- STF started a secret investigation about fake news, which is illegal because it’s not written on our constitution and make it the police and the punisher.
- people under investigation or jailed can’t access this secret investigation, even their lawyers can’t, so they don't know why they're being arrested for.
- STF is starting other investigations without being provoke, which is illegal under our constitution.
- they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
- they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
- they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
- they are trying people who should be tried in the first instance (the US equivalent of local courts), not in the supreme court.
- all orders sent to X (twitter) are secret, including the reason why this person or tweet must be down. which is, of course, illegal under our "marco legal da internet", a law approved years ago that was suppose to regulate internet.
> - STF started a secret investigation about fake news, which is illegal because it’s not written on our constitution and make it the police and the punisher.
As far as I know this is disputed and not black-and-white, there's been a back and forth between PGR, AGU and the court on the legality of the Supreme Court on investigating activities that directly affect members of the court (including technical employees employed by the court themselves). I'm not so into Brazilian politics since I left more than 10 years ago but got some context from chatting with some law practicing friends.
> - STF is starting other investigations without being provoke
I don't understand what this means.
> - they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
What person? Would like to research more about this case.
> - they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli and reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> - they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
> As far as I know this is disputed and not black-and-white, there's been a back and forth between PGR, AGU and the court on the legality of the Supreme Court on investigating activities that directly affect members of the court (including technical employees employed by the court themselves). I'm not so into Brazilian politics since I left more than 10 years ago but got some context from chatting with some law practicing friends.
The judiciary cannot act ex officio. It must be prompted by the public prosecutor or another party, such as defense attorneys.
> What person? Would like to research more about this case.
Filipe G Martins.
> Is this about the "O Antagonista" and "Crusoé" debacle from 2019?
Yes.
> Edit: just checked about the case in 2019 and if that is what you refer to, the request to take down the article was due to the article lying about Odebrecht mentioning Dias Toffoli.
Toffoli name was into Odebrecht spreadsheet.
> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Furthermore, who provoked the Supreme Court to censor this article? Or was it something ex officio? If the Supreme Court was provoked, why didn't they choose another rapporteur for the case? Allowing the case to be judged by the supposed "victim" violates some basic precepts of law.
> What newspaper was censored in this case? Also keen to check it out if given more information.
> The judiciary cannot act ex officio. It must be prompted by the public prosecutor or another party, such as defense attorneys.
From what I gather they used Article 43 from the court proceedings, that's the debatable part but they can act under that, no?
>> Reporting that his deposition was reported to the PGR and Lava Jato task force while both denied receiving any material about it. It sounds like a pretty clear case of defamation/libel.
> Funny. Evidence collected from Lava Jato is illegal. But Telegram messages collected by a hacker and whose authenticity was not confirmed, were normally used to free corrupt individuals from jail.
Nothing of what I said was evidence collected from Lava Jato, you are creating a strawman here.
What I said was: the reporting from "O Antagonista"/"Crusoé" mentioned that there was material being handed over by Odebrecht's lawyers to the Lava Jato task force and to the PGR about Toffoli, while both (the task force and PGR) denied there was ever anything handed over to them by Odebrecht naming "friend of a friend" as Toffoli. And that's libel.
> Filipe G Martins.
Yeah, reading about his imprisonment seems like the Moraes is using a similar heavy-handed illegal approach used by Moro/Delagnol during Lava Jato. He shouldn't have been arrested given the cause (the travel) didn't happen, even though he was part of the coup planning I can't ever condone this overstepping of the court, pretty stupid from Moraes part.
> From what I gather they used Article 43 from the court proceedings, that's the debatable part but they can act under that, no?
Kind of. The article 43 from the court proceedings, is clear when it says that it limits the power of investigation to the court's premises. The internet does not seem to me to be a court's premises.
> And that's libel.
I'm not sure. And it's hard to analise it since the evidence has either been destroyed or is under seal.
For the Martins case it seems like there was some actual paperwork issues from the US where he was incorrectly listed as having traveled; hard (for me) to tell whether that was stupidity or malice though.
- people under investigation or jailed can’t access this secret investigation, even their lawyers can’t, so they don't know why they're being arrested for.
- STF is starting other investigations without being provoke, which is illegal under our constitution.
- they send one person to prison because he was running from justice on USA, but this person lawyer prove that he never leave the country. Even the USA authorities say he didn’t entered the country.
- they censored a magazine that published a report of corruption inside de court.
- they censored some journal about people calling to end the secret investigation.
- they are trying people who should be tried in the first instance (the US equivalent of local courts), not in the supreme court.
- all orders sent to X (twitter) are secret, including the reason why this person or tweet must be down. which is, of course, illegal under our "marco legal da internet", a law approved years ago that was suppose to regulate internet.
The list can go on.