A lawsuit filed by companies linked to Donald Trump and the platform Rumble, against Minister Alexandre de Moraes, has generated intense legal debates. The process, led by lawyer Martin De Luca, raises questions about the validity of Brazilian judges' decisions abroad. However, the legal foundation used in the action has flaws that may compromise the progress of the case in American courts
ToDaniel Toledo, lawyer who works in the field of International Law, founder ofToledo and Associates, international law firm with offices in Brazil and the United States, one of the main problems of the action lies in the legal basis adopted to challenge Moraes' jurisdiction in the US. "The lawyer responsible for the case cited as a reference a treaty signed between Brazil and the United States in 2001". It happens that this treaty was replaced in 2006 and updated in 2015. "This error can compromise the credibility of the process right from the start", reveals.
Citation by email and validity of the procedure
Another central point of the process is the claim that the notification of the companies involved would not have been valid, because it was done by email. De Luca argues that, in the United States, this type of citation would not be legally accepted. However, Toledo highlights that American legislation provides for the possibility of citation by electronic means in certain cases, as long as they meet the procedural requirements
The most recent regulation on international legal cooperation allows for the electronic processing of requests and even service of process by email, as long as it is sent to the registered email address of the party. This argument, therefore, it will hardly be enough to invalidate the citation. Furthermore, Rumble lists this email as the official contact for legal matters, what further weakens the thesis that the summons was irregular, affirms
Hague Convention and the principle of territoriality
The action also mentions the Hague Convention to reinforce the argument that the citation would not have been valid, but Toledo emphasizes that Brazil made reservations to articles of this treaty, making some requirements inapplicable to the country. American courts may understand that the citation followed the procedures allowed by current legislation, making the annulment of the procedural act unlikely, affirms.
Furthermore, there is another factor that can hinder the progress of the process: territoriality. Even if one argues against the decisions of Alexandre de Moraes, U.S. courts may consider this to be an internal matter of Brazil and that there is no room for interference from American justice. "The US courts may simply understand that this is a matter of national sovereignty", what limits the ability of the process to move forward, adds
In light of this scenario, the specialist in International Law believes that the action has more potential to generate political repercussions than practical effects in the American judicial system. From a legal point of view, the chances of a significant result are small. However, the process can be used as a tool of pressure and political narrative, feeding a speech against the decisions made in Brazil, concludes
