segunda-feira, 15 de setembro de 2025

The Right of Rights Under Siege: A Report on the Systemic Violation of Access to Justice in Brazil and the United States by Márcia Almeida with IA GEMINI

The Right of Rights Under Siege: A Report on the Systemic Violation of Access to Justice in Brazil and the United States

Introduction

Access to the judiciary is often called "the right of rights" the fundamental guarantee that enables citizens to defend all other liberties.

Without it, rights to life, health, property, freedom, personal safety and every other rights become mere promises on paper.

This report, based on a comparative analysis published by the MINDD - National Association for the Defense of Victims of False

Condominiums, examines a disturbing, cross-national trend where judicial systems in both

Brazil and the United States are actively erecting barriers that deny this fundamental right.

By weaponizing procedural rules, persecuting dissenting lawyers, and promoting institutional

self-preservation over impartial justice, courts are transforming from neutral arbiters into

instruments of social exclusion and oppression.

1. Erecting Financial and Procedural Barriers to the Courthouse

A primary tactic for obstructing justice is making it financially and procedurally prohibitive for ordinary citizens.

The MINDD analysis highlights a Brazilian court decision (TJ-DF Accord 1.857.790) which posits that the mere act of hiring a private lawyer contradicts a claim of poverty, thereby denying access to free justice.

This logic absurdly forces vulnerable individuals to choose between their right to select their own legal representation and their ability to afford a lawsuit at all.

This is compounded by an invasive trend, such as in the São Paulo courts (TJ-SP), of demanding sensitive, private financial records (CCS/Registrato) to prove indigence—a disproportionate measure that violates privacy.

This pattern of creating insurmountable financial hurdles is mirrored in the United States.

The case of Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair is a stark example, where a senior judge ordered him to post a $50,000 bond simply to file future court petitions related to his mother's guardianship case.

Such an order does not serve justice; it serves to financially exhaust and silence a litigant,effectively barring the courthouse doors to those who cannot pay.

2. The Persecution of Advocates Who Challenge the System

When lawyers dare to challenge systemic corruption or judicial overreach, they often become targets themselves.

In Brazil, the aforementioned court ruling is seen not just as a barrier for citizens but as a "clear attack on private advocacy," creating an undue presumption against lawyers who work for reduced fees or on a pro bono basis to help the needy.

This retaliation is echoed forcefully in the United States. Attorney Scott Erik Stafne, who has challenged the constitutional legitimacy of senior judges and exposed corruption, faces disciplinary action from the Washington State Bar Association.

Similarly, lawyers like Ken Ditkowsky and JoAnne Denison were suspended in Illinois for speaking out on their blogs about the integrity of judges and guardians in controversial guardianship cases. In these instances,

disciplinary bodies, which should defend the principles of justice, act to protect the judiciary from scrutiny.

Lawyers are being punished not for traditional misconduct, but for fulfilling their ethical duty to expose injustice.

3. The Weaponization of the Law to Silence Victims

Judicial systems are also turning legal procedures into weapons against the very people they are meant to protect.

In the U.S., the designation of "vexatious litigant" has been used to sanction and silence individuals like Jayakrishnan Nair, whose persistent attempts to report

fraud and protect his mother were dismissed as baseless and bothersome.

This tactic reframes the victim as the aggressor,punishing them for their pursuit of justice and creating a chilling effect for others.

This strategy aligns with the punitive procedural requirements seen in Brazil, where the legal process is transformed from a shield for the vulnerable into a weapon wielded by the institution

itself.

The excessive delay in judgment on critical legal questions, such as Tema 1178 by Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which would establish objective criteria for accessing justice, allows this exclusionary regime to continue unchecked.

4. Institutional Failure and Pervasive Double Standards

The crisis is exacerbated by the failure of institutions designed to guarantee access to justice.

The MINDD's President analysis includes personal testimony about the dysfunction of the Public Defender's

Office in Brazil, where victims of violence are abandoned or obstructed by the very entity created to defend them.

