STF Minister says STF is in trouble

[sue]

He's talking about when he was abducted, his habitual residence was NJ, not Brazil and nobody can argue that fact.

[Sashia]

Hey! They wrote you back?! How come they didn't write me back?! Stupid gmail e-mail prolly put me in their trashbin! Off to send another e-mail!

OR,    maybe they just want me.....lol:D

[Lexi]

This is something I came across on the internet. I thought it was interesting that Judge Mello is still making comments to the media about Sean's case despite this. It also made me wonder whether Mello and Lula have somewhat of a contentious relationship (there's another reference to some previous tension between them) and whether that's why Dornelles knew to approach him for the stay. Just speculating but I don't for a minute believe Dornelles and cronies just picked this guy arbitrarily.
 
1.5 – PT versus Min. Marco Aurélio Mello
 
On 13^th March, the PT filed a complaint against TSE President Marco Aurélio Mello with the CNJ-National Council of Justice [external control of the Judiciary]. The PT brief holds that Mello violated the Magistrates’ Law by making comments outside of judicial proceedings of a court case. In fact, this Law does prohibit such behavior by judges. Mello had complained about the new Lula government program – Territories of Citizenship – that the President inaugurated in Jan./08 è that this was done “during an election year”. In fact, the law prohibits such programs after 1^st July during election years. Mello complained that this PT action was an effort to “shut him up”. This is exactly the type of case that the new STF president would like to eliminate from CNJ deliberation.

 
(The source is a weekly report from an organization called the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars - seem credible to me. As some of you already know, the PT is Lula's party).

[Dan_Plainview]

The last decision after  how many appeals? Do you now? How long it's going to take? Years? Is it a strategy to keep him there for long enough that his wish will have to be heard, since he will be a teen?

The answer to your question is this:

If this goes to the 2nd Instance of the STJ, three Judges will decide.

If their decision is appealed, then it goes to what I think we would call Superior Court in the STF where 5 Judges decide. End of story ... shouldn't ever really go to Supreme Court but somehow this time it did.

If you are forced by appeal through the process to Superior Court it normally takes years ... and yes, that is what the Ribeiros and LeS are hoping for and to this point have gained (twice, before and after Bruna's death).

[Dan_Plainview]

Andre,

We're still not communicating. I am talking about the earlier decisions (the ones with Bruna). In the first decision at the first instance they could not argue adaptation because not enough time had gone by. How was there an appeal accepted? on what grounds? or are appeals accepted for no cause/ grounds or just because you didn't like the first judges answer and you want to hear three more judges opinion?!?!?!? I can't believe it would be this way ... what a waste of money and time!! There must be grounds for appeal in Brasil, right? Tell me I'm right ...

[chopchop]

The answer to your question is this:
 
If this goes to the 2nd Instance of the STJ, three Judges will decide.
 
If their decision is appealed, then it goes to what I think we would call Superior Court in the STF where 5 Judges decide. End of story ... shouldn't ever really go to Supreme Court but somehow this time it did.
 
If you are forced by appeal through the process to Superior Court it normally takes years ... and yes, that is what the Ribeiros and LeS are hoping for and to this point have gained (twice, before and after Bruna's death).

So if one were to assume that the 3 & 5 judge panels decided as quickly as judge Pinto we are looking at 8 months just to for them to make their rulings.  Of course this is not a realistic time frame when you start adding judges into the process, just an estimate.  Throw in all the appeals that they are going to make to their stooge Marco Aurélio Mello and the back and forth could take years.  I don't know what is going to happen but it seems unlikely that we will get another courageous ruling like the one from judge Pinto.  Furthermore, the appeals will focus on more controversial issues so it might be easier for a judge to issue a decision that contains ambiguity and to that extent justify their decision.

[Dan_Plainview]

Andre,
 
Please help me understand this. At the root, this is about where a custody determination is to be made. First, was the Autor asserting his/her right to custody at the time of the wrongful removal/ wrongful retention (hereafter both referred to as abduction). 2nd, the 'habitual residence' needs to be determined which is in most cases the place where the abduction was initiated and where the marriage and/or custody of the child(ren) was at the point of the abduction. If the above two conditions are met the Autor has the right to petition for a return under the Haia. In David's case against the Reu (Bruna) it was determined the 'habitual residence' was Triton Falls, NJ, USA and that Sean was wrongfully retained (abducted) in Brasil after Bruna refused to come back from the vacation he authorized.
 
At this point the only thing to be argued is grave risk of harm. Any accusations by the Reu must be documented and therefore can not be idle accusation but must be corroborated with some sort of documented evidence. I do not beleive the Reu (in this case Bruna) made any claims of abuse. Also, because David hired private counsel he was able to avoid the BCA/ AGU necessary delay so Sean's acclimation to his environment in Brasil could not have been at issue at the first instance.
 
So, how is it that an appeal should be accepted at this point? They are not determining custody ... just making a decision as to what the proper forum/ jurisdiction is to discuss dissolution of marriage and custody of the child(ren). What could possibly be argued surrounding the issue of jurisdiction that an appeal would be considered ... my thought is all they can argue is one of two things:
 
1) The Autor was not asserting custodial rights
 
2) The 'habitual residence' is not where the Autor asserts
 
Short of that, the appeal is not admitted ...
 
I am not an Attorney, nor am I a Brasilian. How am I wrong? Where is my common sense flawed?

Another thing that agrivates me no end is everyone exclaims how a major pert of the problem in Brasil is Judge training. We need to have more seminars. What a load of crap! It is as easy as described above. They don't want to return children!!!

or as Min. Marco Aurélio Mello puts it "try to create within their human characters a more adequate solution"

What about the Law, Judge?