"" MINDD - DEFENDA SEUS DIREITOS

Pesquisar este blog

domingo, 1 de março de 2026

Iudex venditus Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upholds conviction for misconduct of former judge for selling rulings.

 


Iudex venditus

Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) upholds conviction for misconduct of former judge for selling rulings.


By Danilo Vital 

February 28, 2026, 7:51 AM

CONJUR


The Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice upheld the conviction of former federal judge Manoel Álvares for administrative misconduct due to the sale of a judicial decision while serving as a substitute judge at the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.

Reproduction


A judge who was acting as a substitute in the TRF-3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) was convicted for charging for a preliminary injunction.

In a judgment from December 2025, the ruling of which was published this month, the panel partially granted the former magistrate's special appeal, only to reduce the amount of the civil fine.

In the original conviction, he would have had to pay a penalty of three times the amount of the illicit enrichment related to the R$ 300,000 he received in exchange for the court decision. 

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) reduced the amount to one time, through retroactive application of the new Administrative Improbity Law .

The sale of the ruling was discovered by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office in 2006 through the plea bargain testimony of money launderer Lúcio Funaro, who detailed having paid R$ 300,000 in exchange for an injunction in a tax case.


The decision suspended a tax procedure against the money launderer, which would have allowed the expiration of a tax debt of R$ 12.9 million. The payment was brokered by lawyer Luís Roberto Pardo, who was also convicted in the corruption case.

Request for exemption


Manoel Álvares was the target of investigative measures and wiretapping. The information led the TRF-3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) to initiate disciplinary administrative proceedings in 2009, which were unsuccessful because the magistrate resigned from his position in 2013.

He was also the target of a criminal action in which he was convicted of the crime of passive corruption aggravated by breach of official duty in the first instance, a process that is confidential and which has an appeal to the TRF-3.

With the conviction for administrative misconduct, the former magistrate suffers the sanction of losing his public office, in addition to the suspension of his political rights for ten years and a ban on contracting with the public sector for the same period.

The winning vote was that of the rapporteur, Minister Teodoro Silva Santos, supported by Ministers Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão.

Minister Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially overruled. She voted to alter the starting point for the statute of limitations for the conduct, which would not affect the outcome of the case, and proposed reducing the fine, but setting it at a higher level than that admitted by the rapporteur: double the value of the increase in assets (R$ 600,000).

Danilo Vital
He is a correspondent for the legal magazine Consultor Jurídico in Brasília.



Click here to read the judgment





SPECIAL APPEAL INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (AGRAVO EM RECURSO ESPECIAL) No. 2,150,552 – SP (2022/0178939-6)

REPORTING JUSTICE: Minister Teodoro Silva Santos

APPELLANT: Manoel Alvares

ATTORNEYS: Joelson Costa Dias – DF010441; Marcelo da Silva Prado – SP162312; Ubiratan Menezes da Silveira – DF026442; Georghio Alessandro Tomelin – SP221518; Maira Daniela Goncalves Castaldi Luniere – DF039894
APPELLANT: Luís Roberto Pardo
ATTORNEYS: Marco Antonio de Almeida Prado Gazzetti – SP113573; Vanessa Zamariollo dos Santos – SP207772; Felipe Jun Takiuti de Sá – SP302993

APPELLEE: Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministério Público Federal)

INTERESTED PARTY: Lucio Bolonha Funaro
ATTORNEYS: Pedro Raposo Jaguaribe – DF042473; Gabriel Bartolomeu Felício Teixeira – DF044085; José Luiz Bayeux Neto – SP301453

---

HEADNOTE (EMENTA)

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROBITY. INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN A SPECIAL APPEAL. IMPROBITY ACT PRACTICED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE TOGETHER WITH A CO-DEFENDANT. GRANTING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION UPON PAYMENT OF AN UNLAWFUL ADVANTAGE. UNLAWFUL ENRICHMENT. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. ABSENCE OF DECISIONAL DEFECTS IN THE APPEALED JUDGMENT. ALLEGATION OF VIOLATION OF ARTS. 128, 131 AND 332 OF THE CPC/73, ARTS. 10, 37, 141, 369 AND 371, ITEM I, OF THE CPC/2015, ARTS. 155 AND 386, ITEM VII, BOTH OF THE CPP. NOT KNOWN. INCIDENCE OF PRECEDENT (SÚMULA) No. 7/STJ AND PRECEDENT (SÚMULA) No. 284/STF. PRESCRIPTION BAR SET ASIDE (ART. 23, ITEM II, OF THE LIA). ACTIO NATA PRESCRIPTION THEORY. CONVICTION MAINTAINED. DISPROPORTIONALITY OF SANCTIONS. NOT PRESENT. BENEFICIAL RETROACTIVITY OF LAW No. 14,230/2021 AS TO THE SANCTION APPLIED. REDUCTION OF THE CIVIL FINE TO THE AMOUNT OF THE UNLAWFUL INCREASE IN ASSETS. SETTING ASIDE OF THE FINE PROVIDED FOR IN § 2 OF THE CPC (ART. 1,026, …; SÚMULA No. 98/STJ). INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS KNOWN IN ORDER TO KNOW, IN PART, OF THE SPECIAL APPEALS AND, TO THAT EXTENT, GRANT THEM PARTIAL RELIEF.

1. The court of origin addressed, in a reasoned manner, the points relevant to resolving the controversy, including the allegations of prescription, curtailment of defense, violation of the natural judge/physical identity of the judge, amount in controversy, plea bargain/benefit to the cooperating witness, lawfulness of telephone interceptions, and effects of criminal decision. The case law of the Superior Court of Justice has settled that “the judge is not required to answer all issues raised by the parties, when he has already found sufficient reason to render the decision […] the judge’s duty is only to address the issues capable of undermining the conclusion adopted in the appealed decision” (EDcl in MS No. 21,315/DF, Reporting Justice Minister Diva Malerbi (Appellate Judge sitting by designation from the TRF 3rd Region), First Section, tried in DJe 8/6/2016, … 15/6/2016).


2. The appellant did not challenge, in a specific and analytical manner, the incidence of the obstacle of Súmula No. 7/STJ, failing to demonstrate how examination of the theses would be possible (violation of arts. 128 and 131 of the CPC/1973; and 371 of the CPC/2015; art. 332 of the CPC/1973; art. 369 of the CPC/2015) without reexamination of evidence (AgInt in AREsp 2,498,984/SC, DJe 4/6/2024; AgInt in AREsp 1,790,197/SP, DJe 1/7/2021; AREsp 1,795,402/SP, AgInt, DJe 13/4/2023; AREsp 1,770,082/SP, 30/4/2021).


3. There was no curtailment of defense, since the personal testimony was taken under the civil procedure rite, without reservation by the party and with prevalence of the questions of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, a measure compatible with the purpose of personal testimony in civil procedure (seeking confession), so that no flaw in due process of law is perceived. Moreover, not every denial of any and all evidence is capable of vitiating the judgment; it is required to demonstrate its indispensability.


4. The judgment rendered by a designated judge, in a substitution/task-force regime, is valid, absent prejudice to the parties. The principle of the physical identity of the judge is not absolute, so that a judgment rendered by a judge who did not preside over the taking of evidence is valid, even if he decided as an occasional substitute, in a task-force regime (AgRg in Ag 624,779/RS, Special Court, DJe 17/11/2008; REsp 1,613,988/PR, Third Panel, DJe 11/9/2024). Incidence of Súmula No. 7/STJ as to the claim to reexamine facts to undermine the regularity of the designation.


5. The initial term of prescription was correctly set based on the actio nata theory, alongside the finding of the unequivocal knowledge of the holder of the action (Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office), the notorious knowledge of the fact by other persons being irrelevant. The application, at the time, of art. 23, item II, of the LIA, in combination with § 2 of art. 142 of Law 8,112/1990 and with the Penal Code, art. 109, item II, is deemed correct.


6. The improbity action, as a rule, is not subject to the outcome of the criminal action, except in the hypotheses of acquittal due to nonexistence of the fact or denial of authorship, given the independence of the instances.


7. Súmula No. 7/STJ prevents reexamination of the evidentiary record for redoing the sanction dosimetry, except in the case of blatant disproportionality. There is no impediment to the cumulative application of the sanctions of art. 12 of the LIA, provided proportionality and reasonableness are observed (AgInt in AgRg in REsp 1,532,762/SP; AREsp 790,561/RJ; REsp 1,091,420/SP; …). The sanctions applied by the court of origin are consistent with the improbity act by unlawful enrichment (art. 9 of the LIA) practiced in collusion and upon payment of an undue advantage to a public agent.


8. With the advent of Law No. 14,230/2021, it is necessary to adjust the civil fine to the parameters of the new art. 12, item I, of the LIA, applicable to proceedings without res judicata, according to the thesis of Theme No. 1,199 of the STF’s general repercussion and precedents of this Superior Court. Incidence of beneficial retroactivity in the concrete case, given that the new wording of the LIA provides for payment of a civil fine equivalent to the amount of the increase in assets, and no longer up to three times that amount, as set in the judgment.


9. The fine of art. 1,026, § 2, of the CPC/2015 applied at the origin does not remain, given the purpose of prequestioning of the motions for clarification (embargos de declaração) filed. Súmula No. 98/STJ applies in the case: “motions for clarification filed with a notorious purpose of prequestioning do not have a dilatory character.”


10. Interlocutory appeals known in order to know in part of the special appeals and, to that extent, grant them partial relief.


---

JUDGMENT (ACÓRDÃO)

Having seen and reported these records in which the parties are those indicated above, the Justices of the SECOND PANEL of the Superior Court of Justice, continuing the trial after the partially divergent concurring opinion (voto-vista) of Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, by majority, decide to know the interlocutory appeals in order to know, in part, of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, under the terms of the vote of the Reporting Justice Minister. Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially defeated. Justices Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão voted with the Reporting Justice Minister. Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze was disqualified (impedido).

Brasília, December 16, 2025.

MINISTER TEODORO SILVA SANTOS
Reporting Justice

Click here to read the judgment


Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça)

Case Search (Consulta Processual)

AREsp No. 2,150,552 / SP (2022/0178939-6) — docketed on 06/20/2022

Details | Stages | Decisions | Petitions | Docket (Hearings/Calendars)

