
In a separate case, Trump faces a Thursday deadline to ask the Supreme Court to block a Manhattan grand jury subpoena for copies of his financial records and tax returns. His attorneys have previously said they intend to ask the Supreme Court to take up the New York case.
And in yet another new filing in a third case Wednesday night, Trump’s legal team asked a judge for a two-week buffer period if the US House asks for his tax returns through New York state. Congressional Democrats countered in that court filing that they’d like to write an argument this week responding to this request and have an in-person hearing before the judge makes a decision.
Courts have previously refused to curtail Congress’ subpoena power.
The majority of the appeals court did not give reasoning why they declined to hear Trump’s appeal on Wednesday. But two judges, Greg Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees to the federal appellate bench, wrote that they disagreed with the vote and would have heard Trump’s arguments again.
Katsas, who served in the White House Counsel’s office before taking the bench, wrote that he wanted a larger panel of judges on the court to hear the case, which he said presents “exceptionally important questions regarding the separation of powers among Congress, the Executive Branch and the Judiciary.”
He said that because the records are “personal” and not related to the office of the presidency, the “unavailability” of an assertion of executive privilege “creates an open season on the President’s personal records.”
Rao, who also served in the Trump administration and also dissented from the three-judge panel’s opinion, charged that when the court allowed the subpoena to go forward it “shifted the balance of power between Congress and the President and allowed a congressional committee to circumvent the careful process of impeachment.”
She said that even though the House has subsequently authorized an impeachment inquiry, the committee in issuing the subpoena was not relying on impeachment power.
A third judge, Karen Henderson, appointed to the circuit by President George H.W. Bush, signed onto their reasoning.
The administration has continued to stand its ground against all efforts to obtain Trump’s tax returns. Trump has claimed that ongoing IRS audits have stopped him from making his tax returns public, even though audits don’t prevent individuals from releasing tax returns.
This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.

Brazil: Fachin denies appeal that could annul Lava Jato proceedings

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Fachin denies appeal that could annul Lava Jato proceedings

Rapporteur of the case in the Federal Supreme Court, Minister Edson Fachin voted against the appeal dealing with the order of the defendants’ final allegations in a lawsuit and could affect one of former President Lula’s rulings. The session was concluded after Fachin’s vote

247 – Rapporteur of the case in the Supreme Court, Minister Edson Fachin voted against the appeal dealing with the order of the defendants’ final allegations in a case and may affect one of former President Lula’s rulings. The session was concluded after Fachin’s vote.

After the vote, which lasted three hours and took the whole session, the trial was suspended and the session adjourned. In the afternoon of tomorrow (26), the collegiate resumes the analysis of the case with the vote of the minister Alexandre de Moraes.

The trial discusses the order of submission of the final allegations by collaborating and non-collaborating defendants in criminal proceedings and has the power to overturn judgments of the Lava Jato operation, including that of former judge Sérgio Moro who has held in custody for over a year. former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

In his explanation, Fachin argued that one would be facing a debate that does not concern a question between prosecution and defense, but between defense and defense. “Would there be illegality or abuse of power by failing to comply with an express legal rule that does not exist?” 

“The procedural law differentiates the moments of the MP and the defense. It does not distinguish, however, the moment of participation between the defenses due to the possible collaborative posture on the part of one of the parties. prosecution, “he said.

“The order of submission of final allegations by prosecution and defense is to establish a minimum of balance of force. Parity of arms. But this logic does not transfer mechanically to the winning collaboration. Delation must be analyzed to see whether or not it is efficient,” concluded the minister.

Tunisian Judiciary Rejects All Appeals Against Presidential Elections Results

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF SAUDI NEWS AGENCY ASHARQ AL-AWSAT)

 

Tunisian Judiciary Rejects All Appeals Against Presidential Elections Results

Tuesday, 24 September, 2019 – 11:00
Presidential candidate Kais Saied speaks as he attends a news conference after the announcement of the results in the first round of Tunisia’s presidential election in Tunis, Tunisia September 17, 2019. Reuters/Muhammad Hamed
Tunis – Mongi Saidani
The Administrative Court in Tunisia rejected six appeals by former presidential candidates who lost in the first round of elections, limiting the second round to candidates Kais Saied (Independent) and Nabil Karoui for Qalb Tounes (Heart of Tunisia Party).

