[ad_1]
There are things that only happen in the environment of lava jets. Let’s remember.
In my column this Friday, in Folha, I say that I was convicted by a judge who is the wife of a friend of Deltan Dallagnol, former coordinator of Lava Jato, who sued me. I also wrote a post about it on this blog. Folha this Saturday brings a story. I will review the case shortly.
In my texts I affirm that, according to the rules of the game, I understand that the judge, in this case Sibele Lustosa, should have been a suspect. As well. Who reacted to the text? Your Honor? Not! She preferred not to speak to the Folha report. Who decided to come to the defense of the magistrate, and of himself, of course? – was Dallagnol.
Isn’t it awesome? It is part of the process. He is the plaintiff. You are at an advantage because you have a sentence, not a final one, in your favor. But, of course, you are exempt enough to be judgmental about it. In fact, you always put yourself in the position of judge of the judges, right? Including the Supreme.
The lawyer sent a note to the newspaper, which I will reproduce, in full, in this post. Rather, a summary of the case, as I wrote in the newspaper column. Let’s go there.
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 a trick, I will get there. They ordered me to pay him R $ 35,000.
Sibele Lustosa, the judge who convicted me, is the wife of Prosecutor Daniel Holzmann Coimbra, who works with Dallagnol in the Public Ministry of Paraná. They are partners and friends. It seems certain to me -why am I submitting the case to the scrutiny of readers, judges of Paraná, the Supreme Court and the National Council of Justice- that Sibele should have renounced 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.
There are peculiarities in the process. Dallagnol appealed to the Sixth Specialized Civil Court of Curitiba, which is the former Small Claims Court. Obviously, we are in the field of freedom of expression and the possible transgression of its limits. A constitutional right cannot, by definition, be considered a “minor cause”.
It turns out that the path chosen by the prosecutor found the court that seemed most appropriate, right? More: because it is a supposed “small cause”, the possibility of appealing the sentence is limited to an Appeals Chamber, which acts as a Court of Justice, obstructing the passage of the STJ.
and I do not succeed in this area, there is an extraordinary appeal before the STF, situation, then, in which either the constitutional court of the country evaluates a case derived from the former Small Amount Court, or the petitioner -in this case, this notary public- he is condemned to carry out the decision made by the wife of the friend of the winning party.
I do not rule out that Judge Sibele may be convinced that I am guilty and that her husband’s partner and friend are right in their demand. But the Code of Civil Procedure protects plaintiffs, plaintiffs and judges from this perplexing situation. Ah, yes: the person who wrote a sentence that is related to a constitutional basis was a lay judge, a lawyer who provides services to the Justice for less complex cases. But the decision must be supported by a judge of law and, in this case, it was Dr. Sibele.
(…)
MAKE IT CLEAR
The judge wrote the sentence. But it does not condemn anyone. The responsibility lies with the judge in the case: Sibele Lustosa. And she is married to Daniel Holzmann Coimbra, Dallagnol’s co-worker and friend.
To the Folha report, the former Lava Jato coordinator sent a note, which was sent to the excellent and always diligent Alexandre Fidalgo, my lawyer, who forwarded it to me. Follow in its entirety. I comment below.
Prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol regrets the journalist’s unjust attacks against the judge and the Judiciary. The journalist’s suspicious speculations have no basis in reality or in the law. The prosecutor reports that he has no personal or intimate relationship with the Republic prosecutor Daniel Holzmann and does not recall having any contact with his wife. The prosecutor also reports that he learned in the press, on this date, that the judge would be the wife of his professional colleague ”.
THEN WE GO THERE
See the image at the top, taken from the website of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Paraná. So Dallagnol works with the lawyer Daniel Holzmann Coimbra, who is the coordinator of the Anti-Corruption Group, but of course, the friends are not …
More than that. This group is subdivided into three other subgroups. The “Dois”, called “Combat à Corrupção” in itself, has five members: among them are Coimbra and Dallagnol. But of course, friends are not …
Do you remember when the Telegram dialogues between Dallagnol and Sergio Moro were made public? The prosecutor never said that the conversations revealed by The Intercept Brasil were false. It simply stated that there was no way to prove its authenticity.
Now he uses the same indirect language: he does not deny that he already had contact with the judge who convicted me. I prefer to say that “I don’t remember having (sic) any contact”. Ah good. Sometimes, right? We can say that we forget a certain event.
As for the claim that the suspicion has no basis in the law, well, let the law speak again:
Provision I of Article 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “There is suspicion of the judge [quando] close friend or foe of either party or their attorneys “.
AGGRESSIONS?
Dallagnol says that I attacked the judge and the judge. Curse! To point out an objective situation, in fact, is not to attack anyone: neither the judge nor the Judiciary. We are facing a clumsy effort by the prosecution to provoke a corporate reaction from the judges of Paraná.
Do you want examples of aggression against the Judiciary? Well, no!
“With all due respect to the STF and its president, it is a case-by-case solution that is legally wrong and that, regardless of its motivation, which is not questioned, has the effect of making it difficult to investigate powerful people against whom the evidence weighs. of crimes. “
Deltan Dallagnol on Twitter on a decision by Dias Toffoli
“Naturally, the warnings were back in effect. Now, Toffoli cancels his old boss’s warnings.”
Deltan Dallagnol on the decision of Dias Toffoli that he considered favorable to José Dirceu
I did not mention the subordinate motivation of Judge Sibele. I have just revealed the existence of links which, as I understand it, should have led to her declaring herself a suspect. See above how Dallagnol reacts when she does not agree with a Supreme Minister’s decision.
In your case, of course, it would simply be “freedom of speech.”
It attacks the Judicial Power, who at the head of a working group orders the investigation of the Supreme Court ministers and their families in violation of the law.
The Judiciary is attacked by those who use social networks to demonize the Supreme Court.
It attacks the Judicial Power, which, belonging to the Public Ministry, decides to excite the fury of social networks to force the ministers of the Constitutional Court to make decisions that they like.
Deltan Dallagnol’s note recalls the reaction of attorney Frederick Wassef when the police arrested Fabrício Queiroz on his website: “I did not speak with Queiroz, I do not have Queiroz’s phone number, I never exchanged messages with Queiroz.”
Okay then.
