All the truth about the Craig Alden Case

The British citizen Craig Eliot Alden was wrongly convicted in Brazil to almost 50 years of imprisonment. He paid for crimes that he didn’t commit. The Brazilian Judiciary does not want hear anything about this case. All the lawyers who worked in this case prejudiced him. His criminal revision was denied because of a new error of the Craig’s defense by lack of a simple power of attorney.

Spread the word. You can help us to tell the truth. Together we can free Craig Alden to clean his name, for himself, for his Brazilian son, for his mother, for the very Justice.

 

---

 

 

EMINENT MINISTER-PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME FEDERAL TRIBUNAL (STF)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALINE DA SILVA BRITO, Brazilian, single, housewife, residing at QD 19A, MR 08, house 13, Setor Norte, Planaltina, Goiás; CLÁUDIO JUNIOR DA SILVA, Brazilian, single, tyre repairman, residing at QD 26A, Lote II, bairro São Jose II, Planaltina, Goiás, RG 5.205.473 SSP/GO; DANIEL OLIVEIRA DE JESUS, Brazilian, single, Private securityman, residing at QNO 19 Conjunto 20, Casa 23, Ceilandia Norte, Brasília-DF, RG 2.264.307 SSP-DF; EDMILSON ANTONIO DE OLIVEIRA FERREIRA, Brazilian, single, aviarista, residing at Rua Dois, Lote 6, Chácara 80, Planalto da Perdiz, Braslandia/DF, RG 4.867.770/SSP/GO; ELIZIA MIRANDA DOS SANTOS, Brazilian, single, housewife, residing at QA 11, MR Casa10 Setor Leste, RG 5.206.817/SSP/GO; FAGNER ALVES DE SOUSA, Brazilian, single, caretaker, residing at QA 11, MR Casa10 Setor Leste, RG 2.264657-SSP-DF; FELIPE PAIXÃO COSTA, Brazilian, divorced, publicity agent, lives in the judicial area of Recife/PE, residing at Rua Compositor Antônio Maria, 67, Santo Amaro, RG 1.663.354-SDS-PE; JAIME MACIEL DA SILVA, Brazilian, single, rural worker, residing at a Av. Luiz Estevão, Lote 51-52, bairro Estrutural, Brasília-DF, RG 5.196.166-SSP-GO; JOSÉ APARECIDO DE JESUS, Brazilian, single, unemployed, residing at QD 07 Rua 199, Lote 11 Casa “B”, Residencial Alvorada – Lago Azul-GO; KARINE KETLEY DO CARMO CUNHA, Brazilian, single, housewife, residing at Condomínio Engenho Velho, Conjunto “G”, Casa 12, Fercal, Sobradinho-DF, RG 2.944.426-SSP-DF; KÁTIA GOMES DE ALMEIDA, Brazilian, single, housewife, Av. Luiz Estevão, Lote 51-52, bairro Estrutural, Brasília-DF; MARIA ATAÍDES MACIEL, Brazilian, married, housewife, Av. Luiz Estevão, Lote 51-52, bairro Estrutural, Brasília-DF, RG 1.198.024-SSP-GO; NELSON FELIX DE MORAIS, Brazilian, single, married, residing at a QD 06, MR03, Casa 26, Setor Oeste, Planaltina-GO; RAFAEL MACIEL DA SILVA, Brazilian, single, builders mate, residing at a Rua Fortaleza, QD 16, Lote 12, Setor de Anhanguera “A”, Valparaiso II, Goiás, RG 2.745.485-SSP-DF; RENATO MACIEL DA SILVA, Brazilian, single, driver, residing at a Av. Luiz Estevão, Lote 51-52, bairro Estrutural, Brasília-DF, RG 2.264.451-SSP-DF; come, respectfully before Your Excellency with fundament in art. 5th, inc. LXVIII of the Federal Constitution, c/c arts. 647 (and accompanying clauses) of the Penal process code (CPP), and art. 6th, paragraph I,- "a", of of the STF - RI internal regulations, based upon the facts and foundations here exposed, to request a writ of Habeas Corpus in favor of Craig Eliot Alden, English, judicially separated, teacher, resident in the District of Planaltina Goiás/GO.

As Your Excellencies are aware, HC no. 86.711-GO came before this high Court of Justice through eminent Reporter-Minister Ricardo Lewandowski and was judged on April 04, 2006. The patient was the president of the charity shelter denominated Abrigo Warboys No Brazil, located in the town of Planaltina, State of Goiás, and is imprisoned in the public jail of that town, complying a sentence of 11 years, 09 months and 20 days of reclusion, under integrally closed regime that was imposed on him, after being convicted for the supposed practice of heinous crimes practiced against interns - minors of the said charity, formally under his direction.

In brief summary of the facts, the patient was arrested on July 1, 2002 and, after being convicted, on May 12, 2006, the court of Planaltina, Goiás recognized in his favour the right to regime progression as execution of the sentence, benefitting him with evolutionary jurisprudence from judgment of HC 82.959-SP, dated February 23, 2006, where paragraph 1, of art. 2, in Law 8.072/1990 was declared unconstitutional, by the majority of votes of the Plenary session of this noble Federal Supreme court.

The eminent First Group of this high Court of Justice - respectfully identified as authority challenged by the applicants in the procedural relationship that this writ establishes on the occasion of the judgment of HC 86.711-GO - when it granted the said order only partially, removing the impediment of the referred legal device to such understanding that "VII - After the judgment of HC 82.929/SP, by the Plenary session of the STF, prison regime progression is no longer prohibited for convicts of vile crimes” ; but the order was denied in respect of the request for the process to be voided "from the outset of the occurrence of each one of the nullities argued (page. 28, HC 86.711-GO) thus materializing illegal embarrassment to the patient's freedom, only challengeable with the concession of the present order.

In conductive vote, made in brief form, however fundamentally, the important allegations of serious nullities argued by the perpetrators of that HC 86.771-GO, were each one analyzed by the eminent Minister reporter, concerning:

(a) impediment to the defense;

 b) illegitimacy of the Public prosecution service which, instead of requesting the opening of a police inquiry, attributed to itself the function of the judiciary police, determining the opening of an inquiry to discover supposed penal infractions;

 c) The lack of legal basis by the ruling judge on acceptance of the accusations;

d) The questioning of the witnesses without the presence of the lawyer or of the accused, {his} removal from the court room without any registered reason why {he} could not accompany the referred procedural action, which caused him a series of damages;

e) The summons for lawyer resident in another district through registered mail with proof of lost mail.

f) Technical deficiency of the defense;

g) The lack of legitimacy of the Public prosecution service to propose a criminal procedure, which began with the interference from the accusatory organ when it provoked victims' manifestations;

h) Ineptitude of the accusation that didn't inform neither how nor when the criminal act had been committed for the crimes foreseen in the laws 232 and 243, of Law no. 8.069/90;

i) Retroactive prescription of the crimes of the laws 232 and 243 of ECA and 136, of the Penal code." (neglect and embarrassment)

With all due respect to the eminent First judging Group, we understand that the matter requires better explanation.

There are a lot of doubts about the case which is notorious in the Brazilian and international press and is getting the attention of international Human Rights groups as well as from foreign diplomatic representations in Brazil, because the conviction of Craig Eliot Alden is not safe enough to resist suggestions of a conspiracy practiced by local authorities in Planaltina/GO, manipulating minors from Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to obtain false statements for the British citizen's conviction seeking to remove him from the direction of the referred charity.

However it needs pointing out that among the heresaid applicants are precisely many supposed victims of the defendant according to the condemnatory sentence. The case is quite false Lord Ministers. We, alleged victims come before the Brazilian Supreme court to affirm, without shadow of doubt that the patient was convicted based on provably false statements. This petition is plenty proof that the patient is innocent of the said accusations. Material facts are not presented here as they are dependant on proof testing. For a start we understand that there are no doubts about the relevance of the matter to which the present writ deals, showing the flagrant illegality of the whole process and the open and direct violation of the magna carta, especially concerning the rights to due legal process and ample defense rights in court.

Firstly it is necessary to explain that the applicants recognise the patient's innocence to all of the accusations that were made against him and personally, none of them attribute credit to the two lawsuits for which he was initially convicted to more than 48 years in prison.

 It is worth drawing attention to the fact that over 11 years, the Warboys Project Brazil worked with more than 400 Brazilian abandoned minors or those at risk and that the charity maintained a school enjoying credibility with the local population and the British community in Brazil.

 It happens that today, the majority of the supposed ‘victims’ and witnesses of the referred lawsuits don't confirm what the sentence says. Actually, that fact is public and notorious. It has been more than 02 years since the Brasilia Journal denounced serious indications of irregularities in the lawsuits which resulted in the conviction of the defendant, as well as the threats suffered by ex-interns of the Shelter, including one of them that left that town after suffering persecution by hooded men .

 Now Lord Ministers, everything indicates that there was political motivation prior to the occurrence of the supposed criminal imputation, and that the defense was coherent with the state of things, systematically failing from the outset of the criminal instruction when the defendant found himself imprisoned through to ultimately failing before the eminent Superior Tribunal of Justice in its handling of the defense-Instrument, rejected based on the lack of the basic presentation of indispensable documents against preliminary rejection of Special Action admissibility as follows :-

Offence 609912-GO - I "DISPATCH: Craig Eliot Alden receives a negative decision for his special recourse. The complaint doesn't deserve to be recognized since the necessary and essential copies for understanding the controversy are not attached, being : copy of the certificate of publication of the final sentence, copy of the special resource which was not admitted along with the copy of its negative ruling ,copy of the summons certificate of the negative decision and power of attorney for the present matter (art. 544, §1st, of CPC c/c art. 28, §1st - Law no. 8.038/90 art. 253, insert RISTJ). In these circumstances and being the entire responsibility of the appellant to present and inspect the perfect formation for the objective, as is regulated by jurisprudence of this STJ, the non-viability of the recourse remains demonstrated. in the light of the facts, I am not informed of the offence and cannot recognize them. May this Be published. " (denied Instrument no. 609.912-GO - Reporter: Minister José Arnaldo Fonseca, decision dated 09/SET/2004, official Journal 17/SET/2004).

Looking back, it is not possible to sustain with either political, social or juridical arguments that there was no impediment to the defense. There indeed was a lack of defense and countless other serious nullities, but these cannot be recognized if the theory prevails that an innocent man, probably betrayed by his defense cannot have his appeal heard by the Supreme Court of Brazil, just because formality does not allow the thorough examination of the facts used during the criminal instruction, since such examination through the normal channels was cut off by a such a simple mistake as technical defense.

In this sense, the condemnatory sentence refers to it like this, verbis:

The defense also alleges in preliminary request that the defendant’s removal from the hearing room during both victims' and prosecution witnessing with the consequent lack of registration of the reasons for such, constitutes a nullity. As already stated the matter is precluded, since no appeal was made on opportunity, or rather, in court. Besides, no harm was caused to the defendant because his defense was present during the whole hearing.

They also allege that one of the defense witnesses asked for the removal of the defendant and gave evidence against him without the stand-in lawyer’s objection. I also consider the matter precluded since no appeal was presented, however, for the record, I stress that there are no defense or accusation witnesses. Once named the witnesses belong to the judge.

They also defend that the denial of the hearing of the witnesses listed on the opportunity of art 499 constitute the nullity of impediment to the defense. Once again, such matter was already analyzed and the application rejected without objection through appeal, therefore prejudiced and no more should be said about impediment to the defense.

Likewise, although already mentioned, the defense witnesses didn't witness facts and could not elucidate anything, since we are not judging the accused's sexual option nor his relationship with Renato, but the abuses committed against the victims.

The subject of validity and failures in the lawyer's summons was also already appreciated in the decision on pages 289/291, decision which, once again I repeat, appeal was not interposed and doesn't imply nullity to the hearing of 26/08/02, since no proceeding ist postponed by the lawyer's absence.

With respect to the participation of Dra. Ana Maria Oliveira Boaventura in the victim and accusation witness hearing constituting a nullity, as she was named by a dispensed attorney, as all the preliminaries argued, this is precluded, being that the decision of accompanying the hearing by two lawyers' was made on that opportunity and no appeal was interposed.

Though, just for explanation no formal document disapproving Dr. Maurício had been presented and in spite of what they allege, no harm to the defense was caused thanks to the intervention of the said party, since Dra. Maria Cristina Santos didn't ask pertinent questions and she didn’t even remain in the hearing room, preferring to walk around the court building.

With respect to the presentation of the initial defense by a lawyer that had already been dispensed, this also only brought advantages for the defendant, because the lawyer had been summoned and, there was no document to indicate his dispense by the date of the presentation of the initial defense deadline and the new lawyer received the process in the phase it was, phase closed, and the phase could not be repeated. Besides, she acted with professionalism because she had to answer for the process until another lawyer was constituted according to the Statute of the Order."

It happens that Dr. José Paulo Maurício Sousa was constituted on the day of the patient's interrogation, nominated ad hoc during arraignment and never presented the defendant's power of attorney.

On the occasion of the judgment of appeal recourse in the process, in conductive vote of the register of Goiás State Appellation’s Court judge Jamil Pereira Macedo, welcomed the unanimity of the judging Group of TJGO and gave partial approval to the patient's appeal to recognize the occurrence of continuous crime in relation to the accusations of violent indecent assault, reducing the initial conviction of 48 (forty eight) years, 01 (a) month and 13 (thirteen) days of seclusion, to be complied initially in closed regime, to 11 (eleven) years 09 (nine) months and 20 (twenty) days and, equally, gave provision to the prosecutor appeal for which the sentence for violent indecent assault attack was to be complied in integrally closed regime.

 We highlight from amongst the reasons which convinced the Reporter verbis: “(...)

In practice, the criminal instruction resulted rich in information, not only by the number of people heard but, mainly, for the details with which the depositions were explored.

(...)

The instruction resulted, eventually, so rich in proof that only the declarations of the victims offered enough ballast for the condemnation, whilst the defendants culpability was not founded in the depositions of the witnesses, but in the detailed information, meticulously, supplied by the minors.

(...)

The proofs collected in the accusation starting from the inquiry are enough for the conviction, because there it was evidenced several times that the first appellant had sexually abused the minors besides exposing them to mistreatments and allowing the ingestion of alcoholic drinks.

(...)

She (Cristina) was the defendant’s constituted lawyer, fully authorized to set up the strategic lines of defense. She requested diligences, cross witnessed the prosecution witnesses in the interest of creating nullities, she persuaded many minors to write her letters in penance of what they had said, to the extent that hey had been coerced to render declarations that, according to the unilateral version, were not fitting with the truth.

She tried transforming the process into a diplomatic incident, when she wanted to involve the embassy. In ardor of the defense she knew no limits and played with rules she chose, to the point of denouncing the authorities - Judge and Promoter - to the Commission of Human Rights of the Federal Camera.

Counting with the such combative lawyers' patronage, although lacking the refined academic touch , the preliminary expositions constituted an eloquent demonstration that the sacred right of ample defense was not, in any moment sacrificed.

Hammering away at nullities, the patrons made it look like the Public prosecution service acted without the slightest ceremony, when seeking minors mothers, one with a birth certificate registered after the instauration of the inquiry. For a start, there is no certainty that she was the subscriber of the document of f. 54 - the minors true mother, but simple subtleness to provide legitimacy to offer accusation.

The right should never ignore the reality, since the minors in their majority, were found in irregular situation, of whose parents or mothers at least there was no news. Even so, the mother of the minor Cláudio Júnior went to the Police station and signed a term of representation.

It is worth adding that the President of Guardian Council, as soon as knowledgeable of the infractions sought the Public prosecution service, filing representation, because, on that theme, the jurisprudence is much more liberal and is not limited by the hypotheses understood in the Civil Code.

(...)

On merit, the evidence doesn't leave any doubt that the act prevailed because of his condition of leader of the Abrigo Warboys enabling full control of the minors, of whom he demanded blind obedience, intimidating them with perspective return to the streets.

In the execution of his purpose, it is not refuted that he had developed effective work of material attendance, presenting home and food, but without any ethical limit, lowered to the minimum moral content. He took advantage of them to satisfy his own concupiscence and to begin them in an unnatural eroticism.

Authorship cannot be denied. The children, all of them, without divergence, in the inquisitorial phase and even in front of the Promotora of Justice, supplied the rough details of how they were pushed into to moral decline. Firstly convinced always and individually to sleep at the defendant’s house, removing them from the group. There, isolated, dominated psychologically, and invested in the role of decadent faun, subdued to satiate the libido, offering themselves to sodomy.

It is very evident that, in court one of the minors retracted in saying that he had not told the truth, when saying that he had been persuaded to comply with the defendant’s morals, but other depositions remained.

The Public prosecution service highlighted the role of one of the lawyers in destroying the proofs. She took some minors on an outing and, after giving small presents, she suggested to them that they wrote letters concerning the benefits that they had received.

Letters in hand, she sought the Commission of Human Rights of the Federal Camera to sell the British benefactor's image as the victim.

It didn’t work.

(...)

Even for those followers to the old theoretical order, of the time when there were indispensable points for the unit of purposes, there is no denying the criminal continuity, because it is noted and deduced, that the defendant, on assuming the administration of the shelter, had the pre-conceived idea of taking advantage of the situation for his own pathological eroticism.

(...)

We need to consider whether all of the actions were described.

Whilst the accusation only portrayed the situations lived by the minors that gave evidence, and told of the abuses they were submitted to."

In this light, we have strong suspicions that Appellation’s Court judge Jamil Pereira da Macedo had interests in the judgment against the defendant’s cause, mainly because, as everything indicates, he already knew that the Special Recourse would not be admitted, as in fact it was not, especially in the obscure circumstances in which this happened.

It is, that the whole process is a computer "copy and paste" with countless depositions identical word for word, even minor typing mistakes are the same in the same texts, and should have, in such luck casted some doubt concerning the spirit of an independent and impartial judge, because when added up, the coincidences challenge the possibilities and indicate evidences of a fraud.

 The Reporter of the appeal case mistakenly says that the mother of the minor Claudio Martins attended the Police station signing a term of representation". She did attend the police station, but she didn't make representation. Neither did she sign because she is illiterate. Her son is one of the present applicants.

There is therefore without doubt, a concrete hypothesis for a lack of defense.

The applicant Cláudio Júnior Silva arrived at Abrigo Warboys in Brazil at 11 (eleven) years of age until 14 (fourteen) years old, being approximately 01 (a) week after the defendant was arrested, when he was sent his mother's house by the new administration of the Abrigo Warboys of Brazil, by order of the Guardian Council of Planaltina Goiás, as he had family which was informed that the Shelter would be closed.

 Immediately after the defendant’s imprisonment, the applicant, then 14 years old, was taken by the Promotora Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim to the CIOPS - Integrated Center of Operations of Safety of Planaltina. On the same occasion, other minors were also taken. When he arrived to CIOPS, the said Promotora of Justice placed the applicant in a room to question him. The Promotora ordered him to sit down and she began asking him questions, in a clerk's presence on the computer. However, the deposition was already ready on the computer and it was already printed, because when the Promotora ordered the applicant to sign, the deposition was already on the table ever since the beginning.

 Promotora Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim terrified Cláudio Júnior Silva (at 14 years old) for more than 4 (four) hours until he signed the "statement", telling him that she had all the time in the world, not allowing the present applicant to drink water or to go to the bathroom. And when Cláudio Júnior Silva refused to sign the accusations against the patient, the Promotora threatened him saying that if he didn't sign she would put him, then a minor, behind bars and that he would make company for the defendant. Finally, with no other option to get out of there Cláudio Júnior Silva signed the said document. On the way back to the Shelter, the minors were accompanied by a civil policeman who told them that it was better for them to collaborate because he knew these people who were not fooling around, and that not even he, a policeman messed with these people, referring to the Promotora, because they could run the risk of disappearing and would never see their families again.

The applicant Cláudio Júnior Silva attended court once in Planaltina, but when shown a picture of Dra. Judge Fabiola Fernanda Feitosa Medeiros Martins that presided the instruction of the facts, Cláudio Júnior Silva states that this person was not present at the hearing. There was somebody in her place that the applicant thought was the judge, but she was another woman that ate pudding and drank pop drink. Before entering the hearing room, Promotora Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim called the applicant into a side room and told him that he was simply to sign the document and he was not to say anything, just to confirm what he already said at the CIOPS. Cláudio Júnior Silva then told the Promotora that he didn't have to confirm because he didn't say anything, and she retorted saying " yes you did, everything that is written there is just for you to confirm". During the "hearing" the Promotora cut off questions from the accused two lawyers present, saying "we will only “review” them because we have no time and there are still many minors to be heard."

Concerning this it is worth stating the following passage of rev. condemnatory sentence, as we find:

"4.4 – Indecent assault of Víctim Cláudio Júnior Silva

(...)

considering finally, that the victim's behavior cannot be taken in consideration, as under 14 (fourteen) years old at the date of the fact, therefore without capacity to manifest against the defendant's pressures and rewards with a formed opinion,and the minors peculiar situation of not having anywhere to go if he left the shelter -facts which reduced the capacity of the victim to resist, I determine the punishment base of 6 (six) years and 06 (six) months of seclusion.

There are no increasing or decreasing factors.

Based on the recognition of the special reasons for increasing punishment foreseen in art. 226, paragraph II of the Penal code I increase the punishment by ¼, thus 01 (one) year and 07 (seven) months totaling punishment of 08 (eight) years and 01 (a) month of seclusion.

Taking into account the recognition of continuous crime, observing that it was discovered that the accused committed the crime of violent indecency several times against this victim, and that the applied punishment for the crime is the same, the circumstances are the same already weighed up, and equal to the condemnation, I use the punishment for only one of the crimes, in other words, 08 (eight) years and 01 (a) month of seclusion and I increase this by 1/6 - 01 (a) year, 04 (four) months and 07 (seven) days - this way the conviction for the crimes of violent indecent assault (art. 214) in criminal continuity (art. 71) against the victim Cláudio Júnior Silva taken place over the years, the definitive punishment of 09 (nine) years, 05 (five) months and 22 (twenty-two) days of seclusion."

The applicant Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira arrived at Abrigo Warboys in Brazil when 10 (ten) years of age and was there to the age of 16 (sixteen), - approximately 06 (six) months after the defendant was arrested. He was then sent to his mother's house by the new Abrigo Warboys in Brazil administration, by order of the Child council of Planaltina - Goiás, because he had family, and after a hearing with Dra. Judge Fabíola Fernanda Feitosa Medeiros Martins, in the process that convicted the defendant.

 Immediately after the defendant's imprisonment, the 16 year old applicant, was taken by Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim to the CIOPS - Integrated Center of Safety Operations - Planaltina. On the same occasion, other minors were also taken. When they arrived at the CIOPS, the said Prosecutor put the applicant in a room so she could interrogate him. The Prosecutor then ordered him to sit down and began asking him questions, in the presence of a clerk who was on the computer. However the deposition was already ready on the computer and it was also already printed, because when the Prosecutor ordered the applicant to sign it, the deposition had already been on the table since the outset. On the same day, the genitor of the applicant Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira was at CIOPS but was not allowed to see her son.

The questions formulated needed just answers of "yes" or "no", about what happened. The Prosecutor said that she already knew all the truth against Craig and that supposedly a person had already signed a document against the defendant which she showed the applicant Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira from a distance. Responding the Dra. Prosecutor questions –which were formulated in elevated voice - the applicant answered that the defendant "never did anything with him" and that it was William who had done something - another intern of the Shelter who was no longer there. The Prosecutor went quiet and wound up ordering the applicant to sign the document that was already ready on the table, saying he could leave. The local police sheriff, Dr. Waldir Soares Oliveira arrived at the end of the applicant’s hearing along with another civil policeman. When the deposition ended, Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira was taken to nearby room, and placed with Daniel Oliveira Jesus and both were watched by policemen.

 The applicant Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira attended a hearing Planaltina courthouse where he saw Dra. Judge Fabiola Fernanda Feitosa Medeiros Martins only once presiding the instruction of the moment. Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira and other minors were gathered in a room, each hearing everything that the others said. Edmilson cried in the presence of the Dra. Judge rebelliously saying that everything against the defendant was a lie.

 In this light it is worth bringing to our case the following passage of the condemnatory sentence where we see:

 "4.5 – Indecent assault against Victim Edmilson Antonio Oliveira Ferreira

(...)

considering ultimately, that the victim's behavior cannot be taken into consideration, since under 14 (fourteen) years old at the date of the fact, therefore without capacity to manifest with a formed opinion, against the defendant's blackmails and rewards along with the minor’s peculiar situation not having anywhere to go if he left the shelter - factors which reduced the capacity of the victim to resist, I place the base punishment at 6 (six) years and 06 (six) months of seclusion. There are no increaser or decreasing factors. Taking into account the recognition of the special cause of increased punishment foreseen in art. 226, paragraph II of the Penal code, I increase the punishment by ¼, in other words, 01 (a) year and 07 (seven) months totaling a punishment of 08 (eight) years and 01 (a) month of seclusion.

The applicant Jaime Maciel Silva arrived at Abrigo Warboys in Brazil at 16 (sixteen) years of age, where he stayed up to 17 (seventeen) years old, approximately 01 (a) week after the defendant was arrested, from whence he went to the house of his mother, the applicant Maria Ataídes Maciel.

On the same day of the defendant's imprisonment, the applicant, then 16 years old, was taken by the applicant Fagner Alves Souza to the CIOPS - Integrated Center of Operations of Safety - of Planaltina. On the same occasion, other minors were also taken. At the CIOPS, Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim began asking him questions, in the presence of a clerk and the President of the Guardian Council, Francisco Pinto.

 To all the questions formulated by the Prosecutor, the applicant answered that nothing had happened, but she told him that he could tell the truth because she already had statements{saying} that the defendant abused the minors as well as telling him that she had other statements from minors. The applicant however denied all of the accusations against the defendant and the Prosecutor dictated what the clerk should typewrite in the deposition of the police inquiry. Throughout the whole deposition the Prosecutor suggested what Jaime Maciel Silva should say, but faced with his firm attitudes she didn't have room for maneuver. The Prosecutor asked if the applicant already knew that the boys Edmilson, Bebel and Bruno had confirmed that the defendant had sexually abused them but Jaime Maciel Silva said no. Jaime Maciel Silva appears in the case as being the minor who slept at the defendant’s house and left it with "wobbly legs" being a distortion of an accident suffered by Jaime Maciel Silva when he took a tumble riding a mare in the Shelter.

The applicant José Aparecido Jesus (Bebel) arrived to the Abrigo Warboys Brazil at the age of 09 (nine), where he stayed up to 14 (fourteen) years old and approximately 01 (a) year after the defendant was arrested, whereby he was transferred by the new administration of the Shelter to another orphanage called Marries Lares Rebeca Jenkins, located in the town of Cidade Ocidental-GO, where he was forbidden to speak to visitors concerning the defendant’s case for almost 5 (five) years.

Immediately after the defendant's imprisonment, the applicant, 14 years old, was taken separately by Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim to the CIOPS - Integrated Center of Operations of Safety of Planaltina. On the same occasion, other minors were also taken, however in other transport and the applicant was alone with Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim. At the CIOPS the said Prosecutor put all the minors in a cell and called them one by one. When his turn arrived, the applicant witnessed a "bundle" of money on the table, the Prosecutor ordered him to sit down right in front of the money and she began asking him questions in the presence of a clerk and Police sheriff Waldir Soares Oliveira.

To all the questions formulated by the Prosecutor, the applicant answered that nothing of that had happened, but she told him that he could tell the truth because she already had statement that the defendant abused the minors, besides telling him that she had other minor’s statements, however the applicant denied all of the accusations against the defendant - but the Prosecutor dictated what the clerk should typewrite in the deposition for the police inquiry. During the whole deposition the Prosecutor repeated all the time "have no fear Craig was already arrested, he won't do anything to you", and when ordering the applicant to sign the deposition, "sign here, don’t be scared" . The President of the Guardian Council that signs as the minors curator was not present. Furthermore it happens that the applicant gave his testimony in a clerk's presence that typewrote on a typewriter. However in the solemnities the term of declaration is in computer printout format.

Although his deposition appears in the court room papers, the applicant didn't attend any hearing in the Court of Planaltina and he never saw (doesn’t recognize) Dra. Judge Fabíola Fernanda Feitosa Medeiros Martins that presided the instruction of the case. Jose Aparecido Jesus also doesn't recognize the signature in the deposition that is attributed to be his in the judicial phase. He only went to court on the day of the victim’s hearings but he didn't enter the hearing room, being kept in a separate room.

 In this light it is worth bringing the following passage of the condemnatory sentence to our collation, as we find:

“4.3 – Indecent Assault against Víctim José Aparecido de Jesus

(...)

taking the recognition of continuous crime into account, observing that it was discovered that the defendant committed the crime of violent shameful acts several times against this victim, and that the applied punishment for the crime is the same, the circumstances already weighed up are the same, and equal to the condemnation, I use the punishment for only one of the crimes, in other words, 08 (eight) years and 01 (a) month of seclusion and I increase it by 1/6 - 01 (a) year, 04 (four) months and 07 (seven) days – being the conviction for the crimes of violent indecent assault (art. 214) in criminal continuity (art. 71) against the victim José Aparecido de Jesus taken place over the years, the final punishment of 09 (nine) years, 05 (five) months and 22 (twenty-two) days of seclusion."

 The applicant Kátia Gomes Almeida arrived at the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil at 06 (six) years of age, where she stayed up to 12 (twelve) years old, when she was adopted by a trustee of the Shelter before the defendant was arrested. It was based on the allegation of supposed rape against this applicant as well as Aline Silva Brito, that the Public prosecution service initiated the inquiry against the defendant, that lead to his arrest on July 1, 2002.

 Kátia Gomes Almeida is now 19 years old and was never heard by the Police, or by the Public prosecution service or in any hearing. The adoptive family returned Kátia to the CRT shelter in Taguatinga and today she is a street resident in Brasília-DF.

 In her official opening document no. 001/002 in which Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim decides to establish inquiry to investigate supposed sexual abuses occurred in the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil, she alleges that it came to her knowledge from the minor Rafael Fernandes Silva that other minors suffered sexual abuse inside the shelter and that the defendant had raped the applicant Kátia Gomes Almeida. Nobody knows who this Rafael Fernandes Silva is. He never appeared nor he was never heard.

The applicant Maria Ataídes Maciel is the genitor of Jaime Maciel Silva, Rafael Maciel Silva and Renato Maciel Silva. Jaime and Renato were housed in the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil . Renato was taken to the Shelter at 11 (eleven) years old by the Commissionership of Minors, which existed before the Guardian Council in that town, and Jaime went to live there at 16 (sixteen) years old , taken by his mother because he was very rebellious and disobedient and didn't want to study.

As of the defendant's imprisonment, Police officer Silva called the applicant’s brother-in-law and told Maria Ataídes Maciel to attend the CIOPS urgently. The following day the applicant went from Brasília to Planaltina and when she arrived at the Bus station Agent Silva was already waiting for her. When arriving at CIOPS at 07h30m Police sheriff Waldir Oliveira was already waiting for the applicant. He didn't allow Maria Ataídes Maciel to see her children and he told her that first she had to give statement. He told her that her children had attempted suicide because the defendant had sexually abused them.

The formulated questions asked were just for answers "yes" or "no", on what happened or not. The applicant denied all of the accusations against the defendant, but in her statement there is information to the contrary despite Maria Ataídes Maciel having completely refuted any accusation against the defendant during questioning. At the end of the deposition the Police officer ordered her to sign hurriedly saying that he had to leave for a diligence. The applicant didn't have opportunity to read what was contained in the term of declarations and doesn't recognize the content of the declarations that were filed in the papers. After signing, the Police officer told her "now I will take you to see the bandit... he will rot in jail... that bandit, vagabond.

Maria Ataídes Maciel was never again called after that day. She wasn’t called for the trial. Furthermore it happens that the applicant bore witness before the Police sheriff and a clerk that typewrote on a typewriter, however in the papers the term of declarations consists in computer printout format. Maria Ataídes Maciel also has doubts and doesn't recognize her signature in that term of declarations.

The applicant Renato Maciel Silva arrived at the Abrigo Warboys Brazil at 11 (eleven) years of age, where he was until completing 18 and continued living in the Shelter whilst on military service in CCAUEX - Center of Automated Cartography of the Army located in Colorado, Sobradinho-DF.

 Immediately after the defendant's imprisonment, the applicant was driven by policemen to the CIOPS - Integrated Center of Operations of Safety, of Planaltina, and received orders from the Police Sheriff Waldir Soares Oliveira for him not to leave town for 24 (twenty-four) hours, thus failing [his obligations] at the military barracks. On the same occasion, other minors were also taken and they were prisoners. In CIOPS, the Delegado Waldir Oliveira told the applicant that the minors had already confessed, putting pressure such that Renato Maciel Silva "would also admit it" because he always denied the accusations against the defendant.

 To all the questions formulated by the Police officer, the applicant answered that nothing had happened to him. Renato Maciel Silva on that occasion had marks and scratches from his military training that the Police sheriff wanted to attribute as marks of intimate relationship - which he denied.

Through this the concrete hypothesis that we bring to the collation is of a political conspiracy to imprison the defendant, disqualifying him using the unhappy hook of being a homosexual pedophile. His life is in danger in that town. It is reasonable that that Supreme court admits the present writ.

The subject has already been the object of 07 (seven) justification actions proposed before the Court of the District of Planaltina-GO, and they are being rejected systematically, obstructing the explanation about the falsehood of the depositions collected during the instruction of the case, by rehearing the supposed victims and witnesses of the original process, being: Aline Silva Brito, process no. 2913/2007; Cláudio Júnior Silva, process no. 1887/2005; Daniel Oliveira Jesus, process no. 2898/2007; Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira, process n. 2896/2007; Fagner Alves Sousa, process no. 2127/2006; José Aparecido Jesus, process n. 2122/2006; William Gonçalves Oliveira, process no. 2157/2006. 

Many other retractions from supposed victims and witnesses exist, as are other important original documents available from Lawyer Gustavo Arthur Coelho Lobo Carvalho, OAB-DF 15.641, which can be the objects of new justification requests, however until now only 07 (seven) were filed in court.

On another front it is worth pointing out that, according to information from residents of Planaltina/GO Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim is there now over 24 years in that District, doesn’t live in the town, but in Sobradinho and in Lago Sul. Throughout the instruction of the processes which convicted the defendant there was a clear impression that Dra. Judge Fabíola Fernanda Feitosa Medeiros Martins was influenced by the referred Prosecutor that calls herself "the law" of the town.

In the light of the facts exposed the applicants request Your Excellency the concession of preliminary provision of temporary freedom, furthermore determining the immediate removal of Prosecutor Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorims as well as TJGO judge Jamil Pereira Macedo from any and all lawsuits or procedures of any nature involving the defendant and/or the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil, in obedience of other legal procedures until the concession of the order, determining annulment of both penal processes that resulted in the defendant's conviction, and issuing a freedom Permit in his favor.

Finally they request, the attachment of HC 86.711-GO. as proof.

Brasília-DF, December 12, 2007.

Aline da Silva Brito

Cláudio Junior da Silva

Daniel Oliveira de Jesus

Edmilson Antonio de Oliveira Ferreira

Eliza Miranda dos Santos

Fagner Alves de Sousa

Felipe Paixão Costa

Jaime Maciel da Silva

José Aparecido de Jesus

Karina Ketley

Kátia Gomes de Almeida

Maria Ataídes Maciel

Marandrete Oliveira da Silva

Nelson Felix de Morais

Rafael Maciel da Silva

Renato Maciel da Silva

 

eyeLegal Team

Global Network for Civil Rights

Membership is open to common citizens in all countries.

 

Main Enclosures:

1. written retraction from Edmilson Antônio Oliveira Ferreira (authenticated photocopy)

2. written retraction from José Aparecido Jesus (authenticated photocopy)

3. written retraction from Cláudio Júnior of Silva (authenticated photocopy)

4. Jornal de Brasília, 27-nov-2005, p. 11 - original

5. Jornal de Brasília, 10-dec -2005, p. 10 - original

6. Jornal de Brasília, 20-abr-2006, p. 11 - original

7. written retraction of Maria Lourdes Silva - original

8. certificate of moral Suitability dated 17-out-2000, issued by prosecutor of Planaltina-GO, Dra. Maria Aparecida Nunes Amorim. (original)

9. correspondence to the Guardian Council of Planaltina-GO, to 01-jan-2001 (original)

10. official letter 034-1999 from the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to the Municipal Council office of Education of Planaltina-GO, of 23-jul-1999 (original)

11. Correspondence to the Guardian Council of Planaltina-GO, of 22-abr-2001 (original)

12. Correspondence to the Guardian Council of Planaltina-GO, of 30-jan-2001 (original)

13. Correspondence to the Guardian Council of Planaltina-GO, of 16-ago-2000 (original)

14. Correspondence to the Guardian Council of Planaltina-GO, of 13-abr-2001 (original)

15. Correspondence to the Municipal Secretary of Education of Planaltina-GO, of 15-march-2001 (original)

16. official letter 018-1999 from the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to the Municipal Department of Security of Planaltina-GO, requesting night watch guard, in 14-06-1999. (original)

17. official letter 017-1999 from the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to the Municipal Secretary of Education of Planaltina-GO, requesting night watch guard (original)

18. official letter 014-2000 from the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to the Public prosecution service of Planaltina-GO, in 29-fev-2000. (original)

19. official letter 039-1999 from the Abrigo Warboys in Brazil to the Mayor of the town of Planaltina-GO, in 09-ago-1999. (original)

20. Abrigo Warboys in Brazil Representation to the Public prosecution service of Planaltina-GO, in 29-abr-2002. against the President of the Guardian Council of Planltina-GO (original)