But the company said the website would remain available to users in Brazil.

While X argued that it was protecting free speech and standing up against “illegal secret censorship,” Brazil’s Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes argued he was standing up against disinformation and tyranny in Brazil.

In April, Moraes had ordered an investigation into Musk, accusing him of “criminal instrumentalization” of the platform. An order detailed that Musk had reactivated banned accounts and was then threatened with a fine for each instance.

This comes roughly a week after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro banned the website for a 10-day period over an election result dispute and accused Musk of inciting hate, civil war, and death.

Musk has been increasingly outspoken on Latin American politics, as he has on politics in general, of late.

What did X say?

“Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders. He did so in a secret order, which we share here to expose his actions,” X’s Global Government Affairs department said in a post on Saturday.

“We are deeply saddened that we have been forced to make this decision. The responsibility lies solely with Alexandre de Moraes,” the post read. “His actions are incompatible with democratic government. The people of Brazil have a choice to make — democracy, or Alexandre de Moraes.”

The post said X’s numerous appeals went unheard at the court while the public was not informed of the orders. The Brazilian office’s staff had “no responsibility or control” over whether content was blocked from the platform.

The decision to close down local operations was taken to protect the safety of the staff, it said.

Billionaire Musk, in his post, said the decision was “difficult, but, if we had agreed to Alexandre’s (illegal) secret censorship and private information handover demands, there was no way we could explain our actions without being ashamed.”

What did Moraes say?

Moraes has previously ordered several social media accounts Brazil’s authorities suspected of spreading disinformation, including those of supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro who tried discrediting the nation’s voting system after he lost the 2022 election.

“Freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom of aggression,” Moraes has said. “It doesn’t mean the freedom to defend tyranny.”

Judge Moraes presided over Brazil’s Superior Electoral Tribunal which declared Bolsonaro ineligible to run for office again last year, saying that he had spread disinformation about the election system.

As the law was used in the October general elections, a series of “corrections” will have to be made: some politicians who have taken seats in Congress will be out and others in.

In April 2010, Ficha Limpa arrived unsolicited, on the doorstep of the Chamber of Deputies in the form of a petition with 1.6 million signatures (over time, on the Internet, another 3 million adherents signed it). Its genesis dates back all the way to 1997, when a civic organization began calling for political reforms.

In the beginning, deputies did not want to do anything with the Ficha Limpa petition. But public clamor in favor of the law grew. The Chamber of Deputies, and then the Senate, passed the law. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva signed it into law in June 2010. That is, close to 90 days before the October general election.

The Brazilian political landscape is full of elected officials with legal problems. Elective office has proved to be safe haven where politicians with criminal records are shielded from prosecution. The population was angry and frustrated with the election system. They were fed up with office holders who had big smiles and long rap sheets.

But, because Brazilian voters have a dirty record of voting for bad politicians, the idea behind the Clean Criminal Record law was to go after the politicians themselves, making them ineligible to run for office. After Lula signed it into law, the population demanded the immediate enforcement of Ficha Limpa.

Overnight, the question of whether or not the Ficha Limpa law was binding on the October 2010 general elections became a burning issue. A legal issue.

Ficha Limpa lawsuits made their way to regional electoral courts (Tribunal Regional Eleitoral – TRE) and then to the Federal Electoral Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral – TSE) where the court voted to make Ficha Limpa binding in October. That ruling was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, an impasse: the vote was tied 5 to 5 and during the election cycle it stayed tied (a tie caused by the retirement of the eleventh justice in August 2010 and the fact that another justice was not nominated before the elections).

The eleventh justice took his seat on the court at the beginning of March and on March 23 the country got a final decision on Ficha Limpa.

The ruling that the Ficha Limpa law will be valid only beginning with elections next year was criticized by the Movement to Combat Electoral Corruption (Movimento de Combate à Corrupção Eleitoral -MCCE), which coordinated the collection of signatures on the petition that got the law rolling.

“We respect the decision. But we regret the postponement of an introduction of more ethical standards in elections,” declared Marlon Reis, a judge who is one of the MCCE leaders. “We can continue to hold our heads high. We are still working to get a political reform for our society,” he declared.

Reis points out that one of the peculiarities of the Brazilian voting system is the proportional election of deputies where candidates with long coattails can “pull” a bunch of other candidates in his political party into office even though the others have few votes.

