Declaration Magnun Coloquium

Mauricio Jose da Silva
Declaration of Embargo (Magnum Coloquium)

A statement was issued today in a personal journal of the attachment of Mr. Mauricio Jose da Silva, a social worker who could legally have no de facto value, but from the point of view and unimpeachable juridical and social conscience, since the duty of the citizen and not found legal trimmed to protect it Juridically since the same tried by qualified Lawyers in the records and in the defense the same has done and is doing to protect not only the same to other layers of the population that do not find models and constiutucional legal apparatus to do it follows below the text of the same that also had already sent to the own Judge Dr. Flavia in protocol to the digital registry.

June 21, 2019

EXCELLENT LORD OF THE DEEMBARGER OF THE COURT OF THE FEDERAL REGION

Process: 0012.2339.2018.4.04.8AO SR. UNEMPLOYED

Mr. President Ja that this process was not for me Flores I send you for your analysis and deferment (obs the photos are of today since I did not send on the date 21/06/19 10.oohs

Autos nº ... 1015427.24.2017.26; 0002 Tenth Family Rod

E Successions SÃO PAULO

MAURICIO JOSÉ DA SILVA, Brazilian, single, social worker, bearer of RG. 13.528.173-8 SSP / SP Resident and domiciled at Rua José Guilherme da Silva, 222 parque maria alice, SÃO PAULO / SP), already qualified in the records, respectfully comes before Your Excellency, through your own (a) the undersigned, to oppose, with fulcrum in arts. 1022 et seq. Of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following

DECLARATION REPORTS

I - THE FACTS

This is the action of. Interdiction filed by the petitioner, in the face of a lawsuit filed by Mrs. Matilde Maria da Silva Santos against Mrs. Maria Josefa da Silva (parent) in which she requests custody and custody at the stage of her age and also of the illness found.

The proceeding was carried out regularly, and in the end, this Excellency Judge delivered the judgment of ..., which is omission in the reasoning, since it was not consulted or received a quotation regarding this fact, I was aware by the author as a form of punishment to my person. In which I answered in the proceedings being initially welcomed as an interested party in the first moment, but. Since my public defender had not given me that office, I still had asked for an oatory, which never happened or was respected by me. I then proclaimed as Social Assistant (non-active) documents that corroborated my thesis, but, I was disqualified by the legal prerogative of the statute and regulation OAB as being right of the class attorney this fact.

Thus, the sentence was prolata to the day 04 of the month. July 2018. of the year. This creates serious discomfort on my part as to the consequent effectiveness of the judicial decision, as will be seen below.

II - OF TIMES

I MAKE A DECLARATION THAT FIRST THERE IS AN INVENTORY PROCESS OF 05/2002 STILL NOT CONCLUDED BY ME TO BE DISCHARGED, ACCORDING TO THE DONATION MADE BY MY MOTHER TO BE INTERDISTED BEFORE THE INTERDICT MADE BY ADVOCACY STAGE I SIGNED, BUT NEVER DELIVER LAND MATERIAL DIVISION FOR ME AND MY OTHER BROTHER. THIRD BY AGGRESSION THAT I SOFRIED AND RELATED TO THE CNJ AND STILL STF AND AFTER THE LAST END POLICY BULLETIN. AND STILL, BUT, SERIOUS AND I DECLARE AND DECLARE THAT IN THE LAST 10 YEARS I HAVE ACCOUNT OF MRS. MY MOTHER AND STILL OF HER HERITAGE (PHYSICIAN) DO NOT DENY CARE OF MY SISTERS REGARDING MEDICAL CARE. BUT, I AM A CAREGIVER OF ELDERLY WITH TRAINING IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE MOREI WORKED.

According to the civil procedural civil law, the deadline for opposition of declaratory embargoes is 5 (five) days.

Art. The embargoes shall be opposed, within 5 (five) days, in a petition addressed to the judge, indicating the error, obscurity, contradiction or omission, and are not subject to preparation.

As a result of the subpoena of the author of the sentence at the date of 09/21/2018 edition 2664 fls.154 / TJSP, after a total of 30 days has elapsed, this piece is timely. In electronic published I further declare that the lawyer I hired on 6/18 just to deliver and to get Mrs. Judge so she interprets her sentence at the end and the true light of the documentation previously filed by me as already stated .

SÃO PAULO 10/20/2018

FOR YOUR DEFENS

whether judicial decision, whether interlocutory, judgment or judgment, that:

I - If it is limited to the indication, reproduction or paraphrase of a normative act, without explaining its relation to the cause or the matter decided;

II - To use indeterminate legal concepts, without explaining the concrete reason for its incidence in the case;

III - to invoke reasons that would justify any other decision;

IV - Not to face all the arguments deduced in the process capable, in theory, to rebut the conclusion adopted by the judge;

V - Restrict yourself to invoking precedent or summary statement, without identifying its determinant grounds or demonstrating that the case under judgment fits those grounds;

VI - Failure to follow a summary statement, case law or precedent invoked by the party, without showing the existence of a distinction in the case in judgment or overcoming the understanding.

The aforementioned retrofit is of great importance for the legal system, which is, in the new Civil Procedure Code, a basis for the so-called "Decisions Motivation Principle", the latter consisting, according to Neves (2017) 1, in " with the concrete demonstration of the factual and legal reasoning he developed to reach the conclusions contained in the decision. "

Moreover, the CPC itself emphasizes the magnanimity of the present principle by expressly providing that the court must adhere to the expression of the statement of reasons in a clear and precise manner.















SÃO PAULO 10/20/2018

FOR YOUR DEFENSE,



            MAURICIO JOSÉ DA SILVA

ASSISTANT SOCIAL PUC / SP