343 karma · joined August 28, 2018
Things in Brazil are not simple as that. Bolsonaro, the latest right wing president, did more business with china and russia than expected. He was one of the first chief of state to fly to Moscou when Russia invade Ukraine, to reinsure brazil would be neutral on this war. (same position of Lula).
They have the right because you can appeal to the court. The problem is: it’s the Supreme Court, your appeal would be judged by the same judge.
> If the judge decision is illegal, that's the problem of the brazilian political and law system, and of the brazilian People.
True, but since the Supreme Court is also the only court where politicians can be judged, no one will do anything to stop them.
Is used by the military, hospitals and schools on remote places on the amazon rainforest.
My opinion: he agree with the decision knowing that it’s destroying our legal system. You have people on right and left saying this (the brave ones, unfortunately it’s just few people that have courage to criticize the Supreme Court).
That’s ok. Brazil always fail in have solid institutions since 1889. And he is ok with that.
That’s a retired minister of the Brazilian Supreme Court. With a quick search you can find many others experts saying the same.
The problem is that this is not true, the two companies are not part of the same economic group. They are two completely different organizations and even if they were, this type of decision is only made when there is fraud of the type: you owe the government and it is known that you are the owner of a company despite there being no legal connection (i.e., it is in the name of third parties).
It is an absurd decision that shows the world how unsafe it is to invest in Brazil.
Before Musk, others were doing the same, but on the other side of the political spectrum from where Musk is now. Nothing new.
Musk is shareholder of Starlink, but there are many others. This is kind of thing is only used in cause of fraud like a person who puts other company in name of a third party to avoid fines.
It also shows foreign investors that investing in Brazil is unsafe.
It is sad to see a democracy taking this path, and still applauding it, specially journalists.
It is sad to see a democracy taking this path, and still applauding it, specially journalists.
It is sad to see a democracy taking this path, and still applauding it.
https://www.poder360.com.br/poder-justica/moraes-bloqueia-co...
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.
> pretty stupid from Moraes part
one more thing about Moraes that looks like power abuse: https://www.estadao.com.br/politica/blog-do-fausto-macedo/de...
Hard to say because, you know, it's a secret thing. More info here: https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/noticias/inquerito-do-stf-incon...
> I don't understand what this means
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.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/painel/2024/08/moraes-...
https://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/ultimas-noticias/2024/0...
- 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.
That's not freedom of expression, that's a crime already predicted on several countries legislation.