Dedication
This statement — inspired by Fernando Schuler’s powerful speech — is respectfully dedicated to American constitutional attorney SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, who has consistently and courageously defended the right to due process of law — the right to a fair trial before impartial judges, grounded in the supremacy of human dignity, legality, the integrity of the judiciary, and the fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms.
Scott Erik Stafne in Washington State (USA): Targeted with professional retaliation for challenging abusive judicial practices and defending due process.
Stafne’s legal advocacy emphasizes that no financial interest, procedural abuse, or judicial fraud can stand above the constitutional guarantees that protect citizens from arbitrary power.
His work represents the unwavering commitment to a justice system that serves people, not systems of control, and to a democracy where human rights and the rule of law prevail over authoritarianism and institutional corruption.
I am humbled and grateful for MINDD’s support of the principle that lawyers must be free to represent their clients—even when doing so challenges the preferences of judges or courts. Speaking truth and demanding justice is not misconduct. It is the heart of our duty.
This link allows its translation in the following languages: Chinese (simplified), English; French, German, Italian, Japanese, Russian, and Spanish.
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/05/manifesto-de-apoio-aos-advogados-das.html
(...)
We, from the state of Washington, are not alone.
And if—as we suspect—the same problem is happening in other societies in this 21st century, you are not alone either.
We stand with you.
The same patterns of injustice that we are exposing here in Washington State — courts refusing to investigate forged deeds, attorneys being punished for representing the defenseless, judges protecting their own financial interests under the shield of law — may also be occurring elsewhere in the world (perhaps in your country).
And perhaps it is time for these injustices to be confronted by the sacred fire of ordinary people who choose to speak out, bear witness, and demand justice from state-run judicial systems.
It is in this spirit that we share this moment — to bear witness.
The original post by MINDD, in Portuguese, is available here:
👉 https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/05/tribunais-capturados-casas-roubadas.html
Her follow-up article, expressing gratitude for the joint efforts and denouncing the sale of judicial rulings, can be found here:
👉 https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/05/international-reporting-sale-of.html
(Substack )
This dedication also honors IVES GANDRA MARTINS, FERNANDO SCHÜLER, and all lawyers, jurists, and human rights defenders who, in every nation and court, uphold these same principles — often at great personal cost — ensuring that the flame of liberty, truth, and justice continues to burn even in the darkest times.
The Case of Scott Erik Stafne and the Criminalization of Advocacy Committed to Human Rights
Constitutional attorney Scott Erik Stafne was reported to the New York State Bar Association solely for responding to the request of a disabled citizen who was representing himself pro se – that is, without legal representation – in a foreclosure proceeding.
The allegation is based on the fact that Stafne submitted an expert legal declaration in support of this citizen’s defense, who was facing a structurally unequal judicial system alone.
Importantly, Stafne provided this declaration pro bono, without charging any fees, solely motivated by a sense of professional duty and commitment to justice.
The case, Tupper v. Friedman Vartolo et al., in Nassau County, New York, reveals a clear attempt to criminalize the legitimate practice of critical and engaged lawyering, especially when it stands with the vulnerable.
Stafne’s expert declaration was used by attorneys representing financial institutions to accuse him of “unauthorized practice of law,” even though his involvement was limited to submitting a legal opinion based on his experience and professional qualifications – a common and accepted practice in U.S. courts and in democracies that uphold adversarial legal systems and the right to full defense.
🟦 Legal Foundation – The Case of Scott Erik Stafne
The complaint filed against American constitutional attorney Scott Erik Stafne before the New York State Bar Association is based on the claim that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by submitting an expert legal declaration in favor of a physically disabled citizen who was defending himself pro se, without legal counsel.
However, the accusation lacks legal merit, for the following reasons:
1. Expert opinion does not constitute legal representation
Although the regulation of legal practice varies by state in the U.S., well-established case law affirms that providing an expert opinion or legal analysis, without establishing an attorney-client relationship or direct representation before the court, does not constitute unauthorized practice of law.
