In a seminar at FUNAG (Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão), which is linked to the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, young judge Ludmila Lins Grilo showed the influence of international globalist organisations on the country's highest court, the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF).

Brazil, like modern nations in general, is a state composed of three powers: executive, legislative and judicial. The judiciary is composed of 11 ministers who make up the STF.

Although it is easy to imagine that the 11 ministers are professional judges and therefore have not only the education but also the legal practice required of a judge, this is not so. Of the 11 ministers, only 2 are professional judges.

All of them have lifetime offices and are appointed by the President of the Republic as soon as an office becomes vacant due to the death or retirement of a minister. Therefore, of the current 11 ministers, 9 are not professional judges, but merely lawyers who are only appointed.

Besides the lack of legal knowledge of some of their members and the suspicion of commitment to the interests of those who appointed them there is, according to the young judge Dr Ludmila, an even more serious element that characterises this group of lawyers. It is the judicial activism that is clearly adopted by the judges, who are not so much concerned with judging according to the text of the Constitution, but want to legislate themselves and even determine acts of competence of the executive.

Who gave the Brazilian STF judges these powers? Nobody. Over time, they attributed such powers to themselves, reminiscent of a constitutional doctrine invented, among others, by a German jurist, Peter Häberle, author of the book "The Open Society of Constitutional Interpreters".

Häberle's theses on the doctrine of fundamental rights have often met with fierce opposition; they are sometimes regarded by German jurists as too social-scientific; on the other hand, they have at the same time led to Häberle being held in very high esteem in the Latin American region.

Now, according to Häberle's understanding, the ministers of the Brazilian STF are beginning to interpret the constitution in a way that is often diametrically opposed to what is written there, and they want to impose these personal ideological preferences - always globalist and leftist - on the other powers and on Brazilian society as a whole.

The principles referred to for this process include:

- the concept of "constitutional amendment", i.e. a process of informal modification of the content of the constitution;

- the "principle of prohibition of retrocession", which condemns as unconstitutional measures that - in the subjective judgement of the Minister - constitute historical retrocession.

- the principle of the "abstraction of diffuse control". A lofty name, but in practice it only serves to give judges the power to change laws without parliamentary approval.

And so it goes on. The ministers have even stipulated that the 2030 Agenda adopted by the UN will be binding on the administration of justice in Brazil.

Now the STF is a guild made up of people not elected by popular sovereignty, but representing the interests of the establishment that has led Brazil in the direction of the Gramscian cultural revolution and corruption over the last 30 years. The STF, however, is the power of the republic, which is gaining protagonism in the Brazilian media.

It doesn't take much thought to realise that the STF is the last bastion of the corrupt left in Brazil. And it is not surprising that the STF, currently under the sway of the Chinese virus, is doing everything it can to obstruct measures for the economic recovery and moral rehabilitation of the country.

The STF released former President Lula, who had already been convicted in two court cases, from prison.

The STF ordered the release of former minister José Dirceu (former communist guerrilla), who had been sentenced to more than 30 years in prison for corruption.

On the occasion of the fight against Covid19 - the STF released traffickers and bandits commanding criminal organisations.

Following the recognition of President Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezula in 2019, Brazil, through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs, agreed in talks with the government of Nicolás Maduro that Brazil would withdraw its representatives from the country within 60 days and that Maduro's representatives would leave Brazil within the same period. Maduro's representatives did not meet the deadline, and once again the STF comes to the aid of the left, invalidating a decision that is the exclusive prerogative of the head of state.

The resignation of Minister Sergio Moro and the selective failure to investigate crimes.

Recently there was an episode in Brazil that needs to be clarified for those who want to observe the situation of Brazilian politics: the resignation of the Minister of Justice, Sergio Moro.

Sergio Moro was known as the judge who presided over the trial that culminated in the conviction of former President Lula for corruption. Although he was very much a judge in the anti-corruption operation, he himself was associated with the centre-left PSDB (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira) party, which also had corrupt politicians among its members. Sergio Moro did not carry out the investigations against such politicians.

Sergio Moro, who was appointed to Bolsonaro's Justice Ministry, did not carry out investigations into corruption crimes involving politicians from the centre parties after some initiatives to change the laws to combat financial crimes.

Nor did the investigation into the assassination of Bolsonaro, which took place between the first and second rounds of the elections, make any progress.

Well, the moment the assassination attempt on Bolsonaro took place was the ideal moment for the fate of Brazil and even the fate of Latin America to change 180 degrees in favour of the left's power project with his death. With Bolsonaro's death, the campaign for Brazil's presidency would be fought between two candidates of the left. The attack on Bolsonaro had a content conducive to the conquest of power by the left on the South American continent. But neither the Minister of Justice nor the head of the Federal Police (PF) did anything to uncover and bring to justice the perpetrators of the attack.
Here is some data on what is already known about this attack.

Dr Mauricio Valeixo, director of the Federal Police and confidant of Justice Minister Sergio Moro, simply closed the case against the man who tried to kill Bolsonaro, claiming that the criminal caught in the act was just "a lone wolf".