This forces many to make immense sacrifices to hire private counsel, only to be penalized by the courts for doing so.

This institutional decay is underscored by a glaring double standard.

While an ordinary Brazilian citizen is denied free legal aid for having a lawyer, a millionaire judge in the same court system was granted it in a high-value case.

In both nations, there appears to be one set of rules for the powerful and well-connected and another, far more punitive, for everyone else.

Conclusion

The evidence from both Brazil and the United States points to a structural crisis that transcends borders.

The judiciary, in too many instances, is failing its core mission.

It is becoming an

institution that serves its own interests, protects its members from accountability, and actively obstructs the public's right to access justice.

This erosion of "the right of rights" is not merely a procedural issue; it is a fundamental threat to the democratic rule of law.

The shared struggles of victims and advocates in both countries are a call to action for profound and transparent reform to restore the judiciary to its rightful place as a guardian of justice, not a gatekeeper ofpower.

LEGAL AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE FAILURE TO

FULFILL THE MISSION OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN BRAZIL: COMMENTARY

ON THE ARTICLE "The courts' attack on access to Justice and lawyers" by Dr. João

Paulo Molina Sampaio

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS of the persecution allegations in the USA by Márcia Almeida

with AI GEMINI

The article by João Paulo Molina Sampaio paints a worrying picture of a Brazilian judiciary that,

under the pretext of procedural diligence and fiscal responsibility, is actively building barriers to

justice.

The author's central thesis is that the courts, by imposing new and restrictive

interpretations of the law, are undermining the constitutional right of citizens to a fair and accessible legal system.

He provides two key examples: a decision by the TJ-DF that equates

hiring a private lawyer with the inability to request free justice, and a growing trend in courts like the TJ-SP to require the presentation of private financial records (CCS/Registrato) to prove indigence.

INTERNAL APPEAL IN CIVIL APPEAL. DENIAL OF FREE JUSTICE. UNIPERSONAL DECISION. INDIGENCE. DECLARATION OF INDIGENCE. RELATIVE PRESUMPTION. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT NEGATE THE ALLEGATION OF INDIGENCE. HIRING OF A PRIVATE LAWYER, WITHOUT INDICATION OF PRO BONO WORK. INDICATIONS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY REVEALED BY THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD,ECONOMICINDIGENCE NOT EVIDENCED.APPEAL ACKNOWLEDGED AND DENIED. [...] 3. The hiring of a lawyer without indication of pro bono work contradicts the assertion of financial insufficiency.

The allegation of a lack of financial resources that forgoes the legal assistance provided by the Public Defender's Office or by an entity active in defending the interests of economically indigent persons deviates from the standard of reasonableness proper to the legal

environment.

4. Internal appeal acknowledged and denied. (Accord 1857790,07360633620228070003, Rapporteur: DIVA LUCY DE FARIA PEREIRA, 1st Civil Panel, judgment date: 5/2/2024, published in the DJE: 5/17/2024).

These practices, he argues, not only violate fundamental rights to privacy and legal

representation but also represent a "clear attack on private advocacy" by creating a presumption of financial capacity where it may not exist.

This critique of a judiciary perceived as acting in its own interests and using its power to penalize ordinary citizens and their lawyers resonates deeply with the situations reported in the United States, as evidenced in the cases of Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair and Scott Erik Stafne.

comparative analysis reveals a common and deeply concerning structural pattern:

1. Instrumentalization of Sanctions and Procedural Rules to Restrict Access:

The author notes that Brazilian courts are creating "unjustified barriers" by imposing punitive procedural requirements on litigants seeking free justice.

This resembles the experience of

Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair in the U.S., who, in his petition to the Ninth Circuit, was sanctioned as a "vexatious litigant," and a senior judge required him to post a $50,000 bond just to file future petitions related to his mother's guardianship case¹.

His allegations of fraud and racism

were deemed "unintelligible" and "baseless" by the court, effectively blocking his access to the justice system.

Both scenarios illustrate how the judiciary can use its power over procedural rules and sanctions to silence critics and make the pursuit of justice financially prohibitive,

transforming the legal process from a shield into a weapon against victims of institutional

violence and against the most vulnerable.

2. The Persecution of Lawyers Who Expose the Truth:

Sampaio's article describes the TJ-DF's decision as a "clear attack on private advocacy," noting that it creates an "undue presumption" against lawyers who work for reduced or pro bono fees.

This is a direct echo of the persecution faced by lawyers like Scott Erik Stafne in the U.S. and his colleague Ken Ditkowsky in Illinois³.

Stafne is the lawyer for the Church of the Gardens, a philanthropic organization dedicated to providing free legal assistance to the neediest, fulfilling the mission of a Public Defender's Office, which does not exist in the United States.

He has denounced the corruption and misconduct of senior judges and is being persecuted, facing disciplinary proceedings from the Washington State Bar Association (WSBAR), which has failed to act, thus colluding with the disregard for the Federal and State Constitutions and organic laws.

Stafne is being persecuted for demanding respect for the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

They are doing this with the aim of canceling his registration with the WSBA, just

as has already happened to all other lawyers who dared to denounce judicial corruption.

Stafne's questioning of the constitutional illegitimacy of "senior" judges is supported by the U.S.

Senate, and the strong evidence of bias and due process violations, which he argues and proves for anyone to see, benefits large banks, the "money changers," to the detriment of civil

rights litigants.

Similarly, Ken Ditkowsky was suspended for four years by the Illinois Supreme Court on allegations of making "false or reckless," frivolous, meritless, vexatious statements against judges involved in the same issue of elderly guardianship, just as occurs in the case of

Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair, a PRO SE litigant, who, not having a WSBA registration, was

prevented from saving his mother OMANA THANKAMMA's life, and was ordered to pay fines to his tormentors, threatened with imprisonment, and forced to deposit a $50,000.00 bond, after being reduced to poverty and physical disability, early retirement, due to the psychological

torture he has suffered since 2018.

The central issue in both jurisdictions is the same: the judiciary and its affiliated bodies are disciplining lawyers not for misconduct in the traditional sense, but for daring to challenge the systemic corruption and institutional self-preservation of the courts themselves, which thrives on the omission of public and private authorities.

3. The Double Standard of "Equality" and Transparency:

Sampaio highlights the irony of a court granting free justice to a millionaire appellate judge while denying it to a citizen who simply hired a private lawyer.

This apparent lack of "otherness" and

violation of "equality" is a recurring theme in the critique of judicial systems in both hemispheres.

The cases of Nair, Stafne, Ditkowsky, and the user's own experience, as referenced in the request, point to a judicial environment where there are two different weights and measures of

the law: one to serve the interests of powerful institutions and their allies (e.g., banks, guardians, the Bar Association) and another for ordinary people.

The requirement for citizens to

present sensitive private financial data(CCS/Registrato), while the courts operate with a lack of transparency and an absence of reasoned decisions in critical cases, underscores a

fundamental imbalance and constitutes a direct affront to the principle of the dignity of the

human person, the inviolability of private life, banking and fiscal secrecy, equality and autonomy of will, non-discrimination, and the right to due process, which is a FAIR process.

As documented by investigative journalist Janet Phelan, who was also a victim of the guardianship system, human rights violations, and became paraplegic after suffering several assassination

attempts, the records of judicial corruption are hidden, obscured, and/or manipulated in public databases, raising serious questions about judicial independence and accountability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, João Paulo Molina Sampaio's article serves as a powerful testament to a crisis of justice that transcends national borders.

The experiences he describes in Brazil, from the exclusion from the Democratic Rule of Law by the Public Defender's office itself, objectively

and/or subjectively, and the penalization of litigants who hire private lawyers who work pro bono,

without charging or receiving fees, or who are paid with sacrifice by poor families, and the

invasive demands for financial data, mirror the struggles of lawyers like Scott Erik Stafne and

victims like Jayakrishnan Krishna Nair in the United States, and of thousands of victims of false

condominiums and family violence, which I have lived and witnessed for almost 30 [thirty] years.

In both contexts, the judiciary, and this includes the Public Defender's Office itself and the Public Prosecutor's Office, who fail and refuse to exercise their constitutional mission, align themselves

with judges and abusers.

The judiciary is increasingly being seen as an institution capable of transforming courts into tribunals of social exclusion and legal procedures into instruments of

crime and oppression and exploitation by the strongest, to the detriment of the people and preventing the exercise of fundamental rights.

READ

The Courts’ Attack on Access to Justice and Lawyers

João Paulo Molina Sampaio

September 13, 2025, 1:22 PM

Advocacy
Judiciary
access to justice private advocacy civil procedure code public defender’s office legal aid

Over the last decade, perhaps the last two, one can observe the imposition of restrictive theses to justify making access to the Brazilian justice system more difficult.

This phenomenon represents an obstacle to the “renewal waves of access to justice,” a concept established by Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth, which advocates for the removal of barriers, especially economic ones, so that citizens can effectively seek the protection of their rights.

In this context, a court ruling and a new jurisdictional trend exemplify the attack both on access to justice and on the free exercise of advocacy, warranting brief considerations:

Ruling 1,857,790 of the 1st Civil Chamber of the TJ-DF and the growing requirement to present the National Financial System Clients Register (CCS/Registrato) for the granting of legal aid.

TJ-DF’s Understanding and Private Advocacy

Let us start with the TJ-DF ruling:

INTERNAL APPEAL IN CIVIL APPEAL. DENIAL OF LEGAL AID. SINGLE JUDGE DECISION. INDIGENCE. DECLARATION OF INDIGENCE. RELATIVE PRESUMPTION. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT OVERRIDE THE CLAIM OF INDIGENCE. HIRING OF PRIVATE LAWYER, WITHOUT INDICATION OF PRO BONO ACTIVITY. INDICATIONS OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY REVEALED BY THE EVIDENCE SET. ECONOMIC INDIGENCE NOT EVIDENCED. APPEAL KNOWN AND DENIED. […] 3. Hiring a lawyer without indicating pro bono activity contradicts the claim of financial insufficiency. The allegation of a lack of financial resources that disregards legal assistance provided by the Public Defender’s Office or by an entity acting in defense of economically disadvantaged persons is inconsistent with the standard of reasonableness inherent in the legal environment. 4. Internal appeal known and denied. (Ruling 1857790, 07360633620228070003, Rapporteur: DIVA LUCY DE FARIA PEREIRA, 1st Civil Chamber, judgment date: 2/5/2024, published in DJE: 17/5/2024).

In this case, it is not just the application of the relativity of the presumption of indigence, provided for in Article 99, § 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, but a clear attack on private advocacy and the citizen’s right of choice.

The understanding of the 1st Civil Chamber of the TJ-DF is unequivocal: the mere hiring of a private lawyer “contradicts” the declaration of poverty.

That is, by choosing a professional who is not a member of the Public Defender’s Office, the litigant attracts suspicion regarding their declaration, undermining the legal presumption and imposing an even greater burden of proof.

Such an interpretation ignores the provisions of Article 99, § 4, of the CPC, which explicitly states: “the assistance of the applicant by a private lawyer does not prevent the granting of legal aid.”

More than that, the decision collides with the Constitution itself, which in its Article 133 establishes the lawyer as “indispensable to the administration of justice,” making no distinction between public and private.

It is clearly understandable to deny the benefit to those who display signs of wealth incompatible with the claim or when the falsehood of the declaration is proven.

