Tag Archives: Lula

Lula’s lawyers explain why the conviction of the ex-President should be annulled

Zanin and Lula

Lawyer Cristiano Zanin Martins with ex-President Lula

The lawyers Cristiano Zanin Martins and Valeska Teixeira Martins wrote an article published this Monday by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo:

Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) will be evaluating the habeas corpus petition we filed on behalf of ex-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) on the 5th of November 2018 this Tuesday (June 25). If the rule of law is to prevail, Lula will have his liberty restored to him and the proceedings must go back to the beginning, presided over by a natural, independent and impartial judge, which for the ex-President has never been the case up until now.

The Federal Constitution and the legislation do not allow the conducting of proceedings and their conclusion by a judge who has, or apparently has an interest in the outcome.

Any mere doubt over the impartiality of the exemption of the judge is sufficient grounds for their recusal. Besides seeking to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, this aims to protect he image and reliability of the Justice system itself that is an essential element to democracy.

There is no argument as to the fact that in 2016, Judge Moro illegally authorized the intercepting of the main telephone line to our offices for 23 days, and together with prosecutors and police, monitored the conversations we had about the legal strategy for the defence of ex-President Lula. At that time, we discussed a Supreme Court appeal (Originary Civil Action 2.833) that the Federal Prosecutor for Paraná had no legal attribution to take any initiative in the so-called “triplex case”. It should be highlighted that our work was scandalously monitored when Judge Moro and the prosecutors were disputing the Lula case with other jurisdictions.

The most senior Supreme Court Justice, Celso de Mello, recognized the suspected partiality of Moro in 2013 in judging an appeal involving the monitoring of other lawyers authorized by the ex-judge, noting at the time in a losing vote that this fault must be recognized “in anomalous situations where the judge takes on the role of the real investigator” (habeas corpus 95.518).

This is  exactly what has been verified in the proceedings that resulted in the conviction of ex-President Lula, because besides the monitoring of the defence team, there were numerous other similarly uncontested deeds that show judge Moro not to be impartial.

In this vein we can cite: (a) the rulings made even before the criminal indictment (such as the forced deposition with no legal base), which clearly showed the predisposition of the current Minister of Justice to convict Lula; (b) the task force led by Judge Moro to impede fulfilment of the release order issued by a federal appeal judge of the TRF-4 4th Federal Regional Court in July 2018; (c) the official lifting of judicial secrecy of material on the eve last Presidential elections and also (d) the move of judge Moro to the post of Minister of Justice in a government where the impediment of the Lula candidacy in the election was decisive, on the basis of the conviction passed down by the ex-judge – even going against the UN rulings.

Judge Moro argues endlessly that his sentencing has been reviewed by other judges. But besides the fault of partiality contaminating the proceedings, regardless of the evidence of such prejudice, given the gravity in this case, the damage is obvious. In the crusade against Lula, his defence was treated as a mere formality; relevant evidence was excluded and the deeds of the judge in the case created the expectation of conviction in the public mind that was hard to overturn even with the proof of innocence we presented.

The recent reports by the site “The Intercept” have revealed new and shocking elements that prove the history of judicial persecution against Lula (“lawfare”) and will be very important in the future analysis of the process of erosion of democracy in the country.

Regardless of this episode, the facts for grounds of the habeas corpus petition are more than sufficient to nullify the proceedings against Lula and for his immediate release.

Odebrecht plea bargain also makes Federal Prosecution Service into a millionaire fund manager

Odebrecht
2 April 2019

By Pedro Canario

The plea bargain agreement Odebrecht signed with the Federal Prosecution Service in December 2016 is quite similar to agreement with Petrobras. Both provide for the setting up of a judicial account under the tutelage of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, with the money being at the disposal of the  FPS to do with it as they wish.

Odebrecht agreement with the FPS also allows Car Wash prosecutors to manage the fine paid by the engineering company.

In the Odebrecht case, the company undertook to pay $ 2.9 billion as a fine for their misdeeds, to be divided by the FPS amongst themselves, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Prosecutor-General of Switzerland. The part that is to remain in Brazil is to be under the charge of the Car Wash prosecutors in Curitiba.

According to the agreement, this money is to be for reparation of ” material and non- material damages” caused by the corruption at Odebrecht. According to the explanation given by the FPS in Parana to ConJur, 80% of the money will remain in Brazil, 10% with the USA and 10%, in Switzerland. Thus, the FPS will be responsible for managing R$ 6,8 billion.

Of that amount that is to remain in Brazil, 97.5% is to go to “public bodies, companies and foundations and mixed economy companies” damaged by the deeds of the engineering company. In other words, $ 1.71 billion is to be directed at the discretion of the FPS. The other 2.5% is to go to the Federal purse in compensation for having committed administrative impropriety.

The sharing out of the money is set forth in paragraph 3 of clause 7 of the agreement, according to which the “total amount is to go to the Federal Prosecution Service”. In response to questions from ConJur however, the FPS asserts that “the agreement does not give the resources to the Federal Prosecution Service nor place them under management by the Prosecution Service”. According to the official explanation, the money will be paid to the “victims”, wherever the FPS is responsible the administrative impropriety suit adheres to the FPS agreement.

Although the agreement is public and one of its clauses says that the money will be at the disposal of the FPS, its destination is described in a secret clause of the document, “Appendix 5”. This document was not published by the Prosecution Service and is being dealt with carefully by the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, which was led by the now Minister of Justice Sergio Moro throughout Operation Car Wash. At least three times, Moro denied requests for access to this appendix under the argument that it could harm investigations underway.

The agreement with Odebrecht is dated December 2016 and is therefore older than the Petrobras one signed in September 2018 and published in January this year. But many of the elements that raise suspicions about the intentions of the Car Wash prosecutors and its anti-corruption crusade were already there — and have not been seen.

In the case of Petrobras, annexes of the agreement were published recently and revealed these intentions: the setting up of a foundation in which the money, $ 650 million, is to be directed at interventions to combat corruption. This fund is to be managed by the operation Car Wash prosecutors in Curitiba. Naturally, it will be sent to friendly bodies. This text was suspended by Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Federal Supreme Court.

The Odebrecht agreement has been better protected. But we do already know, for example, that the money that is to remain in Brazil will not be sent to a Treasury account, as mandated by Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is to be under the control of members of the self-proclaimed Car Wash task force.

Rendering services
In exchange, they undertake to “manage” together with the Comptroller-General of the Union, with the Attorney-General of the Union and the Accounts Court of the Union so that they do not question the amount of the fine nor accuse the company and their directors of administrative impropriety.

Car Wash prosecutors
In exchange for managing the millionaire fine, Car Wash prosecutors undertake to ‘manage’ so that oversight bodies do not interfere in the agreement
Reproduction/YouTube

In bureaucratic jargon, “manage” means articulating and in some cases making non-official requests. In the case of public agents receiving money to do so in the name of private individuals, it is administrative advocacy, explained one specialist who spoke to ConJur on the condition of not being identified.

The U.S. chapter of the agreement has less to do with power and more to do with business. Amongst the various requirements Odebrecht has undertaken to meet is the nomination of an “external monitor of compliance with the agreement” to submit reports every 120 days.

These reports must be shown to the board of directors of the company and to the head of the FCPA division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The last item of the last annex of the agreement with the DoJ explains that the reports expected by the U.S. government will “probably include proprietary, financial, commercial and secret competition information”.

FCPA is the abbreviation for the U.S. international anti-corruption law. It exists to punish companies abroad that trade on the U.S. stock exchanges or with U.S. companies. But analysts have pointed out that the law has been used as an instrument of expansion of the economic influence of the U.S. government through private companies in other countries.

This analysis is not very popular amongst prosecutors at the DoJ who discredit the argument whenever they can. But the fact is that at the start of operation Car Wash, Odebrecht had 240,000 employees. According to the company, there are now 60,000.

Defence case
The defence for ex-President Lula, made by the lawyer Cristiano Zanin Martins, has been trying to access the documents for the agreement since May 2017, without success. Moro has turned down three requests for access in the space of little more than one year. The first denial was in September 2017, when the then judge said that handing over a copy of the document could harm other investigations underway. On May 24th of the next year, he was more clear: “There is no need for access to the case documents of the plea bargain “. In the third denial, in August 2018, he merely repeated the decision of the previous year.

Lula
Since May 2017, ex-President Lula has tried to obtain access to the case documents of the Odebrecht agreement with the FPS, unsuccessfully
Ricardo Stuckert

In February, Zanin filed a motion with the Supreme Court alleging violation of Binding Ruling 14 of the STF over the denials. The ruling guarantees the defence access to all elements of the inquiry already documented, provided the access does not harm diligences underway — exactly the argument used by Moro.

According to the lawyer, access to the documents could corroborate the defence case that Lula never received any payment for any “service” rendered to Odebrecht, and that the charges made against him have not been repeated in the U.S. They were brought in Brazil to ensure benefits for the Odebrecht family and for ex-executives of the company.

Moro argued that access to the agreement documents is not necessary. But Zanin uses the example of Petrobras: the agreement was signed in September 2018 and was published on January 30th of this year. Only weeks later, details of the setting up of the fund by the FPS were published — and the information was seen to be essential to the process, to the point of a Supreme Court Justice suspending that part until further information becomes available to judge the merits.

There and here
Lula’s defence have spoken of two main reasons for having access to the agreement documents. The first is that, in appendix 5, says the claim, there is information on the destination of the money paid by Odebrecht by way of the fine, and the FPS is arguing that Lula pay a fine in indemnification for the damages caused to the country for his corrupt deeds. But he is charged with receiving an apartment from the construction company. If both he and the company pay fines for the same facts, there would be punishment twice over, argues Zanin, which would harm the ex-President.

Justice Fachin
There was no “flagrant illegality” in Moro’s decisions denying Lula’s defence access to the agreement of Odebrecht with the FPS, says Justice Luiz Edson Fachin
Rosinei Coutinho / SCO STF

Lula also asked to see what there was in the My Web Day system. This concerns a parallel accounts software to control the bribes paid, owed and received, used by the “structured operations sector”, the bribes department, as the newspapers called it. But when the Federal Police obtained access to the system, they reported the lack of integrity of the files, with data deleted or corrupted.

For Lula’s lawyer, the fact of these files being corrupted argue in favour of his client. Odebrecht told different stories in Brazil and in the USA. Here they said hey bribed Lula for him to intercede on behalf of the company at Petrobras. One of these interventions was for the nomination of ex-directors responsible for maintaining the tender fraud scheme functioning.

But to the DoJ, the Odebrecht executives described how the cartel worked that engineering companies set up to defraud Petrobras tenders and over bill for civil construction contracts, but nothing about Lula.

No smoke
At the Supreme Court, Justice Luiz Edson Fachin also denied the request for access. According to him, there was no “flagrant illegality” in Moro’s decisions, and therefore there was no reason to grant the motion. The decision was made on March 15 of this year, and also calls for further information from the self-proclaimed Car Wash task force.

The current head of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba, Luiz Antonio Bonat, repeated to Fachin the arguments of his predecessor: allowing access to the agreement documents would harm investigations underway. He added that the documents Lula asked to see, “in the main, corresponded to information which had no wider relevance”. “However, there is no obstacle to providing this information”, Bonat concluded in his ruling.

In response, Lula’s defence asked Fachin to reconsider the previous decision and that it would suspend the criminal case against the ex-President in the case of the apartment. “Is it possible to guarantee that the version of facts from Odebrecht in the plea bargain agreement documents is the same as that given in the court cases? Or are there things in the agreement documents approved there not relevant to the petitioner’s defence?”

Click here to read the Odebrecht agreement with the FPS
Click here to read the Odebrecht agreement with the DoJ
Click
here to read the Lula petition to obtain access to the agreement documents
Click
here to read the Justice Fachin ruling on the Lula petition
Click
here to read the judge Luiz Antonio Bonat document to the Supreme Court on the Odebrecht agreement
Click
here to read the request for reconsideration submitted to Justice Fachin

Claim 33.543
Criminal case 5063130-17.2016.4.04.7000, at Federal Justice in Parana

Pedro Canario is chief editor at Consultor Juridico.

Lula at his grandson’s funeral

Lula grandson funeral

On leaving the cemetery, Lula stood up on the Federal Police car and waved to his supporters. When he got down, the Federal Police agent said: “You should not have done that”.

“You know that I had to”, responded Lula.

From the Barracks to the Courtroom: US ‘Lawfare’ in Action

bolsonaro

Wayne Madsen | 18.01.2019

Somewhere along the line in recent history, some US think tank in the employ of the Central Intelligence Agency must have come up with the idea that overthrowing governments in Latin America by military coups came with bad optics for the coup plotters. Often, democratically-elected Latin American leaders were demonized by a cabal of military officers who left their barracks and laid siege to the presidential palaces. After taking control of the national radio stations, these generals would announce they had seized control of the government to “protect” the people from “communism” or some other concocted bogeyman.

Beginning in the early 2000s, another plan was devised by US national security planners ensconced in their faux academia “think tanks.” Their plan was simple: overthrow anti-American elected leaders in Latin America through the courts. In effect, lawyers and judges, not generals, caudillos, or military juntas, would carry out coups by abusing constitutional provisions and laws as a clever ruse.

Under Allen Dulles and Richard Helms, the Central Intelligence Agency relied on the old tried and true method of promoting coups via the façade of a “popular” rebellion. After the 1973 CIA-directed coup in Chile, which saw Socialist president Salvador Allende die in a hail of bullets fired from aircraft and tanks at the La Moneda presidential palace, the CIA began to look at other avenues to overthrow presidents in the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, CIA-influenced media, including the dubious Wikipedia, have insisted Allende committed suicide with an AK-47 assault rifle presented to him by Cuban leader Fidel Castro. However, nature would later provide the evidence that Allende was assassinated. The proof came in a 300-page top secret report found in the debris of the house of a former military officer. The house had been destroyed in the 2011 Chilean earthquake. The story of Allende’s “suicide” was spread around CIA-friendly media to mask the agency’s role in yet another assassination of a foreign leader. The CIA’s media manipulation was honed during its pre-eminent role in covering up the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King. For the CIA, however, assassinations were costly in terms of the agency’s public image, so some other method of dispatching targeted leaders was in order.

A formerly CONFIDENTIAL CIA “Intelligence Memorandum,” dated December 29, 1975, concluded that Latin America had to be weaned away from “Third Worldism.” The conclusion was based on the votes of certain Latin American countries that had voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. The countries were Brazil, Cuba, Grenada, Guyana, and Mexico. Eleven other countries in the Western Hemisphere abstained.

As the bloody coups in Chile, the Dominican Republic, and other countries showed, there had to be a simpler and less lethal way for the US to bring about undemocratic changes in governments in the hemisphere.

If the CIA were able to infiltrate a nation’s judiciary and law enforcement structures — the latter having already been thoroughly subsumed through CIA-financed “training programs” – it could bring spurious charges against targeted heads of state. This form of coup d’état would become known as “lawfare.”

The leader of the French left, Jean Luc Melenchon, recently condemned the use of lawfare against former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Lula, as he is popularly known, has been imprisoned since April 2018 on trumped up charges of corruption. Melenchon told the Brazilian press that “lawfare is now used in all countries to get rid of progressive leaders. This is what they did with Lula.” Melenchon added, “the judge [Sergio Moro] who condemned Lula is now a minister [minister of justice and public security] of Jair Bolsonaro, the new president of Brazil.” Lula was sentenced to 12 years in prison on politically-motivated money-laundering charges ginned up by Moro and other neo-fascists in the Brazilian judiciary. Bolsonaro, a champion of Brazil’s former military dictatorship and an admirer of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Donald Trump, has vowed to keep Lula in prison. Lula would have defeated Bolsonaro for the presidency had he been released from prison and allowed to run for political office. However, Moro and his fellow lawfare practitioners ensured that appeals to the Brazilian Supreme Court for Lula’s release were all dead-on-arrival.

Melenchon also stated “Lula has been a direct victim of accusations to destroy his work and image, built in more than 40 years of public life.” British human rights attorney Geoffrey Robertson QC echoed Melenchon in comments made to the “New Internationalist” in January 2018. Robertson cited the “extraordinarily aggressive measures” taken to imprison Lula and prevent him from running for president. Robertson cited as Lula’s enemies the judiciary, media, and “the great sinews of wealth and power in Brazil.”

Lawfare coups have been embraced by both Republican and Democratic administrations over almost two decades. The first example of a coup by semi-constitutional fiat was the February 28, 2004 forced removal from office of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. US Marines and American mercenaries escorted Aristide and his party from the presidential palace to a white plane with no other markings except for an American flag on the tail. The United States claimed Aristide voluntarily resigned his office, something that Aristide and his advisers vehemently denied. Aristide was literally tossed off the plane, along with his wife, in Bangui, Central African Republic. Through the abuse of “national emergency” provisions, the United States installed Haiti’s Supreme Court Chief Justice, Boniface Alexandre, in the presidential palace. The coup began after CIA-supported rebels and narcotics-gangs seized control of northern Haiti and marched to the capital of Port-au-Prince with the intention of ousting Aristide.

The second lawfare coup was against Honduras’s president, Manuel Zelaya. Staged on June 28, 2009, the coup was approved in advance by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as leaked cables from the US embassy in Tegucigalpa attest. Coup leader Roberto Micheletti cited the Honduran Constitution and a decision by the Supreme Court as providing legitimacy for Zelaya being marched from his home in his pajamas to a waiting plane that flew him to Costa Rica. The military junta that replaced Zelaya said that his letter of resignation had been approved by the National Assembly. Zelaya declared the letter to be a forgery.

The third major lawfare coup came in 2012. Paraguay’s democratically-elected president, Fernando Lugo, was ousted in a political impeachment carried out by right-wing forces in the Paraguayan Congress and Senate, with the full support of the US-trained and equipped Paraguayan military. From Washington, Secretary Clinton moved hastily to recognize the right-wing vice president, Federico Franco, and his new right-wing government to replace the center-left government of Lugo. As with Haiti and Honduras, the Paraguayan coup was accomplished with the thin veneer of the constitution.

In 2016, it was Brazil’s turn in the lawfare arena. The impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff of the left-wing Workers’ Party ensured that Michel Temer, her right-wing vice president, assumed the presidency. Without Rousseff in the presidential palace, her predecessor, Lula, became fair game for the right-wing.

Next on the American hit list was Venezuela. On December 6, 2015, the US-backed rightist opposition won control over the National Assembly. The rightists immediately commenced procedures to remove progressive socialist President Nicolas Maduro from power through dubious “constitutional” means. However, the plan faltered in Venezuela. In reaction, Washington applied crippling economic sanctions on the country, something that was to be repeated by the Trump administration against both Venezuela and the democratically-elected government of President Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.

Pro-democracy forces in Latin America and elsewhere no longer have to worry about sudden troop movements and tanks converging on presidential palaces, but armies of judges and lawyers armed with nothing more than constitutional provisions and criminal codes stretched to the point of incredulity.

The mask of Sergio Moro falls

brasil-moro-bolsonaro

(Tânia Regô – José Cruz/Agência Brasil)

In accepting the invitation to be a Minister for Bolsonaro, the judge’s partiality and political intentions have become even clearer ‘in the eyes of Brazil and of the world’

01/11/2018

In accepting the invitation to be a Minister of Justice for Jair Bolsonaro, Sérgio Moro revealed definitively his partiality as a judge and his real political options. His mask has fallen.

Moro was one of the most visible agents of the political and electoral process. Since the start of Operation Lava Jato (Car Wash) he acted not to fight corruption, but to destroy the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker’s Party) and the government running the country. All his actions were meticulously thought to influence this direction.

In 2016 he recorded and illegally leaked private conversations of the President, convicted Lula, without proof and for “indeterminate acts”, performing judicial acrobatics to not follow a judicial order to release him, manipulated the calendar of the process so as to impede a deposition by Lula, in which he could defend himself and publicise a lieful plea bargain from Antonio Palocci on the eve of the first round of the election.

The arbitrary, illegal and partial rulings by Sergio Moro led the UN Committee for the Defense of Human Rights to open a formal procedure on the process against Lula, as well as determining the guarantee of Lula’s political rights, which was not followed by the Superior Electoral Court, in clear violation of international treaties in force.

Moro has always been a biased judge, always acting with political intentions, and this has become clear to the eyes of Brazil and of the world, when he took on a post in the government he helped elect with his decisions against Lula and the campaign of defamation against the PT that he fed, as an accomplice with most of the media.

The judge who acted so strongly against Lula is the same as who benefited those who were really corrupt with Petrobras and their agents, who are now enjoying their freedom or are in semi-open imprisonment, besides the millions they accumulated, in exchange for false depositions, with a clear political bent.

This nomination, where the invitation was made before the first round of the elections, as revealed by Vice-President General Mourão in the Folha de São Paulo newspaper, is one more sign that the future government intends to set up a police state in Brazil.

Adapted from Comissão Executiva Nacional do PT 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Tânia Regô – José Cruz/Agência Brasil)

Lula lawyer says Judge Moro’s acceptance as Justice Minister in Bolsonaro government is ‘lawfare in its essence’

zanin-moro
Cristiano Zanin Martins and Sergio Moro. Photos: Reproduction/Facebook and Agência Brasil

The lawyer Cristiano Zanin Martins who defends ex-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said the acceptance of Judge  Sérgio Moro to be Minister of Justice in the Jair Bolsonaro government is “lawfare in its essence”.

In a press release, Zanin said the act proved definitively what Lula’s defence had always denounced. “Lula was processed, condemned and imprisoned without having committed a crime, with the clear objective of impeding him politically. This is lawfare in its essence, as Lula suffered intense political persecution by means of abuse and misuse of the laws and legal proceedings”, he said.

The full text of the press release is below:

PRESS RELEASE FROM PRESIDENT LULA’S DEFENCE

The formalization of the entry of Judge Sérgio Moro into politics and the revelation of conversations held during the presidential election campaign with the President elect’s campaign prove definitively what we always argued in appeals filed in the Brazilian courts and also with the UN Human Rights Committee: Lula was processed, condemned and imprisoned without having committed a crime, with the clear objective of impeding him politically. This is lawfare in its essence, as Lula suffered intense political persecution by means of abuse and misuse of the laws and legal proceedings.

The defence will take all due measures at the national and international levels to argue Lula’s right to a fair, impartial and independent judgement.

Cristiano Zanin Martinse

A matemática do Brasil do Bolsonaro

Bolsonaro e Lula

Foto: huffpostbrasil.com

O que os números e a resolução de equações pode dizer para nós sobre a situação no Brasil? Vejamos os números e os fatores que podem entrar numa equação. Geralmente, o passado tem uma influência no presente e o presente pode nos dizer algo sobre o futuro, mas estes dois aspectos sobre o tempo, o passado e o futuro, talvez terão de ser reavaliadas enquanto movemos através do nosso exame.

Numa equação, temos duas partes, cada uma de um lado de um sinal = ou igual, e temos que alcançar um equilíbrio para assegurar que não tenha erro.

Quais fatores devemos ter em conta nas equações? Números absolutos de cada lado; por exemplo, o montante de dinheiro levado à situação por cada lado, usando um sinal + para fatores positivos e um sinal – para fatores negativos. Os sinais + estão usados para o que sabemos que é real e sinais – para equilibrar o que sabemos que é falso.

Sabemos que no lado direito temos mais dinheiro e que a sociedade acredita que isso é importante. Sabemos que o lado esquerdo está  falando que não tem justiça e portanto que a conta, a votação, está inválida.

O lado direito, geralmente acredita que o dinheiro ou o poder é um direito divino, e que nem todos têm tal direito.

O conselho do lado esquerdo é que devemos nos unir, que temos que lutar, que devemos nos organizar. O conselho do lado direito é que temos que lutar, que temos que nos defender, que devemos destruir e eliminar para sempre as pessoas barulhentas da esquerda.

Até que aqueles na esquerda e na direita possam ouvir o que está sendo dito de ambos os pontos de vista, não teremos paz.

Aquele que está recebendo o conselho, Lula, nunca diz que era da esquerda e sempre escutou os dois lados.

O número 13 é o número que o Partido dos Trabalhadores usa em suas campanhas. Há um mito ou lenda que o número 13 é que dar azar. Não é verdade. Na minha tradição, os padeiros assaram 13 pães em vez de 12 para suprir a necessidade se qualquer situação  desafortunada acontecer, tal como a perda de um ou a queda acidental de um e assim por adiante.

Da mesma tradição, o Partido dos Trabalhadores do Reino Unido sempre buscou a harmonia entre as classes em vez de guerra de classes. Aqueles que ainda acreditam em guerra de classes,  de qualquer lado, estão propagando o que dizem estar contra, desequilíbrio e desigualdade.

Há uma abreviação interessante no português brasileiro sobre o PT. Pode significar ou o Partido dos Trabalhadores ou a Perda Total, que é um termo de seguros para quando um carro está dado como não valendo a pena de reparar depois de um acidente de carro. Este termo entrou na cultura popular com a frase, ‘Vai dar PT’ ou na piada invertida como ‘Não vai dar PT’.

Qualquer um que se considere um trabalhador, ou não trabalhador, também deve pensar sobre o motivo pelo qual um trabalhador se considere excluído ou incluído nessa categoria, e o porquê de qualquer outra pessoa não ser um trabalhador.

Neste tempo,  os brasileiros têm que pensar em perda, em quem ganhou e o que está perdido ou ganho.