You seem to be confused about a couple things, so... > That's a much better reason to throw out a case compared to "he should have been tried in Brasília". I

You seem to be confused about a couple things, so... > That's a much better reason to throw out a case compared to "he should have been tried in Brasília". I agree. That said, the matter of jurisdiction comes first. The justice acted correctly and fixed the overarching vice in the process by sending it to Brasília. It should never have been tried in Curitiba, and if you think he's guilty of all those crimes, you should have joined the chorus of the crowd who just wanted justice to run its course in the right way and pushed for his case to be sent to Brasília in the first place. He was politically tried in Curitiba against due process, on top of all the other vices. Brasília should have been where they would then review everything else, but alas now it's too late. Ironically, Lula, his lawyers and his supporters have been all along the ones pushing for him to actually face justice. > It's hilarious to watch a supreme court judge (...) say that actual judges aren't "competent" to try Lula's case. You also seem to be confused about what _competence_ means in this context. What they said is not that Moro is an incompetent judge. This has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. _Competence_, in this case, means that his court was not the correct jurisdiction for the trial. Nothing more, nothing less.