The case in the ruling, however, creates an undue presumption against lawyers. Performing the semiotic gymnastics that a party represented by a private lawyer necessarily has the financial capacity to bear procedural costs disregards the reality of numerous professionals who, to build their client base and survive in a competitive labor market, work with reduced fees, pro bono, or under a quota litis clause (risk contract).

In a parallel reality where all lawyers could maintain their client portfolio charging at least the OAB’s fee schedule, such a presumption might be consistent. However, in the reality we live in, we observe the granting of legal aid to a judge of the same court in a multi-million lawsuit [1].

This is not a value judgment on the granting of the benefit to the magistrate, but a reflection on why the same approach is not applied to those who do not enjoy such prestige, in an apparent violation of the principle of equality.

CCS/Registrato Requirement and Rights Violation

Moving forward, let us comment on the new practice of some courts, notably the TJ-SP, which consists of conditioning the analysis of the request for legal aid on the presentation of the National Financial System Clients Register (CCS/Registrato). This document, which details all the citizen’s relationships with financial institutions, was conceived as a tool to protect against fraud, such as the opening of accounts or taking out loans by third parties.

Regardless of its original purpose, the Judiciary saw in this document a controversial potential: verifying indigence.

The TJ-SP seems to have started a trend, since the requirement of this document is increasingly present, even in the TJ-DF. Presenting pay stubs, expenses, and the financial difficulties that affect the vast majority of Brazilian families is no longer enough.

The citizen must now disclose all their banking relationships, often unnecessarily and disproportionately.

This requirement borders on the violation of fundamental rights, such as privacy and data confidentiality (Article 5, X and XII, of the Constitution), regulated by Complementary Law No. 105/2001.

The measure can be considered disproportionate, as there are less invasive means to verify financial conditions.

Moreover, the practice seems to ignore the principles of the General Data Protection Law (LGPD — Law No. 13,709/2018), such as purpose and necessity, which determine that data processing should be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve its purposes.

It seems like a feast already known in which the meal consists of litigants’ data, now easily accessible and stored in legal databases, often without proper control over its security and future use.

In short, the two practices analyzed, under the pretext of safeguarding public funds and curbing abuse, end up creating unjustified barriers, penalizing citizens and undermining advocacy, in a clear regression from the constitutional principle of broad access to justice.

Bibliographic References

BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic. Available here.

BRAZIL. Law No. 13,105, of March 16, 2015. Civil Procedure Code. Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic. Available here.

BRAZIL. Law No. 13,709, of August 14, 2018. General Data Protection Law (LGPD). Brasília, DF: Presidency of the Republic. Available here.

CAPPELLETTI, Mauro; GARTH, Bryant. Access to Justice. Translation by Ellen Gracie Northfleet. Porto Alegre: Sergio Antonio Fabris Editor, 1988.
DIDIER JR., Fredie. Civil Procedure Course: Introduction to Civil Procedure, General Part and Trial Process. 21st ed. Salvador: Ed. JusPodivm, 2019.
NERY JUNIOR, Nelson; NERY, Rosa Maria de Andrade. Commented Civil Procedure Code. 17th ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2018.

[1] STJ grants legal aid to judge in R$ 2.18 million lawsuit. Available here.

João Paulo Molina Sampaio

is a lawyer, specialist in Environmental, Mining, and Urban Law from the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, and graduated from the University of Brasília.

Here’s the literal English translation of the full article you provided:

---

ON AIR: Migalhas No. 6,185

HOT MIGALHAS

Home > Hot > STJ grants free legal aid to appellate judge in R$ 2.18 million lawsuit

---

1st Section

STJ grants free legal aid to appellate judge in R$ 2.18 million lawsuit

Ordered to pay 5% of the amount in dispute, the magistrate argued that he does not have sufficient resources to cover the cost without compromising family support.

By the Editorial Staff

Thursday, June 5, 2025

Updated on June 10, 2025, 1:50 PM

---

The 1st Section of the STJ upheld a motion for clarification to grant the benefit of free legal aid to an appellate judge of the TJ/DF, in a rescissory action filed against the Union, whose amount in dispute exceeds R$ 2.18 million.

The majority of the panel followed the vote of Minister Francisco Falcão, who identified an omission in the previous decision that had denied the request.

Understand

Required to deposit 5% of the amount in dispute, equivalent at the time to R$ 125,000, the appellate judge argued that he does not have sufficient resources to cover this cost without compromising the support of his family, since he is the father of five children and has payroll-deducted loans exceeding R$ 300,000.

Initially, the 1st Section had denied the request, following the vote of the reporting Justice, Minister Herman Benjamin, according to whom the magistrate’s economic insufficiency had not been proven.

The decision highlighted data presented by the Union, which showed that the magistrate had a net income of approximately R$ 260,000 in 2010, was the owner of a 30-alqueire rural property, possessed vehicles such as a Pajero TR4 and a Kia Sorento, and was represented by “one of the most renowned law firms in Brazil.”

---

1st Section of STJ grants free legal aid to appellate judge in multi-million lawsuit against the Union. (Image: Freepik)

Turnaround

In a session on Thursday, the 5th, Minister Francisco Falcão, responsible for the tie-breaking vote that previously denied free legal aid, voted to uphold the motion for clarification, recognizing that at the time, "there remained issues to be further detailed."

His Excellency emphasized that the amount required as a condition for exercising the right of defense, even for those with a stable economic condition, “has the power to gravely affect the substance and maintenance of the plaintiff and his family members.”

The minister also pointed out that the analysis of the request must consider the real economic and financial conditions of the magistrate, and it was evident that family support could be compromised in this case.

Similarly, Minister Afrânio Vilela expressed his opinion, highlighting the disproportionality of the requirement. According to His Excellency, the documents presented showed that compliance with the deposit would cause actual harm to the magistrate and his family.

In this regard, he concluded: “If he were to make the 5% deposit required by the rescissory action, I believe he would have to save for at least 10 years or more in order to meet this obligation.”

Authentic interpretation

Minister Gurgel de Faria concurred, emphasizing the peculiarity of the specific case and the “authentic interpretation” of Minister Falcão regarding the omission in the motion for clarification.

For Gurgel, the minister’s position is legitimate in the sense that, at the time he cast his vote, he did not have sufficient information to judge.

Statement from TJ/DF Appellate Judge Sérgio Rocha

Appellate Judge Sérgio Rocha of the Court of Justice of the Federal District and Territories (TJDFT) clarifies that this is not a debt but rather the requirement of a preliminary deposit in the updated amount of R$ 682,230.00 (Article 292, I of the Civil Procedure Code), not R$ 125,000 as reported in the press.

The lawsuit has dragged on for 35 years and would be dismissed, if free legal aid were not granted, without examination of the merits. I would not deposit the amount due to absolute unavailability of funds, as extensively proven in the case files.

Moreover, for not making the deposit in advance, I could be ordered to pay up to R$ 1,182,640.00 in attorney’s fees, without the merits of my claim being examined. This offends the sense of justice of any citizen, rich or poor, and violates the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

The claim in the press regarding investments is false. On the contrary, the case files prove the existence of a payroll-deducted loan exceeding R$ 300,000, with monthly installments of R$ 6,000 contracted for my daughter’s medical school tuition. Everything is proven in the case files.

I clarify that my only two vehicles, cited in the opposition as signs of wealth, are a 2003 Pajero TR4, with 22 years of use and 269,726 km, and a 2011 Kia Sorento, with 14 years of use and 204,924 km.

Finally, I inform that the matter will be duly examined by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).

I felt humiliated in my civic and legal dignity when faced with the possibility of dismissal of the case without examination of the merits due to a financial barrier, after 35 years of struggle and two final judgments in my favor.

Process: AR 4.914

---

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

MINDD - DEFENDA SEUS DIREITOS

Pesquisar este blog