MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Lula appeals to UN claiming he is victim of abuse of power by a judge and media in a corruption investigation
Lawyers for Brazil's former President Lula da Silva petitioned the United Nations on Thursday with allegations that his human rights had been violated in a corruption investigation. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhat is it with these petty dictators and crooks?
Jul 30th, 2016 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Appeal to the UN? Well Mr Lula, the UN rarely gets involved in and internal matter such as this. You are under investigation on charges of fraud, amongst many others, the UN will do nothing.
Crying to the UN not only won't help, but makes you look desperate...which are suppose you are.
If you didn't want to go to prison then you shouldn't have abused your power and your position. Crying about it now won't help.
No chance Lula, you cannot offer anyone a cut, so no one will help.
Jul 30th, 2016 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 LEPRecon “What is it with these petty dictators and crooks?” I'm somewhat puzzled as I don't know of any that have appealed to to the U.N. Human Rights Committee before. Perhaps you could enlighten me by providing the names of such persons.
Jul 30th, 2016 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 9-fingered toad's appeal to the UN is no more than an attempt to delay the process and to politicize it....it'll get him nowhere. The UN's recommendations, whatever they are, will be nothing but recommendations , and have no power over Brazil's Judiciary. An ex-President of the Supreme Court (STF) has confimed this, and the Brazilian Association of Magistrates has vehemently repudiated Lula's appeal ;
Jul 30th, 2016 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that he is finding it more and more difficult to hide the evidence that is surfacing, his strategy now is to attack how the process is being conducted.....
Lula must be crapping his pants, and I reckon that after Dilma is finally impeached, Judge Moro will indict the toad.
A victim... victim of abuse of power, victim of the media, victim of a bad hair day, victim of his coffee being a little cool, victim of this, victim of that, your momma's too thin and your daddy's too fat; I'd like to find your inner child and kick its little ass....
Jul 30th, 2016 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(Apologies to Don Henley)
4 Jack Bauer
Jul 30th, 2016 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The UN… have no power over Brazil's Judiciary.” Is absolutely correct, but, should the Committee agree that “Lula is a victim of abuse of power by a judge, with the complicity of prosecutors and the media,” Which would be specifically measured against international legal norms. That other international legal heavyweights agree also raises a definite 'red-flag' as to unfair-treatment. These appear to be the the specifics that could be relevant.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
@3 Terrence
Jul 31st, 2016 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't quite make myself clear. What I meant is that all these 'petty dictators and crooks' believe that they are above the law and will try anything to avoid facing justice.
Like Lula trying to appeal to the UN.
The UN has NO POWER to get involved in internal matters. And while you bring up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just what power does the UN have to interfere in the internal matters of a sovereign nation?
I mean have they interfered in the internal workings of the following countries that are KNOWN to have engaged in human rights abuses, sometimes on a massive scale? China, North Korea, Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia etc...
Have they? Have they done anything beyond making a few statements (and I mean a FEW statements)? The UN is all talk and no trousers.
So Lula can cry to them as much as he wants, but the most the UN would do (and it's unlikely that they'd actually get involved) is make a few impotent noises.
And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only be applied to countries that have signed up to it and even then some countries just completely ignore it, including the USA, when it suits them to do so.
Because at the end of the day its only a declaration of intent, not a treaty, so countries cannot be legally bound by it.
7 LEPRecon
Jul 31st, 2016 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What I meant is… ...Like Lula trying to appeal to the UN”
So from the above statement thou believe hat all the safeguards of international Human Rights, incorporated bindingly into the Brazilian Constitution should be ignored.
You are correct as to what application legally the UN has. But what is blazingly obvious is that there is no belief by his legal team, that justice has been done so far, in regard to him. So it appears, contrary to your assertion, that prima facia both Lula and his legal team believe in his innocence. That they intend to make him a cause célèbre.
8 Mr Hill
Jul 31st, 2016 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“that justice has been done so far, in regard to him. So it appears, contrary to your assertion, that prima facia both Lula and his legal team believe in his innocence. That they intend to make him a cause célèbre.”
That is not the only conclusion that can be drawn. Whether his team believes him innocent or guilty, it may be that they gave no confidence that court system, despite the Constitution, will behave impartially without political influence.
Either way, appealing to the UN is rather desperate grandstanding that is relying on lots of partial media publicity.
It is relying on the court of public opinion, rather than the court of Law.
9 Kanye
Jul 31st, 2016 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with your observations. I can see exactly why his lawyers are concerned, as it looks like the legal system seems to be acting in accord with what is considered popular opinion. Given that when a judge acted contrary to rule of law and in a very biased way against Lula, he was not estopped further. The fact that he has been arbitrarily detained twice by the police. Has been tried in the press, and his present accusation is based on 'she said/he said'. Basically, on the say so of a prison-snitch. Such evidence has been responsible for most miscarriages of justice.
“Either way, appealing to the UN is rather desperate…” Not really his lawyers are simply hedging their bets. There are many cases where public opinion has directly helped influence the correction of unfair treatment, such as the Dreyfus affair. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair
@8 Terence
Jul 31st, 2016 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So from the above statement thou believe hat all the safeguards of international Human Rights, incorporated bindingly into the Brazilian Constitution should be ignored.”
Where did I state that? All I said was that it was unlikely the UN would do anything and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights WASN'T legally binding...so the UN couldn't do anything LEGALLY against countries breaking it.
You were the one to bring in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...not me.
As I said it is NOT legally binding. That doesn't mean to say that other treaties and laws regarding human rights aren't legally binding.
So if Brazil has laws regarding human rights then it is up to Brazil to implement them. The UN will do NOTHING to interfere in the internal working of sovereign nations. They don't do anything beyond say a few words (and quite watered down words at that) against countries that are currently incarcerating their citizens without trial in slave labour camps, or murdering 'dissidents' to harvest their organs for transplant, or murdering politicians or citizens that oppose the government.
So if the UN isn't doing ANYTHING to stop that, why do you believe that Lula, who has been accused of corruption and is under investigation...in line with Brazils laws...will be given any consideration by the UN at all? Even IF everything he's stating is true?
11 LEPRecon
Aug 01st, 2016 - 03:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Where did I state that” I never claimed you stated anything. I wrote the following gibberish which was supposed to say “..that you believe that all the safeguards..”
“You were the one to bring in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...not me.” I think that's a given as Lula has ”…petitioned the…U.N. Human Rights Committee. The rest is just a repetition of matters that I have already agreed with. What you avoid is the main issue, by belabouring the non-intervention of the UN. Which the petition is just a means to an end, not an end in itself. The reason being already given previously.
@12 Terence
Aug 01st, 2016 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0What main issue? A corrupt politician trying anything and everything to try and get out of trouble?
I don't think I avoided that at all.
And as I stated the UN CANNOT interfere in the internal justice systems of sovereign nations. The most they can do is make an impotent statement condemning anything that they don't agree with...which is actually unlikely in this case, considering as I have already reiterated that they don't when ACTUAL human rights abuses take place.
Now you may be saying that Lula has the right to appeal to the UN, I never said that he didn't. My point is that petty corrupt politicians, like Lula, will try anything and everything to avoid facing justice because they truly believe that they are above the laws that apply to the 'ordinary' people.
Now is Lula guilty of the charges brought against him? Probably. Are the people bringing charges against him guilty of corruption too? Probably. Brazil's political institutions, like far too many in South America, have been rife with corruption for years.
Does that mean that because others have been corrupt that Brazil should now turn a blind eye? Or is it because there is a push for real change in Brazil to tackle corruption and for it to clean up its act?
However Lula is trying to get the 'court' of public opinion on his side by playing the 'victim'. It probably isn't going to work as many Brazilians are disillusioned with Dilma and Lula.
But crying to the UN, when quite frankly the UN should actually be concentrating on ACTUAL human rights abuses, is criminal IMO.
As for his lawyer I wouldn't've hired him. He didn't get Mike Tyson 'off' the charges against him, and he didn't prevent Julian Assange from losing his case against extradition to Sweden.
Doesn't sound like he's got a great track record in defending people.
13 LEPRecon
Aug 01st, 2016 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A corrupt politician...” Remains your opinion unless you have direct personal knowledge. But right away you've violated his right to presumption of innocence under the UN Human Rights, UK law, and the Brazilian Constitution. But don't let that intrusive legalese, interrupt your rush to judgement. Your must be another one who is never very far off when you call out people's issues, it's one of your many gifts.
“Lula is trying to get the 'court' of public opinion on his side by playing the 'victim'.” He probably is since the investigation that has been focussed on him for a number of years now, and seems somewhat devoid of any substance. So unless such claims are substantiated, legally he should be exonerated. But obviously his council believes he has not had a fair shake so far. Hence their action in serving notice that they're not going to allow him to be railroaded. He doesn't have one lawyer he has a team of them.
@6 THill
Aug 01st, 2016 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for posting several articles of the Human Declaration of Rights, but it isn't going to help Lula....The fact is that Lula has not been treated unfairly...in his desperation, he is just clutching at straws, trying to delay the inevitable.
@ 8 THill
“But what is blazingly obvious is that there is no belief by his legal team, that justice has been done so far, in regard to him.”
Well yes, it IS obvious that Lula and his legal team - made up of very expensive lawyers, being paid regally with money stolen from the people - are going to allege that they are being treated unfairly ....what the hell did you expect them to do ? they will carry on claiming he did nothing wrong, until they can't.....it's just a matter of time.
“ So it appears, contrary to your assertion, that prima facia both Lula and his legal team believe in his innocence.”
Very naive of you. Lula's lawyers know he is up to his eyeballs in shit, but they are going to try to defend him, regardless. They know they can't do much, but they will do what they can to make him look like a victim.
The problem with Brazil's politicians, who are now all (or most of the corrupt ones) up in arms against Judge Moro, is that they are not accustomed to the Brazilian legal system working, and working against them....
15 Jack Bauer
Aug 01st, 2016 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“What the hell did you expect them to do?” If that is what they thought, then they would be on a course to plea bargain. Since they haven't they're pretty sure they can answer any possible charges.
You're the same person who laid the identical accusation against Rousseff. So you don't have a very good track record “..she is untainted in a political realm smeared with excrement from top to bottom,” said Mario Sergio Conti, a columnist for the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo. “She didn’t steal, but a gang of thieves is judging her.” http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/world/americas/dilma-rousseff-targeted-in-brazil-by-lawmakers-facing-graft-cases-of-their-own.html
I am not sure the I am innocent because everybody else is doing it as well defence will work.
Aug 02nd, 2016 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lula must be held accountable for his own actions, regardless of the actions of others.
Aug 02nd, 2016 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0His lawyers would know that there will be no involvement from the UN.
This is a publicity ploy - playing the victim.
Perhaps Maduro, Correa, Vasquez, Morales, or some other Bolivarian leader will grant him asylum.
He would necessarily have to be self-funded.
@16 T.Hill
Aug 02nd, 2016 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If that is what they thought, then they would be on a course to plea bargain. Since they haven't they're pretty sure they can answer any possible charges”.
Well, allow me to disagree ; first, the above is only an OPINION. Now for mine. Perhaps the fact that I live here, have put up with 2 Lula mandates, and am tuned into small details most people abroad never see, permits me to have a more realistic take on this matter .
The evidence in possession of the Federal Police, obtained through various plea bargains - in which the same accusations have been made over and over again - by search warrants in Lula's SBC apartment and the PT's HQ in São Paulo, documents and testimony of Lula's family's involvement in the Atibaia country home and triplex flat in Guarujá, all support the growing perception that Lula is not the most honest man in Brazil, as he likes to incessantly claim. He is fully aware that he doesn't have a leg to stand on, however, he will continue alleging innocence even after the proof is made public and he's been condemned. Lula will never accept a plea bargain, even if the deal were to include a free pass out of jail....it's not in him, as what he really prizes, is his image - now falling apart - and he will always choose to go down fighting, to play the role of victim, than to admit he is what most people are already pretty sure of , or suspect . That is why, regardless of the odds against him, he will never accept a plea bargain.
As to Mario Sergio Conti, while I respect him as a journalist, the fact remains that for every journalist who says Dilma is 'untainted', there is at least another who says she should go, as her gross incompetence as an administrator, the fact that she allowed so much corruption to thrive right under her nose - and I'm not even saying she was directly involved - is more than sufficient reason to want to see her go.
19 Jack Bauer
Aug 02nd, 2016 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The fact that I live here, permits me to have a more realistic take on this matter ” and you're assuming I don't, and therefore do not have a practical interpretation. “The evidence in possession of the Federal Police”. Since you claim to know what it is, please enlighten us, or are you you just opining again? Remember, “A fact is a statement that can be proven true, while an opinion is a statement that cannot be proven true. Facts can be confirmed by checking books or reliable internet sources”
http://www.education.com/lesson-plan/can-you-prove-it-facts-and-opinions/
@20 THill
Aug 03rd, 2016 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't live here, so before you start with your bullsh*t , just stop. Don't try to twist the meaning of what I said. All other things being equal, the fact that someone lives in a country, is usually an indication that they have access to information that is not readily available those who don't (live there). I don't depend on the internet to keep up to date with the latest developments of the Lava-Jato. While the internet provides a ton of reliable information, it also produces a lot of crap. Which reminds me of your problem - you believe only what the left-wing nutcases publish, because they think like you do.
You choose to ignore the findings of the Federal Police and the team of Federal Prosecutors, and the evidence they are uncovering every day.....it's all based on sound investigation and made public through frequent interviews - but of course, I forget - YOU are better informed than they are.
What's funny is that the title of your link mentions “facts-and-opinions”, which implies that facts - or something already proven - and opinions, are two different things.... there is a clear distinction, something you can't see...too bad.
I'm curious - what do YOU call what someone thinks on a particular issue, based on strong indications, before proof is presented ? perhaps well-founded speculation ? or an 'opinion' ?
Maybe you should read your own link or consult a decent dictionary, and try to stop being an asshole. I know it's difficult for you, but give it a try.
21 Jack Bauer
Aug 03rd, 2016 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You don't live here….” How did you make it this far in life getting things wrong so often? But that is your modus operandi, insisting that what ever stupid notion passes through head must be factual. So you continue with your empty headed pretensions. Unable to provide a single solitary facet of information concerning your claims against Lula. So all you've indicated is your one big liar. Further, your claim “believe only what the left-wing …publish”. Lets see what my book-marks are on the subject. The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR, TOI Blogs, Fortune, Emerging Equity, The Guardian, Forbes, Critical Legal Thinking, Folah, The Guardian, The Intercept. So other than the last two the others are largely middle of the road US publications. I know I've also posted from sources that you consider biased, but I didn't book-mark them. Yet, I don't recall one instance of where you've been able show any inaccuracies. “Try to stop being an asshole.” I've never tried to emulate you.
@22
Aug 03rd, 2016 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pure, unadulterated bs...
As usual, not answering simple questions - such as the name of the Brazilian city in which you (claim to) live, and the one in my 3rd paragraph in # 21, promoting your fake intellectuality, demanding proof (when not required), thinking you know more than the Federal police /prosecutors, and generally, showing off what an idiot you are.
Grow up , you old fart...
23 Jack Bauer
Aug 03rd, 2016 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The name of the Brazilian city in which you (claim to) live in” Let put this clearest possible terms, its none of your fucking business. You can forget your fascist inclinations, you're a nobody, a retired shipping clerk who is no position to dictate to anyone else. The rest of your moronic unproven opinions are just a guess . Remember that opinions are like derrières everyones got one, so what. Unless you can demonstrate yours its meaningless bullshit.
Says Terry Hill of Sao Paulo...Brazil...
Aug 03rd, 2016 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...the master of quoting opinions......as fact....
25 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Aug 04th, 2016 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well that will piss on Tweedledum's cornflakes. Unfortunately, you're not in the loop and your rondex hasn't been updated in an eon. But as per usual you're unable to provide the proof of your contention.
Still not quite grasping English Terry...
Aug 04th, 2016 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't you mean...“proof of your assertion”....
....and WTF is a rondex...?
25 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Aug 04th, 2016 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Don't you mean...“proof of your assertion”..” Not necessarily they're both equally valid.
“proof
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement:
contention
2 an assertion, especially one maintained in argument:”
If you don't agree with these definitions you better inform Apple Computer they've got it wrong.
Rodex - rotating filing system
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=RpbnATmG3M8C&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=rondex+filing+system&source=bl&ots=fI7pRSRXjd&sig=jw1MZmt20tM8axPD4_9BKYvUYoo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK7vTV3afOAhWGxpAKHURlC7oQ6AEIJDAB#v=onepage&q=rondex%20filing%20system&f=false
You still have failed to produce any evidence of me “quoting opinions......as fact….”. But that has always been your shortcoming, producing proof.
So stick to with your 'nit-picking', although it has not been been successful so far.
Terry me ole son....
Aug 04th, 2016 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many legal opinions concerning International Law have you quoted...
Better still when have you not quoted legal opinions...
Do I really have to list ALL the instances...take me all day...
Rotadex..the company...I see no Rondex...
Another failure...
You still don't understand English...
There was no contention...as there was no argument with me...
It couldn't be...“Your contention”
As the point in contention was with Jack....
It could only be Your Assertion....
You remind me of a young student trying to play with big words, but not quite understanding the context they are used in....
Brownie points for finally mastering the use of You're though....;-))))
Mr. Voice;
Aug 04th, 2016 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just reading along on this tangent.
“Brownie points for finally mastering the use of You're though”
Nitpicking, but shouldn't there be a comma between “you're” and “though”?
Is that a complete sentence?
Those are just some thoughts.
This is no more relevant than your posts, however.
Please carry on, and enjoy your day.
It's the end of the sentence...
Aug 04th, 2016 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There would be a comma if it carried on...
...“Brownie points for finally mastering the use of You're, though it has taken you a while”...
The “though” is actually superfluous, but often used in vernacular...
“just some thoughts”....not related to Briton are you?....
29 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and immitator extraordinaire
Aug 04th, 2016 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How many legal opinions concerning International Law have you quoted…”
They've never been mine. They have either been part of a final judgement of the ICJ or a prior existing tribunal. Where such judgement didn't exist I have cited the writers who best exemplify the following:
“Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be:
d. . . . and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.11
Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
”I see no Rondex..“ You must have a comprehension problem as it is clearly shown on line 16, the fourth word in on the URL I cited.
”There was no contention...as there was no argument with me…“ Tell Apple they're wrong because this what they state, and I quote ”contention 2 an assertion”
So back to practicing your 'nit-picking' because your latest attempt came up as a great big zero.
32
Aug 04th, 2016 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and I quote
“Remember that opinions are like derrières everyone's got one”
No matter who they belong to...I might add...
The book must be mistaken...the company (Rotadex) have no listing for a Rondex whatsoever...
Can't believe everything you read....
btw...
You still don't get it...
”contention/kənˈtɛnʃ(ə)n/
noun
heated disagreement.
an assertion, especially one maintained in argument.“
The argument was with Jack....where you live was not a point of contention with me...
It cannot have been ”Your contention”
I know where you live, unless you are a liar on other forums...
Are you a liar Terry...?
@24 T.Hill
Aug 04th, 2016 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ...a retired shipping clerk who is no position to dictate to anyone else.”
Well, don't get too excited because I'm going to have to pop your little bubble - I was quite a bit higher up in the hierarchy, and never felt the need to 'dictate' anything to anyone.
@ 25 Voice
“Says Terry Hill of Sao Paulo...Brazil...”
Not sure, but I think Terry once let the cat out the bag and claimed to have lived for some time in the NE of Brazil.....which would make sense, as there he would be at home, amongst the millions of recipients of the 'Bolsa Família'....
Why d'you think he is so secretive about where he lives... what shameful thing is he hiding ?
But if he lives in SP, someday I might have the pleasure of meeting him.....hardly.
“...the master of quoting opinions......as fact....”
You can say that again !
34 Jack Bauer “Why d'you think he is so secretive about where he lives... what shameful thing is he hiding? ”
Aug 04th, 2016 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because chose to, its just my preference, why, it doesn't matter. I don't intrude in anybodies personal life, and I don't tolerate anyone intruding in mine. Certainly if I was able to personally impress this on you would be left no doubt.
“...the master of quoting opinions......as fact....” Funny if this were true, wheres the link? Any fool can open his mouth, but can he back it up? Not so far.
A few more millions in Geoffrey Robertson's account! From where did Lula get these millions - for making such payments to the string of advocates - in the first place?
Aug 05th, 2016 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...the master of quoting opinions......as fact....”
Aug 05th, 2016 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amendment, you're quite correct as I follow the requirements of logic by bearing the burden of proof, which means I'm able to defeat anything you present. Which if you're trying to claim legal decisions are not facts. They are when they enacted upon, as they become an objective entity. Ask any of the parties that were involved in litigation. Let someone who's sitting on death row appeal his sentence as not being factual, what an absurdity ha, ha.
@37 T.Hill
Aug 05th, 2016 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a load of rubbish ; Now you're just clutching at straws, and it obviously isn't helping what a lot of people on this site probably think of you.
Actually....I quite like Terry Hill...
Aug 05th, 2016 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trying yes, but interesting...
and he stands by his.......contentions...;-))))
38 Jack Bauer “What a load of rubbish” is that a fact? Oh no you're unable to produce factual support. So you are right persons that cannot meet their 'burden' produce nothing but rubbish.
Aug 05th, 2016 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@40 T.Hill
Aug 07th, 2016 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are mind-numbingly stupid....beyond help.
41 Jack Bauer In your proof less opinion. Here's some more facts for your intelligence deprived brain to try and digest.
Aug 07th, 2016 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 015 Jack Bauer “ They are not accustomed to the Brazilian legal system working“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
”The dossier outlined alleged violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and alleged abuses of power by judge Sergio Moro. ...
“Lula is bringing his case at the UN because he cannot get justice in Brazil under its inquisitorial system,” said high-profile British human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson.
”The same judge who is invading his privacy in this case can have him arrested at any moment and will then become his trial judge, deciding on his guilt or innocence without a jury.
This is a serious fault in the inquisitorial system as it operates in Brazil.”
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Brazil was a party to the Covenant which was ratified and came into force on 4 January 1999.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
“Judge Moro released recorded conversations of the former president with family members, his lawyer and other politicians, including Ms. Rousseff. The conversations with Ms. Rousseff have been invalidated as evidence by Brazil’s top court.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
33 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer, and imitator extraordinaire
The book must be mistaken...the company (Rotadex) have no listing for a Rondex“ Your sophistry is irrelevant as the only issue is the question you asked ”WTF is a rondex“ Which is answered thus: ”the Rondex, a rotating desktop file that holds up to 1,000 cards“
”You still don't get it…” Your problem is I do, so unless you show that the Apple product is defective its expertise wins over your attempted specious reasoning.
@42 T.Hill
Aug 07th, 2016 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still mind-numbingly stupid. And now, even more conceited than usual.
Forget the textbooks on Law and read about what's really going on.
Lula is just a semi-illiterate criminal, who took advantage of the ignorant portion of the population to become wealthy and screw the country.
What's your excuse going to be when he is arrested ?
43 Jack Bauer
Aug 07th, 2016 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Forget the textbooks on Law”, or obstacles like following the 'rule of law', throw out hundreds of years legal development. Let matters be decided on solely basis of biases of fascists like you.
Oops the bicha just coughed up another fur-ball.
“We must make a personal attack when there is no argumentative basis for our speech.” Cicero, Pro Flacco, c.58. B.C
A great many people mistake opinions for thoughts. -Herbert V. Prochnow
“You can not argue with stupid but you can certainly play with it.” Donna Lynn Hope
Careful now, don't let your brains go to your head!
Don't feel bad. A lot of people have no talent!
Let Lula be legally tried by Brazil.
Aug 07th, 2016 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0End of story.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!