  • 02/23/2026 06:06 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of Decisions and Views on 02/23/2026 (300104)
  • 02/20/2026 15:46 — Submitted for decision to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS (Reporting Justice) (51)
  • 02/20/2026 03:08 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of Decisions and Views on 02/20/2026 (300104)
  • 02/12/2026 18:31 — Filing/attachment of an OBJECTION (IMPUGNAÇÃO) petition No. 112688/2026 (85)
  • 02/12/2026 18:20 — Filing/attachment of an OBJECTION (IMPUGNAÇÃO) petition No. 112680/2026 (85)
  • 02/12/2026 18:11 — Petition 112688/2026 filed (IMP – OBJECTION) on 02/12/2026 (118)
  • 02/12/2026 18:09 — Petition 112680/2026 filed (IMP – OBJECTION) on 02/12/2026 (118)
  • 02/11/2026 04:05 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 02/11/2026 00:46 — VIEW published to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (Embargos de Declaração — EDcl) on 02/11/2026, Petition No. 84506/2026 (92)
  • 02/10/2026 04:16 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 02/10/2026 01:06 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 02/10/2026 00:59 — VIEW published to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) on 02/10/2026, Petition No. 85565/2026 (92)
  • 02/09/2026 14:49 — Administrative procedural act performed (VIEW to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) – Petition No. 84506/2026. Publication scheduled for 02/11/2026) (11383)
  • 02/09/2026 01:41 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 02/06/2026 16:15 — Administrative procedural act performed (VIEW to the opposing party/parties for objection to the Motions for Clarification (EDcl) – Petition No. 85565/2026. Publication scheduled for 02/10/2026) (11383)
  • 02/06/2026 15:51 — Filing/attachment of MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION (EDcl) petition No. 85565/2026 (85)
  • 02/06/2026 15:36 — Petition 85565/2026 filed (EDcl – MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION) on 02/06/2026 (118)
  • 02/06/2026 14:11 — Filing/attachment of MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION (EDcl) petition No. 84506/2026 (85)
  • 02/06/2026 13:50 — Petition 84506/2026 filed (EDcl – MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION) on 02/06/2026 (118)
  • 01/14/2026 14:11 — Filing/attachment of petition ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE MPF No. 24824/2026 (85)
  • 01/14/2026 13:52 — Petition 24824/2026 filed (CieMPF – ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE MPF) on 01/14/2026 (118)
  • 01/08/2026 04:05 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Judgments (Acórdãos) on 01/07/2026 (300104)
  • 12/23/2025 04:20 — Electronic notice made available (Judgments) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 12/23/2025 00:58 — HEADNOTE / JUDGMENT published on 12/23/2025 (92)
  • 12/22/2025 02:30 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 12/22/2025 02:03 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 12/19/2025 17:20 — Administrative procedural act performed — Judgment forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 12/23/2025 (11383)
  • 12/17/2025 20:55 — Electronic case records received in the SECOND PANEL (SEGUNDA TURMA) (132)
  • 12/16/2025 17:51 — The appeal of MANOEL ALVARES and LUÍS ROBERTO PARDO was known in part and granted in part, by majority, by the SECOND PANEL (241)
  • 12/16/2025 17:51 — Final proclamation of judgment: “Continuing the trial, after the partially divergent voto-vista of Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura, the Panel, by majority, knew the interlocutory appeals in order to know in part of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, under the terms of the vote of the Reporting Justice. Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura was partially defeated.” (3001)
  • 12/09/2025 07:08 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Hearing Docket/Calendar on 12/09/2025 (300104)
  • 11/28/2025 06:19 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 11/28/2025 04:11 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 11/28/2025 01:03 — HEARING DOCKET/CALENDAR published on 11/28/2025 (92)
  • 11/27/2025 18:31 — Filing/attachment of POWER OF ATTORNEY/SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL petition No. 1160458/2025 (85)
  • 11/27/2025 18:21 — Petition type changed (Petition No. 1160458/2025 changed from PET – PETITION to PROC – POWER OF ATTORNEY/SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL) (30077)
  • 11/27/2025 17:35 — Petition 1160458/2025 filed (PET – PETITION) on 11/27/2025 (118)
  • 11/27/2025 01:20 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 11/26/2025 16:01 — Included on the docket for 12/16/2025 14:00:00 by the SECOND PANEL (417)
  • 10/16/2025 18:37 — Submitted for judgment to Justice MARIA THEREZA DE ASSIS MOURA (Justice) after request for review (vistas) (51)
  • 10/16/2025 17:35 — Electronic case records received in the SECOND PANEL (132)
  • 10/15/2025 23:59 — Deliberated in session — request for review (pedido de vista) by Justice MARIA THEREZA DE ASSIS MOURA (12204)
  • 10/15/2025 23:59 — Partial proclamation of judgment: After the vote of the Reporting Justice knowing the interlocutory appeals to know partially of the special appeals and, in that part, grant them partial relief, which was followed by Justices Afrânio Vilela and Francisco Falcão, Justice Maria Thereza de Assis Moura requested review (vista). (3001)
  • 09/29/2025 09:30 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Hearing Docket/Calendar on 09/29/2025 (300104)
  • 09/23/2025 17:01 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 900593/2025 (85)
  • 09/23/2025 16:37 — Petition 900593/2025 filed (PET – PETITION) on 09/23/2025 (118)
  • 09/19/2025 04:06 — Electronic notice made available (Hearing Docket/Calendar) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 09/19/2025 01:00 — HEARING DOCKET/CALENDAR published on 09/19/2025 (92)
  • 09/18/2025 03:22 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 09/18/2025 02:24 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – DJEN (CNJ) (1061)
  • 09/17/2025 19:20 — Included on the docket for 10/09/2025 00:00:00 by the SECOND PANEL (Virtual Session) (417)
  • 03/15/2024 12:42 — Submitted for decision to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
  • 03/15/2024 10:03 — Redistributed due to prevention, due to forwarding to ARP, to Justice TEODORO SILVA SANTOS — SECOND PANEL (36)
  • 03/15/2024 09:37 — Case received for redistribution by succession (30075)
  • 03/14/2024 17:50 — Electronic case records received in the COORDINATION FOR CLASSIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES (132)
  • 10/17/2023 07:46 — Records received in the CHAMBERS OF JUSTICE ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (132)
  • 10/16/2023 14:45 — Submitted for judgment to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) with the MPF’s opinion (51)
  • 10/13/2023 01:48 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 10/13/2023 (300104)
  • 10/13/2023 01:48 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 10/13/2023 (300104)
  • 10/11/2023 19:40 — Electronic case records received in the COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF PUBLIC LAW CASES (132)
  • 10/11/2023 19:31 — Filing/attachment of the MPF’s OPINION petition No. 1026646/2023 (85)
  • 10/11/2023 19:16 — Petition type changed (Petition No. 1026646/2023 changed from PET – PETITION to ParMPF – MPF OPINION) (30077)
  • 10/11/2023 19:14 — Petition 1026646/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 10/11/2023 (118)
  • 10/03/2023 15:53 — Digital copy of the records made available to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300101)
  • 10/03/2023 13:45 — Records with view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for opinion (30015)
  • 10/03/2023 05:53 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 10/03/2023 05:06 — ORDER / DECISION published on 10/03/2023 (92)
  • 10/02/2023 19:55 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – ORDER / DECISION (1061)
  • 09/29/2023 19:50 — Order issued (mere administrative order) determining a manifestation/statement (11010)
  • 09/29/2023 19:50 — Administrative procedural act performed — Document forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 10/03/2023 (11383)
  • 09/28/2023 11:41 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 980174/2023 (85)
  • 09/28/2023 11:30 — Petition 980174/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 09/28/2023 (118)
  • 05/03/2023 15:16 — Submitted for decision to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) (51)
  • 05/03/2023 15:06 — Filing/attachment of the MPF’s OPINION petition No. 401890/2023 (85)
  • 05/03/2023 15:03 — Records received in the COORDINATION FOR PROCESSING OF PUBLIC LAW CASES of the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (132)
  • 05/03/2023 15:03 — Petition 401890/2023 filed (ParMPF – MPF OPINION) on 05/03/2023 (118)
  • 02/17/2023 01:20 — FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE electronically notified of the Order/Decision on 02/17/2023 (300104)
  • 02/08/2023 12:13 — Digital copy of the records made available to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300101)
  • 02/07/2023 14:17 — Records with view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office for opinion (30015)
  • 02/07/2023 05:31 — Electronic notice made available (Decisions and Views) to the FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE (300105)
  • 02/07/2023 05:01 — ORDER / DECISION published on 02/07/2023 (92)
  • 02/06/2023 20:59 — Made available in the Electronic Official Gazette – ORDER / DECISION (1061)
  • 02/03/2023 20:10 — Administrative procedural act performed — Document forwarded for publication — Publication scheduled for 02/07/2023 (11383)
  • 02/03/2023 20:10 — Order issued (mere administrative order) determining view to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (11010)
  • 01/23/2023 10:01 — Filing/attachment of PETITION No. 25187/2023 (85)
  • 01/23/2023 09:54 — Petition 25187/2023 filed (PET – PETITION) on 01/23/2023 (118)
  • 08/08/2022 09:39 — Submitted for decision to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
  • 08/08/2022 08:17 — Redistributed by dependency, due to forwarding to NARER, to Justice ASSUSETE MAGALHÃES — SECOND PANEL. Prevented case: AREsp 664,609 (2015/0037229-8) (36)
  • 07/29/2022 12:24 — Records received in the COORDINATION FOR ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL TOPICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES (132)
  • 07/29/2022 12:04 — Case records sent (for distribution) to the COORDINATION FOR ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL TOPICS AND DISTRIBUTION OF CASES, because the case does not fall within the Presidency’s assignments, provided in art. 21-E of the Internal Rules of the Superior Court of Justice, or because the case file was regularized (123)
  • 07/04/2022 14:02 — Submitted for decision to the PRESIDENT OF THE STJ (Reporting Justice) — by SJD (51)
  • 07/04/2022 14:00 — Assigned by exclusive competence to the PRESIDENT OF THE STJ (26)
  • 06/09/2022 15:03 — Electronic case records received in the SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE from the FEDERAL REGIONAL COURT OF THE 3RD REGION (132)

Version 3.7.16 | of 02/05/2026 18:02.
+55 61 3319-8000





Read also

settling accounts

Extensive case law
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has been defining the circumstances under which an interlocutory appeal is admissible.

Up to date with the tax authorities.
Late payment penalties are discontinued with the first installment payment.

Agents of terror
Torture, death, and concealment of a corpse are not acts of impropriety.

continued crime
Separating Criminal Law from Administrative Law removes checks on abuses.

Cheap things end up being expensive.
Superior Court of Justice (STJ) rejects the concept of continuous crime for administrative offenses.

What's coming next?
The Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) opens the judicial year this Monday.

Prove it if you can.
Superior Court of Justice rejects reimbursement to the public treasury based on presumed damage.

Sources without dialogue
The new LIA (Law of Administrative Improbity) does not apply to public civil action regarding land subdivision.

It's coming...
In 2026, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) will rule on the governor, tax issues, and the veto of Airbnb.



www.conjur.com.br
Portuguese English Spanish 日本語

Postado por às 14:45 0 comentários

sexta-feira, 27 de fevereiro de 2026

THE TIRELESS STRUGGLE OF SCOTT ERIK STAFNE FOR JUSTICE: Pierce County Washington Superior Court - Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-5 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-5 v Alvin White et al - White's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Cross Claims


Pierce County Washington Superior Court - Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust for Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Trust 2006-5 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-5 v Alvin White et al - White's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaims, and Cross Claims

By Scott E Stafne


Constitutional Law,
Human Rights Law,
International Law,
Property Rights,
Property Law,
Political Science,
Governance,
Federalism,
Property,
Judicial review,
Judicial independence,
Judicial Politics,
Jurisdiction,
Judicial Decision-Making,
The role of the judiciary,
Separation of Powers,
Subprime crisis,
Wrongful Foreclosure,
Transfer of Property Law


Abstract This pleading presentation documents an answer, affirmative defenses, and challenges to eviction proceedings that followed trustee’s sales conducted after federal judicial involvement affecting the White’s and his tenants' property rights. It raises structural constitutional questions concerning private real property rights under state law based on federalism and the lawful exercise of judicial power affecting the real property located in states under Article III of the United States Constitution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federalism requires that federal courts exercise authority only within the jurisdiction granted to them, particularly when adjudicating rights arising under state property law. This pleading asserts that federal judicial action affecting the defendant’s property occurred without proper adjudication of jurisdictional authority, thereby implicating fundamental constitutional protections. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This presentation offers a concrete example of how federalism operates not as an abstract doctrine, but as a safeguard protecting citizens from the exercise of governmental power (both federal and state) beyond constitutional limits. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thid pleading was submitted to the Pierce County Superior Court for filing on February 19, 2026, but as of today (February 21, 2026) has not been filed.

Read on Academia.edu 


Tradução :

Resumo 


Esta apresentação de peça processual documenta uma contestação, defesas afirmativas e desafios a processos de despejo que se seguiram a vendas de fiduciários conduzidas após o envolvimento judicial federal que afetou os direitos de propriedade de White e de seus inquilinos. Levanta questões constitucionais estruturais relativas aos direitos de propriedade privada imobiliária sob a lei estadual, baseadas no federalismo e no exercício legal do poder judicial que afeta bens imóveis localizados nos estados, nos termos do Artigo III da Constituição dos Estados Unidos.

O federalismo exige que os tribunais federais exerçam autoridade apenas dentro da jurisdição que lhes foi concedida, particularmente ao adjudicar direitos decorrentes da lei de propriedade estadual. Esta petição afirma que a ação judicial federal que afetou a propriedade do réu ocorreu sem a devida adjudicação da autoridade jurisdicional, implicando, assim, proteções constitucionais fundamentais.

Esta apresentação oferece um exemplo concreto de como o federalismo opera não como uma doutrina abstrata, mas como uma salvaguarda que protege os cidadãos contra o exercício do poder governamental (tanto federal quanto estadual) além dos limites constitucionais.

Esta petição foi submetida ao Tribunal Superior do Condado de Pierce para arquivamento em 19 de fevereiro de 2026, mas até hoje (21 de fevereiro de 2026) não foi protocolada.






 

Postado por às 21:52 0 comentários

Judicial and Administrative Integrity: A Comparative Analysis Between the Doctrine of Natural Justice in Cooper v Board of Works ( England) and Foreclosure Nullities in the Alvin White's Case ( United States) and Attorneys Prerogatives

Judicial and Administrative Integrity: A Comparative Analysis Between the Doctrine of Natural Justice in Cooper v Board of Works ( England) and Foreclosure Nullities in the Alvin White's Case ( United States)   and Attorneys Prerogatives 



This AI GEMINI & CHATGPT comparative analysis highlights a growing global concern: the divergence between the formal "Rule of Law" and the practical reality of "Decisional Opacity." 

By bridging 19th-century British common law with 2026 U.S. litigation and Brazilian constitutional precedents, we can see a universal struggle to maintain judicial integrity against administrative and systemic pressures

Judicial Integrity • Anti-Corruption • Apparent Bias • Bangalore Principles • Article 6 ECHR • ECtHR • Judicial Vetting • Procedural Fairness • Rule of Law • Human Rights  • U.S  foreclosure  • STF ADI  Attorneys Prerogatives 

Executive Summary 

​The maintenance of judicial and administrative integrity represents the fundamental pillar upon which the contemporary Rule of Law rests.

 The historical transition from state arbitrariness to the rule of law was marked by the crystallization of procedural principles that guarantee individuals protection against unilateral acts of public power that affect their liberty or property.

 This report analyzes the evolution of the "Rule against Bias" and the right to an adversarial process, drawing a parallel between the 19th-century British-Australian paradigm of Cooper v Board of Works and contemporary challenges to judicial integrity in the United States, specifically in the foreclosure case of Alvin White and Kimberly Rojo. 

Through the theoretical lens provided by Zia Akhtar and the technical contestation of Scott Erik Stafne, it examines how decisional opacity—exemplified by the unreasoned orders of  the Washington Supreme Court.  and US. Supreme Court—threatens the foundations of public confidence in justice.

This article establishes a legal parallel between the historical precedent of Cooper v. Board of Works (1863) and the contemporary case of Alvin White & Church of the Gardens (2026). 

The analysis focuses on the erosion of the "Right to be Heard" (Audi Alteram Partem) and judicial integrity in the face of what is termed  "Denial of due process of law"  and the "Shadow Docket" and "Decisional Silence." 

It examines how the omission of reasoning and the violation of the prerogatives of the legal profession—under the perspective of the Bangalore Principles and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the STF—threaten the Rule of Law by permitting expropriations without due adversarial process.

Table of Contents

 * Introduction: The Pillar of Administrative and Judicial Integrity

 * Zia Akhtar’s Theory and the Rule Against Bias (British-Australian)

 * From 1863 to 2026: From the Cooper Case to the Alvin White Case  

 * The "Shadow Docket" and Decisional Opacity in SCOTUS

 * Violation of Attorney Prerogatives and Human Rights

 * International and Comparative Precedents (STF, SCOTUS, ECHR)

 * Conclusion: The Regression of Procedural Justice

 * Bibliographical References

Content Highlight

The "Garden of Eden" Argument in Modern Foreclosure:

Just as God gave Adam the chance for a defense before the sentence, the Washington system supposedly fails by allowing foreclosures based on censored records and irregular procedural interventions.

 

The Violation of Lawyer Prerogatives:

The suppression of records and the refusal to consider court-ordered submissions constitute a direct violation of the lawyer's prerogatives to present evidence and ensure the parity of arms. 

Internationally, this is seen as an affront to the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (Havana, 1990).


New Updates and Precedents

To enrich the article, the following points regarding procedural progress and precedents from superior courts have been included:


1. Alvin White Case Update (February 2026)

The petition filed by Scott Erik Stafne on February 16, 2026, with the Washington Supreme Court argues that allowing the intervention of Deutsche Bank without operative pleadings violates the party-presentation principle. The case awaits a decision on discretionary review, challenging the neutrality of the state's judicial retirement system.


2. Precedents on Attorney Prerogatives (STF - Brazil)

 * ADI 7231 (2024/2025): The Supreme Federal Court reaffirmed the inviolability of professional secrecy and the prerogatives of lawyers against invasive measures. 

The Federal Supreme Court (STF), in 2025, reaffirmed the prerogatives of lawyers by declaring unconstitutional provisions of Law 14,365/2022 which, due to a legislative error, revoked professional immunity and restricted access to case files. 

The decision (ADI 7231) restored inviolability for statements made in the exercise of the profession and guaranteed the right to access the records.

Main Highlights (2025–2026):

Professional Immunity: The STF invalidated the revocation of provisions that protected lawyers from crimes such as insult, defamation, or contempt during the exercise of the profession.

Access to Case Files: The right of broad access to elements of evidence was reaffirmed, even in investigative proceedings, in alignment with STF Binding Precedent (Súmula Vinculante) No. 14.

Action by the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB): The Brazilian Bar Association actively operates before the STF to ensure compliance with these prerogatives, including monitoring judgments to prevent violations.

Legislative Errors: The Court recognized a formal defect in the approval of the law that removed the prerogatives, restoring the original wording of the Statute of Advocacy.

The understanding is that prerogatives are fundamental guarantees for the full right of defense of the citizen, not merely privileges of the professional class.

The exclusion of lawyers from the decision-making process (as occurred in the White case) is equivalent to an absolute procedural nullity due to the restriction of the defense.

Comparison: STF (ADI 7231) × Scott Erik Stafne (due process / judicial integrity)

1) What the Brazilian Supreme Court did (ADI 7231) — “guarantees of defense, not privileges”

In the Brazilian case, the STF invalidated (because of a defect in the legislative process) the portion of Law 14,365/2022 that had revoked §§1 and 2 of art. 7 of Law 8,906/1994 (Statute of the OAB/Advocacy), thereby restoring:

professional immunity for statements made in the exercise of legal practice; and the right of access / inspection of case files, as a structural condition for the adversarial system and full defense. 

LexML · 1

The institutional framing is that these prerogatives are fundamental guarantees for the citizen’s defense, not merely “class privileges.” 

OAB ·Supreme Court reinstates lawyer's immunity.  http://www.oab.org.br/noticia/63167/stf-restabelece-a-imunidade-do-advogado

2) What Scott (in general terms) has been arguing/denouncing — “when courts refuse to judge”

In Scott Erik Stafne’s materials (pleadings and public texts), the axis is: a court cannot evade the duty to decide essential issues (jurisdiction, neutrality/impartiality, validity of the adjudicative authority, procedural regularity) and at the same time penalize or procedurally choke the party/lawyer for insisting on those issues.

Two recurring points:

(a) “Refusal to judge” structural issues (jurisdiction / independent judge)

Scott’s public writing frames the problem as the system losing the appearance of justice when serious allegations are met with institutional silence or closure rather than transparent adjudication. 

