Ping process - Pong Magistrial Legal Parallelism

Ping Process - Pong Magisterial Legal Parallelism October 11, 2021 (...) "And, after all, how much effort and what strenuous effort does this pretense cost" (Leon Tolstoy, talking about the Russian criminal court in “Resurrection”, published in fascicles in 1889). It seems absolutely simple even for a layman in the legal sciences, that someone who has already issued an evaluative judgment on a given matter cannot, with exemption — it should be emphasized: with exemption — give an opinion again on that same subject without his opinion being absolutely contaminated by the antecedent judgment. astonishingly, having been offered the criminal complaint, the defendant was "judged" again, by the same judges who had already condemned her for those exact same facts. The reason, in fact, is another. Minister Roberto Barroso, who admitted to being "undesirable overlapping of actions", did not recognize the alleged impediment, arguing as one of its reasons the fact that the universalization of this solution would mean a very large contribution of processes to the STF, which, in the face of the so-called defensive jurisprudence of the Court, it is absolutely undesirable. Minister Dias Toffoli, contradicting the characteristics of human nature that, even to judges, is inescapable, affirmed that the judge must “abstain from himself” to judge, for the second time, a case on which he has already given an opinion. Judges Cannot Trial the Same Fact Twice May 12, 2015, 6:20 am By Gabriela Prioli Della Vedova and Renato Marques Martins A judge is only judge of his cases — that is, those that were distributed to him. Any law student knows that one judge cannot judge another's case. The distribution of legal proceedings where there is more than one equally competent judge is a cogent rule of law, and complies with the principle of the natural judge. In this sense, the CPC is clear: Art. 251. All processes are subject to registration, and must be distributed where there is more than one judge or more than one notary. Art. 252. The distribution between judges and clerks will be alternated, observing strict equality. October 25, 2014, 1:30 pm By Rogério Tobias de Carvalho Judge, I come to your presence to challenge the accountability process that has been unanswered for 20 years in view of your own ruling that states that the aforementioned process is inert 17, as well as the prosecution itself, which takes a stand in this regard and recognizes its state of inertia, the non-accountability for its conviction by Mrs. Judge Dr. Claudia Caputo, the denied requests for accountability by Dr. Nassef Public Farm , his two citations to appear at the MP for clarification delivered by the bailiff Mr. Lourival and also the denial of his accounts by the party in the capital Mrs. Celia da Silva Prães , not to mention the opinion of his lawyers who also confirm in their opinions its inertia before the Legal Condominium represented by it. Also, there is the fact that its procedural contradiction art. 299 cpc as Ms. lawyer Dr. Jussara Campos Costa stated in her initial petition in the interdiction filed by Ms. Matilde that she was without resources and/or assets at the request of Dr. Bruno Feria in her opinion that has not yet been complied with and that the consent of the other Brothers (07) was not obtained, namely being one of the interested resident in the USA for 30 years. I would like to make your Excellency aware that what Dr. Francisco/Creas - SP in his technical visit alongside the psychologist Mrs. Giovana may appear against the facts narrated not only in the initial, which can be requested at www.herdeirosdofuturo. org.br. I would also like to remind you that also in the physical inventory (2002) process itself. Mrs. Judge Claudia Caputo ("Mrs. Judge of the 11th Family and Probate Court of the Capital. Who after the conviction granted 15 days for a new rendering of accounts, which was not obeyed, I asked her office to grant the sentence. I was informed which was no longer, but the judge of the case. Mrs. what had already been requested by the Honorable Judge of the Public Treasury of São Paulo and still had her accounts refused by the head of the Judicial Calculation Coordination Mrs. Célia Preas on 28/ 07/2020 pgs. 273 and sharing of the capital's party. That in addition to the 04 unsuccessful attempts of requests for accountability. Including the signature of the subpoena delivered by the bailiff Mr. Lourival. There are other factors Mr. Judge that the various judges involved in this process have called my attention, but without a strict and monoclatic sentence that, in my view, would have long put an end to this dispute, since the removal of inventors beyond and before the pandemic and even the absence of my lawyers, there were already more than enough elements to remove the inventor defendant according to its declaration and also publication in the DJE." Professor Dr. Humberto dalla in class by electronic means in his TGP class (YOUTUBE) declares that for the first instance there is only one judge responsible for a monoclatic decision and in the chaos of the second instance, a collegiate court of 03 judges in accoordão that issue a sentence. Notwithstanding, until the present gentleman, I had the Judge, initially, after Dr. Nassef on the public farm, Mrs. Dr. Claudia Caputo twice and even Mrs. Dr. Vivian Wipli also twice and no definitive sentence in a process that in progress since 2019. So, Your Honor, more than 90 days after your last order, I hereby inform you that by declaring it inert for Seventeen years, a (Legal Vacuum) was created in the concept footer.* as it was not named another inventor, despite the long-standing request of the lawyers of Mrs. Beatriz Blanco and Marcela Correa, by decision in default of the Defendant's accountability. For your approval, São Paulo, October 11, 2021 Mauricio José da Silva Heir and Caregiver for the Elderly (USA/MA)