> 📌 Reference: Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 4th 119 (1998) – The Court held that practicing law requires a direct agency relationship with a client, which is absent when issuing expert opinions without formal representation.
2. Expert legal expression is protected under the First Amendment
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects not only personal opinion but also academic, technical, and expert expression, including in judicial settings, provided that such expression is not offered as legal representation or for undue profit.
🔹 United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012): the Court reaffirmed that freedom of speech includes the right to express controversial, unpopular, or mistaken views — unless they cause direct and measurable harm.
3. The declaration was submitted pro bono and in the public interest
Stafne not only did not receive any compensation, but acted solely out of commitment to the defense of constitutional rights, human dignity, and judicial integrity. His contribution was ethical, civic-minded, and not equivalent to providing traditional legal services.
> ⚖️ ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 6.1: encourages lawyers to contribute pro bono publico services, including support for self-represented litigants.
4. Attempt to silence a disabled citizen violates due process
The individual who requested Stafne’s expert opinion is physically disabled and facing serious financial hardship, standing in manifest inequality of arms against a major bank and its powerful legal team. Preventing him from receiving voluntary support from a legal expert undermines his constitutional right to a fair trial and due process, protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
> 📚 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963): recognized the right of indigent defendants to legal assistance as essential to fair proceedings.
The attempt to criminalize the conduct of Scott Erik Stafne represents, in itself, a violation of the constitutional principles of free expression, fair trial, and judicial integrity. His contribution did not involve client representation, was not compensated, had a technical and non-adversarial character, and aimed solely to protect the rights of a severely disadvantaged citizen.
His actions reflect the legitimate exercise of legal speech protected by the Constitution of the United States and by the universal values of human dignity, legality, due process, and fundamental rights.
The full document can be accessed here:
🔗 Academia.edu
Tribunal estadual do Condado de Nassau, Nova York - Tupper v. Friedman Vartolo, et al. - Advogados de execução hipotecária acusam Stafne de prática não autorizada da lei por apresentar declaração de especialista
Por Scott E Staffne21 visualizações
35 páginas
Resumo (preparado por Todd AI):
>>>>>> Este post documenta uma resposta institucional a uma declaração judicial preparada pelo advogado Scott Erik Stafne em apoio ao litigante pro se ( atuando em causa própria, sendo leigo e sem advogado) Garrett Tupper em litígio de execução hipotecária em andamento em Nova York.
A declaração, que critica as falhas judiciais na aplicação da lei federal (incluindo Jesinoski v. Countrywide) e levanta preocupações sistêmicas sobre viés judicial, teria desencadeado uma acusação de prática não autorizada da advocacia por advogados que representam interesses de execução hipotecária.
Em vez de responder à substância jurídica da declaração, essas partes buscaram criminalizar sua autoria.
O e-mail incluído aqui reflete essa acusação.
Este documento é compartilhado não para provocar, mas para preservar um registro — do que foi dito, como foi recebido e o que essa recepção pode revelar sobre o alinhamento das instituições jurídicas na execução de instrumentos hipotecários contestados.
This attempt at intimidation highlights the risks faced by lawyers committed to human rights, due process, and the integrity of the judiciary.
The complaint against Stafne is not an isolated incident—it is a wake-up call about the growing criminalization of the professional prerogatives of legal practitioners who challenge fraud, abuse, and the financialization of justice.
(Click here).
📌 Connection with Contemporary Cases
Ives Gandra Martins in Brazil: Disciplined for his constitutional analysis, highlighting the tension between academic freedom and institutional limits.
Here in Brazil, the eminent jurist, constitutional law professor, and attorney Ives Gandra da Silva Martins, at 90 years of age, is being compelled to respond to a disciplinary proceeding before the São Paulo chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-SP)—merely for having produced a legal study on the 1988 Federal Constitution.
