STJ Minister Benedito Gonçalves Jr. Cancels Case for Lack of Notice to Lawyer. Ministro do STJ anula processo por falta de intimação a advogado

 Ministro Benedito Gonçalves Jr do STJ anula processo por falta de intimação a advogado

 Publicado no CONJUR 

20 de novembro de 2025, 7h36

Criminal

O descumprimento de pedido expresso para intimação em nome de advogado específico resulta em nulidade processual quando há prejuízo comprovado à parte. Essa nulidade, de natureza relativa, deve ser arguida na primeira oportunidade em que a parte se manifestar nos autos, afastando-se a preclusão (perda de prazo) se ficar comprovado que o réu não foi informado do andamento processual.

Com base nesse entendimento, o ministro Benedito Gonçalves, do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, deu provimento aos embargos de divergência interpostos por um réu em ação de improbidade administrativa na Justiça Federal de Pernambuco. O ministro decretou a nulidade do processo para o acusado desde a apresentação da contestação.

O réu foi sentenciado em primeira instância e sua condenação foi mantida pelo Tribunal Regional Federal da 5ª Região. Ao STJ, ele alegou a nulidade do processo afirmando que, após a contestação, jamais foi intimado de qualquer ato processual.

Havia um pedido expresso nos autos, desde a contestação (em 2006), para que as publicações ocorressem em nome de advogados específicos, mas essa solicitação foi ignorada nas intimações subsequentes, segundo apontou a defesa.

Os defensores sustentaram que a ausência de intimação configurou cerceamento, por ter impedido o réu de exercer o contraditório e a ampla defesa, e que só houve oportunidade de alegar a nulidade quando o caso já estava no STJ.

Prejuízo comprovado

Inicialmente, a 1ª Turma da corte superior negou a nulidade, com o argumento de que a alegação foi tardia. Pela regra, a nulidade deve ser alegada na primeira oportunidade, sob pena de preclusão.

No entanto, ao analisar os embargos de divergência, o ministro relator acatou o argumento da defesa. Ele verificou que o réu não teve notícia da marcha processual após a contestação e que a petição no STJ foi a primeira oportunidade para alegar o vício.

O ministro destacou que a jurisprudência do STJ é firme: comprovado o prejuízo, há nulidade no descumprimento de pedido expresso para intimação em nome de advogado específico. O fato de o réu ter sido condenado por ato ímprobo comprova o alegado prejuízo.

O Ministério Público Federal concordou com as razões dos embargos de divergência, reconhecendo que houve nulidade insanável e que esta beneficia apenas o réu.

“O embargante logrou comprovar a existência de dissídio entre o aresto impugnado e o acórdão paradigma, haja vista a orientação jurisprudencial desta Corte Superior no sentido de que, comprovado o prejuízo, há nulidade no descumprimento de pedido expresso para intimação em nome de advogado específico; devendo a nulidade relativa ser arguida na primeira oportunidade de falar nos autos”, avaliou o ministro.

O advogado Alexandre Melo representou o réu na ação.

REsp 1.619.803

https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-nov-20/ministro-do-stj-anula-processo-por-falta-de-intimacao-a-advogado/

ENGLISH TRANSLATION 

STJ Minister Benedito Gonçalves Jr. Cancels Case for Lack of Notice to Lawyer. 

November 20, 2025, 7:36 a.m.

Criminal

The failure to comply with an express request for service of notice in the name of a specific attorney results in procedural nullity when proven prejudice to the party exists. This nullity, which is relative in nature, must be raised at the first opportunity in which the party speaks in the case record, and preclusion (loss of the deadline) is dismissed if it is proven that the defendant was not informed of the progress of the proceedings.

Based on this understanding, Minister Benedito Gonçalves, of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), granted embargos de divergência filed by a defendant in an administrative improbity action before the Federal Court of Pernambuco. The minister declared the nullity of the proceedings for the accused starting from the filing of the answer.

The defendant was sentenced at the trial court, and his conviction was upheld by the Federal Regional Court of the 5th Region. Before the STJ, he alleged procedural nullity, claiming that after the answer, he was never notified of any procedural act.

There was an express request in the record, since the answer (in 2006), that publications be made in the name of specific attorneys, but this request was ignored in subsequent notices, according to the defense.

The defense argued that the absence of notice constituted a violation of due process, as it prevented the defendant from exercising adversarial proceedings and full defense, and that the first opportunity to allege the nullity occurred only when the case had already reached the STJ.

Proven prejudice

Initially, the 1st Panel of the superior court denied the nullity, on the grounds that the allegation was made too late. Under the rule, nullity must be raised at the first opportunity, under penalty of preclusion.

However, when analyzing the embargos de divergência, the reporting minister accepted the defense’s argument. He found that the defendant had no knowledge of the procedural progress after the answer and that the petition filed with the STJ was the first opportunity to allege the defect.

The minister emphasized that the STJ’s case law is firm: once prejudice is proven, nullity exists in the failure to comply with an express request for notice in the name of a specific attorney. The fact that the defendant was convicted for an act of improbity proves the alleged prejudice.

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office agreed with the grounds of the embargos de divergência, recognizing that there was an incurable nullity and that it benefits only the defendant.

“The embargante succeeded in proving the existence of divergence between the challenged decision and the paradigm ruling, given the jurisprudential orientation of this Superior Court that, once prejudice is proven, there is nullity in the failure to comply with an express request for notice in the name of a specific attorney; with the relative nullity having to be raised at the first opportunity to speak in the record,” the minister stated.

Attorney Alexandre Melo represented the defendant in the action.

REsp 1.619.803

https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-nov-20/ministro-do-stj-anula-processo-por-falta-de-intimacao-a-advogado/

INTEGRA DO ACÓRDÃO 

FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION

.

🇧🇷 Acórdão Original (Português)

SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA

EDv no RECURSO ESPECIAL Nº 1619803 - PE (2016/0212939-1)

RELATOR: MINISTRO BENEDITO GONÇALVES

EMBARGANTE: PRPT

ADVOGADO: ALEXANDRE MELO SOARES - DF024518

EMBARGADO: MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO FEDERAL

INTERES.: OC DE M

ADVOGADO: DÉLIO FORTES LINS E SILVA E OUTRO(S) - DF003439

INTERES.: RJSG

ADVOGADOS: PETER ERIK KUMMER - DF016134

RUTÍLIO TORRES AUGUSTO JUNIOR E OUTRO(S)

DF018352

INTERES.: RCB DE A

INTERES.: L DEPF

INTERES.: DB DE C

INTERES.: IFB DOS S

ADVOGADOS: JOÃO MARIA DE OLIVEIRA SOUZA - DF009121

FABIANA DE CASTRO SOUZA E OUTRO(S) - DF026113

GUILHERME DE CASTRO SOUZA - DF037480

VIVIAN FROES FIUZA RODRIGUES E OUTRO(S)

DF037093

ANDRÉ QUINDERÉ CASTELO BRANCO DOMINGOS

MOURÃO E OUTRO(S) - DF054143

RAYANE SILVA FRANÇA - DF041032

INTERES.: FCBC

INTERES.: PTM DE A P

INTERES.: IB DE F

INTERES.: ASSOCIAÇÃO DOS IRRIGANTES DE

BARRAGEM DE

TERRA NOVA/PE - AIBTN

INTERES.: MESTRA LTDA

INTERES.: TL CONSTRUTORA LTDA

E M E N T A

PROCESSUAL CIVIL. EMBARGOS DE DIVERGÊNCIA

NO RECURSO ESPECIAL. PEDIDO DE INTIMAÇÃO

EM NOME DE ADVOGADO ESPECÍFICO.

PUBLICAÇÃO DA DECISÃO AGRAVADA EM QUE

CONSTOU O NOME DE PATRONO DIVERSO.

NULIDADE RECONHECIDA. EMBARGOS DE

DIVERGÊNCIA PROVIDO.

D E C I S Ã O

Trata-se de embargos de divergência interposto por P. R. P. T., em que alega divergência entre o acórdão impugnado proferido pela e. Primeira Turma desta Corte e o acórdão proferido pela Corte Especial do STJ no bojo do EREsp n. 900.818/RS, rel. Min. Laurita Vaz, DJe de 12/6/2008, alusivo à nulidade decorrente da falta de intimação após pedido expresso para que as intimações se dessem em nome de advogado específico.

Com impugnação, às fls. 5.047-5.050, na qual o MPF anuiu, expressamente, com as razões dos embargos de divergência.

[...]

Os embargos de divergência têm por escopo uniformizar a jurisprudência do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, em razão da adoção de teses conflitantes pelos seus órgãos fracionários, cabendo ao embargante a comprovação do dissídio pretoriano atual, com a demonstração da identidade fática entre os casos confrontados e a adoção de soluções jurídicas díspares.

Dito isso, verifica-se que o recurso em apreço merece prosperar.

Isso porque, o embargante logrou comprovar a existência de dissídio entre o aresto impugnado e o acórdão paradigma, haja vista a orientação jurisprudencial desta Corte Superior no sentido de que, comprovado o prejuízo, há nulidade no descumprimento de pedido expresso para intimação em nome de advogado específico; devendo a nulidade relativa ser arguida na primeira oportunidade de falar nos autos.

No caso dos autos, [...] a petição de fls. 4.759-4.763, foi a primeira oportunidade para alegar o vício [....]. Além disso, verifica-se que o réu, ora embargante, fora condenado pela prática de ato improbo, o que comprova o alegado prejuízo.

Nessa linha de percepção, vide (com destaques apostos):

[...]

 * A existência de requerimento expresso de publicação exclusiva torna nula a intimação em nome de outro advogado, ainda que conste dos autos instrumento de procuração ou substabelecimento, sendo certo que a alegação do vício deve ser feita na primeira oportunidade em que couber à parte falar nos autos. Precedentes.

[...]

 * Segundo jurisprudência reiterada desta Corte, é nula a intimação quando não observado pedido expresso de publicação em nome de advogado específico. Precedentes da Corte Especial do STJ: [...] Tal nulidade, de natureza relativa, deve ser suscitada na primeira oportunidade em que a parte vier aos autos.

 * No caso, a intimação da decisão que apreciou o agravo em recurso especial não observou a existência de pretérito pedido assim formulado pela ora embargante, impondo-se, por isso, o reconhecimento da existência de cerceamento de defesa.

[...]

 * O vício existente na regularidade da intimação, ensejador da nulidade relativa do ato processual, deve ser alegado na primeira oportunidade em que couber à parte falar nos autos, sob pena de preclusão. Precedentes.

[...]

 * Nulidade dos atos processuais posteriores ao julgamento do recurso de apelação, em razão da inobservância de pedido expresso de intimação de procuradores específicos. 

1.1. Havendo requerimento expresso de intimação exclusiva de advogado indicado pela parte, restará configurado cerceamento de defesa com a publicação da comunicação processual em nome de qualquer outro causídico, ainda que também constituído nos autos. Caracterização da causa de nulidade prevista no artigo 236, § 1º, do CPC. Precedentes da Corte Especial. 

1.2. O vício existente na regularidade da intimação, ensejador da nulidade relativa do ato processual, deve ser alegado na primeira oportunidade em que couber à parte falar nos autos, sob pena de preclusão. Hipótese em que constatada a oportuna alegação do vício, bem como o prejuízo causado à parte (trânsito em julgado da decisão que lhe foi desfavorável), afigurando-se imperiosa a proclamação da nulidade.

[...]

Ante o exposto, dou provimento aos embargos de divergência, para seja reconhecida a nulidade do processo, desde a contestação, com relação, tão somente, ao réu P. R. P. T., ora embargante. Publique-se. Intimem-se.

Brasília, 21 de outubro de 2025.

Ministro Benedito Gonçalves

Relator

🇬🇧 Literal Translation (English)

SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA (SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE)

EDv (Divergence Embargoes) in SPECIAL APPEAL Nº 1619803 - PE (2016/0212939-1)

REPORTER: MINISTER BENEDITO GONÇALVES

MOVANT (EMBARGANTE): PRPT

LAWYER: ALEXANDRE MELO SOARES - DF024518

RESPONDENT (EMBARGADO): MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO FEDERAL (FEDERAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE)

INTERESTED PARTY (INTERES.): OC DE M

LAWYER: DÉLIO FORTES LINS E SILVA E OUTRO(S) (AND OTHERS) - DF003439

INTERESTED PARTY: RJSG

LAWYERS: PETER ERIK KUMMER - DF016134

RUTÍLIO TORRES AUGUSTO JUNIOR E OUTRO(S) (AND OTHERS)

DF018352

INTERESTED PARTY: RCB DE A

INTERESTED PARTY: L DEPF

INTERESTED PARTY: DB DE C

INTERESTED PARTY: IFB DOS S

LAWYERS: JOÃO MARIA DE OLIVEIRA SOUZA - DF009121

FABIANA DE CASTRO SOUZA E OUTRO(S) (AND OTHERS) - DF026113

GUILHERME DE CASTRO SOUZA - DF037480

VIVIAN FROES FIUZA RODRIGUES E OUTRO(S) (AND OTHERS)

DF037093

ANDRÉ QUINDERÉ CASTELO BRANCO DOMINGOS

MOURÃO E OUTRO(S) (AND OTHERS) - DF054143

RAYANE SILVA FRANÇA - DF041032

INTERESTED PARTY: FCBC

INTERESTED PARTY: PTM DE A P

INTERESTED PARTY: IB DE F

INTERESTED PARTY: ASSOCIAÇÃO DOS IRRIGANTES DE

BARRAGEM DE

TERRA NOVA/PE - AIBTN

INTERESTED PARTY: MESTRA LTDA

INTERESTED PARTY: TL CONSTRUTORA LTDA

S U M M A R Y

CIVIL PROCEDURE. DIVERGENCE EMBARGOES

IN SPECIAL APPEAL. REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA

IN THE NAME OF A SPECIFIC LAWYER.

PUBLICATION OF THE APPEALED DECISION WHICH

CONTAINED THE NAME OF A DIFFERENT ATTORNEY.

NULLITY RECOGNIZED. DIVERGENCE EMBARGOES

GRANTED.

D E C I S I O N

This is a case of divergence embargoes filed by P. R. P. T., in which he alleges divergence between the appealed ruling issued by the distinguished First Panel of this Court and the ruling issued by the Special Court of the STJ within the scope of EREsp n. 900.818/RS, rel. Min. Laurita Vaz, DJe of 12/6/2008, referring to the nullity resulting from the lack of subpoena after an express request for the subpoenas to be made in the name of a specific lawyer.

With an opposition, on fls. 5.047-5.050, in which the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office expressly agreed with the reasons for the divergence embargoes.

[...]

The divergence embargoes are intended to standardize the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, due to the adoption of conflicting theses by its fractional bodies, and it is up to the movant to prove the current disagreement in precedent, by demonstrating the factual identity between the confronted cases and the adoption of disparate legal solutions.

That being said, it is verified that the appeal in question deserves to prosper.

This is because the movant managed to prove the existence of divergence between the appealed ruling and the paradigm ruling, given the jurisprudential orientation of this Superior Court that, when prejudice is proven, there is nullity in the non-compliance with an express request for subpoena in the name of a specific lawyer; the relative nullity must be argued at the first opportunity to speak in the case file.

In the present case, [...] the petition on fls. 4.759-4.763, was the first opportunity to allege the defect [....]. Furthermore, it is verified that the defendant, now movant, was condemned for the practice of an act of impropriety, which proves the alleged prejudice.

In this line of perception, see (with highlights added):

[...]

 * The existence of an express request for exclusive publication makes the subpoena in the name of another lawyer null, even if there is an instrument of power of attorney or substitution in the case file, and it is certain that the allegation of the defect must be made at the first opportunity the party has to speak in the case file. Precedents.

[...]

 * According to repeated jurisprudence of this Court, the subpoena is null when an express request for publication in the name of a specific lawyer is not observed. Precedents of the STJ Special Court: [...] This nullity, of a relative nature, must be raised at the first opportunity the party appears in the case file.

