Leia a íntegra em português da carta que os EUA enviaram a Moraes

Okay, here’s a breakdown of the document, focusing on key information and potential implications. This is a complex legal document, so I’ll aim for clarity and highlight the core arguments.Overall Context:This document is a response from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to a request (presumably from Rumble, a company) regarding a legal matter involving a Brazilian court order. It’s a formal defense of the U.S.’s position and a rejection of the Brazilian court’s attempt to exert control over Rumble’s operations.Key Arguments & Points Made by the DOJ:1. Jurisdictional Limits: The core argument is that Brazilian courts *do not* have jurisdiction over Rumble in the United States. The DOJ asserts that simply delivering a court order to Rumble in the U.S. doesn’t automatically make it enforceable here.2. Recognition and Execution are Required: To enforce a foreign court order in the U.S., Rumble would need to initiate a separate legal process – a “recognition and execution” proceeding – before a U.S. court. This process would involve demonstrating that the order meets U.S. legal standards (like due process and doesn’t violate freedom of expression).3. Reliance on International Law (Hague Convention): The DOJ emphasizes that any legal proceedings related to this matter should adhere to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad. This convention governs how foreign courts can serve legal documents on individuals and companies located in other countries.4. Specific Channels for Service: The DOJ clarifies that service of process (serving the court order) must occur through the proper channels outlined in the Hague Convention – either the primary communication channel (Article 5) or alternative/exceptional channels (Articles 8, 10, or 25).5. No Coercive Measures: The DOJ firmly states that the Office of International Cooperation and Judicial Affairs (OIJA) – the U.S. entity responsible for assisting foreign judicial authorities – *cannot* use coercive measures to compel Rumble to comply with a request for evidence if the request isn’t submitted through the proper channel (via the OIJA).6. Criminal Assistance (Separate Matter): The document explicitly states that the DOJ’s role is primarily in *criminal* matters. It clarifies that the OIJA can assist foreign authorities in obtaining information and evidence for criminal investigations, but only through the established MLAT (Multilateral Assistance Treaty) process.Implications & What the Document Says About the Case:* Rumble’s Attempt is Unsuccessful: The DOJ’s response effectively shuts down Rumble’s attempt to directly enforce the Brazilian court order in the U.S.* Legal Process Required: Rumble must now undertake the complex and potentially lengthy process of seeking recognition and execution of the Brazilian order in a U.S. court.* U.S. Sovereignty: The document powerfully asserts U.S. sovereignty and the principle that foreign courts cannot simply dictate terms to companies operating within the U.S.Key Phrases to Remember:* Recognition and Execution: The crucial legal process needed to make a foreign court order enforceable in the U.S.* Hague Convention on Service Abroad: The international treaty governing how foreign courts serve legal documents.* OIJA: The U.S. office responsible for assisting foreign judicial authorities (primarily in criminal matters).* MLAT: Multilateral Assistance Treaty – the framework for U.S. cooperation with foreign judicial authorities in criminal cases.—Do you want me to:* Break down a specific section of the document in more detail?* Explain a particular legal term?* Analyze the potential implications of this case more broadly?

Fonte por: Poder 360