We have already denounced these absurdities in previous posts on our blog —
WHAT COUNTRY IS THIS? THEY PERSECUTE THE VICTIMS OF ORCRIMS, THEY PERSECUTE OUR LAWYERS, THEY PERSECUTE EMERITUS JURISTS
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/05/que-pais-e-este-perseguem-as-vitimas.html for more details.
What is most striking is that the disciplinary complaint against Ives Gandra da Silva Martins was filed by none other than the Brazilian Press Association (ABI) and the National Human Rights Movement (MNDH), along with the Institute for Human Rights Advocacy (IDHA).
These entities formally accused Gandra before the São Paulo chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-SP) of allegedly “inciting a coup d’état” simply for publishing a legal analysis of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988.
Initially, OAB-SP dismissed the complaint, but the organizations appealed the decision.
The judgment on the appeal has been postponed multiple times, including due to political pressure linked to the OAB-SP’s internal elections.
---
¹ Brazilian Press Association (ABI): https://www.abi.org.br
² National Human Rights Movement (MNDH): https://www.mndh.org.br
³ São Paulo Chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB-SP): https://www.oabsp.org.br
These similar events remind us of the speech given by Fernando Schüler upon receiving the 2024 Press Freedom Award.
These parallels bring to mind the remarks of Brazilian scholar Fernando Schüler during his acceptance of the 2024 Press Freedom Award.
In his speech, Schüler defended freedom of expression not as a privilege granted by the State, but as an inalienable right — one that includes the freedom to dissent, to critique institutions, and to speak uncomfortable truths.
He warned that a democracy that punishes speech, especially legal or academic analysis, under the pretext of maintaining order, risks collapsing into authoritarianism under a democratic disguise.
Schüler's words echo with even greater urgency today, as we witness disciplinary actions being taken against lawyers and scholars simply for exercising their right — and duty — to interpret the law and challenge abuses of power.
🗣️ Key Excerpts and Ideas from Schüler's Speech
1. Freedom as an Inalienable Right
Schüler emphasized that freedom of expression is not a privilege granted by the State, but a fundamental right. He warned against the risk of a democracy that punishes expression — especially legal or academic analysis — under the pretext of "preserving order," as such actions undermine the very essence of democracy.
2. Objective Law vs. Judicial Arbitrariness
He stressed that judgments must be based on objective legal norms, not on judges’ subjective interpretations of what constitutes a “threat to democracy,” hate speech, or fake news. Otherwise, we fall into “the rule of men, not of laws.”
3. Room for Error and Unpopular Ideas
Drawing from John Milton and John Stuart Mill, he argued that truth is strengthened through coexistence with “bad ideas.”
Banning or censoring unpopular ideas hinders the public’s pursuit of truth and the maturation of democratic discourse.
4. Historical References
He cited Montesquieu’s defense of judging according to law rather than personal whims.
He referenced jurists like Oliver Wendell Holmes and America’s Founding Fathers, who, under current standards of judicial censorship, might be labeled as subversives.
Lecture by Professor
Fernando Schüler on FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, delivered at the FORUM OF FREEDOM – organized by IEE – on April 04, 05, 2024, also posted on Instagram by attorney CYRO BORGES, with the caption:
"The CHAIN OF CUSTODY becomes effective when the LAWYER pays attention to the details."
Íntegra :
Fernando Schuler was honored at the 37th edition of the 2024 Press Freedom Award, established by the IEE in 2007 to recognize individuals committed to fostering critical thinking and defending freedom of expression.
Schuler is a columnist for Veja magazine, part of the Bandeirantes Media Group, as well as the founder and curator of the “Fronteiras do Pensamento” (Frontiers of Thought) project.
He holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master’s degree in Political Science, is a professor and researcher at INSPER, and a specialist in Public Policy and Government Management.
With the central theme “Brave Free World?”, the event gathered thousands of attendees at the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUC-RS), in Porto Alegre, on April 4 and 5, 2024.
Distinguished participants included former President Michel Temer, retired Supreme Federal Court Justice Marco Aurélio Mello, members of Congress, national and international authorities, and renowned scholars.
Literal Translation (English)
Well, good evening everyone.
It is a joy to receive — somewhat of a surprise, really.
This morning I was coming here, at the airport, I ran into an acquaintance of mine and he asked me:
“Heading to Porto Alegre, going to visit family?”
I said: “No, I’m going to receive an award,” I said. “I’m going to win a prize.”
He said: “An award for what?”
I said: “Freedom of expression award.”
He said: “But isn’t that kind of dangerous?”
He looked at me with a kind of sour face, almost looked away like that.
I asked: “Did I say something?”
And it’s curious, right? That’s a... perhaps a sign of the moment we’re living through in Brazil.
And maybe that’s what justifies the award, right?
But I would like to make a brief...
Perhaps it is a sign of the moment we are living through in Brazil.
And maybe that’s what justifies the award.
But I would like to make a quick mention of everyone present.
President Temer, Dr. Jorge.
But allow me a brief and simple tribute to a figure who is a reference for me
and who, over all these years, has stood firmly — at times with difficulty — in defense of freedom of expression in Brazil,
in a place that is often difficult and decisive for the country,
which is the retired Justice of the Supreme Federal Court, Marco Aurélio Mello.
And, Minister, I will tell you why.
I will tell you why, Minister,
because you held a position of power where you could have used that power — including for abuse of power.
And every time power was in your hands,
you used it not in favor of abuse, but in favor of freedom.
A lawsuit that can lead him to pay a fine of 20 thousand reais every day, or may not lead him to pay a fine.
And a lawsuit of which he does not know the merits nor the content.
He has no access to the merits or the content.
And much less to the criteria by which he is sued or judged, or could eventually be judged.
Because when we do not know, when we move away from the objectivity of rights, we enter the realm of interpretations, the realm of conjectures.
By the way, one day I heard President Temer exactly using this expression.
The law of conjectures, interpretations, subjectivity...
Here is the literal transcription.
This reminds me of an old lesson from Montesquieu, an old lesson from the fathers of modern liberal democracy,
saying that if we are judged, if our guarantees depend on the objectivity of the law, we have freedom.
Otherwise, we are subject to the rule of men and not of laws.
If I am judged in Brazil, if any of us is judged in Brazil by what a judge thinks is a threat to democracy,
or by what a judge thinks is hate speech, or what a judge thinks is truth or falsehood, fake news or not,
I am not subject to the objectivity of the law,
but to the very subjective and fallible interpretation of someone, of an authority who holds power.
I recall here — I’ll return here — I won’t go too far... a professor is dangerous, he can digress too much —
but the history of freedom of expression in the modern world was born exactly from that reflection.
When John Mill went to the English Parliament to demand the end of censorship of books in England,
his main point was: truth is scattered out there.
Truth — he draws on the myth of Isis and Osiris — he said that truth had been fragmented, shattered into a thousand pieces,
and we will only rebuild that fragment if the event itself didn’t make the end.
Until then, we will have to deal with a fragment of the truth.
And moreover, he said: judges should not censor books because judges are fallible.
Judges are fallible.
And therefore, no authority of the State, no judge should be the arbiter of truth,
because truth belongs to the whole of society.
This is a... From that point on, we have the whole problem.
I’m from a generation, Mr. President, I’m from a generation that, like many here, followed the entire process of democratization in Brazil, still very young, back in the 1990s, in the 1980s.
And for many years — decades, I’d say — we had political clashes, right here at the Forum: statists vs privatizers, economic plans, the most varied political debates.
But all of us were nurturing, over this long journey of many years, a quiet pride in our democracy.
I myself have been involved in freedom of expression topics for a long time.
I remember that up until 5, 6, 7 years ago — maybe a little more — this was practically a topic we considered resolved in Brazil. Resolved in Brazil.
In fact, I was reminded of John Stuart Mill, in 1859, in On Liberty, where he opens the chapter on freedom of expression by saying exactly that:
“This is a fairly settled matter in England,” already in the 1850s.
