Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra  (Read 3184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JuliRosi

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 622
Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« on: April 07, 2010, 03:00:06 PM »
I hope that you can understand. I made my better.


Magazine land – What can  STF can do regards Sean Goldman's case?

Minister Aurélio Mello -  What a life, the situation of this boy. I still have here, in hands, two habeas corpus so that the boy is heard.

There, the problem appears: These habeas corpus would not be damaged because the boy already   have gone away? Strictly speaking, no.

Minister, in practice, what can the STF still make in relation to the case?

Look, there was, in fact, a precipitation of facts.

What do you mean?

He was for being handed over to the American consulate, according to an order of the Federal Regional Court, and I made a “liminar” so that this delivery was suspended. However, the General Lawyering of the Union  and also David had handled a mandamus and the minister president of the STF, Gilmar Mendes, accepted. Something inexplicable under the angle of the law organization.

Thats life.

What  do these two habeas corpus mean?

The habeas corpus had been handled because the freedom of movement of the boy was in risk. He could not have been handed over  as if he was a thing. The purpose of these habeas corpus is exactly to hear the boy. Our legislation and the evoked convention go in the direction to hear him, if he has minimum capacity to express his feeling and what he desires. The context is negative. There was  the order of the Federal court and the boy was handed over carelessly.

But he  could  be heard by Brazilian justice?

For the Brazilian, no more because he is not here. To reach the act, we have the cooperation between both judiciaries that  it makes through requesting letter, if the majority of the Supreme    concludes that he needs to be heard.

What this grandmother can do?

Look, in practice, the controversy goes to develop itself in another jurisdiction that is not the Brazilian, but the American. In the case of Brazil, our last decision was negative, was for delivering. It was not what I defended. My point of view is in my “liminar” that was annulled.






JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2010, 03:07:05 PM »
I hope that you can understand. I made my better.


Magazine land – What can  STF can do regards Sean Goldman's case?

Minister Aurélio Mello -  What a life, the situation of this boy. I still have here, in hands, two habeas corpus so that the boy is heard.

There, the problem appears: These habeas corpus would not be damaged because the boy already   have gone away? Strictly speaking, no.

Minister, in practice, what can the STF still make in relation to the case?

Look, there was, in fact, a precipitation of facts.

What do you mean?

He was for being handed over to the American consulate, according to an order of the Federal Regional Court, and I made a “liminar” so that this delivery was suspended. However, the General Lawyering of the Union  and also David had handled a mandamus and the minister president of the STF, Gilmar Mendes, accepted. Something inexplicable under the angle of the law organization.

Thats life.

What  do these two habeas corpus mean?

The habeas corpus had been handled because the freedom of movement of the boy was in risk. He could not have been handed over  as if he was a thing. The purpose of these habeas corpus is exactly to hear the boy. Our legislation and the evoked convention go in the direction to hear him, if he has minimum capacity to express his feeling and what he desires. The context is negative. There was  the order of the Federal court and the boy was handed over carelessly.

But he  could  be heard by Brazilian justice?

For the Brazilian, no more because he is not here. To reach the act, we have the cooperation between both judiciaries that  it makes through requesting letter, if the majority of the Supreme    concludes that he needs to be heard.

What this grandmother can do?

Look, in practice, the controversy goes to develop itself in another jurisdiction that is not the Brazilian, but the American. In the case of Brazil, our last decision was negative, was for delivering. It was not what I defended. My point of view is in my “liminar” that was annulled.







And what - Silvana's not treating Sean like a piece of property?! :madgo At least Aurelio admitted that the case is now out of Brazil's hands

Offline tenorplus

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 689
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2010, 03:12:31 PM »
A poor legal call on his part - but as you indicate, he at least admits that this is no longer a matter for Brazil! Thankfully, the President of the Supreme Court saw things truthfully and this justice must now admit his own failings within the actions he sought to take. Hopefully this justice will no make things all the more difficult with other LBP's dealing with the Brazilian courts!!!!

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2010, 03:32:55 PM »
Yeah, "inexplicable".. that's what a Brazilian Supreme Court Jusice calls sending a kidnapped child home to his only living parent after the case stagnated in the "Brazilian Justice" system for 5 years. 

“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2010, 03:42:52 PM »
Yeah, "inexplicable".. that's what a Brazilian Supreme Court Jusice calls sending a kidnapped child home to his only living parent after the case stagnated in the "Brazilian Justice" system for 5 years. 


God, is he that dumb? Laws are based on LOGIC. This is all so bass ackwards!!

Offline :: ultranol ::

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • http://www.twitter.com/ultranol
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2010, 04:09:55 PM »
Here's a delicious response to this interview, posted by a man named "Edison Filho" in a comment on Luis Nassif's blog.

Marco Aurelio did not criticize only Gilmar Mendes, but in fact demoralized the whole Brazilian judicial system, first by conceding that appeal stating that the boy was not heard and, now, by saying that the appeal was brought down in such a hurry and distress. Regrettably, his vanity trumped the Constitution.

