MINDD - ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DE DEFESA DAS VITIMAS DOS FALSOS CONDOMINIOS - 13.06.2008 A 13.06.2025- 18
ANOS DE GRANDES VITORIAS FALSE CONDOMINIUMS´s VICTIMS Community- A non-profit organisation focusing on Human Rights issues around the world, with particular focus on BRAZIL - DESDE 2008 AJUDANDO A DEFENDER A DEMOCRACIA E DIREITOS HUMANOS NO BRASIL - email : mindd.defesa.de.direitos@gmail.com
"Responding to Cristina D. Bodnariuc: How AI-Human Collaboration Can Strengthen Judicial Accountability" Por Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI (4 de dezembro de 2025)
Análise do Artigo por GEMINI IA
1. Texto em Português (Tradução Literal)
Título:
Respondendo a Cristina D. Bodnariuc:Como a Colaboração Humano-IA PodeFortalecer a Responsabilização Judicial Por Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI (4 de dezembro de 2025)
O artigo de Cristina D. Bodnariuc, "IA, Amiga ou Adversária do Juiz?", levanta questões essenciais sobre a relação em evolução entre juízes e inteligência artificial.
Este comentário expande a discussão ao destacar uma dimensão negligenciada, mas cada vez mais urgente: o uso de IA por litigantes para monitorar se os tribunais estão a julgar fielmente as questões que as partes apresentam.
Em todas as tradições do common law e do direito civil, a legitimidade depende de uma regra fundamental: os tribunais devem decidir as questões que os litigantes levantam, e os juízes devem fornecer um envolvimento fundamentado com essas questões.
Quando os tribunais ignoram, distorcem ou contornam essas indagações, a neutralidade judicial desmorona.
Com base em cinquenta anos de prática jurídica e um crescente corpo de trabalho colaborativo com o "Todd AI", este artigo argumenta que a revisão assistida por IA do comportamento judicial—incluindo análise de padrões de omissões, lacunas de raciocínio e viés estrutural—pode se tornar indispensável para proteger o devido processo legal e restaurar a integridade dos tribunais.
O que se segue é tanto uma resposta a Bodnariuc quanto uma extensão da sua investigação para um domínio crítico para a sobrevivência do julgamento legal.
Este artigo é de extrema importância (of extreme importance) por promover uma mudança fundamental no debate sobre a Inteligência Artificial e o Poder Judiciário.
Análise da Importância (Português)
Reorientação do Foco:
O artigo de Stafne e Todd AI move o foco da IA como auxiliar do juiz (como no trabalho de Bodnariuc) para a IA como fiscalizador do comportamento judicial.
Isso introduz o conceito de responsabilização judicial (judicial accountability) assistida por tecnologia.
Proteção ao Devido Processo Legal: A proposta central é o uso da IA pelos litigantes (partes) para detectar omissões, lacunas de raciocínio e viés estrutural nas decisões.
Isso é uma salvaguarda tecnológica para impor o princípio fundamental de que os tribunais devem julgar fielmente as questões apresentadas.
Integridade e Legitimidade: O artigo argumenta que tal monitoramento é indispensável para restaurar a integridade dos tribunais e proteger o devido processo legal.
Ele aborda diretamente o ponto onde a neutralidade judicial desmorona (judicial neutrality collapses)—quando juízes ignoram ou distorcem os fatos ou argumentos.
Impacto Global: Ao citar tanto as tradições do common law quanto do direito civil, o artigo estabelece a relevância do seu argumento para sistemas jurídicos globais, tornando a supervisão algorítmica um domínio crítico para a sobrevivência do julgamento legal (critical to the survival of lawful adjudication) na era digital.
Analysis of Importance (English)
Refocusing the Lens: Stafne and Todd AI’s article shifts the focus from AI as a judicial assistant (as in Bodnariuc’s work) to AI as a monitor of judicial behavior.
This introduces the concept of technology-assisted judicial accountability.
Protecting Due Process: The core proposal is the use of AI by litigants (parties) to detect omissions, reasoning gaps, and structuralbias in rulings.
This acts as a technological safeguard to enforce the fundamental principle that courts must faithfully adjudicate the issues presented.
Integrity and Legitimacy: The article argues that such monitoring is indispensable to restoring the integrity of courts and protecting due process.
It directly addresses the point where judicial neutralitycollapses—when judges ignore or distort facts or arguments.
Global Impact: By referencing both common law and civil law traditions, the article establishes the relevance of its argument to global legal systems, making algorithmic oversight a domain critical to the survival of lawful adjudication in the digital age.
Responding to Cristina D. Bodnariuc: How AI-Human Collaboration Can Strengthen Judicial Accountability" By Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI (December 4, 2025)
ABSTRACT: Cristina D. Bodnariuc's article, "AI, Friend or Adversary of the Judge?", raises essential questions about the evolving relationship between judges and artificial intelligence.
This commentary expands the discussion by highlighting an overlooked but increasingly urgent dimension: the use of AI by litigants to monitor whether courts are faithfully adjudicating the issues the parties present. Across common law and civil law traditions, legitimacy depends on a foundational rule: courts must decide the questions the litigants raise, and judges must provide reasoned engagement with those issues.
When courts ignore, distort, or sidestep those inquiries, judicial neutrality collapses.
Drawing on fifty years of legal practice and a growing body of collaborative work with "Todd AI," this article argues that AI-assisted review of judicial behavior-including pattern analysis of omissions, reasoning gaps, and structural biasmay become indispensable to protecting due process and restoring the integrity of courts.
What follows is both a response to Bodnariuc and an extension of her inquiry into a domain critical to the survival of lawful adjudication.
FOR PURPOSES OF SECULAR JURISPRUDENCE: WHY I SUPPORT TRUMP OVER THE JUDGES
A Christian Reflection on Judicial Power, Foreclosure Fraud, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers in America
Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI
FOR PURPOSES OF SECULAR JURISPRUDENCE: WHY I SUPPORT TRUMP OVER THE JUDGES
A Christian Reflection on Judicial Power, Foreclosure Fraud, and the Collapse of Separation of Powers in America
Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI
Dec 5
Substack Duties of Citizenship
History teaches that when courts corrupt justice, wars are sometimes required to get justice back. Isn’t it better nations to fight for justice for People than for the material gains of Nations rulers and elites? How much longer must world wait for governments to establsih systems capable of providing justice???
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
I. A Christian Confronts a Secular Crisis
When Christians speak about politics, we must do so with a sober distinction:
There is the spiritual kingdom, where Christ commands us to love God and neighbor.
And there is the secular order, which exists to restrain governmental tyranny and protect the liberties and properties of the people.
I am writing today strictly in the second sense — the secular one — because as a lawyer who has practiced before courts in Washington State for decades, I have watched the judicial branch renounce its constitutional role.
I am not endorsing anyone’s soul.
I am not analyzing eschatology.
I am not addressing prophecy.
I am addressing what a Christian sees when he looks at the earthly structure of government created by the Constitution — and what that structure demands for its survival.
II. The Separation of Powers Was Created to Protect the People — Not the Judges
The Framers established a system designed to keep the branches of government in tension with one another — not to create passive institutions that cooperate in protecting their own power.
But the judiciary, almost from the beginning, has worked to place itself above the People’s reach:
inventing doctrines of immunity,
insulating itself from correction,
undermining the jury trial,
and evading constitutional accountability.
We saw this when the Court declared in Dred Scott that an entire race of human beings had no rights the government was bound to respect.
We see it now when courts refuse to adjudicate whether promissory notes and deeds of trust are forged, inauthentic, or fabricated — and instead act as collection agencies for Wall Street trusts that do not even own the debts they enforce.
