On the home straight of the case Goldman in Brazil it increases the daily visit of jurists, judges and magistrates to 'Brazil with Z.'
The lawyer from Goiás and president of the National Association of the Attorneys of State (Anape), Ronald Christian Alves Bicca, did not restrain himself in reading the posts and comments on the case Goldman and said that “it repudiates such hysterias against AntônioToffoli (general-Lawyer of the Union).”
“Be sure that (Toffoli) trusts of almost totality of the Attorneys of the States and of the public and private lawyers of Brazil,” Bicca said between comentárias of citizen Brazilian and American, in a pure democracy demonstration.
In interview, Bicca told to a blogueiro that “the Brazilian public legal practice was deeply offended and one felt disregarded with that note” in which the lawyer of the Brazilian family of Sean, Sérgio Tostes, flame Toffoli of “liar“ and “ignorant.”
The front of the Anape, Bicca, which also is an author of the compendium “Extraordinary Resource and Special Resource in Civil Matter in the STF and in the STJ,” runs a non-profit organization of more than 25 years. The statute of the Anape predicts “the defense of the general interests of the Attorneys of State, as well as the consolidation of the legal practice of State like essential institution to the Justice.”
Bicca was still further. He said that it if Goldman “did not wrap deep emotional questions on the juvenile, would be an energetic reaction for part of the representative entities of the Category.”
“At last, what right can anybody without knowledge of the meanders of the public legal practice affirm that the chief of the public legal practice of Brazil is lying and ignorant with? There were very unfortunate affirmations and they did not bring anything of positive to the discussion,” he said.
Read now the interview with Ronald Bicca in whom he alleges, between others thing, which Sean Goldman is a born American and which only his father can decide on the nationality of the boy in the future.
What is his reading on the Convention of Hague in case of Sean Goldman? Does prevail the exsurrender that determines the permanence in Brazil or not?
It be worth emphasizing that the ending of such a discussion can mean something of good or disastrous for Brazil, therefore let's not prune ideologizar the question, we have to treat it under the legal optics. In abridgement, which I am going to tell you is the next thing: the episode Sean is the same as another 40 similar cases wrapping juveniles under attendance and acting of the general-Legal practice of the Union. I do not say that the case is not special, since they all are special, but nothing of extra has the present case regarding any other that wraps children. Salience that the respect to the Hague is basic like paradigm for several cases that wrap Brazilian children who at present are abroad and who need the invocation of such a Convention to return to his legitimate homes. What it took place specifically with such a case the fact is that it fell in the media grace and the jurist cannot hear simply the appeals of the streets, has to be technical and to observe the right. If so it it was a Run of the Magistracy would not be necessary, everything would be decided in the hour in courts of exceptions in accordance with the popular appeal of the moment; it would feel sorry of someone was judged in the end of a world-wide championship where Brazil was losing the last departure, would be condemned the death in the certainty. Finally, we cannot treat problems with hysteria or sensasionalismo. We understand the situation of the family, but also there are others that are afflicted and depend on the correct position of the Brazilian government to have his children of turn. We can never forget which international relations are based on the reciprocity. I suggest what look for the families of others 40 children and ask of what they will find of being at the risk of never again seeing his children because of Brazil without respecting the Convention. On the affectionate question that so much is said, is this of a very big partiality, by chance has not the father of the child likewise feelings?
Does the man think that Brazil swindled the international treaty when it did not bring the boy back for his usual residence in 6 weeks?
It would have swindled if the Brazilian Government had intervened for what I do not bring this one back it was taking place. However, since in there is independent Judiciary the Country, which existed was simply a judicialização of the question, which staunched the agility of the normal proceeding that would be the correct thing in the case.
Does one speak in “Judicially independently,” but what means this expression when the Presidency of the Republic has to guarantee the action of Judicial his in cases that wrap international agreements?
It takes place that there is no Judicial one of the President of the Republic in accordance with our Constitution. Besides, the Biggest Letter says that the Judicial thing can know of any injury or threatens to straight. In this form, the President can do nothing if there is judicial order that obstructs the immediate return or if all the legal formalities for his return were still not carried out.
Some jurists told to me that in case of custody argument Brazil is still “very late,” in other words, the policewoman of a son gives the country nearly always for the mother. Does the man agree?
I believe that at present there is still this tendency, but not with that almost absolute certainty of some time behind. Today for what one looks is the good to be of the juvenile, who inclusive is heard in the process. It is heard but not signfica what is determinative, so the Magistrate will decide taking into account all the elements of the cars. In the case, if the Judge realizes that the company of the father is the best for the full development of the juvenile the policewoman is to him granted.
At last, is Sean so Brazilian American how much?
No, he is an American. All healthy arrived-good to Brazil; this is our secular tradition, but he was born in the United States and even being a Brazilian's son, it has not the capacity of opting for the new nationality. This option would have to be done for his legal person in charge and then confirmed by the least in his adulthood. And with the death of his mother, his father is his person in charge and because I know his father did not formulate such a lawsuit, it is obvious!
Yesterday the "Leaf" announced that the Federal Public prosecution service, in the Rio de Janeiro, through a report of the attorney Gustavo Magno de Albuquerque recommended Sean's return to the USA. What do you find on the decision?
I think that the Public prosecution service as supervisor of the law simply tried to give the correct interpretation of the standard. The Parquet is fair and it has no interest in the question. I am sure what if the standard was guaranteeing Sean's presence in Brazil, the Federal Public prosecution service would be the first one taking steps in the direction of guaranteeing such permanence, never, for the one who knows the profile of the MPF it would give an appearance in this sense.