[ad_1]
¶
247 – Legitimate and deposed President Dilma Rousseff announced on Sunday the 1st, a note criticizing the judiciary for banning the constitutional rights of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, with the ultimate goal to prevent his candidacy for the presidency, which leads the preference of the Brazilian voters.
"To prevent Lula from being a candidate, a sort of judicial justification was instituted, denouncing him initially without evidence, solely on the basis of convictions, and then convicting him for" indefinite reasons ". 39 have thrown in jail before the trial of his appeals, a right guaranteed to other defendants and other prisoners, and now block his prerogative to any appeal, "says Dilma in a statement issued by his counselor
Read the full note :
After being convicted without evidence, former President Lula is a victim of the blockade of his resources by the judiciary. All the appeals presented by Lula's defense are summarily dismissed by casuistic measures or cunning maneuvers.
Lula is the victim of a ban on his constitutional rights. If a judgment can be beneficial, it is postponed, suspended and will not even enter the court system. If a decision can possibly favor it, it is refused without being questioned.
In order to prevent Lula from running for office, some kind of judicial justification was established. First, they denounced it without evidence, solely on the basis of convictions; later, they sentenced him for "indeterminate reasons"; then he was thrown into prison before the trial of his appeals, a right guaranteed to other defendants and other prisoners; and now block their prerogative to any call.
The media committed to blow insinuates that Lula will only get the Judiciary the right to freedom – granted to other prisoners – he announces that he has abandoned the presidential candidate. It's blackmail. They want Lula to punish herself for her political rights. They want Lula to self-destruct as the greatest political leader of Brazil
History will recall that some high courts have stubbornly submitted to the arbitrary decision of a trial judge. History will say that some higher courts have not only waived the right to decide, but have abdicated the duty to judge, when their verdict could represent the fair freedom of a citizen.
Save on your purchases using coupons
[ad_2]
Source link