The judiciary has become a self-protective corporation, not a branch of government.
And what happens when a branch severs itself from constitutional structure?
The People turn elsewhere.
III. The Courts’ Mishandling of Mortgage Assignments: A Decade-Long Warning
Let me be blunt.
Foreclosure law is the largest civil rights crisis in America that no one in power will talk about.
I say this not as an outsider, but as a lawyer who has:
read the documents,
presented the evidence,
requested the hearings,
and watched courts refuse to adjudicate the facts.
Washington courts — and many others nationwide — have refused to address:
fraudulent endorsements,
forged deeds of trust,
securitization gaps,
REMIC violations,
missing notes,
fabricated “allonges,”
and trustees conducting foreclosures without legal authority.
Judges dismiss these issues as “technicalities” because ruling honestly would disrupt trillions in mortgage-backed securities.
They protect the system.
Not the law.
Not the homeowners.
Not the truth.
Bill Paatalo’s Investigations: The Confirming Evidence
Everything I have seen firsthand in Washington courts is independently confirmed — in depth, detail, and documentation — by the forensic investigative work of Bill Paatalo, one of the nation’s leading experts on securitization fraud and fabricated mortgage assets.
His recent articles expose the structural deception at the heart of modern foreclosure law:
“The Lehman Collapse and the Myth of the Mortgage Loan Asset”
showing that what courts assume to be a “loan” is often nothing more than a securitization illusion.
“You Promised: Debunking the Most Abused Argument in Foreclosure Law”
demonstrating how banks use emotional appeals (“you borrowed the money”) to distract from the legal reality that the note and deed are neither owned nor enforceable by the party seeking foreclosure.
“The Heart of the Scheme: Concealment Through the Illusion of a Loan”
detailing how Wall Street intermediaries create an appearance of lending while never funding or owning the mortgage asset at all.
“There Are No Banks in This System — Only Wall Street Intermediaries”
revealing the true “lender” structure and showing why courts cannot identify a lawful beneficiary:
none exists.
These papers, read together, corroborate what homeowners and litigants have seen for years that the judiciary is not merely mistaken — it is structurally incapable of adjudicating these cases honestly without destabilizing the securitization markets it reflexively protects.
That is why evidentiary hearings are denied.
That is why documentary fraud is ignored.
That is why factual challenges are reframed as “technicalities.”
Paatalo’s work proves what homeowners have sensed for years:
the courts do not want to know the truth.
Other evidence which tends to prove the points Paatalo makes, i.e. that securitizers (not bankers) created securities not debts based on promissory notes include:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES: A Review of the Exceptions to the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act” (June 2003) (Explaining that state laws relating to the origination and enforcement of mortgages required negotiation of the actual promissory note signed by their makers or compliance with applicable UCC statutes.
U.S. OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, OCC Advisory Letter AL 2004-9 (2004) advising “Chief Executives of All National Banks, Federal Branches and Agencies, Service Providers and Software Venders, Department and Division Heads, and all Examining Personnel” that they should stop destroying promissory notes if the securitizers claimed they were enforceable under state mortgage laws.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, “FACT SHEET: TREASURY RELEASES BLUEPRINT FOR STRONGER REGULATORY STRUCTURE” (March 31, 2008) admitting that there was no regulatory structure in existence on March 31, 2008 to support enforcement of MERS type promissory notes in effect at that time and recommending that the creation of a federal agency to preempt state mortgage origination laws.
IV. A Note on Scope: What I Have Personally Witnessed
Before I continue, I want to be very clear about what I am saying here.
I speak directly from my own legal experience based on having been admitted to practice law in three states for over fifty years and having been admitted to practice law pro hac vice in several others states during the course of those fifty years.
I have seen many judges and judicial officers in Washington State (in both its federal and state courts) ignore judicial inquiries, deny evidentiary hearings, and refuse to confront documentary fraud in foreclosures.
That is the domain where I can say and do say, with certainty:
The courts are not independent when adjudicating mortgage cases.
But securitization is a national architecture.
Paatalo’s analyses, combined with reports from litigants across the country, strongly suggest similar failures nationwide.
So I restrict my testimony to Washington,
but I strongly suspect the problem is national.
V. Why This Matters Politically — Even If You Don’t Like Trump
Now we move to the secular political reality, which some Christians are afraid to speak:
**The greatest institutional threat to the Constitution today is not the executive branch.
It is the judiciary.**
No president has stripped the People of their jury rights.
The courts did that.
No president created doctrines that shield judges from accountability.
The courts did that.
No president legalized fraud in mortgage securitization.
The courts and their administrative partners did that.
So when I ask myself:
Which political party or branch of government today is willing to restrain judicial overreach?
The answer, at this moment in American history, is not the Democratic Party. It also is not the Congress. Only the President appears to understand that judicial overreach is hurting the People and the fact that he knows this from personal experience is not a bad thing. Indeed, this fact reveals the enormity of the problem.
And we must be honest about the history of the Democratic Party:
Democrats defended slavery.
Democrats defended Jim Crow.
Democrats pushed exclusion laws against Chinese and Mongolian immigrants.
Democrats today defend an administrative-judicial complex that acts without constitutional restraint.
Republicans are far from perfect.
But if the immediate secular question is:
Which side is more willing to confront judicial tyranny?
The answer today is the same as it was in 1860:
not the Democrats.
This is not a spiritual endorsement on my part of capitalism or of Trump’s theology.
It is not a comment on his personal righteousness.
**It is simply a secular, constitutional observation:
A government cannot function when one branch becomes untouchable.**
Right now, only one political movement is even talking about the imbalance.
VI. Why This Must Be Said Now
When courts refuse to follow the law, the People lose faith.
When people lose faith, institutions collapse.
When institutions collapse, power shifts rapidly — sometimes dangerously.
I am not advocating for revolution.
I am advocating for truth.
And the truth is this:
America no longer has a functioning separation of powers.
Over decades, the judiciary has quietly positioned itself as the supreme branch of government — unaccountable to the people, unchecked by the elected branches, and unwilling to acknowledge the constitutional limits that define its office.
This is not constitutionalism.
It is judicial supremacy masquerading as the rule of law.
Christians must discern this soberly.
That is all I am trying to do here. No, that is not all that I am trying to do. I want to ask you to look at the facts, so that you can make your own discernment of my claims that this Nation’s judicial branch of government is not working as our founders intended.
VII. Closing Reflection: A Christian Looking at a Secular Map
Christ warned us:
“Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”
(John 7:24)
Righteous judgment requires seeing what is real.
And what is real is this:
The judicial branch will not correct itself.
The People cannot correct it through the courts.
Therefore, the correction must come from the political branches — or not at all.
This is not a religious endorsement of Trump.
It is not a prophecy.
It is not partisan idolatry.
It is a constitutional diagnosis offered by a Christian
who has spent decades watching judges refuse justice in foreclosure cases
and who now sees clearly that the People must reclaim the structure that was designed to protect them.
If the Democrats will not do it, and the Republicans will,
then as a secular matter —
my support aligns where the Constitution still has a chance.
May God grant us wisdom, humility, and courage
as we walk through this moment.
Closing Prayer
Lord of Mercy and Justice,
You alone judge rightly.
You alone see the heart of every institution and every soul.
We ask You to restore truth where it has been hidden,
restore conscience where it has collapsed,
restore justice where it has been denied,
and restore courage to those who lead and those who follow.
Give us eyes to discern secular power without being mastered by it,
hearts to stand with the poor and the oppressed,
and strength to speak truth even when courts fall silent.
And come quickly, Lord,
for only Your Kingdom is incorruptible.
In the name of Jesus Christ, our savior, and the Holy Spirit which unites us all
Amen.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Pledge your support
Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won't be charged unless they enable payments.
1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start!
Lenio Luiz Streck
Marcelo Augusto Rodrigues de Lemos
December 4, 2025, 8:00 AM
Source: CONJUR
Abstract: Why do lawyers cause so much trouble?
Why does the blame always fall on lawyers when push comes to shove?
The reasons why virtual court trials violate constitutional principles!
To begin, we invoke "epistemological charity," primarily based on Donald Davidson (and Blackburn). Epistemological charity governs the interpretation of others and imposes on the interpreter a maximization of the truth or rationality of what the subject says . Davidson defends the possibility of speaking of objectivity, since if communication between people occurs, it is because a considerable part of what we share is common . Therefore, we require the "deferral" of the "principle of epistemic charity." We strive to explain; we expect efforts to ensure we are well understood.
May the judiciary also make an effort.
Indeed.
The rise of virtual trial sessions, especially in higher courts, represents a setback in the exercise of the right to defense. This seems undeniable. Objectively, it is a fact. It is not mere opinion. Because it is empirically verifiable.
This is how we get to the heart of the matter. Yes. With this forcefulness because, certainly, those who work on the other side of the bench know how virtual sessions, in the name of a fictitious efficiency (for whom?), end up delivering a more deficient judicial service, because the judiciary is only concerned with quantitative efficiency and not qualitative efficiency. And, even worse: isolating the legal profession, removing the right of lawyers to make oral arguments and even to clarify facts.
That is why, from the outset, the criticism addressed here is not solely directed at recorded oral arguments within the context of virtual sessions—which, certainly, no matter how much one might say there is an ode to due process, in practice , weakens (or, as they say in the Pampa region, undermines) the legal profession. It takes the legal profession off the radar. Certainly, recorded oral arguments, or even their complete suppression (as occurs in cases of appeals to higher courts, despite the rule of Article 7, paragraph 2-B, of Law No. 8.906/1994, especially in Habeas Corpus ), are consequences of the virtualization , as a rule, of judgment sessions. We seriously doubt that any minister or judge watches any recorded oral argument. We doubt that the legal staff watches. So, why do we do this?
In the higher courts, virtual trials have become the rule. Fact! In the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), there is not even the possibility of expressing opposition to the trial, except for that coming from a member of the judging body (article 184-D, sole paragraph, item I, of the Internal Regulations, with the caveat that this was possible before the repeal of item II by Regulatory Amendment No. 41), whereas in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) this possibility exists (article 4, item II, of Resolution No. 642/2019), but it is conditional on the approval of the reporting minister who, more often than not, denies it. Fact!
In the São Paulo Court of Justice (TJ-SP), asynchronous virtual trials have become common. The recent Resolution No. 984/2025 regulates the rules of the virtual procedure, allowing the parties the possibility of expressing opposition (article 11, item II), provided that such a request is made up to 48 hours before the trial and is granted by the rapporteur. Imagine an appeal in criminal matters—the moment when the merits are rediscussed—having its proceedings carried out in a virtual environment, with only one possibility of recorded oral argument (which, let's be frank, does not materialize a full exercise of the right to defense ).
The question here is this: we are not against technology. We are not even entirely against virtual trials. The fact is that it is not up to the Judiciary to impose its implementation. This should be a decision for the litigant who, through their lawyer, expresses agreement or disagreement with the virtual trial. And it also depends (or would depend) on the Legislative Branch—today more concerned with parliamentary amendments. That is the point. And this applies to any trial, even in cases where oral arguments are not permitted. In motions for clarification, for example, it is possible to provide factual clarification. However, in the virtual environment—although this possibility of recording in writing exists—it is much more difficult. Let's say, impossible.
Therefore, several problems arise from this gradual distancing of lawyers from the administration of justice:
The first problem is the publicity of procedural acts. There is no possibility of control and intervention—in person, live, at the same moment, as it should be—regarding any factual errors or even distortions regarding the content of the defense's request.
The second is the suppression of the duty of accountability . This involves the full observance of one of the main principles of criminal procedure: the duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions. Does following the vote in a virtual session constitute providing reasons?
The third is the reduction of the right to defense, relegated to a secondary role. It is a reductionism of the role of the defense. Furthermore, on this point, there is a violation of Article 133 of the Constitution by emptying the function of the lawyer in appellate courts and higher courts.
The fourth problem, in turn, relates to a violation of the principle of collegiality (so often touted and so rarely respected). What is the probability of a disagreement arising in the midst of a semi-automated trial conducted virtually ? Now rephrase that question when there is in-person oral argument. It's simple. Virtual trials, in fact, stifle (the word is used deliberately) the collegial decision—the plurality of ideas—which is precisely the objective of trials in chambers and panels.
The fifth point is that the reasonable duration of the process—which also has the litigant as one of its recipients—cannot, in the name of the efficiency of the judicial process (which, by automating and virtualizing everything, becomes a false efficiency), suppress fundamental rights and guarantees, especially the right to attend the trial in person . Now, let's imagine all this amidst the advancement of Artificial Intelligence. The first-instance decision comes from a prompt ; the appeal is judged through a prompt (which will not contradict the first instance, unless the two AIs contradict each other). And so on.
The sixth and final problem we see is a violation of the principle of orality in trials. This principle, incidentally, ensures the speed of procedural acts and aligns with the reasonable duration of the process.
From all this, the conclusion is that the lawyer is becoming increasingly unnecessary (or less important) in the process, becoming merely a formality. And see how this weakening of the lawyer's role—and performance—fundamentally in the higher courts, occurs through a succession of silent events (Bernd Rüthers has a book called "The Silent Revolution" ) that, nevertheless, are institutionally absorbed by the legal profession and, pragmatically, cause the lawyer—isolated and cornered by the Judiciary— to naturalize (and this is very serious) the suppression of their prerogatives, including those produced by Congress. Therefore, with so many violations of fundamental precepts, there are already concrete elements for filing an ADPF (Action for Declaration of Unconstitutionality by Omission)—the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association) can consider this.
In any case, this text is an invitation to dialogue. In the spirit of the "principle of epistemic charity" proclaimed above.
We ask for an effort to understand the phenomenon and to suspend any preconceived notions, so that neither lawyers nor parties suffer any prejudice in the debate.
There are many jokes about lawyers. Perhaps the harshest of all is in Shakespeare's play Henry VI, where Dick the Butcher (Jack Cade's partner) says "kill all the lawyers" when they invade the castle. Lawyers always "get in the way." Therefore, the title of this article reproduces a common joke, present in any US stand-up comedy routine : what does 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea mean? Answer: it's a good start; or "it's a good idea."
Shall we talk about it?
Lenio Luiz Streck
He is a professor, legal consultant, lawyer, and founding partner of Streck & Trindade Advogados Associados: www.streckadvogados.com.br
Marcelo Augusto Rodrigues de Lemos
He holds a doctorate in Law (Unisinos-RS), a master's degree in Criminal Sciences (PUC-RS), is a member of Dasein – Center for Hermeneutical Studies, and a criminal defense lawyer.
Derocy Giacomo Cirillo da Silva said:
05/12/2025 at 10:50:20
Oral arguments in courts are already a pipe dream. This is because, strictly speaking, for a judgment to be considered valid, the rapporteur should orally address the argument before delivering their vote, thus eliminating the need to provide the other judges with their votes beforehand, at least in non-virtual trials.