Reis said that a consequence of the Ficha Limpa law was that if one of the long-coattail candidates loses his seat, the other candidates he pulled in will also lose their seats.

Bar Association

The decision that the Ficha Limpa law is valid only for the elections beginning in 2012 (when mayors and city councilpersons will be elected) got a mixed reaction in the Chamber of Deputies.

The leader of the government, deputy Cândido Vacarezza (PT-SP) said the court made the right decision. “As the popular saying goes, Supreme Court decisions are not to be disputed, they are to be obeyed. In this case, the court got it right. The law cannot be retroactive when it is detrimental to the accused.”

However, the leader of the PPS, Rubens Bueno (PR), criticized the ruling pointing out that it was decided by one vote, that of the newest justice, Luiz Fux. “The new Supreme Court judge frustrated expectations in all of society. A very popular law has been turned to dust. It is a blow to many who fought to improve the quality of politics in this country,” he declared.

Another person who lamented the Supreme Court decision was the president of the Bar Association (OAB), Ophir Cavalcante. But he was optimistic about the future. “This is no time to cry over spilled milk. We don’t like it, but it is a Supreme Court ruling. We just have to carry on and look ahead to the future,” he said.

According to Cavalcante, with the Ficha Limpa law the political reform has begun. “Civil society has taken the first step. The demand for a more ethical political process is crystal clear.”

OAB’s president pointed out that Ficha Limpa was a response to public demand and frustration with “various politicians who had rap sheets as long as their arms, thumbing their noses at society and the courts by means of endless legal maneuvers to postpone final decisions on their cases as they obtained safe haven in elective office.”

“We are frustrated, but this ruling does not mean we have been defeated. The Ficha Limpa law is constitutional and will be in effect in the next elections,” declared Cavalcante.

In practical terms, the Supreme’s decision means that politicians with legal problems who had enough votes to be elected last October in the general elections can take office. Many of them were not allowed to do so when electoral courts ruled them ineligible under the Ficha Law. Now they will unseat their opponents who were seated as a result of lower (Electoral Court) rulings.

The ruling will have a direct effect on at least four senate seats: Cassio Cunha Lima (PSDB, Paraíba state) will get the seat of Wilson Santiago (PMDB, Paraíba); João Capiberibe (PSB, Amapá) will substitute Gilvam Borges (PMDB, Amapá);Jader Barbalho (PMDB, Pará) will substitute Marinor Brito (PSOL, Pará) and Marcelo Miranda (PMDB, Tocantins) will substitute Vicentinho Alves (PR, Tocantins).

However, it seems that the courts will still have to decide on each case individually before any changes in seating arrangements actually take place. It should also be noted that there is a backlog of at least 30 other Ficha Limpa cases in courts.

Meanwhile, the executive secretary of the Movement for Combat of Electoral Corruption (MCCE), Jovita José Rosa, said the justices made an erroneous interpretation of the law.

“In our opinion, and that of many jurists, Ficha Limpa does not alter the electoral process. The law deals only with the question of eligibility and cannot be considered a penalty. Candidates were registered under the Ficha Limpa law. Our feeling is one of deception. However, we are now certain that political reform is more than ever urgently necessary.”

Legal Problems

In sum, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday, March 23, the Ficha Limpa law is to be legally binding only in 2012 and all politicians barred from taking office following the general elections of October 2010 because of legal problems under the Ficha Limpa law may now take office.

The vote in the Supreme Court was 6 to 5, with the new justice, Luiz Fux, joining five other justices in a decision based on the following jurisprudence: First, Article 16 of the constitution, which states clearly that any law that alters election processes must be in effect for at least a year before it becomes binding (“anualidade” or “princípio da anterioridade”).

Second, the “presumption of innocence” principle (the idea being that although some Brazilian politicians have rap sheets as long as their arms, until a final judgment they must be presumed innocent). And, third, Fux and his five colleagues ruled, in principle, against a retroactive law. The fact is that Ficha Limpa made politicians ineligible to run for office in October 2010 because of crimes committed before October 2010.

However, the other five Supreme Court justices claimed Ficha Limpa did not alter election processes (the matter of eligibility being separate) and based their interpretation on Article 14 of the constitution, which states clearly that elected officials must be examples of probity.

The president of the Senate, and former president of Brazil, José Sarney (PMDB, Amapá), declared that he believed the Ficha Limpa law should have been in effect for the October 2010 general elections.

Sarney explained that he did not see any reason for the Supreme Court to overturn a law approved by the Congress and sanctioned by former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Sarney pointed out that the decision will have what he called difficult political administrative consequences.

“It is complicated to modify this law at this time. The election is over and a number of Ficha Limpa judgements have been completed,” he said. Sarney then took a jab at the Supreme Court, saying that there has been an excessive number of cases in which the judicial branch has “questioned” legislative decisions. Sarney called the process “the judicialization of politics.” And he was definitely not praising the tendency.

In Sarney’s opinion, political parties have a duty to define who their candidates will be. “The parties are supposed to make a selection of those it believes will best represent them. It is natural for them to select people who will get the most votes and the people who get the most votes should be the best candidates.”

Winner Now Loser

Senator Marinor Brito (P-SOL, Pará), has a seat in the Senate because her opponents in the October general elections, Jader Barbalho (PMDB) and Paulo Rocha (PT), were both ruled ineligible by electoral courts under the terms of the Ficha Limpa law.

Both Barbalho and Rocha got more votes than she did. Now, with the Supreme Court ruling that Ficha Limpa was not in effect during the October elections, she stands to lose her seat.

Senator Marinor criticized justice Luiz Fux for his vote. Senator Marinor pointed out that when Fux was recently questioned at Senate hearing regarding his nomination for the Supreme Court, he had a different opinion.

“Justice Fux contradicted himself. In Senate hearings, he said Justice cannot turn its back on the law’s intentions. But, now he has turned his back on the intentions of  Ficha Limpa” she said, pointing out that proof of the popular support for the law was evident in the fact that 70% of candidates accused of Ficha Limpa violations lost their elections in October.

Senator Marinor said that she and her lawyers were studying whether or not to put up a legal battle to save her seat in the Senate.

ABr

The ruling, by justice Celso de Mello, also suspends the landowner’s incarceration and a penal process against him in Rondon do Pará, in the Brazilian northern state of Pará, until such time as a final decision is reached on a habeas corpus request in the case.

Defense lawyers claim their client was denied due process (cerceamento de defesa) in a hearing on habeas corpus on April 23 at a lower court (STJ).

Dezinho was an activist who denounced farmer/landowners in the Rondon do Pará region for keeping workers in slave-labor situations and hiring gunmen. He was shot by Wellington Silva, a hired gunman whose confession led the police to Barroso Nunes. Even so, Barroso Nunes has spent the last ten years since the murder in liberty awaiting trial.

This is yet another land conflict case, similar to many others, for example, that of the American missionary nun, Dorothy Stang, who was also murdered on orders of landowners. Her death also occurred in the state of Pará, where it is not easy to put a farmer/landowner behind bars.

In October 2008, the Dezinho case was brought before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, housed in the Organization of American States, which ruled that it seemed Brazilian authorities were dragging their feet and not trying to resolve the murder.

Constitutional Amendments

The Brazilian constitution has over 300 articles, so it is not surprising it goes into a lot of detail. For example, it has articles on divorce, the rights of families (especially youth), poverty and even corrupt judges. The Senate has just approved a series of constitutional amendments.

Divorce in Brazil can now be obtained without judicial separation of a year or physical separation of two years, which were mandatory in the past.

Another amendment, known as the “youth amendment,” deals with economic, social and cultural rights of young people, altering the part of the constitution that deals with the interests of the family, children, adolescents and senior citizens.

The new text says that it is the duty of the family, society and the State to ensure, as an absolute priority, that children, adolescents and youths have a right to life, health, food, education, leisure, professional training, culture, dignity, respect, liberty and family and community living.

The text adds that those groups should be safe from all forms of negligence, discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and oppression.

Another constitutional amendment extends, for an indeterminate period, the Eradication of Poverty Fund, which was due to expire this year.

Another amendment approved will eliminate retirement benefits for corrupt judges. In the 1988 constitution, the maximum punishment a judge could receive was a suspension or expulsion followed by something called “retirement in the public interest.” That meant full benefits after being removed from the judiciary.

All these amendments were approved in a first vote. At least one other vote in the Chamber of Deputies will be necessary before they become part of the constitution.

ABr

So, everbody knew before hand that the new Chief Justice is Cezar Peluso, who was appointed by Lula in 2003. He will replace Gilmar Mendes.

As of April, Supreme Court justice, Ricardo Lewandowski, will be the head of the Brazilian Electoral Board (TSE), which will command the 2010 general elections.

“I feel certain we are up to the honorable traditions of this court and Electoral Justice in Brazil and that we will be able to provide all citizens and all candidates in the upcoming elections a calm and successful outcome,” commented Lewandowski.

He and the outgoing president of the TSE, Carlos Ayres Britto, had a difference of opinion regarding voting rights for certain types of prisoners.

Ayres Britto, based on the fact that Brazilian jurisprudence disfranchises a citizen only if he has been definitively sentenced –  which can often take a very long time, what with the law’s delay and a system that facilitates repeated appeals – decided to allow “temporary” prisoners and youths in juvenile detention the right to vote.

Lewandowski considered the idea unwieldy – just in São Paulo there are 52,000 temporary prisoners – besides dangerous in some prisons due to the presence of criminal gangs. But Ayres Britto carried the day in a vote by the Supreme Court (STF) and some prisoners will vote.

Swine Flu

On another front, the Brazilian senate has approved a Temporary Measure (Medida Provisória – MP 469) providing “extraordinary credit” for the ministries of Health and Transportation totaling 2.168 billion reais.

Almost all the money, 2.163 billion reais, will go to the Ministry of Health to be used in a preventive vaccination campaign against swine flu.  The campaign begins this month as Brazil moves into autumn. The flu is more dangerous in colder weather.

ABr

On 16 June 2009, the Mayor of São Paulo, Gilberto Kassab, decided that the new website, Keeping an Eye on Public Costs (De Olho nas Contas) – http://deolhonascontas.prefeitura.sp.gov.br – should include a nominal list of all civil servants attached to the municipality – including 147,000 employees of the central administration and another 15,000 employed indirectly – with their posts, salaries and place of work.

Two associations of civil servants (representing professors, engineers and architects) filed lawsuits against this decision. They were granted an urgent provisional decision by the Superior Court of São Paulo, and the information was taken off-line. The Municipality appealed to the Supreme Court, which canceled the provisional decision and held that the information could be disseminated.

The two associations argued that the disclosures would, among other things, breach their constitutional rights to privacy and security of person. The Municipality argued that to refuse to disclose the data would be a violation of the constitutional right to information and principles of publicity of all administrative acts.

The São Paulo Superior Court held that the information could put people at risk, and also accepted some procedural arguments. The Supreme Court judge who ruled on the case, Justice Gilmar Mendes, referred to the fact that the Internet has transformed the citizen-State relationship, particularly in relation to social control over public expenditure.

The judge recognized that in some cases, openness could legitimately be limited. However, in this case, the public interest in having the information was stronger than the rights of civil servants, and "public order" would be violated by enforcing a judicial decision that undermined the Municipality's policy of transparency, in favor of individual rights.

The press freedom organization Article 19 has released a note welcoming the decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court and calling on the Brazilian judiciary to apply such standards in all right to information cases.

Genuine acceptance of the right to information will sometimes require balancing with other rights, reason Article 19, and the forward-looking stance of the Supreme Court in undertaking this balancing, rather than simply falling back on accepted notions of privacy and security, which are more established in the jurisprudence, is very welcome.

The international organization has also praised what it called the progressive position of the mayor of São Paulo and asked other public bodies also to adopt strong measures on openness of information.

"This is particularly pertinent and important in light of the new bill on the right to information presented by President Lula to Congress in May 2009," they argue.

The removal of illegal occupants will be the responsibility of the judiciary, under the authority of the judge-reporter of the case, Carlos Ayres Britto.

By ten votes to one, the judges upheld the administrative procedure that, in 2005, resulted in the recognition of 1.7 million hectares as indigenous land, where approximately 18,000 people from the Ingarikó, Makuxi, Taurepang, Patamona and Wapichana peoples live.

The only dissenting vote was from judge Marco Aurélio de Mello.  On December 10, 2008, in the second court session, after eight judges had already voted for maintaining the recognition, Mello delayed a decision through legal maneuvering. 

On March 18, when the STF returned to session, Mello read his earlier vote for about seven hours, full of long quotations from news articles.  Shortly after, Celso de Mello voted for maintaining the recognition.  On March 19, judge Gilmar Mendes also voted in favor of the recognition of the lands.

After the verdict was announced, approximately 30 Indians who were following the court proceedings celebrated the victory in the Plaza of the Three Branches of Government (Praça doe Três Poderes).  "We lost many family members who were killed during these years of struggle, but today, they are here celebrating with us," declared an emotional Júlio Makuxi.

The result from March 19 annulled a court order that suspended the operation of the Federal Police to remove the non-Indian occupants from the land in April, 2008.  Meanwhile, the responsibility for extricating the invaders will no longer be left to the executive branch but with the judicial branch.  It will be under the coordination of TRF 1 and Judge Ayres Britto.

The judge Richard Lewandoski pointed out that the STF repeatedly called for the immediate removal of the occupants and the decision of the court cannot be set aside.

Beyond having decided on the demarcation of the Raposa Serra do Sol land, the STF judges established 19 conditions for the defining and fixing of boundaries of any indigenous lands in the country. 

In the evaluation of the Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI – Conselho Indigenista Missionário), the ruling established by the STF, "must be understood in the context of the restrictions of the rights of indigenous peoples, traditional populations, rural populations and others, in favor of the interests of private capital. 

In the face of this, CIMI warns of the dangers that restricting the rights of others can cause, as in the inciting of conflict because the indigenous peoples and communities have a legitimate right to defend the land they own."

The conditions were proposed in the vote of judge Menezes Direito on December 10, 2008.  On March 18, Celso de Mello added another condition.  The judge-reporter Ayres Britto accepted the conditions, except for the one which prohibits the review of boundaries of indigenous lands. 

Judges Eros Grau and Carmem Lúcia agreed with Britto.  The majority of judges approved  all of the conditions, except for judge Joaquim Barbosa who agreed with none of them.  According to Barbosa, the content of the conditions was not sufficiently discussed.

Adital

Although the trial is not over yet (one Federal judge asked for more time to reconsider his vote) the outcome will not change as the majority of the judges has cast its vote. This was reason for many indigenous in Roraima to celebrate the positive result.

The first to vote was Judge Carlos Menezes Direito. He had asked for more time to decide on August 27, after the promoter of the case had cast his vote. The promoter, Carlos Ayres Britto, in his vote rejected the claim that asked for the annulment of the demarcation.

Judge Direito agreed with various of the premises presented by Britto, but he voted for a partial rejection of the claim. He agreed that the process of identification and demarcation of Raposa Serra do Sol had been executed according to the legislation and that, therefore, the demarcation in one continuous area was valid. However, he established 18 conditions for access and use of the land and water in the area.

Four judges agreed with his vote. And promoter Britto changed his initial vote to follow Direito's judgement. At the same time, judge Joaquim Barbosa followed Britto's original vote.

Judge Marco Aurélio de Mello asked for suspension of the process, to reconsider his vote. His petition was granted, which  means that the process will only be concluded in the beginning of 2009. Before this request, promoter Ayres Britto proposed to annul the suspension of the decision that all non-indigenous have to leave the Raposa area.

The resistance of a group of non-indigenous rice farmers in the area had been the major motive to take the Raposa-case to the Supreme Court in the first place, questioning the validity of the demarcation process itself. Considering that this claim had been rejected, Britto argued that there was no reason that the non-indigenous remained any longer in the area.

Six judges agreed with his proposal, but again judge Mello asked for more time to consider his decision. This was granted by the president of the Supreme Court. Until the final voting session the non-indigenous will be allowed to continue in the area.

The 18 conditions established by judge Direito, put limitations to the possession and exclusive use by the indigenous of their territories. They also limit the rights to be consulted when they are affected by state projects, like the construction of canals, roads or the implementation of military bases in the area. These conditions will also be defined more precisely in the final session. Not all judges agreed to all points stipulated in Direito's vote.

Celebrations and Violence

In Brasí­lia, about 50 Indians from Roraima were present at the court case, accompanied by indigenous peoples from various areas in Brasil. Several of them were prohibited to enter the Supreme Court because they were not wearing a suit.

In spite of the suspension of the case, the indigenous celebrated the result. "We managed to keep our continuous area! We are very happy with this victory!"  said Makuxi chief Djacir Silva, from the Makuxi people.

Joênia Barbosa, of the Wapichana people and the first indigenous lawyer to appear at the Supreme Court, regretted the court decision to suspend the eviction of the non-indigenous people in the area. "We're afraid for the safety in the area, now the rice farmers know they will have to leave."

These worries were confirmed shortly after the court case was closed. In the village of Barro, in Raposa Serra do Sol, home-made bombs were thrown towards Indians who were celebrating the court decision.

"We will not react to these provocations,"  commented Marisete de Souza, Makuxi, of the Indigenous Board of Roraima (CIR). "We will continue our struggle, to win the pending votes. We are at ease, because we won already eight votes. Nobody of us is thinking of creating conflicts."

Chief Absolved

On November 16, chief Aurivan dos Santos, also known as Neguinho Truká, was absolved of the claim of theft that he was facing since 1999. The charges were brought after Neguinho and his people invaded an area they consider theirs, in Cabrobó, in Brazilian northeastern state of Pernambuco.

The State Court of Pernambuco also determined that the chief and other accused will receive reparations for moral damages.

Neguinho, Francisco Carinhanha, Eloí­sio de Souza e Adenilson dos Santos (Dena) were accused of stealing two cows that were in the area they occupied in 1999. The process against the latter, Dena, was stopped, as he was assassinated in 2005.

In his decision, judge Marcus César Gadelha noted that "the accused cannot be condemned for an attitude that served to still the hunger of their people during the struggle to get the lands back that belonged to them".

The state of Pernambuco, which filed the case, was condemned to pay the indigenous for the "illegal imprisonment they suffered'. He stipulated the indemnity for Neguinho at 100.000 Brazilian reais (US$ 41,964)," because he is a Truká chief and one of the major leaders of Brazil." The other accused will receive 50.000 reais (US$ 20,982).

Service

Indianist Missionary Council
www.cimi.org.br

Brazil’s president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), Minister Nelson Jobin, denied yesterday a request for the preventive arrest of Marcos Valério Fernandes, accused of being responsible for an alleged monthly payoff scheme involving members of the Congress.

The Brazilian Federal Police requested his arrest on Tuesday, July 26.

According to information from the STF’s press office, Jobin judged that the request for Valério’s arrest should come not from the Federal Police but from the Federal Attorney-General’s Office.

Yesterday, members of the Joint Congressional Investigation Commission that is looking into the affairs of the Post Office met with Federal Attorney-General, Antônio Fernando Souza, to request Valério’s prison as well.

Souza said, however, that more proof is needed in order to submit the prior arrest request to the STF.

Withdrawals Investigations

Beginning on Monday, August 1st, the Federal Police will start taking testimonies from people who made withdrawals from accounts belonging to the Brazilian advertising agent, Marcos Valério, in the Rural Bank.

Valério, who is a partner in the SMP&B and DNA advertising agencies, was fingered by Federal Congressman, Roberto Jefferson from the PTB party of Rio de Janeiro, as responsible for monthly allowance payments to members of the Congress.

According to Federal Police Commissioner Luiz Flávio Zampronho, the first individuals to be called will be the ones who withdrew the largest sums of money from Valério’s accounts.

Hearings will be held simultaneously in Brasí­lia and São Paulo.

The investigation into Valério’s businesses was assigned to the Federal Police by the Federal Supreme Court, at the request of the Federal Attorney-General’s Office (PGR).

Agência Brasil

Brazil’s Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal) (STF) has ordered an investigation into whether or not there was a congressional payoff scheme in which some members of Congress received “monthly allowances” (mesadas) for voting with the government.

Chief Justice, Nelson Jobim, gave instructions to the Federal Police, authorizing them to analyze documents and identify any member of the government, including the Congress, who signed receipts or made withdrawals from bank accounts belonging to adman, Marcos Valério. Valério is accused of being the COO of the payoff scheme.

The Brazilian Federal Police informed they already have all the documents they need and that the officers in charge of the investigations have started their work.

They will examine all the names of people who withdrew money from Marco Valério’s account at the Banco Rural branch, in Brasí­lia.

At the moment, a Parliamentary Investigation Commission (CPI) is investigating the case as well.

ABr