[ad_1]
I do not proselytize legal matters that involve me, regardless of whether I am the plaintiff or the plaintiff. However, when due process may be flawed, then my dear ones, it is indeed about breaking the silence.
I reproduce an extract from my column in Folha this Friday entitled “I was condemned by the wife of Dallagnol’s friend.” I’ll be right back.
*
(…)
Republic lawyer Deltan Dallagnol, former coordinator of Lava Jato in Curitiba, decided to sue me for moral damages. He chose a path that constitutes what I consider to be a trick. They ordered me to pay him R $ 35,000. (…) Sibele Lustosa, the law judge who convicted me, is the wife of lawyer Daniel Holzmann Coimbra, who works with Dallagnol in the Paraná Attorney General’s Office. They are partners and friends. It seems to me correct (…) that Sibele should have been under suspicion to judge the case.
(…)
In a democracy, the rules of the game must apply. Provision I of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “There is suspicion of the judge [quando] close friend or foe of any of the parties or their lawyers ”. Obviously, I am not the enemy of Judge Sibele, but she is the wife of the friend of the other party.
(…)
Return
It is not just the bond of friendship that bothers us in this case. There is another aspect that, as I understand it, attacks the foundations of good law.
Does Dallagnol believe that I went beyond what freedom of expression guarantees? Going to court is a right that also helps state prosecutors, including himself, who is always so talkative on social media.
It turns out that the doctor did not choose the path of Common Justice. He preferred to appeal to the 6th Special Civil Court of Curitiba, which is the former Special Court for Minor Amounts, where Judge Sibele dispatches.
In that case, I cannot appeal to the second instance: the Court of Justice. The double degree of Jurisdiction is given in a Court of Appeals, made up of judges of the first instance of Paraná. If they confirm the sentence, the only possibility is to appeal to the Supreme Court through an extraordinary appeal.
Whether the lawyer likes the things I wrote about his performance or not, dealing with an issue that concerns freedom of expression – a constitutional guarantee – and the possible transgression of its limits as a “small cause” makes fun, it seems to me, of the fundamental right.
When Minister Celso de Mello, of the Supreme Court, granted two precautionary measures suspending Dallagnol’s sentence by the National Council of the Public Ministry, he wrote in one of them:
“Any measure that implies the unacceptable prohibition of the regular exercise of the right to freedom of expression of the members of the” Parquet “results in collusion with the independent and autonomous performance guaranteed to the Public Ministry by the Constitution of 1988”.
And on the other:
“It is necessary to consider, for this very reason, that an independent Public Ministry aware of its historical mission and the institutional role that it must play, without complaints, within an open and democratic society, constitutes the certainty and guarantee of the intangibility of citizens’ rights , expanding the scope of fundamental freedoms and the prevalence of the supremacy of social interest “
What thing!
Dallagnol has police power, I don’t. Dallagnol belongs to the entity that has a monopoly on criminal action, I don’t. Dallagnol can get people investigated, I can’t. Dallagnol can report people, I can’t. Dallagnol can give interviews, he shouldn’t be able to, treating simple people investigated as convicted, I don’t …
This makes him a statesman. The administrative reform that comes here keeps the MPF intact, with all its privileges, because it is, it is considered, a “state race”.
Precisely because he concentrates all this power, I understand that he should only speak in the file, since his powers make him an authority. But he always acted without taking certain limits into account. And if the will of Celso de Mello triumphs, neither he nor his companions will be ashamed to demonize, if necessary, even the companions of the minister’s court.
On July 22, criticizing the decision of Dias Toffoli, president of the STF, he wrote on social media:
“Regardless of their motivation, which is not questioned, it has the effect of making it difficult to investigate powerful people against whom the evidence of crimes weighs.”
A prosecutor considers that he only exercises freedom of expression by stating that the decision of the president of the constitutional court benefits criminals. And you are sure that nothing will happen. Because that certainty accompanied him for six long years. Only the appeal of Lula’s defense before the CNMP had the trial postponed 42 times, until the statute of limitations arrived.
WITH JOURNALISM IT IS DIFFERENT
What he claims for himself is apparently not true for powerless journalists, at least not for a journalist who has the audacity, who perhaps wants to be seen as reckless, to criticize his performance.
As you can see, I was not lucky enough to find a Celso de Mello in the 6th Special Civil Court of Curitiba. Instead, I met the judge, who is the wife of his friend and partner.
BULLYING
I will appeal the decision as long as there is an appeal. Being a critic of Lava Jato has already cost me two jobs, with the scum that seeps out of a conversation with a source that, as it is public, notorious and well-known, did not bring anything suspicious, inappropriate, inconvenient or illegal. I dared, in a private conversation, to criticize a report about a vehicle -in this case, Veja- that later hosted my blog.
Now comes this action, with the features listed above. Yes, my blog and my radio show were part of the consortium of vehicles that published reports on Vaza Jato.
The operation also does not buy into the fact that, although I am not a journalist or a leftist militant, known for being a historical critic of the PT, I dared to put my finger on the wound: Lula was convicted without evidence. And my challenge remains unanswered for them to tell me on which page of Sergio Moro’s phrase they appear.
I made, like everyone else, my choices and I have my convictions, which I do not hide from anyone. My fundamental commitment, regardless of my elective affinities, is with the democratic and legal State, demanding that the formalities and rules of due process be complied with.
And, as it clears each day, these pillars are incompatible with Lava Jato. That is why I became a target.
I’m not going to give up. I’m not looking for the hero’s cradle. I am looking for a country that is worth the rules of the game.
The days are bleak, yeah As I say in my column in Folha, the “fumus boni juris” has become, here, toxic smoke “In which voluntarism, creative law and, often, corporatism and cronyism are mixed”.
The way is to face it.
I think this is one more concert that also seeks to intimidate the press. “Ah, Reinaldo, you are the only one sued by a Lava Jato lawyer.” It must be true. But I understand that “freedom is, and always will be, the freedom of those who do not agree with us.” Check it out! I quoted Roxa Luxemburg, communist! In this case, she disagreed with Lenin …
Obviously, nobody expected Dallagnol to sue a journalist who agrees with him, right?
The full column on Folha is here.