But today, a few years ago — maybe since 2018, 2019, maybe a little before, a little after — things changed in Brazil.
And that quiet pride we used to feel — at least I used to feel — about our democracy, has changed.
I confess to you, sometimes, I feel ashamed.
I feel ashamed of our democracy.
I feel ashamed... It’s sad.
I feel ashamed when I see an economist — I refer to Marcos Sintra, a companion on social media — who asked a question on Twitter about the vote on the electoral system.
I feel ashamed when I see businesspeople, in a chat, a conversation informing a private WhatsApp group, being prosecuted, banned, by the Brazilian Supreme Court.
I feel ashamed...
I feel ashamed when there is a debate in the National Congress about the Fake News Bill, and the companies whose businesses are affected — platforms whose businesses are affected by that bill — in a democratic debate, expressing their views, their opinions on the bill, and they are censored by the Brazilian State.
Sometimes we might imagine that this is just a huge collection of pettiness,
where members of Congress are banned from social media, despite Article 53 of the Constitution guaranteeing parliamentary immunity.
And it goes on like that, where a YouTuber named Monark, who defends as a principle — which you may or may not agree with —
that the broadest freedom for any party to express itself should be allowed, is prosecuted by the Brazilian State and has to pay 4 million reais for saying that.
And basically, in a crude way, he’s defending the same principle as the American First Amendment.
The same principle.
Which even led me to a very curious line of thinking: that, eventually, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be prosecuted in Brazil.
That, eventually, Justice Oliver Holmes and Louis Brandeis — who were the architects of contemporary interpretation —
and generations of justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, would be outlawed,
perhaps fined 20 thousand reais a day in Brazil.
This is a malaise.
I tell you… that’s why I became someone who writes a lot about this.
Once I even received a letter from a reader saying: “Your texts are great, but can’t you talk about something else?”
And I said: not for now.
When Brazil becomes a liberal democracy again, I’ll stop writing about this.
I’ll stop writing about this.
I say, to conclude — I always like to answer this, especially because I see many young people here,
some older folks may have already heard me say this — why do I defend so strongly, as many of us here do,
why defend freedom of expression?
I always say that defending freedom of speech is not about the good ideas,
it's not for the nice ideas — it's also for the nice ideas, it’s also for the good ones —
but truly defending freedom of speech means defending the right to freedom of speech for bad ideas,
and eventually for the people we disagree with,
and for the ideas we might even find intolerable.
This reminds me of a phrase — also — from John Stuart Mill,
which I actually recommend here to the professor: the second chapter of On Liberty.
He says:
“Why, after all, should we defend the right to be wrong?”
Why, after all, should we defend the right to fake news?
The right to absurd speech, to unbearable speech? What's the logic behind that?
Well, I’ll tell you:
the logic of defending the right to be wrong — to be wrong! — the protection, the guarantee of the right to error in expression,
is not for the sake of the error,
it’s not for the advantage, the well-being, or the utility the error may bring us.
But rather, for the defense of a principle.
A principle that, if we uphold and protect it, allows the truth to flourish.
That’s why we defend it.
We defend a society that — historically, over 300 or 400 years of modern history —
has slowly built this idea.
In fact, there’s a brilliant film I like to cite...
A magazine that served no purpose, a magazine that was seen as a mistake and should’ve been banned.
The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
And one day, he got fed up — Larry Flynt — gathered the press around him and said:
> “Look, I want to say this:
I’m the worst of Americans,
I agree with you, I’m the worst of Americans.
So, if the U.S. Constitution protects me — me, the worst of Americans —
it protects all of you, who are better than me, because I’m the worst of Americans.”
And that is the ultimate meaning of defending freedom of expression:
because we are not infallible, we are fallible.
So, no one truly knows, in the end, with certainty, what is false and what is true.
Okay... but the guarantee of that protection, the only way we can defend and ensure it,
is by upholding a principle that, in the end, protects all of us, including the flourishing of good ideas.
And finally, I want to tell you:
I dedicate this award to all the people who are persecuted, banned, censored in today’s Brazil.
In their name, I... I...
all of them...
in their name, whether sadly or proudly,
I will continue to write — at least for the time being.
Thank you very much.
DISCURSO DE FERNANDO SCHULER AO RECEBER O PRÊMIO LIBERDADE DE IMPRENSA IEE 2024
No discurso de agradecimento ao receber o Prêmio Liberdade de Imprensa 2024, o filósofo e professor Fernando Schuler faz uma firme e eloquente defesa da liberdade de expressão como um dos pilares do Estado democrático de direito. Em tom crítico e combativo, sua fala se transforma em um verdadeiro manifesto em favor do pluralismo, do direito ao dissenso — inclusive com o erro — e da integridade do devido processo legal.
A mensagem de Schuler transcende a liberdade de imprensa. É também um alerta contundente contra práticas autoritárias que ameaçam as garantias fundamentais da cidadania e o exercício da advocacia, especialmente quando juízes parciais utilizam o sistema judicial para punir, censurar ou intimidar os que defendem a Constituição, os direitos humanos e o direito ao contraditório.
A espinha dorsal de sua argumentação é o princípio liberal de que a liberdade de expressão só é real quando protege inclusive — e especialmente — as ideias ruins, incômodas ou impopulares. Ele invoca John Stuart Mill, no clássico On Liberty, e defende o direito ao erro como fundamento da democracia: não porque o erro seja bom, mas porque só num ambiente de liberdade radical a verdade pode emergir com força e legitimidade.
Em um momento marcante, Schuler relembra o filme O Povo Contra Larry Flynt, citando a cena em que o controverso editor, acusado de publicar material ofensivo, declara:
“Eu sou o pior dos americanos. Se a Constituição protege a mim, que sou o pior, então protege a todos vocês, que são melhores do que eu.”
Esse argumento é expandido com a menção à Primeira Emenda da Constituição dos Estados Unidos, que consagra de forma absoluta a liberdade de expressão e de imprensa. Schuler lembra que esse princípio foi concebido pelos pais fundadores da democracia americana como uma proteção contra o arbítrio do Estado e a tirania da maioria, assegurando que mesmo as ideias mais abjetas não sejam punidas pelo poder estatal.
> “A Primeira Emenda existe justamente para proteger o discurso que incomoda — porque o discurso que agrada não precisa de proteção.”
O ponto central, portanto, é a defesa de um princípio — e não de conteúdos específicos.
A democracia, enfatiza Schuler, pressupõe cidadãos falíveis, incapazes de determinar com certeza onde está a verdade. E é por isso que o único caminho legítimo é permitir que todas as ideias circulem livremente, permitindo à sociedade o julgamento coletivo.
No encerramento, visivelmente emocionado, Schuler dedica o prêmio
“a todas as pessoas perseguidas, banidas, censuradas no Brasil de hoje”
e reafirma seu compromisso com a liberdade intelectual e com a resistência pela palavra:
“Felizmente ou infelizmente, eu continuarei escrevendo — pelo menos nos próximos tempos.”
---
Oferecimento
Esta manifestação — inspirada na lucidez do discurso de Fernando Schuler — é respeitosamente dedicada ao advogado constitucionalista norte-americano SCOTT ERIK STAFNE, símbolo da luta jurídica pela liberdade e pela Constituição, e a todos os advogados, juristas e defensores dos direitos humanos que, em qualquer nação e em todos os tribunais, mantêm acesa a chama da Democracia e da dignidade humana.
Nenhum advogado deve ser punido por defender o direito ao contraditório, à ampla defesa e ao devido processo legal.
As prerrogativas da advocacia são garantias da sociedade contra o autoritarismo judicial.
Que suas vozes continuem ressoando com firmeza, mesmo diante da censura, do arbítrio ou do silêncio imposto pelo medo.
---
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário