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



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



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’



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.”

Brazil: Supreme prepares offensive against Moro and Lava Jet that could result in Lula’s release



Supreme prepares offensive against Moro and Lava Jet that could result in Lula’s release

October may be the time for a turning point in the clash that Brazil’s legalistic and democratic forces are waging against the discretion of Sergio Moro and Operation Lava Jato. The Supreme Court (STF) is preparing to give its harshest message to Operation Lava Jato and the former judge and current minister of justice, with his decisions rendered ineffective and Lula freed from the political prison imposed on him.

Celso de Mello must decide the fate of Moro and Lula 
Celso de Mello must decide the fate of Moro and Lula (Photo: STF | Ricardo Stuckert)

247 – The month of October may be the time of a turning point in the struggle the loyalists and democratic forces of Brazil waging against the will of Sergio Moro and Operation Lava jet. Report by journalist Thais Arbex, from Folha de S.Paulo, informs that the Supreme Court (STF) is preparing to give in October its toughest message to Operation Lava Jato and the former judge and current Minister of Justice, with their decisions rendered ineffective and Lula freed from the political prison imposed on him.  

It is possible that in October Minister Gilmar Mendes resumes the trial of Sergio Moro’s suspicion. It seems that by then there will be a defeat of Moro in the second class of the court.  

According to the report, the Supreme Court will again discuss a habeas corpus request made by the defense of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT), alleging Moro’s lack of impartiality in conducting the Guarujá triplex process ( SP). 

If the claim is accepted, the sentence may be overturned. the case would go back to the initial stages and Lula could get out of jail. The trial was set for July 25, but Gilmar asked him to leave the agenda. 

For the minister, the court should await the unfolding of the leaking talks attributed to Moro with the Lava Jato summit. At that moment, there was the prospect that new dialogues would emerge that could corroborate what Lula’s lawyers claim.  

There is a change of mood in the Supreme over this sensitive issue. The dean of the court, Celso de Mello, has shown signs of discomfort with the content of the messages revealed by Intercept. 

The minister is considered a fundamental piece for the suspicion of Moro to be debated again and be accepted by the board. Gilmar was just waiting for a signal from his colleague to release the process.  

The assessment of one wing of the Supreme is that most Ministers in the Second Class today have no doubt about Moro’s bias. The understanding has been reinforced by international repercussions. 

A magistrate told Folha, on condition of anonymity, that the Supreme Court needs to position itself because the scenario for the Brazilian Justice is bad.   

The report informs that can also go to the plenary of the Supreme Court next month the actions that question the constitutionality of prisons after conviction in the second instance and the discussion that overturned the sentence imposed by Moro Aldemir Bendine, former president of Petrobras and Banco do Brazil. This is what signaled the President of the Supreme Court, Dias Toffoli, to members of the court.   

An unfavorable scenario is drawn for Moro and Dallagnol. According to Ministers of the Supreme Court, the likely inclusion of these topics in the plenary agenda indicates that today, there would already be a majority in favor of theses contrary to Lava Jato.  

Toffoli also indicated that he could anticipate the debate on the use of detailed data from control agencies such as Coaf, IRS and Central Bank without judicial authorization.  

In July, Toffoli suspended criminal investigations that used detailed information from these agencies. Moro expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision to Toffoli, saying it could endanger the fight against money laundering.

India: A year after 377 verdict: Long battle for civil rights



A year after 377 verdict: Long battle for civil rights still ahead

It’s been a year since the Supreme Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code

INDIA Updated: Sep 06, 2019 07:09 IST

Dhamini Ratnam and Dhrubo Jyoti
Dhamini Ratnam and Dhrubo Jyoti

Hindustan Times, New Delhi
The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.
The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.(Sushil Kumar/HT FILE PHOTO)

A year ago, the Supreme Court handed victory to 34 people from across India who challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a British-era law that criminalized consensual, adult, same-sex relationships and fostered a climate of fear and discrimination against the entire Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.

Now, petitioners and other members of the community say that although Section 377 was read down on September 6, 2018, the legal battle for their civil rights has only just begun.

According to them, the right to own and inherit property, nominate their same-sex partners on hospital and insurance forms, and receive legal recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage were some of the main demands. Other petitions pertaining to reservations for trans persons in government jobs and educational institutions, and seeking the formation of Transgender Welfare Boards, among other things, are in the works.

“When I get calls from young people all over India, they want marriage, insurance, civil and economic rights. The cap on the bottle has been removed. It will be a multi-pronged fight,” said Menaka Guruswamy, senior Supreme Court advocate and one of the lawyers in the main Section 377 case titled Navtej Johar versus Union of India.

Analysis | 377: What we won, what remains

The preparations have already begun. Lucknow-based petitioner Arif Jafar said he and his lawyers were finalizing a petition to ask for same-sex partners to be allowed to nominate each other in insurance and property documents. Hotelier Keshav Suri said he was working on a petition asking for spousal recognition and benefits — such as joint bank accounts.

“We may not immediately ask for marriage equality, because that is a longer battle but start on the lower-hanging fruit,” said the 34-year-old, who is married to a French man. “My marriage is recognised in France but not here, I want to change that,” he added, but cautioned that consultations and strategising had not happened yet.

Another petitioner, Suma, a trans woman, will soon petition the Karnataka administrative tribunal over reservations for a government position.

Bengaluru-based activist Akkai Padmashali said the past year had seen greater recognition of LGBT rights by bureaucrats, but raised issue with the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill 2019, which was recently passed by the Lok Sabha. “If it passes in its current form, I will have no choice but challenge it in the SC,” she said.

The bill, first moved by the government in 2015, has been mired in controversy with many activists complaining it falls short of safeguarding their rights.

The Human Rights law Network (HRLN) will soon file public interest litigation’s for several transgender petitioners asking states to take steps for framing social welfare schemes, including setting up Transgender Welfare Boards, providing identity cards, toilets, and free medical care, a lawyer at HRLN said.

In July, trans activist Grace Banu filed a public interest litigation in the Madras high court seeking reservation for trans persons in education and public employment. Currently, Tamil Nadu allows reservation in the Most Backward Classes category. The petition seeks separate reservation for those persons who identify as trans.

“After the Section 377 verdict, people expected things to change much faster than they have on the ground, with problems of lack of shelter homes/safe houses, sensitive police machinery, lawyers and judges still very much present. In fact, the real struggle begins after the positive court orders where the courts have reaffirmed their right to choice, and people struggle to find jobs, rented houses while facing constant emotional pressure from families to come back,” said Delhi-based lawyer Amritananda Chakravorty.

On September 6, the Delhi high court will hear a habeas corpus case involving a lesbian in her 30’s, who was allegedly separated from her partner by her family. The woman who is married and is reportedly a victim of domestic violence, has been staying at a city shelter home in the city.

Over the past 12 months, judgments in various high courts around the country expanded the scope of human rights for LGBT people. In October 2018, a trans man named Jeeva petitioned the Karnataka high court to change his name and gender on his school and college certificates. The judge directed the state’s education department to ensure that other trans persons are able to do the same without the court’s further intervention in this matter.

In April 2019, the Madurai bench of the Madras high court upheld the marriage between a man and a trans woman, who approached the court after registration authorities refused to recognize the union, saying that a trans woman couldn’t be considered a bride under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

This was the first judgment in India where the right to marry under Article 21 of the Constitution was affirmed for transgender persons, noted the Bengaluru-based Centre for Law and Policy Research.

There are other challenges, too. In October 2018, the SC dismissed a petition seeking civil rights for the LGBT community and refused to review the decision in July 2019 – saying the issue had already been dealt with in Navtej Johar vs Union of India.

Guruswamy said the next battle for LGBT rights may be a case in a district court that eventually gets bumped up to the apex court on appeal.

“Young people are already approaching district and high courts, police stations and registrars and demanding their rights. That is the way the next big case will come,” she added.

First Published: Sep 06, 2019 05:27 IST

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Treated Again For Cancer



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Treated Again For Cancer

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks with NPR in July.

Shuran Huang/NPR

Updated at 2:37 p.m. ET

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just completed three weeks of radiation treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the U.S. Supreme Court disclosed Friday.

The radiation therapy, conducted on an outpatient basis, began Aug. 5, shortly after a localized cancerous tumor was discovered on Ginsburg’s pancreas. The treatment included the insertion of a stent in Ginsburg’s bile duct, according to a statement issued by the court.

Doctors at Sloan Kettering said further tests showed no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. The treatment comes just months after Ginsburg was operated on for lung cancer last December. The 86-year-old justice has been treated for cancer in various forms over the past 20 years.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg today completed a three-week course of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City,” a statement from the Supreme Court read. “The focused radiation treatment began on August 5 and was administered on an outpatient basis to treat a tumor on her pancreas. The abnormality was first detected after a routine blood test in early July, and a biopsy performed on July 31 at Sloan Kettering confirmed a localized malignant tumor.

“As part of her treatment, a bile duct stent was placed. The Justice tolerated treatment well. She cancelled her annual summer visit to Santa Fe, but has otherwise maintained an active schedule. The tumor was treated definitively and there is no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body. Justice Ginsburg will continue to have periodic blood tests and scans. No further treatment is needed at this time.”

Shortly before her new round of treatment, Ginsburg sat for an interview with NPR, and her resilience was on full display.

“There was a senator, I think it was after my pancreatic cancer, who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months,” Ginsburg said. “That senator, whose name I have forgotten, is now himself dead, and I,” she added with a smile, “am very much alive.”

During Ginsburg’s three weeks of treatment in New York, she kept up a busy schedule in New York, often going out in the evening to the movies, the opera and the theater.

At the National Yiddish Theatre Folksbiene, where Fiddler on the Roof is playing, word spread during intermission that Ginsburg was there, and the audience stood for several minutes applauding the diminutive justice.

Also in the audience that night was Kate McKinnon, whose frequent portrayal of Ginsburg on NBC’s Saturday Night Live has become a marquee event on the show. Soon, the justice and her imitator were caught in photos clasping hands for the first time.

The justice also continued to work during her time in New York, according to court sources, and she has been spotted frequently window shopping, even going in to try on shoes and other items that have interested her.

Ginsburg has 11 public events planned for September and has not canceled any of them to date.

The Supreme Court is set to open a new term on the first Monday in October, and the justices routinely return to work in September.

President Trump has already named two conservative justices to the court, thus ensuring a five-justice conservative majority in most controversial cases.

Were Ginsburg to leave the court prior to the 2020 election or even the inauguration, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has made clear the GOP would move immediately to fill the vacancy. That would ensure a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the court, all but guaranteeing a conservative grip on the court for decades to come.

Brazil: Supreme court renewed expectation that Lula will have sentence overturned



Supreme court renewed expectation that Lula will have sentence overturned, says Zanin

Former President Lula’s lawyer, Cristiano Zanin Martins said the STF showed on Wednesday that it will observe due process and enforces the Constitution by barring the forced transfer of Lula to Sao Paulo; “This renews our expectation that former President Lula will be entitled to a fair, impartial and independent trial,” said Zanin.

247 – Lawyer Cristiano Zanin Martins stated that the ruling by the Supreme Court (STF) , by 10 votes to 1, which suspended the transfer of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from Curitiba to Sao Paulo signals that the Supreme Court should observe the I owe legal process when judging the suspicion of Sérgio Moro in the judgment against Lula. 

“Today, the Federal Supreme Court has shown that it will observe due process and enforce the Constitution and this renews our expectation that former President Lula will be entitled to a fair, impartial and independent trial,” the former lawyer said. president in a statement to reporters after the decision of the Supreme Court. 

“We hope that the Second Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court will be able to resume habeas corpus trial soon and, on merits, acknowledge the suspicion of former judge Sergio Moro. As a result, nullify the entire process and restore the full freedom of the former. President Lula, because this is the only possible result for someone who has not committed any offense, “said Cristiano Zanin. 

Read below, Reuters report on the STF decision:

Lula stays at PF in Curitiba at least until judgment of appeal by STF, decides Court

BRASILIA (Reuters) – Federal Supreme Court (STF) ministers overturned Wednesday afternoon court decision to transfer former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from the Federal Police Superintendence in Curitiba to a prison facility in São Paulo until the court judges another appeal calling for the petista’s freedom – held since April last year.  

The decision of the STF, taken by 10 votes to 1, met the request of the defense of the former president, contrary to the determination of Judge Carolina Moura Lebbos who heeded the request of the PF of Curitiba to transfer Lula to São Paulo.

Following Lebbos’s ruling, São Paulo Judge Paulo Eduardo de Almeida Sorci had ruled that Lula, who is under arrest for the conviction in the case of the Guarujá (SP) triplex, should serve the remainder of his sentence at the Tremembé prison in the interior of São Paulo. .

The impasse over Lula’s transfer had strong repercussions in Brasilia, moving at least two Powers. It involved the Supreme Court, who put the case at the last minute for consideration by the court plenary, and even delayed the completion of the vote on the highlights of the second round of Social Security reform in the House of Representatives.

First, the defense of the petista appealed to Supreme Minister Gilmar Mendes – who has been since the end of last semester with a vote cast on a request for freedom of the former president.

In the middle of the afternoon, Mendes issued an order passing to the Supreme President, Dias Toffoli, the competence to decide who would appreciate the request of the defense of the former president who sought one of three ways: the freedom of Lula until the trial of the suspicion of the. former Lava Jato judge and Justice Minister Sergio Moro; the suspension of the transfer; or at least the determination that the rest of the prison be served in the staff room, not in a regular prison.

Returning from the break of the Supreme Plenary session, Toffoli then announced that the petitioner’s defense request would be reported by Edson Fachin, who is the original rapporteur of Lula’s freedom appeal. The case was then considered by the entire plenary, and Fachin’s vow to keep the former president in detention in the Curitiba Federal District prevailed until the Second Supreme Panel decided to dismiss Moro’s suspicions.

Of the 11 ministers, only Marco Aurélio Mello was against the Supreme Court to analyze the request, claiming that the jurisdiction would be the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF-4).


The case involving Lula’s transfer also sparked reactions in Congress, including criticism from lawmakers who opposed the petista such as the PSDB, and in practice paralyzed the completion of the Social Security reform vote.

The biggest complaint was that Lula could not be transferred to a common prison by the prerogative of former president.

Mayor Rodrigo Maia (DEM-RJ), who even agreed with the criticism during the Social Security session, decided to hold back the vote of the highlights so that a group of deputies from various parties could meet with the president of Supreme to ask the court to adjudicate the case as soon as possible.

According to House Majority leader Aguinaldo Ribeiro (PP-PB), news about Lula’s transfer did not contaminate the vote on the Social Security reform in plenary. He admitted, however, that the delay in analyzing the second highlight of the proposal was due to Maia’s commitment to await the return of parliamentarians from the Supreme Court.

According to the first deputy mayor, Deputy Marcos Pereira (PRB-SP), more than 80 parliamentarians from 12 parties were part of the group that met with Toffoli.

“Everyone spoke in the name of democracy,” Pereira later reported.

