Embattled former Brazilian president Lula da Silva on Friday released an open letter calling for “justice” as he affirmed he is the victim of “unjustified acts of violence.”“Justice, it is only justice what I expect for me and everybody within the framework of in-force democratic rule of law,” Lula said a day after he was sworn-in as the chief of staff of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and a judge in that country issued an injunction blocking his appointment. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLula 2018!
Mar 19th, 2016 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m74zBFa7Qbw
Referencing Watergate lol.
Mar 19th, 2016 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My heart is red!
Mar 19th, 2016 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2iOhb__6hI
Get Out USA!
3 Brassiere
Mar 19th, 2016 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lula, the PT, and Dilma, all implicated in corruption.
It is the majority of Brazilian people that want them tried in a court of law.
It has nothing to do with the US.
The so-called Socialists have stolen from the people - and they know it!
The concrete proofs against Lula + Dilma which were revealed so far, are just the tip of an iceberg. Wait - just for a few more weeks - till ALL the concrete evidence surfaces for everyone to analyse rationally.
Mar 19th, 2016 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ignorantia juris non excusat, (Latin for ignorance of the law excuses not), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
Mar 20th, 2016 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See also;
”“It is the duty of every citizen /resident of any country , nationals as well as expatriates to know the basics of the governing laws of the country one resides.
Ignorance of the law or unawareness cannot be pleaded to escape liability.”
― Henrietta Newton Martin
This I'm just a poor, uneducated working-class Joe schtick doesn't really work for me. Lula is the ex-President of Brazil, a nation of over 200 million people.
And he was unable to find anyone to give him legal advice, ever?
hmmm......
something stinks, methinks...
The Brazilian Economic Crisis began when the Minimum Wages increased instead of lowering of the Cost of Living.
Mar 20th, 2016 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Increasing the Minimum Wages was more easy [immediate but superficial & illusive] than the Lowering of the Cost of Living [long-term, more realistic and effective].
Despite the above mentioned facts;
#1º: The wages - mainly of the poor - were increased.
#2º: Credit-Facilities were increased, made easier and were extended [making Bankers happier!]
#3º: Excessive number of jobs were created artificially, needlessly & indiscriminately; mainly in the Public-Setcor.
The Immediate Results were:
A:- Creation of an “illusion of boom” and
B:- Publicising low % of Unemployment.
Both the tactics worked - SUCCESSFULLY - as an EXCELLENT Political Strategy to gain Popularity & the Sympathy [VOTES] of the MASSES [mainly poor, mostly illiterate, brainwashed, etc.].
The Policy however failed miserably as an Economic & Commercial Strategy because gradually; EVERYTHING became more expensive due to the higher labour-costs, higher interest-rates and higher taxation.
Even those who were initially pleased to receive higher salaries; eventually had to spend more due to the still Higher Cost of Living. They eventually realized that they continued to remain poor, ending-up with increased debts - instead of increased bank-balance!
Unfortunately - ignoring the scandals & corruption - they still remain brainwashed till today!
@LoBoMAU: You are talking of proofs against Lula. So I would like to know, where is the proof of Lula´s ownership of the famous luxury condo in Guarujá? The reports we have seen here on Mercopress say: The official documents indicate that the appartment belongs to a construction company. And: Conserino told reporters that two dozen witnesses said Lula was the owner of the condo, using their testimony as proof that he profited from real estate projects financed by a state bankers' cooperative. But the testimony by witnesses is no convincing argument in this case for a simple reason: Ownership of real estate means the right to dispose, either selling or lending against mortgage.
Mar 21st, 2016 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Both actions require . . .
. . . either official documents establishing ownership of the property
. . . or an arangement involving a trustee acting as a dummy for the „true“ owner based on the formal ownership of the trustee.
Evidently, the prosecutors so far neither produced the proof of Lula´s personal ownership (otherwise they would have presentend it) nor did they produce any indications of an indirect ownership involving a trustee acting as a substitute for Lula. Without a proof of Lula´s ownership, there is simply no case for the prosecution, as is in cases of murder without clear proofs on the corpse of the victim.
“I didn’t have access to great formal education, ...... said the poor little fella, playing the victim to his ignorant followers.....
Mar 23rd, 2016 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well that is only partially correct....if the LulaRat had chosen to study, he could have - but he didn't. Even when he came into money (stealing and being paid off while a Union leader (he could have returned to school - but he didn't. A couple of his less radical comrades did choose to return to their studies and graduated from Law schools....not the best, but at least they tried. Even after becoming President, the LulaRat openly questioned to value of studying , and to prove his point he said look at me, I never studied and look where that got me
Little does the LulaRat realize, but his story hasn't ended yet.......he'll soon see where it'll get him....PRISON.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!