rottenwheel/gist:a1e677b1b620e678b5347fae2a3a7aee

## gistfile1.txt
The following message was written by Renato Teixeira Da Costa, from Barreto Advocacia Criminal (https://barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br/).
E-mail address: renato@barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br or advteixeirarenato@adv.oabsp.org.br
=====
I can personally clarify this point.

RottenWheel did not invent Barreto’s possible involvement in Lucas’s defense, nor did he falsely represent conversations that never happened.

[REDACTED] connected Rotten and me. From there, I personally contacted members of Lucas’s existing legal team and discussed Barreto joining the case in a complementary capacity, particularly regarding digital evidence, technical analysis and additional legal support. The entire concept was that the existing lawyers would remain in place and that we would work alongside them, not replace them.

Rotten was informed of those discussions by me. He acted based on information I personally provided to him and on my understanding, at that time, that cooperation was being discussed and could move forward.

There was later a serious disagreement regarding the public fundraiser, the manner in which the campaign was presented and the level of authorization required before publication. That disagreement is real, and I am not trying to minimize it.

But that is very different from saying Rotten fabricated Barreto’s involvement or acted with no basis whatsoever.

He was trying to mobilize his community to obtain additional resources for Lucas’s defense. He had no reason to believe he was inventing an arrangement, because the underlying conversations with the existing defense had in fact taken place.

Whatever disagreement now exists between lawyers, I will not allow Rotten to be blamed for statements he made in good faith based substantially on information that came directly from me.

I also want to make one point absolutely clear: I have documented records of the meeting and the calls in which our cooperation was discussed.

The existing defense expressly discussed the possibility of us working together commercially and professionally. The understanding was essentially this: we would begin by organizing and analyzing the digital evidence, and once that work advanced, we would discuss how the broader work and fees would be divided between the firms.

Nothing was done behind their backs. Nothing came out of nowhere. Our possible participation, the digital-evidence work, the financial structure and the possibility of sharing the work were all discussed directly with them.

So any suggestion that Barreto suddenly appeared in this case without the knowledge or consent of Lucas’s existing lawyers is simply inconsistent with the documented history of our conversations.

And one more important point: the very first thing we did was seek their consent. We studied the case, sent suggestions, discussed the digital evidence and only moved forward because there was an understanding that we could work together.

Under Brazilian law, of course, the client ultimately decides who represents him. But the existing lawyers were aware of our involvement and agreed to discuss a joint structure. They even spoke openly about sharing the work and the financial side once we started with the digital evidence.

What seems to have changed is not our involvement itself. The problem is that they apparently understood [REDACTED] and Rotten would privately fund the additional work, without a public fundraiser. When the Kuno campaign became public, they got uncomfortable and reacted badly.

So this is really a dispute about how the funding became public, not about Barreto secretly appearing in the case without their knowledge. We have records of the meetings, calls and discussions showing exactly how this developed.

I am available to clarify my own role and conversations if necessary.
=====
The above message was written by Renato Teixeira Da Costa, from Barreto Advocacia Criminal (https://barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br/).
E-mail address: renato@barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br or advteixeirarenato@adv.oabsp.org.br
	The following message was written by Renato Teixeira Da Costa, from Barreto Advocacia Criminal (https://barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br/).
	E-mail address: renato@barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br or advteixeirarenato@adv.oabsp.org.br
	=====
	I can personally clarify this point.

	RottenWheel did not invent Barreto’s possible involvement in Lucas’s defense, nor did he falsely represent conversations that never happened.

	[REDACTED] connected Rotten and me. From there, I personally contacted members of Lucas’s existing legal team and discussed Barreto joining the case in a complementary capacity, particularly regarding digital evidence, technical analysis and additional legal support. The entire concept was that the existing lawyers would remain in place and that we would work alongside them, not replace them.

	Rotten was informed of those discussions by me. He acted based on information I personally provided to him and on my understanding, at that time, that cooperation was being discussed and could move forward.

	There was later a serious disagreement regarding the public fundraiser, the manner in which the campaign was presented and the level of authorization required before publication. That disagreement is real, and I am not trying to minimize it.

	But that is very different from saying Rotten fabricated Barreto’s involvement or acted with no basis whatsoever.

	He was trying to mobilize his community to obtain additional resources for Lucas’s defense. He had no reason to believe he was inventing an arrangement, because the underlying conversations with the existing defense had in fact taken place.

	Whatever disagreement now exists between lawyers, I will not allow Rotten to be blamed for statements he made in good faith based substantially on information that came directly from me.

	I also want to make one point absolutely clear: I have documented records of the meeting and the calls in which our cooperation was discussed.

	The existing defense expressly discussed the possibility of us working together commercially and professionally. The understanding was essentially this: we would begin by organizing and analyzing the digital evidence, and once that work advanced, we would discuss how the broader work and fees would be divided between the firms.

	Nothing was done behind their backs. Nothing came out of nowhere. Our possible participation, the digital-evidence work, the financial structure and the possibility of sharing the work were all discussed directly with them.

	So any suggestion that Barreto suddenly appeared in this case without the knowledge or consent of Lucas’s existing lawyers is simply inconsistent with the documented history of our conversations.

	And one more important point: the very first thing we did was seek their consent. We studied the case, sent suggestions, discussed the digital evidence and only moved forward because there was an understanding that we could work together.

	Under Brazilian law, of course, the client ultimately decides who represents him. But the existing lawyers were aware of our involvement and agreed to discuss a joint structure. They even spoke openly about sharing the work and the financial side once we started with the digital evidence.

	What seems to have changed is not our involvement itself. The problem is that they apparently understood [REDACTED] and Rotten would privately fund the additional work, without a public fundraiser. When the Kuno campaign became public, they got uncomfortable and reacted badly.

	So this is really a dispute about how the funding became public, not about Barreto secretly appearing in the case without their knowledge. We have records of the meetings, calls and discussions showing exactly how this developed.

	I am available to clarify my own role and conversations if necessary.
	=====
	The above message was written by Renato Teixeira Da Costa, from Barreto Advocacia Criminal (https://barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br/).
	E-mail address: renato@barretoadvocaciacriminal.com.br or advteixeirarenato@adv.oabsp.org.br
No results found