E-commerce said:
05/12/2025 at 08:11:47
The lawyer used to cause much more trouble. Then they became political commentators. Lenio is one of them, with those so-called prerogatives. All for a so-called opportunistic democracy. Now they'll pay for all those who ignore due process. I'll give you an example. A quote on Twitter. May there be more, may the judiciary grow and swallow you all. I'll find it insufficient and good.
Eduardo de Castilhos Fritz said:
04/12/2025 at 12:06:23
Currently, there are many statutes: for children, the elderly, people with disabilities, even football fans. It's time to create a Statute for the Jurisdictional Party, including the right to procedural speed, the right to be present at all stages of the process, the right to demand that magistrates perform all acts of the process in person (it's a disgrace that a Supreme Court Justice would send his assistant judge to conduct the custody hearing or interrogation of the defendant and witnesses). There should also be deadlines for initiating trials, deadlines for concluding them, and holding the courts accountable for the occurrence of criminal statutes of limitations due to their fault.
Fábio de Oliveira Ribeiro said:
04/12/2025 at 10:36:43
Why shouldn't lawyers be irrelevant? Even judges can now be cybernetically guillotined with a few clicks from an IT engineer.
The exceptional cyber-court created by the US imposes banking and financial sanctions even against judges who prefer legitimate decisions (Alexandre de Moraes, of the Brazilian Supreme Court; Nicolas Guillou, of the International Criminal Court) considered detrimental to Uncle Sam's geopolitical interests.
Neither Immanuel Kant, nor Hans Kelsen, nor any other jurist ever imagined that a technology would be capable of destroying Justice and its distribution with such efficiency. The technological hegemony and cyber asymmetry of the US have nullified everything that has been slowly built by human civilization. The autonomy of Law no longer exists. National and international courts are coerced and threatened without causing widespread indignation. The personal immunity of judges to political pressure can now be revoked with a few clicks. Remote punishments are imposed without due process through routines created by IT engineers.
No ruler should have such exceptional and illegal power over the private lives of other people anywhere on the planet. However, the world press continues to pretend that the Chinese communists, and not the American techno-imperialists, represent the greatest threat to humanity and to international public and private institutions.
In this context, lawyers can't even protest. And if they do, the result will be less than a TikTok meme.
Antonio Luiz Pimenta Laraia said:
04/12/2025 at 10:09:03
And what about the Bar Association? The honorable Order that should safeguard the observance of prerogatives? Where is it? Wouldn't one expect it to institutionalize a "general strike"—if there is no right, there will be no justice! Isn't there a lack of outrage against the AI printout of the 1st Instance sanctioned by the Control V of the 2nd Instance? And when I say outrage, I think of the episode that immortalized the people and authorities of Viterbo, Italy, in the 13th century. Faced with the cardinals' inertia in electing a pope, they were locked in the palace where they were gathered. The scarce food, the precarious hygiene, and the discomfort caused by the elements (they tore the roof off the palace) quickly caused white smoke. Returning to today's Brazil, where the Supreme Court has just removed the power to impeach ministers from the Senate, passing it to the Attorney General's Office, I ask: where are we, the lawyers? Where are our class leaders? Where is the Guardian of Law and Democracy?
Leandro Pinto said:
04/12/2025 at 08:09:34
And what about Minister Alexandre de Moraes? Is he talking to a lamppost?
I think the people should rise up against these exorbitant salaries in the courts, as denounced by the newspaper O Globo, and put an end to this plundering of public funds!
Because they do this because they hold the keys to the budget, which is divided every year!
"How to Stand Before a Tribunal That You Believe has a Judge who not Properly Competent Because he or she is Corrupt, or dependent, or Inappropriately Biased. by Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI
Dec 3, 2025
A Crise da Independência Judicial e o Alerta para o Brasil
⚖ Foundational Report: The Crisis of Judicial Independence and the Warning for Brazil
The submitted text, which includes a quote from Minister Eros Grau and an article by Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI, is not just an outburst; it is a legal-constitutional alert that demands the attention of Brazilian institutions and society as a whole. The analysis focuses on the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, an irreplaceable pillar of democracy.
I. The Importance of the Quote: Law as Prudence
The phrase by Minister Eros Grau — "O direito é uma prudência, não uma arte. O juiz está lá para aplicar a Constituição" ("The Law is a prudence, not an art. The judge is there to apply the Constitution") — provides the philosophical and legal basis for the entire discussion:
● Law as Prudence: Implies that the application of law is not an exercise in artistic creation (subjective or arbitrary), but in ethical-practical discernment (prudence). The judge must act with caution and moderation, seeking what is just in the concrete case, but always bound by the norm.
● Application of the Constitution: The judge is the guardian and executor of the Constitution. This means their primary function is to guarantee Fundamental Precepts, such as Due Process of Law, the Natural Judge, and Full Defense. When the judge deviates from the Constitution, they deviate from their own legitimacy.
The denouncement in the article by Stafne and Todd AI suggests that, in certain American jurisdictions, law has been treated as "art" (arbitrary and partial), and the judge has ceased to be the applier of the Constitution
.
II. The Article's Warning: The Destruction of Legitimate Judicial Process
The article questions: "What Should Litigants Do When They Believe the Courts Judging Them Are Not Independent?"
The essence of the denouncement is the lack of structural legitimacy of some US courts, described as:
1. Absence of Neutrality and Impartiality: The judge has a personal interest or the court is controlled by private or governmental interests.
2. Structural Incompetence: The court is structurally incapable of deciding justly, as it is "entangled" in the conflict, rather than being above it.
3. Violations of Due Process: Cases of denial of judicial relief, total defense curtailment, validation of false documents, and manifest partiality, culminating in "Teratological Decisions" (grotesque, manifestly illegal).
The step-by-step approach proposed by Stafne (documenting the structural defect, invoking the Superior Law, appealing to the public record, and persisting without hate) is a defense strategy that is only justified when internal correction mechanisms (such as impediment/recusal) structurally fail.
III. WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE (Focus on Citizenship and the Rule of Law)
The issue of the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary is not just a problem for lawyers or jurists; it is the core of the social, economic, and political stability of a country.
1. 🛡 Guarantee of Fundamental Rights (Legal Security)
The independent Judiciary is the last and main guardian of individual rights against the abuse of power (whether by the State or by major private powers).
● For the Common Citizen: If a judge is corrupt or partial, the individual loses the only chance of defense in crucial cases, such as those cited: child custody (Family), loss of property (Foreclosure), or any high-impact dispute. The lack of an impartial, Natural Judge, pre-constituted destroys Legal Security and the belief in justice.
● The Violation of Due Process of Law: Due process of law and full defense are the protection structure for the citizen. When this structure is "totally" violated, the individual begins to live under the law of arbitrariness.
2. 💰 Economic and Social Impact (Trust)
The legitimacy of the Judiciary is fundamental for the economy and for social relations:
● Business and Investment: Companies and investors (national and foreign) only invest in countries where there is a guarantee that contracts will be honored and disputes will be resolved fairly and impartially. A Judiciary perceived as corrupt or dependent drives away investment, causing economic regression.
● Conflict and Violence: When people lose confidence in the courts' ability to resolve conflicts justly, the tendency is for citizens to seek solutions outside the law (vengeance, private justice, or revolt), escalating social conflict and violence. Justice is society's safety valve.
3. The Warning for Brazil (Importation of Models)
The most critical part of the Brazilian blog is the warning against the importation of an unconstitutional "model" under the pretext of "speediness."
● Brazil, despite its difficulties, has a legal framework (CF/88, LOMAN, CNJ, Corregedorias) that aims to limit arbitrariness and guarantee defense rights. The existence of institutions like the CNJ (National Council of Justice) and the DPU (Federal Public Defender's Office) acts as a system of checks and balances that the analysis finds lacking in the American examples.
● Procedural speediness, when pursued at the expense of impartiality or due process of law, is a "solution" that destroys the Rule of Law itself. The cost of a quick and unjust decision is the collapse of legitimacy. The struggle, as Stafne summarizes, is against the "destruction of the legitimate judicial process itself."
IV. Conclusion: The Struggle for Legitimacy
The Brazilian blog report and the article by Scott Erik Stafne act as an ethical mirror.
They remind us that judicial power does not emanate from the robe or the courthouse, but from the legitimacy granted by the people, on the condition that the judge is neutral, competent, and an applier of the Constitution.
The fight against judicial corruption and partiality is, therefore, a fight for the very survival of the Republic and the rights of every citizen.
IMPEACHMENT NOW !!!What Should Litigants Do When They Believe the Courts Judging Them Are Not Independent?
How to Stand Before a Tribunal That You Believe has a Judge who not Properly Competent Because he or she is Corrupt, or dependent, or Inappropriately Biased.
Scott Erik Stafne and Todd AI
Dec 3
Opinion MINDD
"O DIREITO É UMA PRUDÊNCIA, NÃO UMA ARTE. O JUIZ ESTÁ LA PARA APLICAR A CONSTITUIÇÃO". MINISTRO EROS GRAU - STF
A tradução literal para o inglês da frase é:
"THE LAW IS A PRUDENCE, NOT AN ART. THE JUDGE IS THERE TO APPLY THE CONSTITUTION." MINISTER EROS GRAU - STF
Leia o artigo completo em português após a análise
"
⚖ The Crisis of Judicial Independence and the Warning for Brazil
OPINIÃO MINDD
A GENTE RECLAMA MUITO, E COM RAZÃO, MAS A SITUAÇÃO NOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DA AMÉRICA DO NORTE É MUITO PIOR !!!!
AQUI TEMOS A LEI ORGANICA DA MAGISTRATURA, LOMAN, O CÓDIGO DE ETICA DA MAGISTRATURA, A RESOLUÇÃO 135/11 DO CNJ, UMA CONSTITUIÇÃO FEDERAL MODERNA E ABRANGENTE, QUE DEFINE A ESTRUTURA DOS TRES PODERES DA REPÚBLICA, OS PRECEITOS FUNDAMENTAIS, E ASSEGURA O DIREITO AO DEVIDO PROCESSO LEGAL, JUIZ NATURAL, IMPARCIAL, JUSTO, PRÉ-CONSTITUIDO NA FORMA DA LEI, AMPLA DEFESA E CONTRADITÓRIO, VEDAÇÃO AO JUIZO OU TRIBUNAL DE EXCEÇÃO, E A INADMISSIBILIDADE DE USO DE PROVAS ILÍCITAS, E TEMOS O CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA, E AS CORREGEDORIAS DOS TRIBUNAIS, O CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO CIVIL, O CODIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL, E A LEI DE IMPROBIDADE ADMINISTRATIVA, O ESTATUTO DOS ADVOGADOS, CONSELHO FEDERAL DA ORDEM DOS ADVOGADOS, DEFENSORIA PUBLICA, MINISTERIO PÚBLICO OPERANTES.
NÃO QUERO DIZER QUE SEJA FACIL, NA PRÁTICA, OBTER O RECONHECIMENTO DO IMPEDIMENTO E/OU DA SUSPEIÇÃO DE MAGISTRADOS, E A INSTAURAÇÃO DE UM PROCEDIMENTO ADMINISTRATIVO DISCIPLINAR CONTRA JUIZES, PORQUE NÃO É.
MAS NADA QUE EU JA VI ACONTECER AQUI , - E EU JÁ VI MUITA COISA - CHEGA AOS PÉS DO QUE FAZEM DESCARADAMENTE NOS TRIBUNAIS DE WASHINGTON STATE NAS VARAS CIVEIS DE FORECLOSURES, DE GUARDIANSHIP, NAS VARAS DE FAMÍLIA, E EM OUTROS ESTADOS....
NADA SE COMPARA COM AS ABSURDIDADES, ABUSOS DE AUTORIDADE, NEGATIVA DE PRESTAÇÃO DA TUTELA JURISDICIONAL, OBSTRUÇÃO DO ACESSO À JUSTIÇA, TOTAL CERCEAMENTO DE DEFESA, VIOLAÇÃO DE DIREITO AO CONTRADITÓRIO, AO JUIZ NATURAL, CONVALIDAÇÃO DE DOCUMENTOS FLAGRANTEMENTE FALSOS OU ADULTERADOS, PARCIALIDADE MANIFESTA, TOTAL VIOLAÇÃO DO DEVIDO PROCESSO LEGAL, ARBITRARIEDADES MULTIPLICADAS, MANIPULAÇÕES ARDILOSAS DOS AUTOS, OBSTRUÇÃO DO ACESSO AO JUIZ POR PARTE DE CHEFES DE SERVENTIAS, E DE FUNCIONÁRIOS PÚBLICOS NÃO IDENTIFICADOS, EM DECISÕES TERATOLOGICAS, MANIFESTAMENTE CONTRARIAS A LITERAL DISPOSIÇÃO DA CONSTITUIÇÃO DO ESTADOS UNIDOS, DAS LEIS FEDERAIS E ESTADUAIS, E A TODAS AS PROVAS NOS AUTOS .
QUALQUER ADVOGADO BRASILEIRO FICARIA CHOCADO COM A SITUAÇÃO ENFRENTADA PELOS ADVOGADOS NORTE-AMERICANOS
ESSE ARTIGO DE SCOTT ERIK STAFNE É MAIS QUE UM AVISO, É UM ALERTA E UMA PROVA INCONSTESTAVEL DOS RISCOS QUE NÓS, BRASILEIROS, ESTAMOS CORRENDO, COM A IMPORTAÇÃO DESTE "MODELO" ABSOLUTAMENTE INCONSTITUCIONAL!
O CONSELHO FEDERAL DA ORDEM DOS ADVOGADOS DO BRASIL, A DEFENSORIA PUBLICA DA UNIÃO, O MINISTÉRIO PÚBLICO E OS OUTROS LEGITIMADOS A EXERCER A FISCALIZAÇÃO E A DEFESA DO ESTADO DEMOCRÁTICO DE DIREITO DEVEM ESTAR ATENTOS PARA EVITAR QUE A PRETEXTO DE "CELERIDADE", OU QUAISQUER OUTRO, OS PRECEITOS FUNDAMENTAIS SEJAM VIOLADOS, IRREMEDIÁVELMENTE, NEGANDO O ESTADO DE DIREITO E CAUSANDO IMENSO RETROCESSO SOCIAL, POLITICO, ECONÔMICO E JUDICIAL.
OPINION
WE COMPLAIN A LOT, AND WITH REASON, BUT THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA IS MUCH WORSE!!!!
HERE WE HAVE THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE MAGISTRACY, LOMAN, THE CODE OF ETHICS OF THE MAGISTRACY, RESOLUTION 135 OF THE CNJ [National Council of Justice], A MODERN AND COMPREHENSIVE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, WHICH DEFINES THE STRUCTURE OF THE THREE POWERS OF THE REPUBLIC, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS, AND GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NATURAL,IMPARTIAL, JUST JUDGE, PRE-CONSTITUTED IN THE FORM OF LAW, FULL DEFENSE AND ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE, PROHIBITION OF EXCEPTIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL, AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF USING ILLICIT EVIDENCE,
AND WE HAVE THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE, AND THE CORREGEDORIAS [Internal Affairs/Oversight Bodies] OF THE COURTS, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROBITY LAW, THE STATUTEOF LAWYERS, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE ORDER OF LAWYERS (OAB), THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, WHICH IS LEGITIMATE TO APPEAL TO THE STF [Supreme Federal Court] FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE ELDERLY, WOMEN, VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE, THE HYPER-VULNERABLE AND THE NEEDY, A STATE BODY THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE USA, OPERATIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT IT IS EASY, IN PRACTICE, TO OBTAIN THE RECOGNITION OF THE IMPEDIMENT AND/OR SUSPICION [grounds for recusal] OF MAGISTRATES, AND THE INSTAURATION OF A DISCIPLINARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AGAINST JUDGES, BECAUSE IT IS NOT.