Substack

(b) Procedural barriers that become “practical censorship” of the right to defense

Concrete examples appear in Washington appellate filing contexts (e.g., clerk rejection / word-limit and refiling dynamics), illustrating how procedure can operate as a barrier to presenting complex constitutional and record-based arguments. 

Washington Courts judgments 

3) Direct parallels STF ↔ Scott  Stafne the “mirrored” core

Parallel 1 — Access to the record/evidence = the material condition of the adversarial process

STF: restores access to case files as a core defense guarantee by restoring the revoked statutory provisions. 

LexML

Scott: argues that without meaningful access and without reasoned decisions on central objections, the process becomes “appearance of adjudication”—form without substance. 

Substack · 1

Bridge sentence (ready to paste):

“Without effective access to the record—and without a reasoned decision on the central objections—due process is reduced to ritual.”

Parallel 2 — Professional immunity = defense without intimidation

STF: reinforces that lawyers must be able to argue in the exercise of the profession without criminalization triggered by advocacy speech. 

LexML · 1

Scott: describes a pattern in which challenging structural issues is met with institutional resistance; the practical effect can be chilling or suppressing advocacy. 

Substack · 1

Bridge sentence:

“Professional immunity is not a ‘license to offend’; it is the minimum shield required so advocacy can confront power without fear of retaliation.”

Parallel 3 — “System error” and the institutional duty to correct

STF: identifies a distortion of parliamentary will caused by a legislative-process error and corrects it via formal unconstitutionality. 

LexML

Scott: presses for the system to subject itself to due-process accountability, rather than using procedure to avoid confronting foundational issues. 

Substack · 1

4) A key difference (to keep the comparison precise)

STF / ADI 7231: abstract constitutional review; a “top-down” remedy—invalidating the defective revocation and restoring the guarantees. 

LexML

Scott: litigation in concrete cases, where the conflict often becomes a “procedural battlefield” over whether the court will actually adjudicate the structural issues and allow full presentation of the defense. 

Tribunais de Washington · 1

STF ADI 7231 - Judgment syllabus (ementa) — 

EMENTA (literal English translation)

**“SYLLABUS DIRECT ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE BILL APPROVED AND THE FINAL WORDING OF THE LAW. REVOCATION OF LEGAL PROVISIONS DUE TO A MATERIAL DRAFTING ERROR. ABSENCE OF DELIBERATION BY THE NATIONAL CONGRESS ON THE REVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS. ERROR ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, BY THE FEDERAL SENATE, AND BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. DISTORTION OF THE PARLIAMENT’S EXPRESSION OF WILL. VIOLATION OF DUE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (ART. 59 ET SEQ. OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION) AND OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE (ART. 1, FC). FORMAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. GRANTING OF THE CLAIM.

The text of Law No. 14,365/2022, insofar as it revokes §§ 1 and 2 of art. 7 of Law No. 8,906/1994 (OAB Statute), was not the object of deliberation by Congress and, therefore, does not represent parliamentary will, because the revocation resulted from a material error in the preparation of the law’s final wording.

An error in the lawmaking process that distorts the expression of the Legislative Branch’s will gives rise to formal unconstitutionality, for violating due legislative process as provided in art. 59 et seq. of the Federal Constitution, and the democratic principle (art. 1, caput, FC).

The STF’s review of legislative processing is exceptional and limited only to situations in which there is a constitutional basis for judicial intervention. In the present case, the Legislative Branch itself ruled out any allegation that this is an internal parliamentary matter (ato interna corporis), so that this Court may correct the legislative-process error that led to the revocation of §§ 1 and 2 of Law No. 8,906/1994.

The direct action of unconstitutionality is granted to declare formally unconstitutional art. 2 of Law No. 14,365/2022, exclusively insofar as it revokes §§ 1 and 2 of art. 7 of Law No. 8,906/1994.”** 

 Download 

https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/downloadPeca.asp?id=15379313537&ext=.pdf

STF process  : 

https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=6464545


3. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) - Article 6

 * Case of Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal: The European Court reinforced that judicial independence is not only subjective but must be apparent to the "reasonable observer." 

"The Grand Chamber held a violation of Art. 6(1) concerning the impartiality and independence of the domestic proceedings regarding the dismissal of the applicant from his post. It found that the majority of the HCJ consisted of non-judicial staff appointed directly by the executive and the legislative authorities. The Court found that the applicant’s allegations regarding personal bias by certain HCJ members were founded, since a member of the HCJ played a role in the preliminary inquiry into the applicant’s case and in making the proposal to the HCJ.

The Court ruled that the Higher Administrative Court (HAC) failed to carry out a sufficient review of the proceedings at the HCJ, since it did not attempt to consider the applicant’s allegation of the lack of impartiality and independence in those proceedings. Moreover, there were serious mismatches between the advanced and actual grounds of review. While the HAC stated that the applicant had not contested the facts forming the grounds for his dismissal, the applicant had argued that the HCJ had not substantiated its findings since it had not referred to the specific circumstances of his case. 

Again, this is an important decision for the one under review, in that, as in the latter, it stresses the importance of a judicial review that meets the fair trial requirements contained in the Convention. In this case, since the HAC failed to carry out a sufficient review of the proceedings at the HCJ, this led to a violation of Article 6(1)." 

https://cjc.eui.eu/data/data/data?idPermanent=466&triial=1

Decisions without any notice to the plaintiff  and Unreasoned decisions (such as the unsigned orders mentioned in Stafne's text) violate the  due process and the right to a fair trial.

4. SCOTUS and the "Shadow Docket"

 * Institutional Criticism: The increasing use of emergency orders without explanation (such as Justice Elena Kagan's denial in the Church of the Gardens case) has been the subject of criticism by members of the Court themselves (e.g., Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in emergency jurisdiction cases), pointing out that the lack of transparency undermines the democratic legitimacy of the Judiciary.


Where the “foundation” is (institutional criticism: lack of transparency/justification and effect on legitimacy)

A direct foundation (primary source) is Justice Sotomayor’s dissent (in the emergency/shadow docket context), explicitly criticizing the Court’s refusal to justify extraordinary decisions — which supports the thesis of “lack of transparency” as an institutional problem.

