narration without any difference, as Joao Mendez said: “The complaint

[nurnobisorker20]

A narrative and demonstrative exposition. Narrative, since it must reveal the fact and all its circumstances, that is, not only the transitive action, but also the person who performs it (quis), the means he uses (quibus auxiliis), the harm he causes (quid), which determines her The reason for doing it (cur), the way she practices (quomodo), the place she practices (ubi), and the time (when). Exemplary in that it must describe the subject of the crime, give reasons for conviction or presumption, and name witnesses and informants. ” (Emphasis added) Along the same lines, JOSÉ CRETELLA JÚNIOR (Administrative Law before the Tribunals, Ed. Forense Universitária, 1st ed., p. 174) states: “When the agent’s alleged fault is so common that There cannot be an extensive defense when he cannot be prepared to contradict” Well, Your Honor, according to the learned excerpt of theory pasted above.

, the administrative action attacked in this writ, the instructions and the order of instructions framed against the appellant, are far from the legal ideal, are a negative example, the real antithesis of the provisions of good law, and do not constitute a charge that would allow for the full exercise of the right of defence. admissibility requirement because it by no means clearly and objectively defines imputation but, on the contrary, is hesitant, vague, general, inaccurate and subjective. Otherwise, as we now intend to substantiate the applicant’s instructions, let us loo Phone Number List k at the text of the instructions and the order of instructions: “The provisions of Part 2 of Law No. 4,878/65, Part 43, II, VIII, No. XXIV are violated because Based on the testimonies and documentary evidence, it is clear that the defendants had a duty to give statements or to be interviewed by journalists and, therefore, to publicize the facts of what happened in the department through written and television media, to act disrespectfully and in contempt of the authorities and administration, to the detriment of police functions, and in addition to neglect and failure to comply with the execution of lawful orders.



” It can be seen that the order basically repeats the text of the conviction part without objectively indicating where, when and in what manner the appellant committed the acts constituting the disciplinary offense. How can a public official respond to such an allegation? What about defending yourself? In what ways was the appellant disparaging and disrespectful of the government? What were the disrespectful and derogatory phrases or expressions uttered by the appellant? What actions or omissions caused the police to undermine the police function? Such a result? What facts about what happened in the department did the appeal reveal? How, when and to whom exactly was it disclosed? Here, it is necessary to comment in passing on the absurdity of such an accusation. In 1965, when Law No. 4,878 was enacted At the time, during the military dictatorship, it was understandable that the government would try to muzzle and punish civil servants who disclosed "the facts that happened within the department," especially since during that dark period, police "offices" were, among other things, supposed to be.