Now there are videos taken in the middle of the public act of campaigning that show Adélio Bispo - the criminal - receiving the knife used in the crime from the hands of a woman.

The same woman who handed the knife to Adélio Bispo is then found on social networks and identified as being associated with left-wing parties. In conversations on social networks, she expresses sympathy with the hypothesis of Bolsonaro's death, which then put Brazil in the hands of the left.

Another fact that strongly points to the existence of a plot is an official register of Adélio Bispo's presence at the parliament in Brasilia, where he would be with congressman Jean Wyllys.  On the same day and at the same time as the assassination, the assassin would have proof that he was about a thousand kilometres away. Such a record would obviously serve as an alibi for the assassin if he escaped. But he could not escape.

Jean Wyllys, who had been elected as a deputy to the Federal Chamber, resigned from office and left Brazil in a hurry. In this hasty departure from Brazil, he receives donations in large amounts to pay off the flat he bought and to travel.

But the regional leadership of the federal police in Rio de Janeiro did not investigate any of this. And in its inexplicable inaction, it has been protected by Minister Sergio Moro and his untouchable head of the Federal Police, Dr Valeixo.

All this has caused great unrest in the country, but Minister Moro in no way wanted to change the direction of the investigation, or rather the lack of investigation into the Bolsonaro attack.

It is precisely in this complex of very serious facts that it is more reasonable to look for the real reason for the resignation of the Minister of Justice. He did not want to interfere in the investigation of a very serious crime in which the great powers of the Brazilian "deep state" would be involved. The investigation - despite all the clear indications of a planned crime - was hastily closed.

The STF and the investigation into the Bolsonaro attack.

Right at the beginning of the investigation, the STF's judicial activism was noted.

The defence of the criminal was entrusted to a group of very expensive lawyers. The name of the person who paid the lawyers remains hidden. Although the crime had all the hallmarks of a crime against national security that would merit a more rigorous investigation, nothing was done and the STF rushed to protect the lawyers so that they would not have to denounce their powerful hidden clients.

And the Rio de Janeiro PF, in 15 months, has not found out who the paymasters of these criminal terrorist lawyers are.

Dr Maurício Valeixo resigned from the PF - on charges of overwork - and President Bolsonaro appointed Dr Alexandre Ramagem in his place, according to his competence. Dr Alexandre Ramagem (until then director of ABIN - Brazilian Information Agency) was prevented from taking office by interference from the STF. The STF judge claimed that Dr Alexandre Ramagem was a personal friend of the president.

No doubt about it: there is obviously a great fear that details of the plot to assassinate Bolsonaro will come to light.

STF sharpens its tone of challenge to President Bolsonaro.

As in a poker game where the player, without value cards in hand, raises his stakes in order to, bluffing, unsettle his opponent, so the STF, without arguments and without any representativeness, raises its challenge to the executive.

The STF demands the recording of a meeting between the president and his ministers in which the president would have abused his power and put pressure on his justice minister.  The judge then orders the video to be released in the hope of shocking the public.The video circulates on the internet, but the public considers it a normal meeting with no abuse of authority. The discrediting of the STF thus becomes clearer by the day.

But the STF's anger against the president does not stop. His latest attacks are:

• - the threat to force President Bolsonaro to hand over his mobile phone for investigation;
• - ordering the speaker of parliament to decide within a few days whether to discuss one of the impeachment petitions filed by left-wing parties against President Bolsonaro;
• - the threat of the impeachment of General Augusto Heleno (former commander of UN troops in Haiti) as Minister of Institutional Relations for defending the President.
• - and the - totally unconstitutional - order to search and seize electronic devices from Brazilian citizens who criticised the STF's current approach.

The famous Brazilian lawyer, politician and diplomat Rui Barbosa once said:

"The worst dictatorship is the dictatorship of justice. There is no one who can appeal against it".

Perfect observation from the illustrious Brazilian thinker, but not adequate for the current Brazilian institutional framework. Our current Constitution provides in its Article 142 that the Armed Forces may intervene in the event of an institutional conflict between the powers of the Republic to restore peace and order.
In reality, not even military intervention would be necessary. It would suffice if, in a joint initiative of the executive and the legislature, a draft constitutional amendment were promoted that would establish the STF's competence to interpret the Brazilian Constitution, with close regard to the text of the Constitution. Ministers could also be required to be professional judges with at least 5 or 10 years' experience in the post.Finally, it would be a constitutional amendment that would restore order and provide a firmer basis for institutional harmony.

Would there be support in parliament for such a constitutional amendment? The beneficiaries of the STF's interpretive frenzy - the left and the corrupt centre - would certainly not support it.

Would there be a sufficient majority of conservative politicians in parliament along with politicians who have nothing to do with corruption? If there is no such majority, then there really does not seem to be a smooth solution to the current conflict. There would then only be intervention by the armed forces within the limits set by the constitution to put the house in order by restoring the balance of power that has been broken by this unelected group, the STF.