Knock Off Ray Ban Frames



Knock Off Ray Ban Frames

What flavor Lawyer says trial opens hope of punishment to corrupt, monumental legal goal Creates BERGAMO LEAF COLUMNIST Former Minister José Dirceu Was Convicted without evidence. The theory of the fact que la adopté in year rule Was Unprecedented way by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court) to convict _him_. Who says this is not a true PT hand the defendant's monthly allowance. Ives Gandra Martins And yes jurist, 78, qui est at the opposite pole of the political spectrum and diverged and Dirceu. With 56 years of advocacy and Dozens of books published, Including in partnership With Some Ministers of the STF, Gandra, emeritus professor at the University Mackenzie, Knockoff Ray Ban Aviator Sunglassesthe School of Command and General Staff of the Army and the National War College, says que la the judgment of the monthly allowance scandal Has Two Sides. One is positive: center and the expectation of new country corrupt politicians Where Would Be punished. The other is bad and dangerous Because The short Would Have abandoned the basic principle shoulds That doubt always favor the accusé. Sheet You've Said que la trial HAD a good side and a bad side. Let's start with the first. Ives Gandra Martins The people-have a huge discomfort. You think all politicians are corrupt and That Impunity reigns in all spheres of government. The monthly allowance as it ouvert a window in a closed environment to get the fresh air, in a new country Where There Would Be the punishment of Those Who Commit Crimes. This is unquestionably positive. From a legal point of of view, Knock Off Folding Ray BansI do not accept the theory of fact's domain. With it, I get to work with evidence and presumptions. I seek the truth material. You have people working with you. One of Them commits an offense and assigns to you. And you do not know anything. There is no proof her testimony just one goal statement. As you are the head of it, the fact que la domain theory, Knock Off Ray Bans Free Shippingis doomed, you know shoulds. All Brazilian executives are now at risk. a monumental legal uncertainty. Like an old lawyer with 56 years of advocacy, it worries me. The theory That HAS always prevailed in the Supreme Was the dubio pro reo [doubt favors the defendant]. There Was a change in this trial? The fact que la area is completely Call in the new Supreme. There HAS never been this theory. Was invented, it Took a German author, goal aussi in Germany it is not applied. And it Was On That Condemned José Dirceu That basis as gang leader [of the monthly allowance]. Incidentally, the fact que la domain theory, the biggest beneficiary Was President Lula, qui is to say That It brought` the theory in half. The fact of the domain and the dubio pro reo are Mutually Exclusive? There is no possibility of coexistence. If I have the proof of the crime stuff, I do not need the fact que la domain theory [to convict]. I read the whole process is José Dirceu, he feels me. We know from the times Each Other When We Were debating in the Ferreira Netto on TV [in the 1980s]. I get along with Joe, ALTHOUGH we-have always differed a lot. There is no evidence against _him_. In infringing embargoes, the Dirceu will Hardly be Convicted of gang crime. The dubio pro reo Historically not served to justify Impunity? Facilitates Impunity if you can not Prove indisputably. The prosecutor and the Police to-have-have strength in the indictment. harder. Purpose They Have instruments for this. Now, in a democratic diet, Prevents Many injustices to power. The Constitution Guarantees legal defense adjective is an impressive density. Everyone Thinks que le criminal process is the protection of society. No. It Basically AIMS at the defense of the accusé. The society is already Defending Itself ict with apparatus to Condemn all. What we-have to-have in the democratic process is the right of the accusé to defend himself. Or do justice society into Their Own hands. Discussed a lot in recent days about the public outcry and media pressure on the Supreme Court. What do you think? Minister Marco Aurélio [Mello] hinted In His vote [against the embargoes infringing] There Was this pressure. Goal Marcus Aurelius the very careful never paid to the media. The [minister] Gilmar Mendes never paid attention to to the media, Consistently voted as wanted. They are Concerned, in fact, with the reaction of the society. Inside this box is for the first time Discussed in Brazil, in depth, if the dishonest politicians shoulds gold shoulds not be punished. The fact That It joined 40 Defendants and Become a box Became the paradigmatic political judgment: or not we enter a new era? And the Supreme felt the weight of the decision. All this Influenced to adopt the theory of fact's domain. Any minister can be voted down? Usually, They shoulds not. I Could not tell. I would-have to ask each. possible. I would say arguably, thanks to television, the Supreme has-been Placed in a position to Represent Often everything society wants or what She Does not want. They are in fact is in the hot seat. Television puts the Supreme on the spot. Each goal Decided That I believe selon Their personal convictions, that 'May-have Entered Even aussi political convictions. May-have a political connotation. Incidentally Marco Aurelio About did well this connotation. And Gilmar well. He Said That this is a case shakes the structure of politics. The worldwide political short cuts are too, Ray Ban Knock Offsto Maintain the stability of institutions. The function of the Court is less and do more justice to this stability. All Ministers Have Their positions, Including policies. This account at the time They Will judge? Account. And the US account. Purpose in practice, Ministers are always covered up by the law. They are all great lawyers. How do you see the role of the minister Ricardo Lewandowski, if the rapporteur? It was exactly the right and Was Sacrificed so the population. It was goal Maintaining the posture, with tranquility and integrity. In the legal community, still well Regarded as a man with the fortitude to-have faced it alone. extremely worship. In short, it is hard and tough Sometimes to colleagues. By the Lula government, Ministers HAD hard discussions, extremely respectful goal. Not now. It changed a little style. There Was a change of profile. There HAS always beens, other gouvernements has ranks of three to four years entre les appointment of Ministers. The new adjusted to the Supreme tradition. In Lula It was nine retired and replaced What Were. The rapid changes Was. The Supreme Had a tradition That Was Then. Now, 11 units are Deciding Individually.


Previous: Next: