February 7, 2019

Ler em português

The 13th Federal Court of Curitiba will go down in history of Brazilian law as the ” magical realism”, or as a sloppy attempt when the acussed is Lula. To condemn ex- president Lula, judge Gabriela Hardt tried to resort to Latin American literary school, as her sentence is full of amazing elements, completely intuitive and lacking in explanation.

The judge who is remote controlled by Sergio Moro, presented a sentence full of juridical errors which, also, defies any logic. For this reason, and for the democratic rule of law, it is important to list all of Hardt’s inconsistencies.

Where is the evidence?
Once again Lula was condemned without any supporting evidence. The crimes atributted to ex- president Lula have no explanation and are not within the legal framework of Brazilian law. The sentence presented by Hardt was based on testimonies given by informers who were duly compensated. Talking about informers…

The cloning of informers
It seems that Hardt, as did Moro, wants to inaugurate the Democratic State of Accusation, where the prosecution of the acussed is worth more than technical opinions, documents and real facts. So much so that she tried to multiplicate the informers thinking that her outrageous thesis would pass unnoticed. To contest the defence arguments, the judge refers to: ” The testimony presented by co- defendant Leo Pinheiro and José Adelmário (Pinheiro)” as if they were two different people. Observing that, Hardt made sure to delete his last name ‘Pinheiro’ when she refered to the name José Adelmário.

From ‘vague concepts’ to ‘non existent
If Hardt is remote controlled by Sergio Moro in his juridical inventions, she has somehow, managed to surmount her mentor. While the ex- judge Moro created the term ‘indeterminate craft act’s’, Hardt created the term ‘ non- existent craft act’s’. Three times during her sentencing, the judge admits that there was no ex- officio action from Lula connected to any bribe. Therefore, there is no possibility of a crime of PASSIVE CORRUPTION having been done and atributted to ex- president Lula.

The sentence and the alleged right
The ‘Hardtniana’ magic depends on your ability to believe in what is not real. So much so that during her sentencing, Hardt used the word ‘supposed’ 24 times. According to Hardt the supposed bribe from OAS to Lula would have happened in 2014, when the ex- president was no longer in office and, therefore, could not have commited the crime of PASSIVE CORRUPTION as passive corruption is a term used for a crime commited while in office or when working as a civil servant.

A criminal’s word worth more than that of an expert
The judge convicted Lula for accepting R$ 700 thousands in bribes from Odebrecht, even though the defence proved, by an expert report, that the amount of money cashed, was cashed for the benefit of the president of the administrative council of Odebrecht. The technical document, elaborated by an auditor and expert with legal responsibility over its content was made based on the company’s countability system, this was dismissed by Hardt who preferred the word of a criminal. For the judge, the word of a criminal seeking compensation has more probative value than that of a technical demonstration.

Lula does not own the farmhouse and did not request renovations.
By the sound of it, the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba works in parallel, as a Land Registry Office by default, as this is the second time they have attributed to Lula a property that, has been proven to not be his. That’s what happened with the apartment in Guarujá and now, with the Farmhouse in Atibaia. The Bittar family, long term friends with the Da Silva family, are the owners, they have a land registry certificate and proof of bank payments. During the deposition on November 14, when questioned by ex- president Lula, the judge Gabriela Hardt, substitute if the 13th Federal Court of Justice of Paraná, admitted that Lula is not the property owner .

 

Workers’ Party | Translated by Cleusa Vicente, activist at the Free Lula UK Commitee.