Talk:Alexandre de Moraes
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
MP associations speak out against Alexandre's statement
editThe National Association of Members of the Public Ministry and the National Association of Public Prosecutors released a note on the statement by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, of the Supreme Federal Court, for whom there is no investigation monopoly of the Public Ministry.
National Association of Members of the Public Prosecutor's Office (Conamp) and the National Association of Public Prosecutors (ANPR) come out to the public to express their totally contrary position, given the manifestation made this Wednesday (17th) by the Minister of the Supreme Federal Court, Alexandre de Moraes, in the sense that all Courts can open criminal investigations. The accusatory system is one of the main civilizing achievements of modern democracies. For him, different actors are charged with the functions of investigating, accusing, defending and judging. When the magistrates themselves are in charge of functions related to other actors, such as investigating and accusing, one of the most important principles that should guide the performance of the judges remains, which is impartiality. In the Brazilian legal system, the Public Prosecution Service, the Judiciary Police and other control bodies are conferred the investigative function, and it is essential that there is also respect, by the Judiciary, of the prerogatives inherent in other organs and institutions in the country.[1]
Alexandre de Moraes Wife
editAlexandre’s wife is a partner at a law firm and is acting as a lawyer in 18 cases being reviewed by the Supreme Court. 184.153.49.29 (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Twitter suspension
editAt the second paragraph, we can read that *In April 2024, X (formerly Twitter) owner Elon Musk accused de Moraes of "brazenly and repeatedly betraying the constitution and people of Brazil" in response to the Supreme Federal Court's order to block several X accounts, arguing combat of misinformation as the reason.*.
But the Supreme Federal Court never had said that it was a fight against misinformation, properly, but because of virtual crimes committed on the platform.
You can read the beginning of the determination of the blocking of Twitter on this page: https://www.conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PET-12404-Assinada.pdf
And in april of 2024, here: https://www.conjur.com.br/2024-abr-09/alexandre-nega-pedido-para-eximir-x-brasil-de-cumprir-decisoes/
Saying that Twitter has been baned because of misinformation is as a straw man fallacy. Twitter's refusal to ban accounts of criminals who threatened police officers and judges with death, and posted photos of them and their families. The elected senator "Marcos do Val" and the 16 years old girl Mariana Eustáquio" also exposed personal data of family members of police officers. This is the official determination that is in the PDF I send, writed by Alexandre de Moraes. You can use a translator to read it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uskpp (talk • contribs) 00:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)