TSE prevented Deltan from using one law to defraud another – 05/18/2023 – Reinaldo Azevedo

Deltan Dallagnol lost his mandate, but the sway of low Jacobinism did not react, going down to the ground of cheap messianism. The TSE unanimously revoked the registration of his candidacy, and he announced a new crusade against the three Powers. If it ends again in depredation, I don’t know. I think the “uncle” will prefer to fill the tank with cheaper fuel… he called for an uprising against the courts, showing that he has not the slightest hope that the decision will be reversed. He compared himself to Joseph, the son of Jacob; to Daniel, the one from the lions’ den, and to Jesus, the Nazarene. But without exaggeration: in the role of martyr, he dispenses with the rigors of prison, the snout of wild beasts or the suffering of the cross. Bordering on the ridiculous, this young man never hesitated to take the next step.

Before he returns to his crazy speech on Wednesday (17), it is necessary to correct an untruth that spread in the press. The case’s rapporteur, Benedito Gonçalves, did not make an “extensive interpretation” of the concept of Disciplinary Administrative Process (PAD). Experienced lawyers and some with the tag of “jurists” incurred what, in certain cases, is an error resulting from an opinion that precedes the reading of the vote and, in others, bad faith. “So you don’t admit dissenting opinion?” It sure is. As long as it differs from what is written, not from an unsupported inference in the text.

In his unmistakable role as a prophet of reaction, the impeached man himself, a notorious opportunist since the days when he had dozens of spokespersons in the newsrooms (he still has them), echoed the lie about the supposed reinterpretation of the PAD concept. Gonçalves dealt explicitly with the matter, even responding to the defense’s thesis. I force myself to reproduce an excerpt from the vote: “What is being discussed, in the present judgment, is the practice of an act —voluntary request for dismissal— prior to the very initiation of administrative proceedings and which had the purpose of frustrating, in a manifest abuse of rights , the incidence of the ineligibility regime. In other words, the object of the controversy in question is not, as the defendant wants to believe [Deltan], the possibility or not of granting a broad interpretation to the term ‘disciplinary administrative process’. What we have here is a previous conduct and contrary to the law to avoid the initiation of these processes, that is, fraud of the law.”

As I showed in the early hours of Thursday in an article on UOL, after reading the 37 pages, the pillars of the winning vote are in the Civil Code, articles 166-VI — “A legal transaction is void when its purpose is to defraud imperative law” — and 187: “An illicit act is also committed by the holder of a right that, when exercising it, manifestly exceeds the limits imposed by its economic or social purpose, by good faith or by good customs”. And the precedents are duly cited, from the STF and the TSE itself. Read the vote. And as a gift, you also get a nice quote from Pontes de Miranda, a classic in the area: “Fraud of the law consists, therefore, in applying another legal rule and failing to apply the defrauded legal rule. That one did not apply because this one did; Fraud of the law places the factual support before the judge, in such a way that the judge can err.

The “fraud of the law”, in this case, translates into “fraud of the investigation”. The judges are free to allow themselves or not to be ensnared by the fraudster. The seven from the TSE —three of them appointed by Jair Bolsonaro, it should be noted— resisted. Deltan, however, attributed the responsibility for his impeachment to the government and Lula. There was the fanatically anti-PT former prosecutor, who made Lava Jato a platform for the assault on power. He prospered, and the country sank. Not by chance, he was surrounded on Wednesday by vaccine deniers and scammers. Here’s José, Daniel and Christ after a far-right imposture bath.

PS: I have always been against the Clean Record Law, but it exists. I consider it unconstitutional. Deltan is your enthusiast. In that debate, I was on the side that was defeated. Dura lex sed lex. Impeached, he lost winning. Since I support impeachment, although critical of the law, I won by losing.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.