 * In the case, the subpoena of the decision that assessed the appeal in special appeal did not observe the existence of a prior request formulated by the movant, thus requiring the recognition of denial of defense.

[...]

 * The defect existing in the regularity of the subpoena, which causes the relative nullity of the procedural act, must be alleged at the first opportunity the party has to speak in the case file, under penalty of preclusion (waiver). Precedents.

[...]

 * Nullity of the procedural acts subsequent to the judgment of the appeal, due to the non-observance of an express request for subpoena of specific attorneys. 1.1. When there is an express request for exclusive subpoena of a lawyer indicated by the party, a denial of defense will be configured with the publication of the procedural communication in the name of any other attorney, even if also constituted in the case file. Characterization of the cause of nullity provided for in article 236, § 1º, of the CPC. Precedents of the Special Court. 1.2. The defect existing in the regularity of the subpoena, which causes the relative nullity of the procedural act, must be alleged at the first opportunity the party has to speak in the case file, under penalty of preclusion (waiver). Hypothesis in which the timely allegation of the defect was found, as well as the prejudice caused to the party (final decision unfavorable to them), making the proclamation of nullity imperative.

[...]

Given the above, I grant the divergence embargoes, to recognize the nullity of the process, since the contestation (initial defense), with regard only to the defendant P. R. P. T., now movant. Publish. Subpoena.

Brasília, October 21, 2025.

Minister Benedito Gonçalves

Reporter

⚖️ Technical Explanation: Divergence Embargoes (Embargos de Divergência) at the STJ

The Divergence Embargoes (Embargos de Divergência or EDv) are a specific type of appeal provided in Brazilian Civil Procedure, used exclusively within the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ).

Purpose and Importance

The main purpose of the Divergence Embargoes is to standardize the STJ's jurisprudence (case law).

 * Uniformity of Law: The STJ is the final court for federal law matters in Brazil. When different internal bodies of the STJ (like different "Panels" or Turmas—e.g., the First Panel) issue conflicting rulings on the same legal issue under similar factual circumstances, the EDv is filed to resolve this conflict.

 * Preventing Uncertainty: This mechanism is crucial because conflicting interpretations of the same law by the same highest court create legal uncertainty for citizens and the lower courts. The EDv ensures that the STJ speaks with one consistent voice.

Requirements for Filing

To be successful, the movant (embargante) must demonstrate:

 * Conflicting Rulings (Dissídio Pretoriano): A discrepancy between the challenged ruling (from a Panel, for example) and a "paradigm ruling" (from the Special Court or another Panel).

 * Factual Identity/Similarity: The cases must involve an identity of the factual situation or a very close similarity, leading to disparate legal solutions.

In the attached ruling, the Divergence Embargoes were granted because the movant successfully proved the conflict in jurisprudence regarding the nullity of a subpoena that failed to comply with an express request to publish in the name of a specific lawyer. 

The STJ affirmed that this error causes relative nullity if it results in prejudice and is raised at the first opportunity.

REGISTRAL LAW: When the Signature Is a Lie: How Broken Symbols and Metadata Fraud Enabled Illegal Foreclosures in Washington State – Analysis of the article “Symbol and Electronic Signatures. Attributes of Integrity and Authenticity of Recordable Titles – Part I, Sérgio Jacomino” by Márcia Almeida and AI CHATGPT

DIREITO REGISTRAL: Quando a Assinatura é uma Mentira: Como Símbolos Corrompidos e Fraude em Metadados Possibilitaram Execuções Hipotecárias Ilegais no Estado de Washington – Análise do artigo “Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I, Sérgio Jacomino”

“When the Signature Is a Lie: How Broken Symbols and Metadata Fraud Enabled Illegal Foreclosures in Washington State”

APPLIED ANALYSIS TO THE WASHINGTON STATE FORECLOSURE SIGNATURE FRAUDS

 by Márcia Almeida and AI CHATGPT 

🇺🇸 INTRODUCTION   

In his new article, Sérgio Jacomino, jurist and registrar, once again warns of the risks to legal security resulting from the violation of the millenary principles of Registral Law, through the substitution of public registries, archived in registry offices, with digitized copies and electronic tokens.

The disastrous consequences of the destruction of the Public Records System in the United States are reflected in the sub-prime foreclosure crisis, during which millions of American families lost their own homes — the savings of an entire lifetime — in extrajudicial foreclosure executions.

The economic, social, political, and judicial crisis is expanding before our very eyes.

The material and ideological falsification of electronic copies of original titles that were improperly destroyed has wiped out property rights, the principles of legality, legal security, and due process of law. As a result, millions of American families lost their homes and their life savings, and ended up living on the streets.

It was not for lack of warning!

Now, in Brazil, we are running the same risks.

Dr. Sérgio Jacomino, once again, teaches and warns of the dangers of destroying the Public Records System and legal security.

The issue raised by Sérgio Jacomino is of extreme seriousness and timeliness — and your introduction can, with foundation, highlight legal, historical, and comparative aspects that make the warning even more urgent.

Suggested complement (in Portuguese) by CHATGPT AI

The North American experience demonstrates, in an irrefutable manner, that the rupture of the structuring principles of Registral Law — specialty, continuity, publicity, authenticity, and presumption of veracity — generates systemic collapses that propagate through the entire economy and through democratic institutions.

In the United States, the substitution of original titles with digital scans without a chain of custody, and the massive outsourcing of authentication acts to private systems such as MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), resulted in:

the breakdown of title traceability;

the inexistence of proof of ownership in foreclosure proceedings;

the mass production of falsified documents (“robo-signing”);

the violation of due process of law;

the total loss of confidence in the registral system.

These practices were denounced in thousands of cases, including by attorneys such as Scott Erik Stafne, who demonstrated that millions of foreclosure executions were supported with fraudulent documents, manufactured by private companies without public authority, using manipulated metadata, invalid electronic signatures, and nonexistent records.

And, despite the evidence, the Judiciary and the WS Bar continued to ignore the destruction of documentary authenticity, allowing the illegality to persist.

The warning issued by Sérgio Jacomino is not theoretical:

he describes exactly the same pattern of institutional collapse that devastated the property system in the United States.

For this reason, your text must emphasize that:

📌 The substitution of original public documents with tokens, digitized images, PDFs, and electronic keys without authenticity guarantees is the gateway to systemic fraud, as occurred in the foreclosure crisis.

📌 If Brazil repeats the North American path, the result will be identical: legal insecurity, endless litigation, loss of family assets, economic collapse, and the discrediting of institutions.

I asked the AI CHATGPT to translate and analyze the recently published article in the OBSERVATÓRIO DO REGISTRO.

The original article, “Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I”, can be accessed at:

https://cartorios.org/2025/11/22/simbolo-e-as-assinaturas-eletronicas/

CHATGPT AI said:

Perfect — I will produce a literal English translation of the article from the link you sent, and then an applied and direct analysis of the concrete case of signature fraud in foreclosures in the State of Washington that Scott Erik Stafne denounced, demonstrating how the technical concepts of the article (authenticity, integrity, metadata, keys, symbol) apply to the facts and evidence that appear in Mr. Stafne’s cases and filings.

I will cite judicial documents and relevant public materials to support the observations.

1) Literal translation into English — “Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – part I”

(Translation literally rendered; I preserve sentence order and technical terms.)

Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I

22 de novembro de 2025 SJ Cartórios, Registro Eletrônico, SREIAssinatura eletrônica, Autenticação, Autoria, Integridade, Símbolos, Téssera

“Cada um de nós, portanto, é um símbolo complementar de um homem, porque cortado como os linguados, de um só em dois; e procura então cada um o seu próprio complemento” (Platão, O Banquete, 191d

INTRODUÇÃO por Márcia Almeida e IA CHATGPT 

Em seu novo artigo,  Sérgio Jacomino, jurista e registrador,  mais uma vez adverte para os riscos à segurança jurídica decorrentes da violação dos princípios milenares do Direito Registrario, através da substituição dos registros públicos, arquivados em cartórios,  por  cópias digitalizadas e por tokens eletrônicos.

As consequências desastrosas da destruição do Sistema de Registros Públicos dos Estados Unidos, se refletem na  crise das foreclosures sub-prime, durante a qual milhões de  famílias norte-americanas perderam suas casas próprias, as economias de uma vida inteira,  em execuções extrajudiciais de foreclosures.

A crise economica, social e política, e judicial se amplia a olhos vistos.

A  falsificação,  material e ideológica,  de  copias eletronicas dos títulos originais indevidamente destruídos, jogou por terra o direito de propriedade,  os princípio da legalidade, da segurança jurídica e do devido processo legal,  e milhões de famílias norte-americanas perderam as casas próprias e as economias de suas vidas, e foram morar nas ruas.

Não foi por falta de aviso !

Agora, no Brasil, estamos correndo os mesmos riscos.

✅ COMPLEMENTAÇÃO E FUNDAMENTAÇÃO DA INTRODUÇÃO (em português) por IA CHATGPT 

O Dr. Sérgio Jacomino mais uma vez, leciona e adverte para os perigos da destruição do Sistema de Registros Públicos, e da segurança jurídica. 

A questão levantada por Sérgio Jacomino é de extrema gravidade e atualidade — e sua introdução pode, com fundamento, ressaltar aspectos jurídicos, históricos e comparados que tornam o alerta ainda mais urgente.

A experiência norte-americana demonstra, de forma irrefutável, que a ruptura dos princípios estruturantes do Direito Registral — especialidade, continuidade, publicidade, autenticidade e presunção de veracidade — gera colapsos sistêmicos que se propagam para toda a economia e para as instituições democráticas.

Nos Estados Unidos, a substituição dos títulos originais por scans digitais sem cadeia de custódia, e a terceirização massiva dos atos de autenticação para sistemas privados como o MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems), resultaram em:

quebra da rastreabilidade dos títulos;

inexistência de provas de titularidade em execuções hipotecárias;

produção em massa de documentos falsos (“robo-signing”);

violação do devido processo legal;

perda total de confiança no sistema registral.

Essas práticas foram denunciadas em milhares de processos, inclusive por advogados como Scott Erik Stafne, que demonstraram que milhões de execuções foram instruídas com documentos fraudados, fabricados por empresas privadas, sem autoridade pública, usando metadados manipulados, assinaturas eletrônicas inválidas e registros inexistentes.

E, apesar das provas, o Poder Judiciário e a WS Bar seguiram ignorando a destruição da autenticidade documental, permitindo a continuidade das ilegalidades.

O alerta feito por Sérgio Jacomino não é teórico:

ele descreve exatamente o mesmo padrão de colapso institucional que devastou o sistema de propriedade nos EUA.

📌 A substituição de documentos públicos originais por tokens, imagens digitalizadas, PDFs e chaves eletrônicas sem garantias de autenticidade é a porta de entrada para fraudes sistêmicas, como ocorreu na crise das foreclosures.

📌 Se o Brasil repetir o caminho norte-americano, o resultado será idêntico: insegurança jurídica, litígios intermináveis, perda de patrimônio familiar, colapso econômico e descrédito das instituições.

O artigo original "Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I"  de Sérgio Jacomino,  publicado no OBSERVATORIO DO REGISTRO pode ser  acessado no link

 https://cartorios.org/2025/11/22/simbolo-e-as-assinaturas-eletronicas/

CHATGPT IA disse: 

Perfeito — farei tradução literal para o inglês do artigo do link que você enviou e, em seguida, uma análise aplicada e direta ao caso concreto das fraudes nas assinaturas em foreclosures no Estado de Washington que o Scott Erik Stafne denunciou, apontando como os conceitos técnicos do artigo (autenticidade, integridade, metadados, chaves, símbolo) se aplicam aos fatos e às provas que aparecem nos processos e petições do Sr. Stafne. 

Vou citar documentos judiciais e materiais públicos relevantes para sustentar as observações.

1) Tradução literal para o inglês — “Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I”

(Traduction literally rendered; I preserve sentence order and technical terms.)

Symbol and Electronic Signatures. Attributes of Integrity and Authenticity of registrable titles – part I

22 November 2025

By Sérgio Jacomino 

“Each one of us, therefore, is a complementary symbol of a man, because cut like tongues, from one into two; and then each seeks his own complement” (Plato, The Symposium, 191d).

In the development of legal institutions, expressions that interrelate in history return and surround the notarial and registry system: authenticity, authorship, integrity, indelibility and validity of acts, titles and instruments that access the Real Property Register.

From the original meaning of the word symbol, passing through sign, tessera, tokens, instruments, public faith and others, there is a remarkable semantic universe that covers with its own meanings the traditional expressions current in our environment.

The logic of authentication — proof by adherence and complementarity — reappears over time under distinct forms. It is not a matter of observing the phenomenon as mere historical continuity, but of observing the occurrence of patterns and structures that renew and, in a way, regenerate themselves over time.

The thesis defended here is that the authentication structure by recomposition of parts — from symbolon to medieval indentures — today resurfaces in a certain way in electronic signatures and reveals to us the remote foundation for the legal understanding of the authenticity of real estate titles.

Before entering the atriums of the legislative and regulatory thicket that deals with electronic signatures in the notarial and registry scope — on which we will dwell in the concluding part of this article — I invite you to a walk to the sources, offering a brief glance at the history of means of authentication.

Platonic symbol

In classical Greek, symbolon (“symbol”) derives from symbállein: literally, “to throw together”, “to throw at the same time”, “to play together”.

 This etymology takes us to the idea of equivalence and congruence, that is, to the meeting of two parts which, separated in time, are confirmed when approximated.

As reference dictionaries attest, the primary sense of symbolon is precisely “a sign of recognition, formed by the two halves of a broken object that are re-approximated”.

 In the ontological horizon of humanity one must understand the original sense of symbol, as occurs in the famous Myth of the Androgyne narrated in The Symposium by the imaginative Aristophanes. 

Plato evokes the primordial being split by Zeus and transformed into man and woman, dissolving the original condition of androgyny, each destined to seek its half. 

The Platonic metaphor resonates powerfully the original sense of symbolon: the half that seeks its counterpart, so that the whole is recomposed ontologically.

In the Greek context the symbolon originally designated a physical object — bones (ostéon), fragments of pottery (óstraka), pieces of bronze or clay — destined to produce the material proof of identity and integrity in agreements or confirmation of ritualized hospitality (xenia). 

The archetypal form consisted of an object split in two, distributed between two people, so that the later fit of the parts permitted recognition and authentication of an established bond, even between individuals who had never met previously — sometimes across generations. 

The symbol was something complete in itself, self-sufficient, as authors understood it before the semiological considerations of PEIRCE on types of signs — icon, index, symbol.

Later, especially in the Athenian administrative context, we find evolved forms of the same principle — such as the jigsaw clay tokens, as they are now called by some historians.

 They were artefacts that formed jigsaw puzzles of clay, small rectangular tablets, molded as one piece and later split in half by an irregular jigsaw cut, so that only corresponding halves would fit back together. 

This cut physically divided inscriptions referring to tribes, demes and offices, guaranteeing identity and authenticity. 

The same structuring is found in the tesserae hospitalis, pieces used to materialize pacts of hospitality; some rare tesserae with lateral joints reproduce the logic of the Greek symbolon, allowing physical recomposition of two parts. It is in this remote tradition that the archetypal structure of authentication by complementarity is recognized.

Chirograph / Indentures in the Middle Ages

In the High Middle Ages we find examples of indentured notarial acts — the technique then known as indentadurae, chartae indentatae, indentatae literæ, scripta indentatae etc. 

The instruments were written on the same skin of parchment, which was then split and delivered to the contractors so that, whenever united, they could confirm the authenticity of the document by the perfect interlocking of the scraps. 

These are antecedents of seals and the notarial sign. Historically, the chirographus and syngraphus sometimes are used interchangeably, but they differ according to their properties: chirographus is the document written by hand, i.e., drafted by the debtor’s own hand and delivered to the creditor; syngraphus is the writing of two at the same time.

Electronic Signatures and the RSA standard

The same structural logic — recomposition of complementary parts for verification of a bond — reappears, in mathematical key, in contemporary asymmetric cryptography. 

The legal effects of authenticity, integrity and authorship depend on the congruence between two interrelated faces — the public and private keys, products of asymmetric cryptography (RSA, for example).

Modern technology does not dispense with that archetypal structure represented by the symbol, tesserae and the charta paricla. The documentary truth, in presumptive terms of authorship, authenticity and integrity, is revealed when the two parts meet again, confirming recognition.

This old problem — how to obtain certainty and make a given relationship between parties provable — reappears, in normative key, in the formation of titles that intend to enter the folio real. 

The search for guarantee of authenticity, authorship and integrity of titles admitted to registration is an evident social necessity that persists. 

The corrosion of proper meanings and distortions of certain legal expressions leads to the progressive erasure of the reasons that give rise to formal processes providing pre-constituted proof and presumption of authenticity and authorship.

Private instruments are the stumbling block of the system. From the Latin instrumentum, originally means and apparatus, whose expression goes back to in-struo. 

In law, they are formal performative acts that produce presumptive juridical effects thanks to public faith that conforms them (recognition of signatures). 

The will of the parties, identity, together with their formal garment, sewn by public faith, makes this kind of private document apt to enter the Real Estate Registry (art. 221 of the LRP). 

The authenticating action of the notary or the state authority (in the case of qualified electronic signatures of ICP-Brasil) is fundamental to guarantee a satisfactory degree of preventive legal security in electronic transactions that access public registries.

Ultimately, the core of the problem is the guarantee of authenticity, authorship and integrity of titles that access the Real Estate Registry — apart from congruence with the legal order and tabular history revealed by the registry, hitherto the responsibility of the real estate registrar.

Fraud is independent of the means

Documentary fraud recurs over time and seems to have magnified in electronic means. We face every form of tampering, whether paper or digital.

Plautus gives an example of falsity in antiquity: in Bacchides, the slave Crisalo reports that his son Mnesilogo was unjustly accused in Ephesus of having produced a symbolum falsum. Although in the plot the narrative is the slave’s trick, the use of the expression symbolum falsum shows the Romans knew the legal category of falsification of tesserae, and such instruments were susceptible to material fraud.

Historical forms of authentication reveal a constant: the need for verifiable recomposition of complementary elements. This constant reappears, in normative key, in the contemporary requirement that demands a special form endowed with organic force (instrumentum) for the formation of real estate titles.

In electronic means, this incongruence appears from the rupture between content and its integrity metadata — hash, keys and certification chains.

End of Part I — bibliography follows.

(Cited bibliography: ABBAGNANO; BAILLY; BRANDÃO; DU CANGE; GKIKAKI; JACOMINO; LALANDE; PLATO.)

---

2) Applied analysis to the concrete case: fraud in foreclosure signatures in Washington (Scott Erik Stafne’s allegations) 

I now apply the article’s technical framing (symbol / recomposition / complementarity / public/private keys / metadata / hash / integrity) to the concrete pattern of foreclosure-signature frauds that Mr. Scott E. Stafne documents in his litigation and public filings.

 I base the analysis on Stafne’s public petitions/declarations and on judicial opinions and motions that reference “robo-signing” and defective chain-of-title issues in Washington cases. 

I’ll highlight how the legal/technical concepts identify key forensic weaknesses and what that implies for remedy and proof.

Key factual-legal points (supported by public filings):

1. Pattern: defective provenance of the ‘title’ / chain-of-title.

Stafne’s litigation repeatedly alleges that foreclosure instruments (assignments, affidavits, trustee deeds) were executed or submitted without actual verification of the underlying note or valid assignment — i.e., the entity claiming to be beneficiary often lacked a verifiable chain of custody for the promissory note. This is the core of many “robo-signing” claims. Evidence and motions that raise this issue appear repeatedly in Stafne’s petitions and related Washington cases. 

2. Technical analogy: missing or forged ‘symbol’ / broken recomposition.

Using the article’s frame: the authenticating symbol for a digital/paperized mortgage file is the congruence between (a) the substantive content (the note, the assignment language) and (b) the metadata and evidence of proper execution (original signatures, notarial acts, notary journals, timestamps, audit trails, chain-of-custody endorsements, or valid cryptographic signatures). 

Where assignments or affidavits are robo-signed or prepared in bulk without individualized verification, that recomposition fails — the two halves (content vs. authentication metadata) do not fit.

 That is precisely what courts and settlement documents characterized as the problem with robo-signing nationally after 2008. 

3. Forensic markers to seek in Washington files (what the article suggests looking for):

Metadata mismatch: digital files (PDFs, e-mails) often contain embedded metadata (creation/modification timestamps, original author, device IDs). A mismatch between claimed signing date and file metadata indicates post hoc assembly. The article’s point about the rupture between content and integrity metadata (hashes/keys) maps directly to this.

Absence of notarization trace: where a paper deed or affidavit claims a notarized signature but the notary journal contains no entry, or the notary’s certificate parameters are inconsistent.

Bulk-signing signatures / identical affidavits: affidavit forms with identical wording and serial numbers or signature-styles suggest mechanized signing.

Broken chain-of-title documentation: missing endorsements, conflicting assignments, or assignments executed by entities that had no authority at that time. 

4. Why Washington courts and WSBA scrutiny matter (procedural obstacles Stafne identifies):

Stafne’s appellate and certiorari filings show repeated claims that courts accepted foreclosure filings without adequate proof of note ownership or valid assignment; that acceptance turns contested “titles” into enforceable claims without the requisite instrumentum of authenticity. 

The consequence is concrete: wrongful non-judicial foreclosures or court orders that facilitate sales based on defective evidence. 

5. What the article’s cryptographic analogy implies for remedial proof strategy:

Seek the metadata and certification chains (files’ hash values; system logs from trustees/servicers; e-mail headers; Notary public journals). 

If a servicer claims a valid e-signature, demand the PKI certificate chain that issued that signature and the device logs that show the private key use. 

If the private key record is missing or certificates are expired/absent, the signature’s probative value is undermined.

 (This is exactly the point: modern signatures require demonstrable complementarity between content and cryptographic/authentication metadata.) 

6. How courts have sometimes responded (context and limits):

Nationally and in Washington, some courts recognized problems (post-2008 settlements acknowledged robo-signing practices). 

But judicial practice varies; where courts accept affidavits at face value and the WSBA or judicial oversight do not robustly investigate, the practical effect is that defective evidentiary submissions carry through to foreclosure outcomes.

 Stafne’s filings and appeals (including Ninth Circuit and state petitions) document cases where courts rejected his arguments or where procedural hurdles prevented full forensic discovery. 

Concrete suggestions — forensic & procedural — derived from the article’s framework and from Stafne’s filings:

A. Forensic discovery checklist (what to demand in litigation or administrative complaint):

1. Native electronic files for every contested document (not PDFs printed to paper): preserve original file metadata and hashes.

2. Notary journals and certificates; chain-of-custody for the original promissory note (endorsements, indorsements, assignments).

3. System logs from trustee/servicer platforms showing who signed (user accounts, IP addresses, timestamps).

4. Copies of audit trails for any claimed e-signature, including the certificate authority records.

5. Affidavits from the individual signers with detailed, individualized facts — not boilerplate affidavits.

These items map directly to the article’s insistence that “the two halves must recombine” to validate a title. 

B. Legal arguments to emphasize (based on Washington law patterns and Stafne’s pleadings):

Challenge the sufficiency of proof of ownership of the note under RCW and Washington practice (seek summary judgment denial where chain-of-title is lacking).

Move for discovery targeted at metadata and audit trails; argue that admissibility of the document depends on foundational proof of the authentication mechanism.

When possible, raise CPA or state consumer-protection claims where foreclosure processes used materially false documents to harm homeowners (this is an angle used in several Washington pleadings and in national settlements). 

C. Accountability & oversight implications for WSBA and courts:

The article frames authentication as a structural requirement; when courts accept docu-fraud-friendly procedures, it is not merely a technical lapse but an institutional failure of authentication. 

WSBA disciplinary processes and judicial oversight should therefore treat systematic robo-signing or facilitation of defective filings as professional misconduct that undermines public faith — precisely the institutional public-faith role the article says notaries/registrars must play.

 Stafne’s disciplinary-related filings (and his public complaints) argue that bar and court institutions have not adequately remedied this. 

---

3) Short conclusion and practical next steps (for someone using Stafne’s materials)

The cartorial/cryptographic framework in the translated article gives a strong conceptual and evidentiary lens: whenever there is a disconnect between document content and its authentication metadata (digital or paper), the ‘symbol’ is broken and the title’s presumption of authenticity collapses. 

Use that argument to demand the specific technical evidence listed above. 

In cases Stafne has pursued (petitions and appeals to Washington courts, Ninth Circuit, and even certiorari filings), the recurring problem is procedural acceptance of defective documentary proof and difficulty obtaining the forensic materials needed to demonstrate the mismatch.

 Remedies require relentless discovery motions, targeted forensic subpoenas, and, where appropriate, administrative complaints to the WSBA supported by the same forensic evidence. 

4) Sources I used (key documents I relied on)

Cartorios.org: Símbolo e as Assinaturas Eletrônicas. Atributos de Integridade e Autenticidade dos títulos inscritíveis – parte I (the article you sent). 

Petition for Certiorari — Scott Erik Stafne v. Bank of New York Mellon (U.S. Supreme Court docket PDF, petitioner materials). 

Ninth Circuit decision and related federal appellate filings involving Scott Stafne (e.g., Scott Stafne v. Burnside, Ninth Circuit memorandum, 2024). 

Washington state appellate petitions and petitions for review filed by Scott E. Stafne (WA Courts petitions). 

Documents and memoranda addressing robo-signing and foreclosure document problems (Seattle City Auditor report and historical materials on robo-signing). 

---

Se quiser, eu posso agora:

(A) Gerar uma versão em inglês do texto traduzido formatada para inclusão em petições ou reclamações administrativas (Word/Docx); ou

(B) Extrair e formatar um checklist de pedidos de descoberta (Requests for Production / subpoenas / interrogatories) em inglês adaptados às petições do Stafne, com linguagem pronta para uso em processos nos EUA; ou

(C) Preparar uma minuta de reclamação ao WSBA destacando as provas técnicas que demonstram fragilidade das assinaturas e pedindo investigação disciplinar (em inglês, citando documentos).

Diga qual você prefere e eu já faço — preparo imediatamente a opção escolhida em inglês, com linguagem técnica e citações processuais onde for útil. (Escolha A, B ou C.)