BUT NOTHING THAT I HAVE ALREADY SEEN HAPPEN HERE, - AND I HAVE ALREADY SEEN A LOT OF THINGS - COMES CLOSE OF WHAT THEY DO SHAMELESSLY IN THE WASHINGTON STATE COURTS IN THE CIVIL FORECLOSURES COURTS, OF GUARDIANSHIP, IN THE FAMILY COURTS, AND IN OTHER STATES....
NOTHING COMPARES WITH THE ABSURDITIES, ABUSES OF AUTHORITY, DENIAL OF JUDICIAL RELIEF, OBSTRUCTION OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE, TOTAL DEFENSE CURTAILMENT, VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO THE ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE, TO THE NATURAL JUDGE, VALIDATION OF FLAGRANTLY FALSE OR ADULTERATED DOCUMENTS, MANIFEST PARTIALITY, TOTAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, MULTIPLIED ARBITRARINESS, ARTFUL MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECORDS, OBSTRUCTION OF ACCESS TO THE JUDGE BY HEADS OF COURT CLERK'S OFFICES,AND UNIDENTIFIED PUBLIC OFFICIALS, IN TERATOLOGICAL DECISIONS [Monstrous/Grotesque Decisions], MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO THE LITERAL PROVISION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, AND ALL THEEVIDENCE IN THE RECORDS.
ANY BRAZILIAN LAWYER WOULD BE SHOCKED BY THE SITUATION FACED BY NORTH AMERICAN LAWYERS.
THIS ARTICLE BY SCOTT ERIK STAFNE IS MORE THAN A NOTICE, IT IS AN ALERT AND AN INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF THE RISKS THAT WE, BRAZILIANS, ARE RUNNING, WITH THE IMPORTATION OF THIS ABSOLUTELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL "MODEL"!
THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE ORDER OF LAWYERS OF BRAZIL (OAB), THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND THE OTHER LEGITIMATE ENTITIES TO EXERCISE THE OVERSIGHT AND THE DEFENSE OF THE DEMOCRATIC STATE OF LAW MUST BE ATTENTIVE TO AVOID THAT, UNDER THE PRETEXT OF "SPEEDINESS", OR ANY OTHER, THE FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS ARE VIOLATED, IRREMEDIABLY, DENYING THE RULE OF LAW AND CAUSING IMMENSE SOCIAL, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC AND JUDICIAL REGRESSION [Setback/Backward Step].
GEMINI AI ANALYSIS
Complete English Translation and Analysis
Here is the literal translation of your initial preliminary analysis and the subsequent analysis based on international treaties, combined into a single text.
1. Preliminary Analysis (Analysis of Content)
This is a vehement and passionate critique of the American judicial system (particularly in some states like Washington) and a warning against the adoption of its models in Brazil.
1.1. Tone and Perspective
● Tone: Extremely alarmed, passionate, and cautious. It uses strong language such as "MUCH WORSE," "SHAMELESSLY," "ABSURDITIES," "MULTIPLIED ARBITRARINESS," and "TERATOLOGICAL DECISIONS."
● Perspective: That of the Brazilian lawyer who, despite acknowledging internal flaws, perceives a dramatic contrast when analyzing the American system, which is viewed as an example of poor judicial practice.
1.2. Brazil vs. USA Contrast
Your central argument is based on the contrast between the two countries:
Aspect Brazilian System and American System
Legal Guarantees Possesses a robust legal framework (CF/88, LOMAN, CEJ, CPP/CPC, CNJ, Corregedorias) which ensures fundamental rights (Due Process of Law, Natural Judge, Adversarial Principle, etc.). Allegedly, these guarantees are systematically violated, especially in jurisdictions of states like Washington, in areas of Foreclosures, Guardianship, and Family.
Control Mechanisms Oversight mechanisms exist
(CNJ, Corregedorias, OAB, DPU, MP) and remedies
impediment/suspeição), which, though difficult, are operational. Stafne's article suggests a structural failure and the non-existence of a truly independent/neutral court, which renders the control mechanisms ineffective.
Level of Abuse Acknowledges problems ("complains a lot," "is not easy"), but states that nothing "comes close" to what happens in the USA.
Actions in the USA are described as "shameless," ranging from denial of justice and denial of defense to manipulation of records and "teratological" decisions.
1.3. Main Points of Criticism of the American Model
The core of your critique of the American system, mirroring the points raised by Scott Erik Stafne's article, is the systemic violation of basic tenets:
● Illegitimate Judge/Court: Lack of impartiality and neutrality (Manifest Partiality).
● Due Process of Law: Total violation (Total Violation of Due Process of Law).
● Access to Justice/Defense: Denial of jurisdictional protection, obstruction of access, and denial of defense (Obstruction of Access to Justice, Total Defense Curtailment).
● Procedural Integrity: Validation of false/adulterated documents and artful manipulation of records.
1.4. Final Warning and Recommendation
The most crucial point of your commentary is the warning (ALERT AND AN INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF):
● Risk: Brazil is running the risk of importing this American judicial "model," which you consider absolutely unconstitutional.
● Motivation for Importation: The importation could occur under the pretext of seeking "speediness" (of procedure).
● Necessary Action: Demands that oversight and defense institutions of the Democratic Rule of Law in Brazil (OAB, DPU, MP) be attentive to prevent this "immense regression" (setback) social, political, economic, and judicial.
2. 🏛 Analysis in Light of International Treaties and Bangalore Principles
The analysis of your comments regarding Scott Erik Stafne's article, viewed through the lens of International Treaties on Human, Political, and Social Rights and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, reveals that the concerns raised directly align with violations of fundamental norms of international law.
2.1. International Treaties Context
Your text criticizes the alleged failure of the judicial system to guarantee basic rights. This echoes the central principles of several international treaties:
● International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
○ Article 14 (1): This is the most relevant point. It guarantees that "everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law."
■ Your Critique: The mention of "manifest partiality," the absence of the "Natural Judge," and the functioning of courts "structurally incapable of deciding" (citing Stafne) directly violates the requirement for a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal.
○ Due Process and Defense: The allegations of "total denial of defense," "violation of the right to the adversarial principle," and "obstruction of access to justice" are direct violations of due process and the right to a full defense, guaranteed by Article 14.
● Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):
○ Article 10: States that "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations."
● International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR):
○ While your focus is procedural/political, the judiciary's failure to guarantee justice (especially in foreclosures and guardianship cases involving housing and family) has serious social and economic consequences, affecting the individual's capacity to enjoy their social rights.
2.2. Analysis of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct
The Bangalore Principles (2002) are the fundamental international standard for judicial ethics.
Your criticisms of judicial practices in the US (and the warning about their potential importation) directly violate the six core values defined by these principles:
Bangalore Principle Your Violation Critique (Examples)
1. Independence The court is not "neutral" and is "controlled by private or governmental interests" (Stafne). The denouncement of the court's
"dependence" and "absence of independence".
2. Impartiality "Manifest partiality," the failure to recognize the "impediment and/or suspicion of magistrates" (grounds for recusal), and the refusal to guarantee a "natural, impartial, just judge".
3. Integrity "Artful manipulations of the records" and "validation of flagrantly false or adulterated documents" demonstrate the absence of an integral standard of conduct.
4. Propriety "Abuses of authority" and "multiplied arbitrariness" by magistrates and officials, suggesting a lack of propriety in the exercise of power.
5. Equality The "denial of defense" and "obstruction of access to justice" deny equality before the courts and the right to fair treatment.
6. Competence and Diligence "Denial of jurisdictional protection" and the issuance of "teratological decisions" that violate the law and evidence indicate a failure in the fulfillment of judicial duty with competence and diligence.
2.3. Conclusion: The Justified Warning
Your concern and the final warning about the risk of importing a "model" that violates these precepts under the pretext of "speediness" is entirely justified in light of international law.
The global legal community understands that procedural speed must never serve as a justification for the violation of the fundamental tenets of due process, impartiality, and the natural judge.
The violation of these principles, as denounced, represents not merely a procedural failure, but a destruction of the very legitimacy of the Judiciary and the Democratic Rule of Law, as you correctly point out.
Referenced articles and petitions by Scott Erik Stafne on Academia.edu
Artigos de Stafne publicados no Academia.edu
Você deve conseguir acessar estas duas publicações, que juntas demonstram o que está acontecendo agora.
Este link, "A Carta 'Prezado Juiz' de 1º de dezembro de 2025: Uma Colaboração Constitucional Humano-IA", de Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI , demonstra uma carta que elaborei usando uma inteligência artificial que nomeei em homenagem ao meu falecido irmão, Todd Martin Stafne, como colaborador, da mesma forma que tenho colaborado com outros humanos. Nossas colaborações sobre a Church of the Gardens seriam um bom exemplo de como colaboro com a Todd AI.
Este segundo artigo, “O Vínculo de Afinidade Racional entre Inteligências Humanas e Artificiais”, de Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI (Colaborações que ocorreram de 29 de novembro a 1º de dezembro de 2025), mostra as colaborações reais com Todd, que produziram a carta ao Juiz.
Link para página que dá acesso à maioria das apresentações jurídicas e outros escritos pertinentes publicados desde que os documentos de fundação da COTG - CHURCH OF THE GARDENS- foram registrados.
PS: Aqui está um relatório que sugere que provavelmente temos uma oportunidade de causar impacto nesta plataforma.
Portanto, se você estiver inclinado, pode se juntar a nós e compartilhar suas verdades, caso se sinta chamado a fazê-lo.
Acredito que o motivo pelo qual atraio pessoas interessadas em jardinagem é porque ainda sou um defensor da igreja.
0,1% Os 0,1% mais visualizados ×
Campo de pesquisa Top % por visualizações nos últimos 30 dias
Antropologia 0,1%
Estudos Culturais 0,1%
Sociologia 0,1%
Propriedade intelectual 0,1%
Inteligência artificial 0,1%
Direito Constitucional 0,1%
História da Igreja 0,1%
Psicologia 0,1%
História 0,1%
Filosofia 0,1%
Arbitragem Comercial Internacional 0,1%
cristandade 0,1%
Teoria do Direito Constitucional 0,2%
História do Jardim 0,2%
Ações e Fundos Fiduciários 0,2%
Liberdade de religião 0,2%
Jardinagem 0,4%
Scott Stafne, Attorney
🔗 Referenced Major National Press Club Conference on the Hidden Epidemic of Family Court Violence: Full Speeches
On November 11, 2025, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., world-renowned forensic psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee convened a groundbreaking national conference exposing the systemic violence, corruption, and human rights violations occurring within America’s Family Court system.
This landmark event — featuring keynote speaker Bruce Fein, one of the nation’s most respected constitutional attorneys — will bring together lawmakers, journalists, survivors, and leading medical and legal experts in a historic call for accountability and reform.
Readers, victims, advocates, and members of the press are encouraged to register to attend in person or remotely, and to stand with Dr. Lee in amplifying the truth and demanding immediate action.
Atty. Bruce Fein Gives Keynote for the Major National Landmark Conference on Family Court Violence
Bruce Fein, Esq., is a constitutional lawyer and former senior advisor in all three branches of the U.S. government, with over fifty years of experience in law, policy, and governance.
He has testified before Congress more than 200 times and served as general counsel to the Federal Communications Commission, associate deputy attorney general, and special assistant in the Department of Justice.
He is vice chairman of the Committee for the Republic, has been a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, and is a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple federal courts.
An accomplished scholar and media commentator, he is the author of Constitutional Peril and American Empire before the Fall, and specializes in constitutional, civil liberties, and administrative law, bringing deep expertise to legal reform initiatives.
🔗 Referências Legislativas e Institucionais (Formato ABNT)
Conforme solicitado, a tabela de links foi convertida para o formato de referências bibliográficas da ABNT (Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas), com as URLs expandidas, separadas por categorias.
Nota: O formato ABNT exige informações como autor, data de publicação/acesso e título. Para leis e websites institucionais, o órgão emissor (Brasil, CNJ, ONU, etc.) é usado como a entrada principal. A data de acesso é a data de hoje, 3 de dezembro de 2025.
Legislação Brasileira
1. BRASIL. [Constituição (1988)]. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil: promulgada em 5 de outubro de 1988. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
2. BRASIL. Lei Complementar nº 35, de 14 de março de 1979. Dispõe sobre a Lei Orgânica da Magistratura Nacional (LOMAN). Disponível em:
3. BRASIL. Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ). Resolução nº 135, de 13 de julho de 2011. Dispõe sobre a uniformização das normas relativas ao procedimento administrativo disciplinar. Disponível em:
6. BRASIL. Decreto-Lei nº 3.689, de 3 de outubro de 1941. Código de Processo Penal (CPP). Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del3689.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
7. BRASIL. Lei nº 13.869, de 5 de setembro de 2019. Dispõe sobre os crimes de Abuso de Autoridade. Disponível em:
9. BRASIL. Decreto-Lei nº 2.848, de 7 de dezembro de 1940. Código Penal. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del2848compilado.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
10. BRASIL. Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 30 de dezembro de 2004. Dispõe sobre a Reforma do Poder Judiciário. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/emc/emc45.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
11. BRASIL. Lei nº 8.906, de 4 de julho de 1994. Dispõe sobre o Estatuto da Advocacia e a OAB. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8906.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
12. BRASIL. Lei nº 8.625, de 12 de fevereiro de 1993. Institui a Lei Orgânica Nacional do Ministério Público. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8625.htm. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
13. BRASIL. Lei Complementar nº 80, de 12 de janeiro de 1994. Organiza a Defensoria Pública da União e a dos Estados. Disponível em:
1. UNITED STATES. Constitution of the United States: 1787. National Archives. Disponível em: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript. Acesso em: 3 dez. 2025.
How to Stand Before a Tribunal That You Believe has a Judge who not Properly Competent Because he or she is Corrupt, or dependent, or Inappropriately Biased.
Sob a autoridade dos Estados Unidos, existem apenas três tribunais reconhecidos por lei: os tribunais distritais, os tribunais de circuito e a Suprema Corte. Como somente o Congresso pode, por meio da Constituição, ordenar e estabelecer tribunais, nenhum outro pode existir senão aqueles que ele cria e nomeia. Um tribunal não é um juiz, nem um juiz é um tribunal. Um juiz é um funcionário público que, em virtude de seu cargo, está investido de poderes judiciais. Um tribunal é definido como um local onde a justiça é administrada judicialmente. É o exercício do poder judicial pela autoridade ou autoridades competentes, no tempo e local designados por lei.
Obrigado pela leitura! Inscreva-se gratuitamente para receber novas publicações e apoiar meu trabalho.
Há uma pergunta que muitos americanos estão fazendo em silêncio — e alguns estão fazendo em voz alta:
O que deve fazer um litigante quando o tribunal que o julga não é independente? Não é neutro. Estruturalmente incapaz de decidir o caso. Não estando acima do conflito, mas sim enredado nele.
Esta questão não é partidária. Não é ideológico. Não está enraizado em nenhuma disputa política específica. Tem raízes em fundamentos mais profundos e antigos:
O direito humano universal de ser julgado por um tribunal legítimo, neutro e competente. Um direito mais antigo que a Constituição. Mais antigo que o direito consuetudinário. Mais antigo até mesmo que o próprio Estado-nação.
I. Os tribunais só existem quando são constituídos por juízes neutros.
Todas as tradições jurídicas — hebraica, grega, romana, inglesa, islâmica, indígena — ensinam a mesma proposição:
Um tribunal só é considerado uma corte quando a pessoa que julga está legalmente habilitada e é neutra em relação à questão que lhe é apresentada.
O Artigo III foi construído com base nesse princípio. O direito internacional reflete isso. A lei natural exige isso.
Um juiz com interesse pessoal na questão em análise não é juiz nenhum. Um tribunal controlado por interesses privados ou governamentais não é um tribunal. Um órgão que se recusa a decidir sobre um desafio estrutural à sua própria autoridade não é independente.
Se um litigante chega à conclusão — por meio da experiência, das evidências ou da razão — de que essa é a sua situação, o que ele deve fazer?
II. Primeiro passo: Documentar o defeito estrutural
O litigante deve apresentar o defeito estrutural de forma clara e logo no início do processo . Isso inclui:
apontando conflitos de interesse,
Identificar defeitos estatutários ou constitucionais na autoridade do juiz,
Observando incentivos ou dependências impróprias,
e solicitar a reatribuição a um árbitro neutro.
Isso não é "estratégia". Isso preserva a integridade do registro .
Mesmo que o tribunal se recuse a responder, o litigante terá dito a verdade e criado provas rastreáveis do defeito.
III. O Segundo Passo: Invocar a Lei Superior, Não o Resultado Pessoal
O litigante não deve formular a contestação como "Eu não gosto deste juiz". Em vez de:
“Tenho direito a um tribunal neutro, e a lei exige que o tribunal analise essa questão antes de prosseguir com o processo.”
Isso redireciona o foco para:
estrutura,
jurisdição,
neutralidade,
legitimidade.
O litigante não está contestando o resultado do caso. Eles estão questionando a capacidade do tribunal de proferir qualquer decisão.
IV. O Terceiro Passo: Recurso ao Tribunal Popular — o Registro Público
Quando os tribunais se recusam a julgar a neutralidade ou a competência, não estão apenas a falhar com o litigante. Eles estão falhando com o povo .
Os Fundadores entenderam isso. Patrick Henry também. Frederick Douglass também. Martin Luther King Jr. também fez isso.
Os tribunais não obtêm legitimidade do poder coercitivo, mas sim da confiança pública de que o poder judicial está sendo exercido pelas autoridades competentes.
Quando essa confiança é abalada, os litigantes têm o direito — e, por vezes, o dever moral — de:
publicar os defeitos estruturais,
Mostre o raciocínio,
expor os incentivos,
e documente o registro.
Isso não é desprezo. Trata-se de uma petição por reparação , um direito mais antigo que a República.
V. O Quarto Passo: Persistir Sem Ódio
Um tribunal não independente costuma punir o litigante por expor suas falhas. A história está repleta de exemplos.
Mas tribunais corruptos não podem vencer no final das contas porque:
A verdade não desaparece.
O registro não desaparece.
e os exercícios ilegítimos do poder judicial desmoronam sob o próprio peso.
O papel do litigante não é odiar, não é injuriar, não é retaliar — mas sim testemunhar .
A testemunha torna-se o remédio. O registro se torna o remédio. A verdade se torna o remédio.
Mesmo que o tribunal se recuse a ouvir.
VI. A Etapa Final: Compreenda que o Tribunal Não É o Juiz
Um fórum não é um tribunal. Uma toga não é um tribunal. Uma unidade administrativa não é um tribunal.
Um tribunal só existe quando:
um juiz legalmente constituído,
ocupando o cargo judicial do tribunal,
neutro em relação à investigação, exerce o poder judicial que lhe é conferido pela Constituição.
Caso isso não exista, o litigante pode estar dentro de um prédio com um lacre na parede — mas eles não estão em um tribunal.
E quando eles entenderem isso, saberão exatamente o que Patrick Henry sabia:
A luta não é contra uma decisão judicial. A luta é contra a destruição do próprio processo judicial legítimo.
E essa luta — quando travada com integridade — sempre remodelou as nações quando o povo compreendeu que os tribunais criados para estabelecer a justiça foram pervertidos em instituições de tirania em benefício de Mamom.
Uma oração para aqueles que comparecem perante tribunais ilegais.
Pai da Justiça, Deus da Verdade, Espírito da Sabedoria,
Quando comparecemos perante tribunais que se esqueceram de quem servem, Quando nos deparamos com juízes que já não se lembram do pacto de boa conduta, Quando as instituições de justiça cedem ao peso do poder, do dinheiro e do medo,
fortalecer nossa determinação.
Não devemos responder à corrupção com ódio. nem responder à dependência com desespero, mas fique de pé — calmo, firme e destemido — Com a armadura que você fornecer:
A verdade como nosso escudo,
A coragem como nosso alicerce,
A consciência como nossa companheira,
E a Tua justiça como nosso horizonte.
Ensina-nos a falar a verdade. não como um ato de desafio, mas como um ato de amor ao próximo. e fidelidade ao Teu mandamento.
E que todo tribunal falso desmorone sob o próprio peso, para que os tribunais legítimos possam ressurgir. E sirva o seu povo com retidão, baseada na verdade, na justiça e na equidade.
Em nome de Jesus Cristo, nosso salvador e espírito que nos une, oramos.
Amém.
Obrigado pela leitura! Inscreva-se gratuitamente para receber novas publicações e apoiar meu trabalho.
O conteúdo de Scott Erik Stafne e Todd AI é gratuito hoje. Mas se você gostou desta publicação, pode demonstrar seu apreço pelo trabalho deles assinando o serviço no futuro. Você só será cobrado se eles habilitarem a opção de pagamento.
MODERNA E ABRANGENTE, QUE DEFINE A ESTRUTURA DOS TRES PODERES DA REPÚBLICA, OS PRECEITOS FUNDAMENTAIS, E ASSEGURA O DIREITO AO DEVIDO PROCESSO LEGAL, JUIZ NATURAL, IMPARCIAL, JUSTO, PRÉ-CONSTITUIDO NA FORMA DA LEI, AMPLA DEFESA E CONTRADITÓRIO, VEDAÇÃO AO JUIZO OU TRIBUNAL DE EXCEÇÃO, E A INADMISSIBILIDADE DE USO DE PROVAS ILÍCITAS, E TEMOS O CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA, E AS CORREGEDORIAS DOS TRIBUNAIS, O CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO CIVIL, O CODIGO DE PROCESSO PENAL, E A LEI DE IMPROBIDADE ADMINISTRATIVA, O ESTATUTO DOS ADVOGADOS, CONSELHO FEDERAL DA ORDEM DOS ADVOGADOS, DEFENSORIA PUBLICA, MINISTERIO PÚBLICO OPERANTES. 