Tunis Administrative Court’s spokesperson Imed Ghabri told Asharq Al-Awsat that Seifeddine Makhlouf, Abdelkrim Zbidi and Slim Riahi’s demands were rejected for not meeting the formal requirements to file the appeal.

Neji Jalloul, Hatem Boulabiar and Youssef Chahed’s demands were also rejected.

Thus, the administrative court, which specializes in resolving electoral disputes, has initially legitimized the results of the first round of the presidential race, pending the possibility of appeal by appealing candidates.

The appeals submitted against the results of the first round accused the winning candidates of relying on political publicity in the election campaign as well as violating the rules of the campaign.

While announcing the election results on Sunday, Independent High Authority for Elections (IHAE) President Nebil Baffoun said violations committed are not election crimes and don’t affect the results announced.

The first round of the presidential elections resulted in the victory of law professor Saied, who was ranked first among 26 candidates and won 18.4 percent of the votes, and Karoui, ranked second with 15.6 percent of the votes.

They will both compete during the second round, which is scheduled to be held on October 6 or 13.

On the other hand, Chahed suggested forming an alliance with Zbidi, the resigned defense minister who is backed by Nidaa Tounes party, following their loss in the first round of the elections.

Observers say both parties need one another to return to the competition in the parliamentary elections, during which power-sharing will be determined for the next phase.

Lula’s defense disputes Lava Jato about STF’s omitted conversations

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS)

 

Lula’s defense disputes Lava Jato about STF’s omitted conversations

In a statement to the Supreme Court, Lula’s defense refutes Lava Jato’s arguments about the former president’s tapped conversations with officials: “Dialogues were omitted because they showed a totally different scenario from the one the Curitiba authorities maintained,” says the lawyers’ petition.

(Photo: Felipe L. Gonçalves / Brazil247)

247 – The Folha de S.Paulo Panel column reports that former President Lula’s defense went to the Supreme Court to rebut the arguments of Lava Jato’s judge in Curitiba, Luiz Antonio Bonat, about the petist’s conversations with authorities that were intercepted by PF but were left out of the process.  

Bonat said in an explanation that it hurts common sense and does not convince anyone that the material was irrelevant to the investigation.  

Lula’s lawyers say the analysis of relevance was up to the court itself, because before the conversation with then-President Dilma Rousseff, Lula had spoken with then-Vice President Michel Temer, with deputies and senators – all with forum privileges, he points out. the column.  

For Lula’s defense, Lava Jato hid the other dialogues because they pointed to the exact opposite of what the prosecutors’ and the judge’s punitivist theses stated. 

“Dialogues were omitted because they showed a totally different scenario from the one that the Curitiba authorities maintained,” says the petition of former President Lula’s lawyers.

Brazil: Senate goes to STF against Lava Jato and can isolate Barroso in supreme court

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZILIAN NEWS AGENCY 247)

 

Senate goes to STF against Lava Jato and can isolate Barroso in supreme court

Senate President David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP) complained that the Lava Jato operation, authorized by Supreme Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, did not have the consent of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR), recalls journalist Esmael Morais . Barroso is friends with prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, who is “hurt” by Vaza Jato reports

Senate President, Senator David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP), granted interview.
Senate President, Senator David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP), gives interview. \ R \ rPhoto: Marcos Brandà £  £ o / Federal Senate (Photo: Marcos Brandão / Federal Senate)

By Esmael Morais, in his blog – In Brasilia, k-juice will boil even more. Senate President David Alcolumbre (DEM-AP) has announced that he will go to the Supreme Court (STF) against intimidation of the House.

Alcolumbre referred to the action of the Federal Police, this Thursday (19), in the office of Senator Fernando Bezerra Coelho (MDB-PE), leader of the government.

The Senate president complained that the Lava Jato operation, authorized by Supreme Minister Luis Roberto Barroso, did not have the consent of the Attorney General’s Office (PGR).

Barroso is friends with prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol, the task force’s coordinator in Curitiba, who is “hurt” by Vaza Jato reports.

Davi Alcolumbre sees the PF operation as ‘serious’ and ‘drastic interference’ because the reasons alleged in the court ruling would be between 2012 and 2014, so there is no justification for the search and seizure that took place today in the Senate. That is, by the time lapse, it would have given Bezerra Coelho time to conceal supposed evidence more than a million times.

“The determination of search and seizure also has the potential to reach the executive branch, as it was also held in the parliamentary cabinet for the Senate Federal Government Leader,” says a statement issued by the Senate president.

Senator Bezerra, in turn, said he was the victim of political persecution of Minister Sergio Moro. According to the government leader, his position in defense of fundamental guarantees bothers the former Lava Jato judge.

Brazil: STF should not be afraid to judge former judge’s (Moro’s) acts

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS OUTLET)

 

Gilmar points out deviations from Moro and says STF should not be afraid to judge former judge’s acts

Minister Gilmar Mendes says the Supreme Court will not consider Moro’s popularity in judging his suspicion. “If a court comes to consider this factor, he has to close because he loses his degree of legitimacy,” he says. He is adamant: “Let us imagine that these people were in the Executive. What would they do? Surely they would close Congress, they would close the Supreme. This phenomenon of institutional breach would not have occurred systemically had it not been for the support of the media. Therefore, they are co-authors. of evildoers. ”

Gilmar Mendes
Gilmar Mendes (Photo: Carlos Humberto / SCO / STF)

247 – In an interview with Thais Arbex and Tales Faria, Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes said he would not assess the popularity of former judge Sergio Moro in assessing his suspicion. “If a court considers this factor, he has to close,” he said. He was incisive: “Let’s imagine these people were in the Executive. What would they do? Surely they would close Congress, they would close the Supreme. This phenomenon of institutional violation would not have occurred systemically had it not been for media support. So they are co-authors of the wrongdoers. ”

Gilmar also pointed out deviations committed by Moro and Dallagnol during the Lava Jato. “The collusion between judge, prosecutor, delegate, IRS is spurious. This does not fit our model of the rule of law, ”he said and also said that Brazil needs to“ end the cycle of false heroes ”.

“People realize that this prosecutor is not acting properly. This judge is not acting properly. Whether or not we are going to overturn these judgments, the judgment that is forming is that this is not how justice should be.” That this is wrong, that these people were using the functions for something else. That became increasingly evident, “said Gilmar. “What is this incontrastable power? We learned, seeing this underworld, what they were doing: contingency-related denunciations, mocking people, persecuting family members to get the outcome of the investigated. All this has nothing to do with the state of Right.”.

In a message to Bolsonaro, Celso de Mello says ‘MP does not serve governments, people, ideological groups’

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL’S 247 NEWS AGENCY)

 

In a message to Bolsonaro, Celso de Mello says ‘MP does not serve governments, people, ideological groups’

Minister Celso de Mello, the oldest of the Federal Supreme Court defended on Thursday (12) the independence role of the prosecutor. The STF dean stated that the prosecution cannot serve governments or ideological groups. The prosecution should not be the servile representative of anyone’s sole will or basic instrument of minority law offense, “said the minister.

Jair Bolsonaro and Celso de Mello
Jair Bolsonaro and Celso de Mello (Photo: PR | STF)

247 – Minister Celso de Mello, the oldest of the Federal Supreme Court, defended on Thursday (12) the independence role of the Public Prosecution Service. The dean of the STF stated that the Public Prosecution Service cannot serve governments or ideological groups, informs O Globo .  

The statement was made at the last session in which Attorney General Raquel Dodge participated in the Court. She will be replaced by Deputy Attorney Augusto Aras, who will still be subject to Senate sabbath.  

“The prosecution does not serve governments, people, ideological groups, is not subordinate to political parties, does not bow to the omnipotence of power or the wishes of those who exercise it. The prosecution should not be the servile representative of the will either. of anyone, or a basic instrument of minority offense, “said the minister.  

The dean also said that the MP acts to protect “a huge mass of citizens, forest people and children of nature unfairly persecuted with predatory greed of those who violate the law.”