Brazil: Lula’s defense celebrates the Supreme Court considers evidence of Vaza Jato valid



Lula’s defense celebrates the fact that the Supreme Court considers the evidence of Vaza Jato valid

The former president’s attorneys believe he has fallen apart, so the argument that the talks are invalid evidence because they were obtained illegally, reports journalist Monica Bergamo.

247 – “Lula’s defense celebrated the measures taken by the Justice Supreme Court (STF) ministers Luiz Fux and Alexandre de Moraes on Thursday (1st), regarding the dialogues of prosecutors of Operation Lava Jato. Fux determined that the material was preserved and Alexandre de Moraes went further: it ordered the suspension of investigations by the IRS on magistrates mentioned in the conversation, “says journalist Monica Bergamo, in her column .

“With that, supporters of the petista believe, the STF has recognized that there is strong evidence that the dialogues are true – to the point of justifying judicial action by its ministers, such as those adopted by Moraes. therefore the argument that conversations are invalid evidence because they are obtained illegally. “

Brazil: Enough of illegalities, says lawyer Kakay, about Dallagnol’s crimes



Enough of illegalities, says lawyer Kakay, about Dallagnol’s crimes

“It is something unbelievable, unfortunate, and that, coming out now, perplexes not only the national legal community, but the Brazilian society as a whole. There are no more possible misunderstandings. We need to react and believe that it is still possible to live in a Democratic Rule of Law, “says lawyer Antonio Carlos de Almeida Castro, Kakay, commenting on Lava Jato

(Photo: Alessandro Loyola / PSDB)

247 – Lawyer Antonio Carlos de Almeida Castro, the Kakay, strongly condemned the abuses committed by Deltan Dallagnol in the Lava Jato. “What is most serious, almost humiliating, is to see this gentleman, certainly along with his minions, daring to rise up against the wives of Ministers of the Supreme. Those Ministers who had the courage to grant decisions guaranteeing constitutional law were not only persecuted in collusion, in cronyism with part of the media, as well as their wives were investigated in an absolutely criminal and shameful manner, “he wrote. Below is the full article:


“How long, Catilina, will you abuse our patience… do you not see that your conspiracy has been dominated by what you know? “


For more than three years I have been running the country denouncing the numerous abuses of the Lava Jato task force and the head of that task force, then judge Sérgio Moro, today Minister of Justice. At the time, there was relatively little echo to what I was saying because the press was contaminated. But it was interesting to note that, even with the expressive unconditional support of the press for the operation, wherever I was, my criticism was somehow heard and made people think about the enormous excesses and abuses committed by those who had then. unanimity of the country. 

I always stressed, when I was criticizing, the great importance of Operation Lava Jato, an operation that uncovered a degree of corruption capillarity that neither of us could imagine, neither investigative journalism, nor the serious Federal Police, nor the worthy prosecutor, nor criminal law. However, as we worked from the first moment in Operation, we knew there were obvious excesses that were growing day by day: the excessive use of pre-trial detentions, the destruction of an important institute that is the award-winning, the misuse of the media to press the Judiciary, the spectacularization of the criminal process and the instrumentalization of part of the Federal Prosecutor and part of the Judiciary, commanded by this former judge who intended not the Supreme Court, but the Presidency of the Republic,

I recognize, however, that there is a huge difference between everything we knew to exist and the fact that we read and heard these excesses being crystallized, materialized. Today’s story from Folha de Sao Paulo and Intercept is shocking. It is the undisputed proof that this gentleman, who was the head of Operation Lava Jato, but who served another chief, the former judge in charge of the Operation, shamefully instrumentalized the power of the Public Prosecution Service. I imagine the reaction of almost all MP members, who are serious and working within constitutional limits, when faced with the fact that a prosecutor in the first instance explicitly coordinated an investigation against a minister of the Supreme Court,

What is most serious, almost humiliating, is to see this gentleman, certainly along with his minions, daring to rise up against the wives of Ministers of the Supreme. Those ministers who had the courage to grant decisions guaranteeing constitutional law were not only persecuted in collusion with the media, but their wives were investigated in an absolutely criminal and shameful manner.

More than ever, the Supreme Court ruling is appropriate when it has halted investigations that were used with the illegal, unconstitutional and abusive use of state agencies such as COAF, IRS, as it is now clear to those who do not. they wanted to see, without a doubt: prosecutors like the one now exposed used the COAF aggressively to pursue a personal persecution, a criminal pursuit based on the personal, political interest of a chief prosecutor in the task force. What is the task force? What’s your point? Why is there a “team” that is privileged in the press, in the internal financial division of the MP? Are some prosecutors anointed by a political project? 

It is important to point out that what previously denounced, without factual proof, just by an analysis of what he knew, is now absolutely evident and is a criminal project. This task force acted violently, indiscriminately, and even inhumanly against the very high minister of the High Court, Minister Navarro, as soon as it granted favorable decisions to two companies that were investigated in Operation Lava Jato. What was glimpsed at the time is that this rotten part of the prosecution, now wide open by these recordings, put pressure on the judiciary to stop judges from being independent, to act on the judiciary, to coordinate the judiciary, to prevent the Constitution was, with the peace of mind that should be applied to judicial proceedings.

Likewise, today it is unquestionably shown that, 10 days after the decision of the President of the Supreme Court, who reasonably gave freedom to a former minister of the previous government, an internal determination to make a debauchery began. Minister Toffoli and his wife. That is inadmissible. There is no organized society that can withstand such nonsense, such folly.

Today, I imagine, even within the MP, the judiciary, the lawyers, the organized civil society, it will be difficult to find who allows this derision to continue with the Federal Constitution.

Sometimes it is necessary that we have access to the crudity of an exposed dialogue to understand the seriousness of what has been done with the Brazilian Republic. We, who are critical of the excesses, which are petitioned with arrogance in these operations, complemented by press conferences, where, without a doubt, the national media is used, not only to expose and weaken the citizen who It is being investigated with a view to a future denunciation, but also to pressure the Judiciary Power so that all coercive measures are granted, as well as to make heroes these then demigods who coordinated the Judiciary and the National Public Prosecutor.

We know that this was the result of a political project. Suffice it to see that the real Head of the Task Force, the one who coordinated Mr. Deltan, former Judge Sergio Moro, is now the Minister of Government whom he helped to elect, who was, in fact, the main electoral corporal in decreeing the arrest. of the main opponent to this demented president who today is exposed to ridicule and exposing to ridicule Brazil in front of the international forums.

I dare to draw the attention of the people, the Brazilian citizen, to the following fact: if this political group of the Public Prosecution Service and the Judiciary has the boldness to do what is being unequivocally explained with ministers of the Supreme Court, with the President Federal Supreme Court, what they will not do, and what they have not done, and what they are not doing with the Brazilian citizen, in order to achieve their political goals, their hidden goals.

Just put a stop to it, everything has a limit! The Attorney General’s Office must speak independently and remind those who dare to violate the Federal Constitution obscurely that we are still in a Democratic Rule of Law.

Perhaps the events of recent days, where the President’s innumerable verbal insanities almost made us fail to take seriously such an important institute in democracy as the Presidency of the Republic, perhaps these excesses seem to cloud the national reality. . It’s hard to be lucid in the country, it’s hard to believe in institutions when you have the top job in Brazil held by someone who ostensibly despises the Constitution, common sense, reason, decorum, and dignity. 

But this cannot cause us to close our eyes to the need to preserve other institutions, such as the Federal Public Prosecutor, to whom we owe so much, such a serious institution composed certainly of 99% of Brazilian self-sacrifices who are dedicated to complying with the Constitution; and the judiciary, which cannot be hit by this obscene saga coordinated by judges of less intellectual value, and by prosecutors of the same suit. Let us expect a reaction to the extent of so many abuses.

Mr. Deltan’s politicization reaches such an extent that he calls for interference with the Attorney General and the Supreme Court to prevent a minister from the High Court, who was being quoted by the media as a nomination for minister. Supreme Court, were to be appointed. It’s a teratological thing! 

Only in the head of a lower court prosecutor who considered himself a prosecutor for the excessive power he gained from the national media could he dare to try to prevent a ministerial name from being taken into consideration to be examined as minister of the Supreme. Especially since there was absolutely nothing against this minister, only that, in the knowledge of the car wash operation underworld, in the task force underworld, the whistleblowers and coordinators of the award-winning delegations, and the prosecutors who coordinated what mattered to the women. and what they wanted to filter into the collaborations. This is very serious!

These prosecutors had sovereign power over the judiciary, over the prosecution, and even over Brazil. They encouraged award-winning accusations against certain people, forced the whistleblowers to say the same name, conditioned the whistleblowers to speak of cyclane or beltrane so that the whistleblower agreement could advance. 

What we were talking about 3 years ago of “hearing about” today is made clear in the revelations made by Intercept and the brave Brazilian journalists who have not bowed to the pressure of a press that is still subject to this group. This is very important! They were manipulating the names that would be submitted to the Federal Supreme Court at their pleasure. A denunciation that did not really exist; which, if it existed, was not homologated, but they already assumed the owners even of the indications to the Federal Supreme Court. 

It is unbelievable, unfortunate, and that, now coming to light, perplexes not only the national legal community, but the Brazilian society as a whole. No more mischief is possible. We need to react and believe that it is still possible to live in a democratic rule of law.

Antonio Carlos de Almeida Castro, Kakay

Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall



Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense to construct parts of a wall along the southwestern border that the government argues is necessary to protect national security.

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.
In a brief order, the court said that it was ruling in favor of the Trump administration before the litigation has played out because the government had made a “sufficient showing” that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case.
Three members of the liberal wing of the court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — wrote they would have blocked the funds for now. The fourth member, Justice Stephen Breyer, wrote separately to say that he would have allowed the government to use the funds to finalize the terms for contractors but block the funds from being used for the actual construction.
The Supreme Court’s order is a significant win for Trump, who is likely to use the construction of a wall as a major talking point on the campaign trail. The President celebrated the decision in a tweet Friday evening.
“The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed,” the President tweeted. “Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”
The decision overrules a lower court decision that had blocked the transfer of funds while appeals played out. A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the use of the funds earlier in the month, holding that the challengers were likely to prevail in their case because the use of the funds “violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress.”
The order comes after Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown in February when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.
The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund. The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as “reprogramming.” The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers.
Many lawmakers slammed the decision to move the money away from those national security priorities, threatening to strip the Pentagon of its ability to move money around, something the Defense Department has acknowledged would be detrimental.
Lawyers for the government had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and unblock the use of the funds while legal challenges proceed in the lower courts.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted in court papers that the projects needed to start because the funds at issue “will no longer remain available for obligation after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2019.” He said that the funds are necessary to permit the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing in areas the government has identified as “drug-smuggling corridors” where it has seized “thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine” in recent years.
“Respondents’ interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government’s efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border,” Francisco argued in the papers, regarding the challenge from environmental groups.
It is a loss for critics, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition that argued the administration had illegally transferred the funds after Congress denied requests for more money to construct the wall. The groups argued the wall — in areas in Arizona, California and New Mexico — would harm the environment.
The ACLU, representing the groups, argued in court papers against a stay of the lower court ruling fearful of the wall’s impact on border communities.
“Issuance of a stay that would permit Defendants to immediately spend this money is not consistent with Congress’s power over the purse or with the tacit assessment by Congress that the spending would not be in the public interest,”ACLU lawyers told the court.
The ACLU slammed the decision after it was released Friday evening.
“This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.
This is a breaking story and will be updated.