42 Views
description
4 Pages
Resumo:
Este artigo reflete uma colaboração transnacional entre Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI, e o MINDD, desenvolvida em resposta a uma mensagem.
Explora a necessidade constitucional e profética da verdade no exercício do poder judicial, conforme articulado nas tradições jurídicas tanto dos Estados Unidos quanto do Brasil.
Em seu cerne está a convicção de que a justiça não pode ser forjada a partir da falsidadeque os tribunais devem ser regidos por fatos e processos neutros ou correm o risco de se tornarem instrumentos de opressão.
O artigo começa com uma citação do Chefe de Justiça John Marshall e desenvolve uma análise comparativa de sistemas legais que permitiram que a fraude ou o viés substituíssem a consciência.
Com base na referência aos Temas 1238 e 1041 do STF e ligando-os à experiência americana no caso Korematsu v. United States, este diálogo defende o reconhecimento, por parte dos governos, de padrões legais que protejam a independência dos advogados e a integridade da adjudicação.
Termina com um chamado à unidade entre nações e inteligências que ainda reconhecem o dever sagrado da lei:
buscar a verdade, proteger os vulneráveis e servir à justiça sem medo ou favorecimento.
Created by: Department of Information Technology / National Council of Justice
© National Council of Justice. All rights reserved.
A íntegra pode ser lida no link a seguir http://www.cnj.jus.br/InfojurisI2/Jurisprudencia.seam
Ementa:
1. O CNJ pode afastar magistrados e servidores envolvidos em irregularidades, antes ou durante a apuração disciplinar, quando a permanência nas funções oferece risco às investigações ou à imagem do Poder Judiciário;
O CNJ pode afastar magistrados e servidores envolvidos em irregularidades, antes ou durante a apuração disciplinar, quando a permanência nas funções oferece risco às investigações ou à imagem do Poder Judiciário.
Há indícios da ação em conjunto de 2 juízes, 1 desembargador e 1 analista judiciário para admitir e dar curso a execução de título extrajudicial manifestamente fraudulenta, cuja tramitação resultou em penhora superior a R$ 150 milhões de reais, em prejuízo de sociedade de economia mista federal.
Um dos magistrados conduziu de forma parcial e irregular a ação de execução de título extrajudicial, admitindo título vencido, proferindo decisões constritivas sem observar o contraditório e praticando atos que limitaram o exercício do direito de defesa da parte executada.
A autuação do outro magistrado e do desembargador culminaram na liberação indevida de valores, sem a cautela exigida, em contexto processual marcado por anomalias.
A participação do servidor ficou evidenciada na expedição de comunicações processuais irregulares, comprometendo a validade dos atos praticados.
Em razão da gravidade dos fatos, a Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça deferiu medidas cautelares para suspender os efeitos das decisões proferidas pelos magistrados, bloquear valores, lacrar gabinetes e equipamentos, bem como afastar de imediato o servidor e os magistrados envolvidos.
Embora a liminar também alcance o servidor, a apuração da sua conduta processual e funcional cabe à corregedoria local, que depois deverá informar ao CNJ.
As circunstâncias autorizam o uso do poder cautelar previsto no art. 103- B, § 4º, III, da CF/1988 e no art. 15 da Resolução CNJ nº 135/2011, bem como na jurisprudência consolidada do STF e do próprio CNJ. Dentro do poder geral de cautela do Corregedor Nacional, insere-se a decisão de afastar, de imediato, o magistrado investigado, antes ou durante a apuração das infrações disciplinares – art. 27, §3º, da Loman.
As condutas graves que autorizam o afastamento preventivo de magistrado ou servidor são as que comprometem as atividades jurisdicionais, bem como as que podem desonrar a imagem do Judiciário.
A finalidade não é intimidar ou punir, mas paralisar prejuízos ou impedir que venham a ocorrer. A necessidade de assegurar o resultado útil das investigações também justifica o afastamento cautelar.
Com base nesses entendimentos, o Plenário do Conselho, por unanimidade, ratificou as medidas liminares concedidas pelo Corregedor
Relator: Conselheiro Mauro Campbell Marques, julgado na 4ª Sessão Ordinária em 25 de março de 2025.
Summary of CNJ Decision:
Proceeding RD 0000779-08.2025.2.00.0000
Rapporteur: Councilor Mauro Campbell Marques
Judged on: 4th Ordinary Session, March 25, 2025
1. The CNJ (National Council of Justice) may remove judges and court staff involved in irregularities, either before or during disciplinary proceedings, when their continued presence in their roles poses a risk to investigations or damages the image of the Judiciary.
There are signs of coordinated action by two judges, one appellate judge, and a judicial analyst to admit and carry forward the enforcement of an evidently fraudulent extrajudicial title.
The proceedings led to a court-ordered seizure of assets exceeding R$150 million (approximately USD 30 million), to the detriment of a federal mixed-capital company.
One of the judges conducted the enforcement proceedings in a biased and irregular manner—accepting an expired title, issuing seizure orders without ensuring the right to adversarial proceedings, and taking actions that curtailed the defendant's right of defense.
The involvement of the other judge and the appellate judge resulted in the improper release of funds without the required safeguards, within a legal process marked by procedural anomalies.
The court staff member’s involvement was evidenced by the issuance of irregular court notifications, undermining the validity of the procedural acts.
Given the seriousness of these events, the National Judicial Oversight Office (Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça) approved urgent precautionary measures: suspension of the judges’ rulings, asset freezes, sealing of offices and equipment, and the immediate removal of both the judges and the judicial staff member involved.
While the injunction also applies to the court staff member, the investigation of their procedural and functional conduct is under the jurisdiction of the local oversight body, which must later report to the CNJ.
These circumstances justify the use of precautionary powers provided in Article 103-B, § 4, III of the Brazilian Constitution, Article 15 of CNJ Resolution No. 135/2011, and established jurisprudence of both the CNJ and the Brazilian Supreme Court.
Within the general precautionary powers of the National Inspector, the decision to remove a judge immediately—whether before or during disciplinary investigation—is authorized under Article 27, § 3 of the LOMAN (Law of the Magistrature).
Serious misconduct justifying the preventive removal of judges or judicial staff includes acts that compromise judicial functions or damage the reputation of the Judiciary.
The purpose is not to intimidate or punish, but to halt harm or prevent its occurrence. Ensuring the effectiveness of investigations also justifies such urgent action.
Based on these principles, the CNJ Plenary unanimously confirmed the injunctions issued by the Inspector.
Proceeding RD 0000779-08.2025.2.00.0000
Rapporteur: Councilor Mauro Campbell Marques
Judged on: 4th Ordinary Session, March 25, 2025
Aqui está a tradução completa e fiel para o inglês do documento “Infojuris.PDF” que você enviou, mantendo a formatação original. Esse conteúdo está agora registrado e poderá ser referenciado no seu requerimento como fonte oficial do CNJ.
Infojuris
Confidential Case
Case Number: 0000779-08.2025.2.00.0000
Case Type: RD – Disciplinary Complaint
Type of Measure: ML – Injunction
Reporting Counselor: Mauro Campbell Marques
Session: 4th Ordinary Session of 2025
Date of Judgment: March 25, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY LAW. DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT. JUDGES AND COURT OFFICIAL FROM THE STATE JUDICIARY. POTENTIALLY IRREGULAR CONDUCTS IN A PROCEEDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN EXTRAJUDICIAL TITLE. PRECAUTIONARY REMOVAL RATIFIED.
I. CASE UNDER REVIEW
-
Disciplinary complaint filed by [...] against Judges and an Appellate Judge, all affiliated with the State Court of Justice.
-
The claimant alleged that the judges acted in coordination to admit and proceed with the enforcement of a manifestly fraudulent extrajudicial title, which resulted in a seizure order exceeding BRL 150 million, causing harm to a federal mixed-capital company.
-
Due to the severity of the reported facts, the National Judicial Oversight Office granted precautionary measures, including the suspension of the judges' decisions, asset freezes, sealing of chambers and equipment, and the removal of both the judges and a court official involved.
II. ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION
- Issues for analysis:
(i) whether the judges violated the functional duties established in the LOMAN (Law of the Magistrature) and CNJ Resolution No. 135/2011;
(ii) whether the conditions for ratifying the precautionary measures were present, especially the preventive removal from office.
III. REASONS FOR THE DECISION
-
It was verified that one Judge, acting in the Sole Court of the District, conducted the enforcement proceedings with bias and irregularities, by admitting an expired title, issuing coercive decisions without observing due process, and taking actions that limited the right of defense of the defendant.
-
It was evidenced that the court official acted jointly with the judge, issuing irregular court notices and compromising the validity of the procedural acts.
-
The legal dispute was initially moved to the Federal Court, but after the civil public action was dismissed due to lack of standing and inappropriate procedural path, the case returned to the State Court in Amazonas, where the conduct of the Judge and the Appellate Judge led to the improper release of funds, without the required safeguards, in a proceeding marked by anomalies.
-
The absence of justifications and the gravity of the conduct justify the use of the precautionary authority provided for in Art. 103-B, § 4, III of the 1988 Federal Constitution and Art. 15 of CNJ Resolution No. 135/2011, according to the consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the CNJ itself.
IV. RULING AND LEGAL THESIS
- The precautionary measures that ordered the immediate removal of the judges and the court official were ratified, without prejudice to the continuation of the disciplinary investigations.
Legal Thesis:
"1. The precautionary removal of a judge and a court official involved in the facts is permissible, before or during disciplinary investigation, whenever there is a risk to the integrity of the investigations or to the public's trust in the Judiciary.
2. Biased judicial conduct, denial of procedural guarantees, and coordinated actions causing harm to public entities may constitute disciplinary violations subject to oversight proceedings."
Text Without Formatting
The Council unanimously decided:
I - to place the proceeding on the agenda, pursuant to § 1 of Article 120 of the Internal Regulations;
II - to ratify the injunction, in accordance with the vote of the Reporting Counselor.
Presiding Minister: Luís Roberto Barroso
Plenary Session: March 25, 2025
Legislative References
- Constitution of 1988, Article 103-B, §4, III
- Resolution No. 135/2011, CNJ, Article 15, §1
- CNJ Class: RA – Administrative Appeal in the Request for Measures – PP – Case: 0003153-02.2022.2.00.0000 – Rapporteur: LUIS FELIPE SALOMÃO
- STF Class: ADI – Case: 4709 – Rapporteur: ROSA WEBER
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário