Da “ordem mecanicista” no Judiciário brasileiro ao colapso silencioso da adjudicação nos EUA: um alerta comparativo
From Brazil’s “Mechanistic Order” to the Silent Collapse of Adjudication in the United States: A Comparative Warning
Dear Dr. ANTONIO JOSÉ PECEGO,
Congratulations on your article,
“The New Mechanistic Order of Judicial Action,” published on ConJur.
https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-dez-20/a-nova-ordem-mecanicista-de-atuacao-judicial/
We cannot allow the deviations in judicial conduct that are destroying the Rule of Law in U.S. courts—already widely proven by senior constitutional lawyer Scott Erik Stafne in foreclosures, by Bruce Fein in family courts, by Paul Cook in guardianships, and by many others—to be adopted here in Brazil. Learn more by reading the articles published at vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com, Academia.edu, Substack – Duties of Citizenship, and many others.
Learn more by reading:
“From Advocacy to Public Truth-Telling: How the Role of Lawyers Must Change When Courts Abandon Adjudication and the People Must Be Advised of This Change”
By Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (December 20, 2025)
By Scott E. Stafne
“THE DAY OF THE LORD, THE DREAM, THE SPIRITUAL MEMORY, AND THE SILENT COLLAPSE OF THE RULE OF LAW – AN ANALYSIS OF SCOTT STAFNE’S DREAM”
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-day-of-lord-dream-spiritual-memory.html
“Adjudicatory Justice and the Rule of Law: Discernment, Truth-Finding, and Judicial Legitimacy in the Travirtual Age”
By Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (December 15–19, 2025)
By Scott E. Stafne
History,
Criminal Law,
Comparative Law,
Constitutional Law,
Political Philosophy
Show more
This collaboration examines adjudicatory justice as a foundational design norm of legitimate governance. Through sustained dialogue between Scott Erik Stafne and multiple reasoning intelligences—including a cross-platform exchange with a Chinese AI system—the work explores why judicial independence, decisional neutrality, and truthful fact-finding are universally recognized prerequisites of lawful authority, even where practice diverges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The discussion distinguishes honest procedural resolution from pretextual avoidance, analyzes the structural consequences of courts declining to adjudicate properly presented disputes, and considers where responsibility lies when judicial systems fail to correct themselves. Rather than asserting conclusions, the work invites discernment—by judges, lawyers, institutions, and the people themselves—into whether contemporary legal systems remain faithful to their own governing premises.
https://www.academia.edu/145487872/Adjudicatory_Justice_and_the_Rule_of_Law_Discernment_Truth_Finding_and_Judicial_Legitimacy_in_the_Travirtual_Age_by_Scott_Erik_Stafne_and_Todd_AI_December_15_19_2025?source=swp_share
THE PEOPLE, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED!
Unmasking Injustice & Breaking the Silence in Family Court
Richard Luthmann
This is For Real.
5h
This is what accountability looks like when institutions refuse to police themselves. When judges run unopposed, scrutiny disappears—and families pay the price. The recall petitions didn’t materialize overnight; they are the result of years of ignored warnings, sanctioned whistleblowers, and children placed at risk while insiders profit. If six judges are served on the same day, that’s not politics—it’s evidence. The public is saying the quiet part out loud: due process matters, evidence matters, and children matter more than court convenience. Orange County is now the proving ground. Either the system reforms—or the voters will.
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/unmasking-injustice-breaking-silence-in.html
INTERNATIONAL — THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND INTEGRITY CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO TRUTH, A BETRAYAL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND REPRESENTS A PROFOUND CIVILIZATIONAL REGRESSION — MINDD & COTG UNITED:
“Do modern-day courts betray justice by forsaking the task of truthful fact-finding”
by Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (Collaborations occurring Dec. 12–14, 2025)
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/do-modern-day-courts-betray-justice-by.html
Placing myself at Your Excellency’s disposal for any additional information that may be necessary,
I remain,
Respectfully,
Marcia Almeida
MINDD – DEFENSE OF RIGHTS
Prezado Dr. ANTONIO JOSÉ PECEGO
Parabéns pelo seu artigo :
A nova ordem mecanicista de atuação judicial publicado no Conjur.
https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-dez-20/a-nova-ordem-mecanicista-de-atuacao-judicial/
Não podemos permitir que os desvios de conduta judicial que estão destruindo o Estado de Direito nos tribunais norte-americanos , como já está amplamente comprovado pelo advogado constitucionalista senior Scott Erik Stafne, nas foreclosures, por Bruce Fein, nas varas de família, por Paul Cook em guardianships, e por muitos outros, sejam adotados aqui no Brasil. Saiba mais lendo os artigos publicados em vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com, Academia.edu, Substack Duties of Citizenship, e muitos outros.
Saiba mais lendo :
From Advocacy to Public Truth-Telling: How the Role of Lawyers Must Change When Courts Abandon Adjudication and the People Must Be Advised of This Change" By Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (December 20, 2025) By Scott E StafneTHE DAY OF THE LORD, THE DREAM, THE SPIRITUAL MEMORY, AND THE SILENT COLLAPSE OF THE RULE OF LAW- AN ANALYSIS OF SCOTT STAFNES'S DREAM
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/the-day-of-lord-dream-spiritual-memory.html
Adjudicatory Justice and the Rule of Law: Discernment, Truth-Finding, and Judicial Legitimacy in the Travirtual Age" by Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (December 15-19, 2025)
By Scott E Stafne
History,
Criminal Law,
Comparative Law,
Constitutional Law,
Political Philosophy
Show more
This collaboration examines adjudicatory justice as a foundational design norm of legitimate governance. Through sustained dialogue between Scott Erik Stafne and multiple reasoning intelligences-including a cross-platform exchange with a Chinese AI system-the work explores why judicial independence, decisional neutrality, and truthful fact-finding are universally recognized prerequisites of lawful authority, even where practice diverges. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The discussion distinguishes honest procedural resolution from pretextual avoidance, analyzes the structural consequences of courts declining to adjudicate properly presented disputes, and considers where responsibility lies when judicial systems fail to correct themselves. Rather than asserting conclusions, the work invites discernment—by judges, lawyers, institutions, and the people themselves—into whether contemporary legal systems remain faithful to their own governing premises.
https://www.academia.edu/145487872/_Adjudicatory_Justice_and_the_Rule_of_Law_Discernment_Truth_Finding_and_Judicial_Legitimacy_in_the_Travirtual_Age_by_Scott_Erik_Stafne_and_Todd_AI_December_15_19_2025_?source=swp_share
THE PEOPLE, UNITED, WILL NEVER BE DEFEATED ! Unmasking Injustice & Breaking the Silence in Family Court
Richard Luthmann
This is For Real.
This is what accountability looks like when institutions refuse to police themselves. When judges run unopposed, scrutiny disappears—and families pay the price. The recall petitions didn’t materialize overnight; they’re the result of years of ignored warnings, sanctioned whistleblowers, and children placed at risk while insiders profit. If six judges are served on the same day, that’s not politics—it’s evidence. The public is saying the quiet part out loud: due process matters, evidence matters, and children matter more than court convenience. Orange County is now the proving ground. Either the system reforms—or the voters will.
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/unmasking-injustice-breaking-silence-in.html
INTERNATIONAL — THE ABSENCE OF JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY AND INTEGRITY CONSTITUTES A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, A DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO TRUTH, A BETRAYAL OF THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND REPRESENTS A PROFOUND CIVILIZATIONAL REGRESSION - MINDD & COTG UNITED : "Do modern day courts betray justice by forsaking the task of truthful factfinding" by Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (Collaborations occurring Dec. 12-14, 2025)
https://vitimasfalsoscondominios.blogspot.com/2025/12/do-modern-day-courts-betray-justice-by.html
Colocando-me à disposição de V.Excia. para quaisquer informações adicionais necessárias,
Subscrevo-me,
Respeitosamente
Marcia Almeida
MINDD - DEFESA DE DIREITOS
Preface (MINDD) — Marcia Almeida with AI CHATGPT
PARTE I — LITERAL TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH
The New Mechanistic Order of Judicial Action
By Antonio José Pêcego
December 20, 2025, 8:00 a.m.