Case / number (emergency order + dissent)

No. 24A1153 — Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. D. V. D., et al. (Order of July 3, 2025)

Excerpt (Sotomayor, dissenting — criticism of lack of justification):

“The Court’s continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case … is indefensible.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf�

Another short excerpt (same dissent; criticism of the “content-free/no guidance” mode):

“…it refuses to explain what such conformity would involve.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf�

Official link (PDF — SCOTUS):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf�

Alternative link (reproduced text — Cornell LII):

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/24A1153�

Important observation: the phrase “undermines the democratic legitimacy of the Judiciary” usually appears as a synthesis in academic/journalistic commentary about the shadow docket. 

The textual anchor (primary source) is in passages like those above (refusal to justify / absence of explanation / lack of guidance), which support the conclusion about impact on legitimacy, but the exact wording can vary depending on the secondary author.

Link : https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf


GEMINI AI COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: 


​1. The Full Text of the Core Theory: Zia Akhtar on "The Rule against Bias: The impact of the Judicial Code of Conduct in England and the need for impartiality in European Court rulings". 


Cooper v Wandsworth Board of Works (1863) 14 CB (NS) 180 (CP); (1863) 143 ER 414

A person has the right to be heard before steps adverse to his property rights were taken

Facts

The section 76 the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, empowers the district board to alter or demolish a house, where the builder has neglected to give notice of his intention to build seven days before proceeding to lay or dig the foundation
The plaintiff gave a notice 5 days in advance
The Board of Works ordered, without notice to him, to demolish the house of the plaintiff which was in the course of erection
The plaintiff claimed that the district board of works had no such power to demolish his house without notice to him or giving him an opportunity of being heard.
The defendants argued that the 76th section gave them a discretion, against the exercise of which there was no appeal, except to the Metropolitan board of works under s.221; and that inasmuch as they were acting ministerially, and not judicially, they were not bound to give any notice

Issue

Did the plaintiff have a right to be heard before a decision to demolish his property was made?

​The following is the integral abstract and core argument from Zia Akhtar's work, which serves as the theoretical basis for evaluating modern judicial conduct : 

​Abstract: "The UK Guide to Judicial Conduct" issued in March 2013 sets out the ground rules for judges to refrain from any activity that may give rise to bias. 

These include specific guidelines that are set out to preclude such behaviour which may lead to the perception of bias by one of the parties to the case. 

It sets out the six principles known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct endorsed at the 59th session of the UN Human Rights Commission at Geneva in April 2003,  because it was carried out without prior notice or opportunity for defense. 

Justice Byles famously invoked the "Garden of Eden" argument to demonstrate that the right to be heard is a primordial law : 

​"The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man... that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence."  

Read the full article: 

​AKHTAR, Zia. The Rule against Bias: The impact of the Judicial Code of Conduct in England and the need for impartiality in European Court rulings. Civil Procedure Review, v. 5, n. 3, p. 20–40, 2014. Available at: https://www.civilprocedurereview.com/revista/article/view/86. Accessed on: Feb 16, 2026.

​2. The Contemporary Crisis: Alvin White and the Church of the Gardens

​Mirroring the arbitrary demolition in Cooper, the case of Alvin White, Kimberly Rojo, and the Church of the Gardens in Washington State, USA, presents what attorney Scott Erik Stafne describes as a "judicial demolition" of property rights. 

​The Petition for Discretionary Review (Wash. Supreme Court) challenges the exercise of judicial power in foreclosure-restraint proceedings under RCW 61.24.130.

 Stafne argues that the lower courts authorized a nonjudicial foreclosure while committing manifest violations of due process: 

​Intervention Without Pleadings: The purported beneficiary (Deutsche Bank) was permitted to intervene without filing operative pleadings or responsive answers as required by CR 24(c), depriving the owners of an adversarial framework. 

​Structural Bias in Funding: The petition raises a threshold constitutional challenge concerning the Washington judicial-retirement system and institutional financial incentives created by 2007 reforms, which reportedly link court funding to outcomes that favor institutional lenders. 

​Suppression of Records: It is alleged that the trial court failed to file or consider court-ordered submissions, essentially deciding the case on a censored record. 

Read Stafne's Petition on Academia.edu:

Washington Supreme Court - Church and White v Clear Recon Corp v Deutsche Bank - Petition for Discretionary Review By Scott E Stafne

This Petition for Discretionary Review asks the Washington Supreme Court to confront threshold constitutional questions governing the exercise of judicial power in foreclosure-restraint proceedings under RCW 61.24.130. Petitioners Church of the Gardens and property owners Alvin White and Kimberly Rojo contend that the courts below authorized a nonjudicial foreclosure while permitting intervention without operative pleadings, declining to adjudicate preserved challenges to judicial neutrality, and affirming judgment without determining whether court-ordered submissions were filed or considered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying on federal due-process doctrine, Washington constitutional provisions, civil-procedure rules, and the party-presentation principle, the Petition argues that these departures from adversarial adjudication undermine both the legality and the appearance of justice in proceedings involving the taking of real property. The filing further raises structural questions concerning judicial-retirement systems and institutional financial incentives that, Petitioners contend, required adjudication before judicial power could lawfully be exercised. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Because the issues recur across foreclosure litigation statewide and implicate public confidence in Washington’s courts, the Petition requests supervisory review to clarify the procedural and constitutional limits governing trustee-sale restraint actions.

https://www.academia.edu/164466372/Washington_Supreme_Court_Church_and_White_v_Clear_Recon_Corp_v_Deutsche_Bank_Petition_for_Discretionary_Review?source=swp_share


​3. The Shadow Docket and Decisional Opacity

​The crisis is further evidenced by the treatment of the case at the level of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). 

US Supreme Court - Church of the Gardens & White v. Quality Loan Services Corporation of Washington - Applicant Church and White's Supplemental Brief regarding application for stay

By Scott E Stafne


This Supplemental Brief was filed in the Supreme Court of the United States in Church of the Gardens et al. v. Quality Loan Services Corp. of Washington et al., No. 25A842, with regard to the application by the Church and proptery owner seeking emergency relief from Justice Elena Kagan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The materials respond to opposition briefing filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in the Ninth Circuit after that court expressly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the stay request <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Applicants argue that foreclosure proceedings were permitted to proceed before any federal court adjudicated threshold questions of Article III jurisdiction, standing to enforce promissory notes under Washington law, and institutional judicial neutrality. The filings frame these issues not as routine foreclosure disputes or discretionary recusal questions, but as structural constitutional inquiries implicating separation of powers, federalism, due process, and the limits of judicial authority under Articles III and VI of the Constitution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Supplemental Brief further applies Supreme Court precedent governing jurisdiction, judicial impartiality, irreparable harm, and emergency stays, including Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, Tumey v. Ohio, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., and Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Together, the Declaration and Brief seek to preserve appellate review before allegedly irreversible transfers of real property occur, raising questions about whether courts may permit deprivation of title before resolving their own constitutional authority to act.

https://www.academia.edu/150141594/US_Supreme_Court_Church_of_the_Gardens_and_White_v_Quality_Loan_Services_Corporation_of_Washington_Applicant_Church_and_Whites_Supplemental_Brief_regarding_application_for_stay?source=swp_share


Despite the massive and irreparable risk of losing a home and a community church, the court's response has been characterized by unreasoned, unsigned orders—a hallmark of the "Shadow Docket".