At least three psychologists issued their reports AFTER talking to the boy. It seems that these experts' opinions did not help the grandmother's cause that much, and she appealed to the Supreme Court to bring down decisions which judges produced based on these findings. Still, Marco Aurelio yet again concedes an appeal to assure the boy's right to express his opinion. There are two options: either there is a new event after five years of legal discussion that was not considered by lower courts (abuse, unlawfulness, etc), or the psychologists lied and should be stripped down of their degrees and prosecuted, as well as the federal judges and the witnesses designated by both parties, because neither of them talked to Sean. I am ruling out a third hypothesis, of Marco Aurelio saying such things because he didn't read the contents of the lawsuit; I don't believe he would go this low.

Well, if there is a new event, or if there is a taint on any of the documents, Marco Aurelio should be the one to point out in his appeal. It would be a complete twist of the case. But he didn't. He restrained himself to concede to one of the parties a right that they had already used more than once. We could call this ample defense or intentional delaying, but the fact of the matter is that the appeal was so fragile that Mendes must have been delighted when nullifying it, moreover having by his side the Constitution, international jurisprudence and decisions produced by lower courts.

As it was already stated here, Marco Aurelio failed. Despite being a sober jurist, he is also a presumptuous man, that cannot stand not being news. In this manner, he ended up causing even more damage to his biography and to the society, by making his unfortunate opinion public in which he limited himself to criticize the swiftness employed to cancel his appeal, instead of discussing the judicial matter. In a nutshell, a sad bonfire of vanities, that does not add anything to Sean's case.

But there will always be the ones which would like to see the boy giving a speech in the platform of the Supreme Court, choosing where to live, with whom to stay, and so on. Maybe that was the intention of Marco Aurelio. I sincerely hope not. If his objective was to reach the boundaries of the absurd by making a 9-year-old child choose his dad, we'd better tearing the Constitution to pieces at once and get Ratinho* to be the President of the Supreme Court.


* Ratinho is a well-known Brazilian TV show host - kinda like an uneducated Jerry Springer with the mannerisms of Glenn Beck.

Offline Grace

  • Global Moderator
  • Veteran Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1981
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2010, 04:18:08 PM »
Thanks ultranol, that was very interesting. Good to see there are several voices of wisdom in Brazil.

JonathanR

  • Guest
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2010, 04:26:20 PM »
Here's a delicious response to this interview, posted by a man named "Edison Filho" in a comment on Luis Nassif's blog.

Marco Aurelio did not criticize only Gilmar Mendes, but in fact demoralized the whole Brazilian judicial system, first by conceding that appeal stating that the boy was not heard and, now, by saying that the appeal was brought down in such a hurry and distress. Regrettably, his vanity trumped the Constitution.

At least three psychologists issued their reports AFTER talking to the boy. It seems that these experts' opinions did not help the grandmother's cause that much, and she appealed to the Supreme Court to bring down decisions which judges produced based on these findings. Still, Marco Aurelio yet again concedes an appeal to assure the boy's right to express his opinion. There are two options: either there is a new event after five years of legal discussion that was not considered by lower courts (abuse, unlawfulness, etc), or the psychologists lied and should be stripped down of their degrees and prosecuted, as well as the federal judges and the witnesses designated by both parties, because neither of them talked to Sean. I am ruling out a third hypothesis, of Marco Aurelio saying such things because he didn't read the contents of the lawsuit; I don't believe he would go this low.

Well, if there is a new event, or if there is a taint on any of the documents, Marco Aurelio should be the one to point out in his appeal. It would be a complete twist of the case. But he didn't. He restrained himself to concede to one of the parties a right that they had already used more than once. We could call this ample defense or intentional delaying, but the fact of the matter is that the appeal was so fragile that Mendes must have been delighted when nullifying it, moreover having by his side the Constitution, international jurisprudence and decisions produced by lower courts.

As it was already stated here, Marco Aurelio failed. Despite being a sober jurist, he is also a presumptuous man, that cannot stand not being news. In this manner, he ended up causing even more damage to his biography and to the society, by making his unfortunate opinion public in which he limited himself to criticize the swiftness employed to cancel his appeal, instead of discussing the judicial matter. In a nutshell, a sad bonfire of vanities, that does not add anything to Sean's case.

But there will always be the ones which would like to see the boy giving a speech in the platform of the Supreme Court, choosing where to live, with whom to stay, and so on. Maybe that was the intention of Marco Aurelio. I sincerely hope not. If his objective was to reach the boundaries of the absurd by making a 9-year-old child choose his dad, we'd better tearing the Constitution to pieces at once and get Ratinho* to be the President of the Supreme Court.


* Ratinho is a well-known Brazilian TV show host - kinda like an uneducated Jerry Springer with the mannerisms of Glenn Beck.

 :yeahthat :biggrin  :cool: :p

Offline SageDad

  • Father of Sage
  • Left Behind Parent
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • HagueAbductions.com
Re: Marco Aurelio's interview on Terra
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2010, 10:23:31 PM »
...

Marco Aurelio failed. Despite being a sober jurist, he is also a presumptuous man, that cannot stand not being news. In this manner, he ended up causing even more damage to his biography and to the society, by making his unfortunate opinion public in which he limited himself to criticize the swiftness employed to cancel his appeal, instead of discussing the judicial matter.

...
* Ratinho is a well-known Brazilian TV show host - kinda like an uneducated Jerry Springer with the mannerisms of Glenn Beck.

Yes, Brazil may remember Marco for any number of things, but the world will remember him as the Brazilian Supreme Court Justice that tried to block Sean Goldman from coming home to his father just before Christmas.   ...tried and failed.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 10:25:48 PM by carlos »
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi