"Historic Trial for the People of Jehovah in Brazil"

[grain of mustard]

On 31/07/2025 at 09:11, Pionner_who said:

 

---

 

Ontem, o seguinte anúncio foi feito em congregações por todo o Brasil:

Atualização sobre o julgamento no Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF):
O Supremo Tribunal Federal agendou, de 8 a 18 de agosto de 2025, o julgamento de um recurso do Conselho Federal de Medicina (CFM), que contesta a recente decisão sobre o nosso direito de receber tratamento médico sem o uso de sangue. Questiona também se o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) é obrigado a respeitar a nossa posição e a fornecer tal tratamento.

2. Assim como fizemos antes, pedimos que orem para que Jeová abençoe todos os irmãos envolvidos neste caso e que, se for da Sua vontade, os juízes do Supremo Tribunal Federal mantenham a decisão. Desta vez, os juízes conduzirão o julgamento virtualmente, portanto, não haverá transmissão. Conforme declarado em A Sentinela de 15 de novembro de 2013, página 7: “Não é que Jeová seja forçado a agir só porque muitos de seus adoradores oram pela mesma coisa. A questão é que ele observa nossa preocupação coletiva e, ao responder às nossas orações, leva em conta nosso profundo e sincero interesse.”
   Portanto, estamos plenamente confiantes de que o resultado deste julgamento trará louvor ao nome de Jeová.

Continuemos rezando para que as decisões tomadas permaneçam as mesmas.

Any news about the trial? It starts today. Let's stay informed if anything happens. Also, let's not forget to pray. May Jehovah protect us. 

[Pionner_who]

31 minutes ago, grain of mustard said:

Any news about the trial? It starts today. Let's stay informed if anything happens. Also, let's not forget to pray. May Jehovah protect us. 

Not yet. This time, the hearing will not be televised. The justices will simply cast their votes in writing. That’s why there is this interval between the 8th and the 18th. But I’m following the updates on the Supreme Court’s official website, and I’ll share any news about the votes here. Just as a reminder, the justices of the Supreme Court usually work only in the afternoons, generally starting at 2:00 p.m (Brazil time)
 

Edited Friday at 12:27 PM by Pionner_who

[Pionner_who]

Here’s a translation of the key content from the PDF into English:

---

### **Supreme Court of Brazil**  
**Embargo of Declaration in Extraordinary Appeal No. 1,212,272 - Alagoas**  

**Rapporteur: Justice Gilmar Mendes**  

#### **Vote**  

**Justice Gilmar Mendes (Rapporteur):** The issue under analysis is whether, preliminarily, it is possible to admit an embargo of declaration filed by a party not involved in the procedural relationship and, if so, whether the appealed decision suffers from the vice of omission.  

#### **1) Inadmissibility of the Embargo of Declaration Filed by the CFM**  

The present embargo of declaration should not be admitted. According to established jurisprudence of this Supreme Court, third parties not involved in the procedural relationship lack standing to file an embargo of declaration. Relevant precedents include:  

- *RE 695.911 ED-quartos-AgR* (2022), Justice Dias Toffoli;  
- *RE 754.917 ED* (2020), Justice Dias Toffoli;  
- *RE 848.826 ED-AgR* (2019), Justice Ricardo Lewandowski.  

Thus, the embargo is inadmissible.  

#### **2) Absence of Omissions Alleged**  

An embargo of declaration is only admissible to address obscurity, contradiction, or omission in the decision, or to correct material errors (Art. 1,022 of the CPC). It is not a means to challenge the decision’s conclusions or premises.  

**Precedents:**  
- *ADI 6,719-ED/AM* (2022): Embargos cannot be used to reargue the matter or seek an infringing effect.  
- *ADI 3,287-ED/DF* (2020): Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify an embargo.  

In this case, the appealed decision explicitly addressed:  
1. **Life-threatening situations:** Medical professionals must act diligently, respecting the patient’s beliefs while employing all compatible life-saving measures.  
2. **Patient autonomy:** Refusal of treatment (e.g., blood transfusions by Jehovah’s Witnesses) is valid only if the patient’s free, informed, and conscious will is expressed—orally or in writing (e.g., advance directives). Absent such expression, physicians must act to preserve life.  

No omissions or contradictions were found in the original decision.  

#### **3) Conclusion**  

The embargo of declaration is **inadmissible** and, even if examined, lacks merit.  

---

### **Key Terms:**  
- **Embargo of Declaration:** A motion to clarify or correct judicial decisions.  
- **Extraordinary Appeal (RE):** A challenge to constitutional issues before Brazil’s Supreme Court.  
- **Repercussão Geral:** A doctrine filtering appeals of national significance.  

Let me know if you’d like further refinements or specific sections expanded.

1x0 for JW

[Doug]

12 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

 

The present embargo of declaration should not be admitted. 
- *ADI 6,719-ED/AM* (2022): Embargos cannot be used to reargue the matter or seek an infringing effect.  
- *ADI 3,287-ED/DF* (2020): Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not justify an embargo.  

 

No omissions or contradictions were found in the original decision.  

The embargo of declaration is **inadmissible** and, even if examined, lacks merit. 

 

Que bom!!!      

[grain of mustard]

https://www.cartacapital.com.br/justica/stf-tem-2-votos-para-manter-decisao-que-permite-testemunha-de-jeova-recusar-transfusao-de-sangue/

 

we have 2 votes in favor 

[Brandon]

3 hours ago, grain of mustard said:

we have 2 votes in favor

In practical terms, what does that mean? What’s the status of the case?

[Pionner_who]

54 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Em termos práticos, o que isso significa? Qual é o status do caso?

The Federal Medical Council filed a lawsuit to overturn what was decided last year — basically a legal term and some appeals. The ministers either vote in favor (meaning they agree with what the CFM asked) or against (meaning last year’s decision still stands). The rapporteur voted against the appeal, meaning he didn’t agree with the CFM’s request. Today, a female minister voted along with him. In other words, she sided with the first minister’s vote. According to a lawyer, this time only five ministers will vote. So, if more of them agree with the rapporteur, the CFM’s request gets rejected and last year’s decision stays in effect.

[grain of mustard]

51 minutos atrás, Pionner_who disse:

O Conselho Federal de Medicina entrou com uma ação judicial para anular a decisão do ano passado — basicamente um termo legal e alguns recursos. Os ministros votam a favor (ou seja, concordam com o que o CFM solicita) ou contra (ou seja, a decisão do ano passado permanece válida). O relator votou contra o recurso, ou seja, não solicitado com o pedido do CFM. Hoje, uma ministra votou junto com ele. Em outras palavras, ela acompanhou o voto do primeiro-ministro. Segundo um advogado, desta vez, apenas cinco ministros votarão. Portanto, se os mais ministros concordarem com o relator, o pedido do CFM é rejeitado e a decisão do ano passado permanece em vigor.

It seems that we already have 3 favorable votes. The 3rd minister followed the rapporteur 

[grain of mustard]

https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=5703626

[Brandon]

According to to ChatGPT 

• The virtual-plenary vote is still being processed and the virtual session is scheduled to finish on 18 August 2025, so a final outcome (full composition of votes) could appear by then.

And we need 6 votes total to solidify our medical rights as JWs in Brazil, although I think this decision will only affect adult witnesses.

Edited 9 hours ago by Brandon

[Doug]

3 hours ago, Brandon said:

 

And we need 6 votes total to solidify our medical rights as JWs in Brazil, although I think this decision will only affect adult witnesses.

 

Nathan said there are just 5 ministers involved on this appeal, unless I misunderstood him. And 3 have already voted to reject the appeal (on process and merit).

[Dages]

5 hours ago, Pionner_who said:

The Federal Medical Council filed a lawsuit to overturn what was decided last year — basically a legal term and some appeals. The ministers either vote in favor (meaning they agree with what the CFM asked) or against (meaning last year’s decision still stands). The rapporteur voted against the appeal, meaning he didn’t agree with the CFM’s request. Today, a female minister voted along with him. In other words, she sided with the first minister’s vote. According to a lawyer, this time only five ministers will vote. So, if more of them agree with the rapporteur, the CFM’s request gets rejected and last year’s decision stays in effect.

what was last year decision?

Edited 5 hours ago by Dages