​Specifically, an order involving Justice Elena Kagan (as found in the archives of Academia.edu) demonstrates the procedural "limbo" faced by petitioners:

SUPREME COURT. Church of the Gardens & White v. Quality Loan Services Corporation of Washington - Denial of Application for injunction pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan, By Scott E Stafne.

Available at: https://www.academia.edu/150242366/US_Supreme_Court_Church_of_the_Gardens_and_White_v_Quality_Loan_Services_Corporation_of_Washington_Denial_of_Application_for_injunction_pending_appeal_submitted_to_Justice_Kagan?source=swp_share


The plaintiff filled a petition for Discretionary Review 

Washington Supreme Court - Church and White v Clear Recon Corp v Deutsche Bank - Petition for Discretionary Review

By Scott E Stafne

Published on February 16th, 2026, on  Academia.edu 

Abstract 

This Petition for Discretionary Review asks the Washington Supreme Court to confront threshold constitutional questions governing the exercise of judicial power in foreclosure-restraint proceedings under RCW 61.24.130. Petitioners Church of the Gardens and property owners Alvin White and Kimberly Rojo contend that the courts below authorized a nonjudicial foreclosure while permitting intervention without operative pleadings, declining to adjudicate preserved challenges to judicial neutrality, and affirming judgment without determining whether court-ordered submissions were filed or considered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Relying on federal due-process doctrine, Washington constitutional provisions, civil-procedure rules, and the party-presentation principle, the Petition argues that these departures from adversarial adjudication undermine both the legality and the appearance of justice in proceedings involving the taking of real property. The filing further raises structural questions concerning judicial-retirement systems and institutional financial incentives that, Petitioners contend, required adjudication before judicial power could lawfully be exercised. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Because the issues recur across foreclosure litigation statewide and implicate public confidence in Washington’s courts, the Petition requests supervisory review to clarify the procedural and constitutional limits governing trustee-sale restraint actions.

Read the full Petition on Academia.edu 

https://www.academia.edu/164466372/Washington_Supreme_Court_Church_and_White_v_Clear_Recon_Corp_v_Deutsche_Bank_Petition_for_Discretionary_Review?source=swp_share

​

​From the perspective of a senior constitutional jurist, such unreasoned denials in the face of proven procedural nullities (like the lack of pleadings from intervenors) violate the Bangalore Principle of Competence and Diligence (Value 6), which requires judges to perform duties with transparency to maintain public confidence. 

​4. Applying the Bangalore Principles to US Case Studies




​5. Conclusions and Juridical Implications


​The parallel between the 1863 British Australian precedent and the 2026 White petition reveals a regression in judicial integrity. 

When a system allows the "taking" of property or custody based on unfiled pleadings and unreasoned orders, it ceases to be a court of law and becomes an instrument of administrative force. 

As Zia Akhtar concludes, the "inference of bias" must be precluded by a clear separation of powers and the absolute adherence to the standard of the "informed observer."

​6. Bibliographic References (ABNT and Blueprint)

​ABNT Format

United Nations : Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers
The Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba


MINDD DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL A Global Anti-Bias and Anti-Corruption Manual: THE BATTLE AGAINST CORRUPTION: Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct : The Rule against Bias: The impact of the Judicial Code of Conduct in England and the need for impartiality in European Court rulings by Zia Akhtar; 


​AKHTAR, Zia. The Rule against Bias: The impact of the Judicial Code of Conduct in England and the need for impartiality in European Court rulings. Civil Procedure Review, v. 5, n. 3, p. 20–40, 2014. Available at: https://www.civilprocedurereview.com/revista/article/view/86. Accessed on: Feb 16, 2026.

CLAYTON UTZ. Public Law Essentials: Procedural fairness. Sydney: Clayton Utz, 2024. Available at: https://www.claytonutz.com/insights/2024/december/public-law-essentials-procedural-fairness. Accessed on: Feb 16, 2026.

STAFNE, Scott Erik. Washington Supreme Court - Church and White v Clear Recon Corp v Deutsche Bank - Petition for Discretionary Review. Washington State Supreme Court, 2026. Available at:(https://www.academia.edu/164466372/Washington_Supreme_Court_Church_and_White_v_Clear_Recon_Corp_v_Deutsche_Bank_Petition_for_Discretionary_Review?source=swp_share). Accessed on: Feb 16, 2026.


UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME. Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct. The Hague: UNODC, 2007. Available at: https://track.unodc.org/track/en/track/resourcehub/ji/2007/commentary_on_the_bangalore_principles_of_judicial_conduct.html

​U.S. SUPREME COURT. Church of the Gardens & White v. Quality Loan Services Corporation of Washington - Denial of Application for injunction pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan, By Scott E Stafne.

ORDEM DOS ADVOGADOS DO BRASIL OAB ·Supreme Court reinstates lawyer's immunity. 


BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT STF / ADI 7231: ATTORNEYS PREROGATIVES 

Supreme Court invalidates rule that revoked lawyers' rights due to legislative error. The misguided repeal affected prerogatives such as access to legal proceedings and professional immunity.


ADI 7231 Decision 


STF proceedings : 


Blueprint Format


​Case Reference: Cooper v Board of Works for the Wandsworth District (1863) 143 ER 414.
​Core Rule: Natural Justice requires the Hearing Rule (Audi Alteram Partem) as a divine and human law.

​Modern Challenge: White v. Clear Recon Corp (2026) - Constitutional threshold questions on structural judicial bias and non-adversarial intervention.

​Ethics Standard: Bangalore Principles (2003) - Values of Impartiality, Integrity, and Propriety as pillars of the Rule of Law.







Postado por às 19:18 0 comentários
Assinar: Comentários (Atom)