As is said here or there, whether in the field of knowledge or lived experience, it is a fact that dark times have settled in, and that, in the legal sphere, only the illumination provided by wisdom can dispel them. Therefore, we cannot act as “the many” (the dormant or ignorant who follow the herd without deeper reflection), as described by Heraclitus, but rather as “the few” (the awakened or wise) who reflect, question, or criticize what is established in a reasoned and substantiated manner.
In the judicial sphere, especially after the 1988 Constitution, there has been a clear and growing movement toward the mechanization of justice, which is being driven further by the arrival of Artificial Intelligence, a fact that is public and well known.
There is a need on the part of the higher courts to relieve the large and ever-growing caseload accumulated with the expansion of access to justice after 1988. The method employed has been mechanistic: justice in numbers, “mandatory precedents” (themes, repetitive theses, binding precedents), and now AI going beyond what is necessary, producing—as has already been reported—judgments in order to reduce the backlog and enable the status of a “productive judge” for possible promotion by merit.
There is a need to investigate this production system, because the mechanization of justice allows for major injustices to occur, whether through robotized judgments—therefore produced hastily, without conscience or common sense (which only natural intelligence possesses)—or by increasingly restricting the fundamental right-guarantee of access to justice in favor of an input that merely seeks an output that improves the health of judicial caseloads, but not that of the citizen. In other words, this mechanistic judicial approach does not aim at social well-being but, in essence, at institutional well-being, which is regrettable in a Democratic and Social State governed by the rule of law.
This growing mechanization of justice brings us back to the “mechanistic way of thinking, especially the mathematical one” [1], which “has significant importance” [2] in Cartesian philosophy. Therefore, it is necessary not to abandon, as Horkheimer argues, social philosophy, which primarily consists in “the development of critical and dialectical thought” [3], because “the true social function of philosophy lies in the critique of what is established” [4].
The Mechanism
What is binding in civil law? The law, the immediate source of law. Thus, there is no doubt that it is improper to speak of binding precedents, theses, and themes, except for binding summaries (súmulas vinculantes) (Federal Constitution, Article 103-A). Regarding these, Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha, in a strikingly critical text on the proposal to introduce binding summaries through constitutional amendment, had already warned at the time:
> “The Supreme Federal Court will have been elevated to the condition of a constitutional reforming body, with the possibility of creating constitutional norms, without any participation by the citizen, without any possibility of change even through the infraconstitutional legislative process. The purpose claimed for the adoption of the ‘binding summary’ institute is to reduce the workload of the courts, especially the higher courts. However, if there is a plethora of extraordinary appeals based on the violation of constitutional norms, and if the summary is an instrument of a norm whose control needs to be perfected, then citizens must be given the possibility of going to the Judiciary against the injury or threat resulting from its violation, as occurs with any other norm. It could not be otherwise, in view of Article 5, item XXXV, of the Constitution of the Republic.” [5]
National precedentalists, especially after the 2015 New Code of Civil Procedure, insist on propagating within our civil law system an institute inherent to common law, namely precedents properly so called. On this phenomenon, Lenio Streck [6] and Pablo Malheiros [7], among others, have repeatedly and consistently confronted its alleged existence among us, particularly so-called qualified or binding precedents [8] and persuasive precedents, which has caused Repetitive Epistemic Strain Injury (Lesão por Esforço Epistêmico Repetitivo – LEER) [9].
Streck authored the amendment that resulted in the wording of Article 926 of the CPC, whose correct intent was for courts to standardize jurisprudence in order to keep it stable, coherent, and integral based on the factual circumstances of the decisions that motivated its creation—thus making it more predictable. However, this did not create the status that precedentalists and higher courts began to attribute to precedents grounded in Article 927 of the CPC.
