Post by hitlar254 on Jan 11, 2024 10:48:50 GMT
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — It’s logical. If there is the possibility of paying or making an excellent agreement, why litigate with the bank or why subject yourself to absurd interest rates? If there were guarantees of public services essential to society, there would not be so many disputes against health plans, for example. In the case of bank financing or bonds, there would not be as much default. I'm tired of having a condominium billing hearing. It was revolting: in 95% of cases the condominium is not paid because the resident can't and not because he doesn't want to. It's a humiliation where you live and it was common to see that the cause was not one of personal choice.
It was a necessity: as the name would not go to Serasa in the event of non-payment of condominium fees, the best thing to do was postpone the problem. In the case of searching and Special Data seizing a financed car, it is the same thing. Those who use this line of credit do so because they want the car, often for the weekend with the family, and if they fail to pay there is a greater reason. I would never act without a reason. In fact, in these actions, it is common for defendants, most of them without defense by choice, to hand over their cars directly to the finance company so as not to go through the embarrassment of having the car seized by the court officer in front of their neighbors or family. And, the peculiarity is that, apart from the issue of interest, there is very little law or legality in these actions.
>ConJur — What does the Court need to distribute more Justice?
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — Basically more structure, more employees. There is a huge shortage of staff. They install several rods, but all without what would be suitable. We also need more judges. And why not hire advisors for these magistrates? There are many things that can be delegated. An advisor costs much cheaper and is the fastest way. On the other hand, there are matters that should not even reach the second instance. This is the case with appeals regarding the payment of alimony when the need is presumed. Take, for example, the case of a needy child with an unemployed father, who lives on odd jobs, earns around the minimum wage and must give a third of that to his son. It was the judge of first instance who analyzed the case and spoke to the person responsible. He is the one who has the elements to know whether the value set is fair. It is not the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice had no contact with the parties and has nothing to specifically analyze, with rare exceptions.
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — If there is no direct relationship, it is certainly very important. From what I observe, relations are currently good, but, according to the system, regardless of the people, it could be said that the Executive does what it wants. Since the state judiciary lost the power to judge governors, we have fallen far short of what we should. The most common thing in this field is the exchange of pleasantries and speeches saying that the judiciary is highly respected and that decisions are not discussed, they are complied with. Just look at the issue of court orders to better reflect on it. I don't know if the Executive, as a whole, is interested in having an agile Judiciary and, no matter how much there is talk about independence, from an economic point of view this is not what I have seen. It is absurd for the President of the TJ to have to negotiate a budget every year, asking for additional funding when this is an absolutely essential public service, even if it does not result in votes. In a political campaign, you have never seen a candidate say that they are going to build forums.
ConJur — Is São Paulo represented in the national Judiciary according to the weight it has in politics and the economy?
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — Not in my opinion. Over the years we have lost a lot of space. For example, it is clear that we do not want a São Paulo Superior Court, but today the game is completely unbalanced. In fact, some of the blame is ours in that, because we have many judges, we have many candidates. This does not occur in states with a much smaller number of judges, which can concentrate the necessary political process.
It was a necessity: as the name would not go to Serasa in the event of non-payment of condominium fees, the best thing to do was postpone the problem. In the case of searching and Special Data seizing a financed car, it is the same thing. Those who use this line of credit do so because they want the car, often for the weekend with the family, and if they fail to pay there is a greater reason. I would never act without a reason. In fact, in these actions, it is common for defendants, most of them without defense by choice, to hand over their cars directly to the finance company so as not to go through the embarrassment of having the car seized by the court officer in front of their neighbors or family. And, the peculiarity is that, apart from the issue of interest, there is very little law or legality in these actions.
>ConJur — What does the Court need to distribute more Justice?
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — Basically more structure, more employees. There is a huge shortage of staff. They install several rods, but all without what would be suitable. We also need more judges. And why not hire advisors for these magistrates? There are many things that can be delegated. An advisor costs much cheaper and is the fastest way. On the other hand, there are matters that should not even reach the second instance. This is the case with appeals regarding the payment of alimony when the need is presumed. Take, for example, the case of a needy child with an unemployed father, who lives on odd jobs, earns around the minimum wage and must give a third of that to his son. It was the judge of first instance who analyzed the case and spoke to the person responsible. He is the one who has the elements to know whether the value set is fair. It is not the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice had no contact with the parties and has nothing to specifically analyze, with rare exceptions.
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — If there is no direct relationship, it is certainly very important. From what I observe, relations are currently good, but, according to the system, regardless of the people, it could be said that the Executive does what it wants. Since the state judiciary lost the power to judge governors, we have fallen far short of what we should. The most common thing in this field is the exchange of pleasantries and speeches saying that the judiciary is highly respected and that decisions are not discussed, they are complied with. Just look at the issue of court orders to better reflect on it. I don't know if the Executive, as a whole, is interested in having an agile Judiciary and, no matter how much there is talk about independence, from an economic point of view this is not what I have seen. It is absurd for the President of the TJ to have to negotiate a budget every year, asking for additional funding when this is an absolutely essential public service, even if it does not result in votes. In a political campaign, you have never seen a candidate say that they are going to build forums.
ConJur — Is São Paulo represented in the national Judiciary according to the weight it has in politics and the economy?
Carlos Teixeira Leite Filho — Not in my opinion. Over the years we have lost a lot of space. For example, it is clear that we do not want a São Paulo Superior Court, but today the game is completely unbalanced. In fact, some of the blame is ours in that, because we have many judges, we have many candidates. This does not occur in states with a much smaller number of judges, which can concentrate the necessary political process.