monstrous judiciary

teratology (1881 cf. CA1)
feminine noun med

1. Medical specialty dedicated to the study of anomalies and malformations related to a disturbance in embryonic or fetal development.

2 p.sin.monsters as a whole; monstrosityMedieval courts worshipped the t.>
Houaiss Dictionary of the Portuguese Language

In these times of legal-media fascism, it is necessary to pay attention to legalese in order to decipher the meaning of the teratological – or rather, monstrous – decisions of judges, federal police officers, and prosecutors.

The word "teratological" came out with pomp and solemnity from William Bonner's mouth on the July 10th edition of Jornal Nacional. The spokesperson for the coup read the content of the – teratological – decision of the president of the STJ (Superior Court of Justice), Laurita Vaz, who considered it "unusual and monstrous [A] decision"by Judge Rogério Favretto to order the release of former President Lula from political imprisonment."

The monstrosity [or teratology] of the STJ president's decision does not lie in the fact that she overturned the decision of the second-instance judge [Rogério Favretto], as would be appropriate, because only the STJ could do so – a competence, moreover, never conferred upon a mere lower-instance judge [Sérgio Moro] nor upon judges of the same rank as Favretto [such as Gebran Neto and Thompson Flores].

The monstrosity [or absurdity] of Laurita's decision lies in the facts surrounding it:

[1] not to condemn the strategic setup by judges who should not have acted in the case but who, nevertheless, acted in coordination to commit crimes – such as, for example, strategically coordinating and ordering the federal police to disobey a release order; and

[2] not to condemn the breach of judicial hierarchy and, even worse, to attribute epic and heroic significance to those criminals in robes who acted as they did. She described it thus:

"It causes perplexity and intolerable legal uncertainty. [so] decision taken suddenly, by a clearly incompetent authority [so], in a precarious situation of judicial duty, forcing the reopening of a discussion closed in higher courts. [so], through an unsustainable premise.

Thus, faced with this bizarre procedural situation, it fell to the Federal Court of first instance, with due caution, to consult the President of its Court as to whether it would comply with the previous arrest warrant or accept the subsequent monstrous decision to release the defendant.

In due course, it fell to the Rapporteur of the original criminal action – given the practical impossibility of bringing the matter directly to the court of first instance, in this case, the 8th Panel – to call for the habeas corpus proceedings to restore order to the case..

[...]

And, evidently, the controversy, at that point – on a Sunday, stirring partisan and political passions – gained momentum, further complicating the legal and procedural scenario, thus requiring urgent corrective measures. This was done by the Federal Judge, President of the 4th Regional Federal Court, who, pointing to the absence of specific regulations for the case at hand, relied on an internal Resolution that authorizes him to resolve "omitted cases". [Note: The on-call judge's decision is not an omission; it is regulated.].

The decision by the president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) is laughable, to say the least. But it is not surprising, coming from a judge who "appointed a judge accused of fraud in a judicial selection process to assist as rapporteur for the Lava Jato case at the STJ" and who, in July 2017, "granted house arrest to Roger Abdelmassih," the monstrous doctor sentenced to 181 years in prison for 48 rapes of 37 patients – this one with a final and unappealable conviction.

It must be acknowledged that this monstrous, aberrant judiciary is an aberration that has plunged Brazil into the fascist abyss.