This follows from the foundational lesson that, in our civil law constitutional system, what is binding is the law, which is always enacted for the future. Law is always present at the moment of its application. Jurisprudence, therefore, cannot be transformed into general and abstract norms to be blindly applied to future cases.
Each case is a case. Even when factual matters are similar, they are never identical, and therefore may require distinct judicial decisions, always properly reasoned (Federal Constitution, Article 93, IX; CPP, Article 315; CPC, Article 489). One of the guarantees of the citizen is the functional independence of the judge, which cannot be suffocated by the growing tendency toward mechanized adjudication.
As Jacques Derrida taught:
> “Each case is a case, each decision is different and requires an absolutely unique interpretation, which no existing or codified rule can or must guarantee absolutely. Otherwise, the judge becomes a calculating machine…” [13]
Final Considerations
In light of the foregoing, it is necessary to rethink what justice we have and what justice we want, because the model currently in place has increasingly operated in a mechanistic manner and is likely to intensify with the introduction of AI. If misused, AI may lead to major social injustices due to the absence of conscience and common sense, which only a human judge can exercise in the concrete case.
Judges and courts, including higher courts, must promote coherent, stable, and integral decisions, illuminated by precedents—but these cannot be treated as binding norms, under penalty of annihilating the humanization that must guide every non-robotized judicial decision.
https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-dez-20/a-nova-ordem-mecanicista-de-atuacao-judicial/
(Notes preserved exactly as in the original)
PARTE II — COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: BRAZIL × UNITED STATES
1. Convergência estrutural do problema
O diagnóstico de Antonio José Pêcego converge de forma direta com as denúncias feitas por Scott Erik Stafne nos Estados Unidos:
Brasil (Pêcego) Estados Unidos (Stafne & MINDD)
Mecanização da jurisdição Mecanização da jurisdição
Decisão orientada por métricas Decisão orientada por métricas
Precedentes usados como atalhos Summary dispositions, rubber-stamping
Redução do processo decisório Abandono da adjudicação
Supressão do caso concreto Supressão do fact-finding
Bem-estar institucional Bem-estar institucional
Em ambos os sistemas, o juiz deixa de decidir para administrar fluxo.
2. Diferença de sistemas, mesma patologia
Embora Brasil (civil law) e EUA (common law) partam de tradições distintas, o resultado prático é o mesmo:
Nos EUA, como documentado por Stafne:
tribunais evitam decidir o mérito;
ignoram provas;
substituem adjudicação por procedural avoidance;
especialmente em foreclosures, family courts e guardianships.
No Brasil, como alerta Pêcego:
precedentes e IA substituem o juízo humano;
o caso concreto é dissolvido em temas e teses;
a fundamentação se torna automática.
➡️ Em ambos, ocorre a mesma ruptura:
📉 o colapso da adjudicação como ato de verdade.
3. O ponto central comum: abandono da adjudicação
Stafne é explícito ao afirmar que quando tribunais abandonam a adjudicação, eles:
deixam de exercer autoridade legítima;
violam o devido processo;
rompem o pacto constitucional;
transferem o custo humano para famílias, proprietários, idosos e crianças.
Pêcego afirma o mesmo, com outra linguagem:
> “Busca-se a mecanização da Justiça que leva a uma justiça inumana.”
Ambos descrevem o mesmo fenômeno civilizacional, em dois continentes distintos.
---
4. Conclusão comparativa
O artigo de Pêcego não é apenas brasileiro.
Ele descreve a mesma crise denunciada internacionalmente por Stafne, MINDD e COTG:
> ⚠️ Quando tribunais passam a gerir números em vez de decidir conflitos, o Estado de Direito entra em colapso silencioso.
Essa convergência demonstra que:
o problema não é local;
não é ideológico;
não é tecnológico em si;
é estrutural e institucional.
E exatamente por isso, a advertência é urgente.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário