Like us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter


Law suit against European Physical Journal

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:38 am.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

The European Physical Journal had published in 2013 a paper in which the authors proposed a structure for the non-empty space, formed by particle and antiparticle. Such structure was already proposed in the book Quantum Ring Theory, in 2006.

As the author of the book QRT has not financial condition so that to suit in law the European Physical Journal, he transferred the responsibility for the SBF – Brazillian Society of Physics.

THE LAW SUIT AGAINST The European Physical Journal


WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI, Brazilian, divorced, mechanical engineer, bearer of identity card No. M-7 206.562- SSP-MG, and CPF 130712116-00 paragraph, resident and domiciled at Rua Santo Antonio, No. 63 apt 306, CEP: 36015-001, City Fora, Minas Gerais State, through its attorney and prosecutor quite (attorney attached -. DOC 26), with offices located at Rua Joana Roncáglio Bertoldi, 977 - Rio Bonito - Campo de Santana - Curitiba - PR. zip code: 81490-468, which receives notices and subpoenas, comes very respectfully presence of Your Excellency to propose


in face to BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF PHYSICS-SBF headquartered in Matão Street, # 187, Lane R, Butantã, CEP 05508-090, São Paulo - SP, for the reasons of fact and law adduced below.


The author, whose book Quantum Ring Theory, hereinafter called QRT, was published in 2006 by Bäuu Institute Press (USA), requires that the Respondent court interpele the scientific journal Nature and the scientific journal European Physical Journal EPJ hereinafter, so that if portray having your book published plagiarism QRT, as summarized in the facts that are exposed below.


The legal basis for the mandatory Required judicially challenge the EPJ journals Nature and stems from two facts:

1 FIRST fact- The editors of Nature and EPJ refused to meet the request of the author, who had requested via email that his scientific work was cited in the articles published in the two newspapers, in order to undo plagiarism. The Senior Editor of Nature, Dr. Karen Howell, refused the request via email (DOCUMENT 11), and the editor of EPJ, Prof. Ulf Meissner, simply ignored the email the author, leaving it unanswered (DOCUMENT 16).


2 SECOND fact- It is the responsibility of the Respondent look after the interests and rights of the Author, as set out in Article 2 of the Statute of SBF, explained below:

Art. 2. The Association aims at:

II - ensure the freedom of teaching, research and the rights and interests of physicists and physics teachers

III - uphold the prestige of science in the country

VI - keep in touch with the institutes and societies of physics and related sciences, the country and abroad

VII - encourage and promote exchanges between professionals from Brazil and around the world

The two experiences of 2011, that corroborate the predictions of QRT, and that led to the publication of articles in Nature in 2012 and the European Physical Journal in 2013 (which constitute plagiarism proposals theory Author), are irrefutable facts that his theory has scientific merit for having correctly predicted errors in the fundamental principles of the prevailing theories of modern physics.

It is therefore mandatory that the SBF recognize the scientific merit of the QRT, for it to be investigated in the universities, so that universities fulfill their constitutional duty to promote and encourage scientific development, through theoretical research that eventually redound in technological advancement, since that being wrong some fundamental principles of current theories, this failure has negative repercussions on current theories on technological advancement, hindering some scientific discoveries which give the theoretical knowledge of the true structure of matter and space.

Failure to comply with the mandatory recognition of QRT implies noncompliance under the requirements of the Statute SBPC, the Respondent may respond by misrepresentation and its consequences, including those that result in punitive damages as a result of conflicting default with the prescribing Articles III, IV, IX, and XIII:

III - uphold the prestige of science in the country

IV - stimulate research in physics

IX - promoting science outreach activities

XIII - encourage the dissemination of knowledge of physics, through the publication of books, texts, monographs, as well as through the press, radio, television and Internet

Therefore fail to recognize the merit of a theory, which was confirmed by experiments and plagiarized by the two most important magazines of Physics, is discrimination against the Author and disrespect for their work.

After the publication of the book Quantum Ring Theory in 2006, the author participated in several discussions over the internet with various physical, in which he exposed the flaws of the current quantum mechanics, and explained what were the solutions proposed in his theory. In all these discussions physicists referred to his theory describing it as absurd, and that was due to the fact that many of the QRT proposals are at odds with the principles of current theories, and therefore his theory could not be sure since the experiments throughout the 20th Century came proving Quantum Mechanics. As a result of this supposed evidence of Quantum Mechanics by experiences over the years, physicists referred to the QRT author calling it pseudoscience (DOCUMENTS 1 and 2), since that time physicists were never fully convinced that any experience could invalidate any fundamental principle or model of current theories, and confirm what was proposed in Quantum Ring Theory.


However published trials from 2008 comes knocking some fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics (taken as unshakable over 100 years) and confirming the predictions of QRT, so as there are experiences that are proving to be wrong nuclear models of nuclear physics as provided the QRT.

It is then up to the SBF recognize that what physicists in 2006 considered impossible to happen (ie, that the proposals of QRT could come to be confirmed experimentally) has been going since 2008.


Between 2008 and 2011 several experiments were published in newspapers of Physics, which corroborate the predictions of the QRT. Here we will mention two of them.


In the early 20th century experience with the electron, which suggested that he has a property that the current theories only the waves may exhibit was held. So according to this experience should be the electron a wave. But other experiments showed that the electron also has properties that can display only one particle. So according to these experiments the electron must be a corpuscle. Taking into consideration all the experiments, the physicists concluded that the electron is neither wave nor particle, and that he is actually a wave-particle. This became known as wave-particle duality.

In order to endorse the philosophical point of view this intriguing duality wave-particle of matter, Bohr proposed the principle of complementarity, whereby in certain experiments the electron is a wave, and in other experiments it is a particle. This also applies to other particles such as the proton, neutron, etc.

According to Bohr's Complementarity, the electron can experience a 1 behave as a wave, and an experiment No. 2 it can behave as a particle. However, according to the principle proposed by Bohr, the electron may not behave as both wave and particle-in the same experiment.

The principle of complementarity Bohr is rejected in QRT. In this, the wave nature of matter is explained by a new fundamental concept nonexistent in Quantum Mechanics: the helical trajectory of the elementary particles like the electron, proton, etc.

The book A Evolução da Mecânica Quântica, published in 2008 by Publisher Bodigaya, was written by the author to explain to the public Brazilian lay his theory published in 2006 by Bäuu Institute Press. On page 94 of this book it is written:

“A wave may have, in addition to the wave effect, also a characteristic behavior of the particles, but can have a particle wave behavior if it moves through a movement having wave characteristics, such as helical trajectory” ' [...] The helicoiodal trajectory of a single electron distorts when he has to pass between two slits (DOCUMENT 3).


Therefore, an electron can interfere with itself by passing through a slit, because its helical path will interact with the body of the electron. Thus, the QRT disagrees with the principle of complementarity Bohr, because according to this an electron can not interact with itself.

The prediction was confirmed by QRT published in June 2011 experience:

Observing the Average Trajectories of Single Photons in a Two-Slit Interferometer - (DOCUMENT 4)


This experiment showed that, in passing through a single slit, an electron interfered with itself, and so it presents both a unique experience both the corpuscular and the wave-like character, thus invalidating the principle of complementarity Bohr, according to which the electron does not you can still experience the present wave nature and the corpuscular simultaneously. And so the experiment confirmed the prediction that the QRT proposed by Bohr principle is wrong.


In 1993 was published an article by C. Borghi, who showed experimental evidence that the neutron is formed by proton + electron (unlike the current theory, according to which the neutron consists of three quarks):

C. Borghi, C. Giori, Dall'Ollio AA, Experimental Evidence of Emission of Neutrons from Cold Hydrogen Plasma, American Institute of Physics (Phys. Acts. Nucl.), Vol 56, no 7, 1993.

According to the principles of nuclear physics in force, it is impossible that a neutron is formed by proton + electron. Among other various theoretical constraints, so that a proton + neutron formed electron can exist, Planck's constant would have to have a value 1000 times lower than that detected in the experiments.

To eliminate this restriction against the model proton + electron, the author proposed in his article Anomalous Mass of the Neutron there must be a Planck's constant gravitational nature, and it is 1000 times smaller. The author submitted his paper to several journals in physics, and all rejected publish it. In 2002 the editor of the Chinese Journal of Physics rejected the article based on this report from a reviewer:

“It is hard for me to believe dificulties Those raised in this manuscript will have escaped all of the scrutinity proeminent Those particle theorists. For instance, the author Proposes a new Planck constant for the uncertainty principle in the femtometer scale. Been Had this true, the string theorists have encountered the difficulty shouldnt long Time Ago and even have Theproposed Their Own third different Planck constant” . (DOCUMENTS 5.1 and 5.2).


Ie, the reviewer refused because he considered the article hard to believe that this type of solution proposed by Author had escaped the sagacity of the theoretical particle. According to the reviewer, the author of the proposal had merit, particle physicists already have adopted long ago.

But in July 2011 an astronomical observation has shown that the author was more crafty than the theoretical particle to properly admit the possibility of having to consider a new Planck's constant (gravitational nature) value well below the previously known (DOCUMENTS 6 and 7).


Despite these experimental confirmation of predictions QRT (among others that we will not quote here), in discussions between the author and the physicists they began to accuse him of being "adapted" to their experimental results QRT. This happened between 2008 and 2011

But these accusations of "adaptation" became dismissed from the moment that the experiences of 2011 and the plagiarism committed by Eurepean Physical Nature and the Journal became evident that this was no more than attempts by the Author of "adapt" to the experimental results your QRT. From 2011 to confirm the predictions of the QRT became clear, and for this reason the author decided to legally challenge the physicists in universities, since they adopted the strategy of remaining silent and refrain from further discussion, to avoid having to recognize the merits of the QRT.



Atomic nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons. Protons have electric charge, and so there is a strong electrical repulsion between them within the nuclei. Under current Nuclear Physics, neutrons prevent the nuclei disaggregate, as they have protons with an attraction that physicists have named strong nuclear force. This strong force acts between two protons between proton and neutron, and between two neutrons. According to Nuclear Physics, the strong force between two protons is the same as the strong force between proton and neutron. Therefore, according to Nuclear Physics, small nuclei with the same pair of protons and neutrons (as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, etc.) amount must be spherical, because the protons and neutrons must have a spherical distribution within these nuclei.

Thus, provided that nuclear models began to be proposed for about 80 years, in all these models was considered that light nuclei as 2He4, 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., had spherical shape.

When the author began studying Nuclear Physics (on their own), to analyze existing nuclear models he came to the conclusion that those nuclear models could not be sure, because none of them could explain all the nuclear phenomena. To work around this situation, nuclear physicists have adopted the following philosophy: through a model A they explained some phenomena through a B model they explain other phenomena, and through a C model they explained some other phenomena. Ie applied to nuclear physics the principle of complementarity Bohr.

The author could not agree with this philosophy adopted by nuclear physicists. Because in his opinion Nature might not be choosing a model A to produce a certain phenomenon, and then choose a model B to explain another phenomenon. What aggravated the situation: some nuclear models were incompatible with others. For example, the Model of Net Drop was considered that all the protons and neutrons were distributed in a shell, and the center of the core was empty. In the Collective Model protons and neutrons occupy the entire core from the center to the periphery. Nature obviously could not produce nuclear phenomena using incompatible models.

So it was obvious to the author that such models were all wrong, and that the aggregation of protons and neutrons within the nucleus could not be due only to the action of the strong force between protons and neutrons. And for this reason the author sought to discover a unique model through which it was possible to explain all nuclear properties, and so he reached his nuclear model in which there is a helium nucleus 2He4 at the center of all atomic nuclei.

According to this new model of nuclear Author, proposed in QRT, the light nuclei as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., do not have spherical shape. But as the experiences were never able to measure the quadrupole moment "Q" of these nuclei, one would assume that such cores to the value of Q is zero, Q = 0, which implies a spherical core structure. So the author was faced with the question: how to explain that as nuclei 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., have non-spherical shape, despite having Q = 0?

The Author resolved this issue through an argument presented on page 137 of his book (DOCUMENT 8).


Over the years nuclear physicists also continued (the same as the author) to seek for some nuclear model through which one could explain nuclear properties than existing models did not explain. One of these models is that considered "clusters" (aggregations) of protons and neutrons within the nucleus.

However, even with such models that consider "clusters", nuclear physicists continued to assume that light nuclei as 4Be8, 6C12, 8O16, etc., had spherical shape. For example, in 2010 the physicist Martin Freer published the article Clusters in Nuclei in the Scholarpedia blog, in which we see in Figure 1 the distribution of the spherical nucleus 8O16, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons. - (DOCUMENT 9).


Therefore, even with the cluster model, nuclear continued persisting between the theoretical possibility of such cores are spherical in shape.

To discover the mystery of nuclear structure physicists began to refine the experience, developing new technology to take "photos" of the format of the nuclei. And in 2011 came the spectacular discovery: the experências revealed that light nuclei as 6C12, 8O16, 10Ne20, etc., do not have spherical shape.

Therefore some authors wrote the article How atomic nuclei cluster, the journal Nature published this article in 2012 they try to explain why such nuclei has spherical shape (but keeping the basic principles of the current Nuclear Physics).

But there was a question: since these nuclei have not spherical, then they should submit nonzero quadrupole moment. However, the nuclear tables, none of them had the value of Q measured, suggesting that they all had zero quadrupole moment, Q = 0, and this was at odds with his "photographed" not spherical shape experiences in 2011.

So the author sent an email to the journal Nature, wondering how the authors explained this issue.

Who was the physicist replied Martin Freer, who relayed the answer to the Author of the authors. And the argument used by Martin Freer is the same argument proposed by the Author on page 137 of his book QRT.

The following is the email (DOCUMENT 10) Martin Freer sent to the Author (in which he explains the argument of the authors of the Nature paper) and below is the email directed on page 137 of the book QRT argument.


• The argument of the authors of the Nature:

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 07:53:09 +0100



Subject: Re: spam? Re: Nuclear physics: Nucleons come together

The nucleus is shown the intrinsically deformed, but has spin 0.

Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and Thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero.

Experimentally is is possible to que the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus show.


• And the argument on page 137 of the QRT:

Note that 8O16 has the null nuclear magnetic moment ? = 0, then its nuclear spin can not be aligned toward the direction by applying an external magnetic field, and so its nuclear spin can indeed be chaotic. So the xy plane has a chaotic rotation, and the six nucleons 1H2 performs the surface of the sphere, and the z-axis has the chaotic rotation around the center of the nucleus 8O16. By consequence the 8O16 behaves like if it Should be a spherical distribution of loads positives, and not a flat distribution. That's why the 8O16 has Q (b) = 0.

Thus, both arguments are based on light nuclei such zero, making it impossible to obtain a preferred orientation to proceed with the measurement of their quadrupole moments zero nuclear spin.

The Author sent email to the editor of Nature, requiring that his theory was mentioned in the Nature article, to thereby prevent the publication of that magazine constituted plagiarism. The publisher Karen Howell replied with email (DOCUMENT 11) claiming not meet the request of the author, but suggested you make a comment on the blog from Nature.


• Response Karen Howell, Senior Editor of Nature:




Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:04:03 +0000

Dear Dr Guglinski,

Thank you for your comment Regarding the manuscript Entitled "How atomic nuclei cluster" by Ebran et al, and the Accompanying News and Views article. Regretfully, we are unable to offer to publish it However, you are welcome to make use of our online commenting facility. Please go to the original article on our website and enter your message in the box provided beneath it.

Thank you again for writing to us.

Yours sincerely

Dr Karen Howell

Senior Editor


In 1905 Einstein proposed a solution to a paradox (the Michelson experiment) considering, in his Theory of Relativity, the space is empty. In 1919 an experiment confirmed his theory, and Modern Physics thus evolved with the idea that space is empty.

But the author considered this absurd hypothesis of empty space, because something can not be empty structure. And so it was impossible to explain how phenomena are created eletrogmagnéticos. Einstein resolved this issue by positivist method: considering that empty space has the property of producing electromagnetic phenomena, and that one needed to accept this fact without asking as an empty thing could show this property (so strange for something that was empty because something emptiness can not present any type of property). But this solution is not convinced the positivist Author, who refused to accept the solution of Einstein, and went on to develop his QRT from the hypothesis space filled by a substance (what the ancient Greeks called Ether).

Starting from electromagnetic phenomena, the author concluded what should be the structure of this ether: it is formed of particles and antiparticles.

According to this new theory of space proposed in QRT, the propagation of light in vacuum is possible thanks to the structure of space. The photon itself (which carries the light) is formed of a cluster (clusters) of particles and antiparticles taken from space. With this model of photon proposed in the article A Model of the Photon his QRT, the author shows in the article that this model of photon generates the Maxwell equations that mathematically describe the propagation of light, and as the antiparticle is extracted from the ether immediately after being produced by a particle atom (DOCUMENT 12).


In this article we propose the structure of the photon, the author speaks only of particle and antiparticle electrical in nature (which make up the body of the photon). Article Ether is proposed complete structure of space, composed of particles and antiparticles of electric, magnetic and gravitational (graviton) nature, as well as particles and antiparticles that promote the permeability of space (DOCUMENT 13).


Light is the propagation of an electromagnetic wave. And the electromagnetic waves are generated by matter (for an excited nucleus, or an excited atom, or an excited particle). But in 2011 an experiment showed that light can be generated directly from space:

Light created from vacuum shows empty space a myth - Times Of India - (DOCUMENT 14)


This experience has shown that space is not empty, and therefore Einstein was wrong.

To explain the emission of light created directly from the experience of space in 2011, four physicists came to the same conclusion that the author had arrived years ago: it is not empty, the space had to have a structure. So wrote an article, published in early 2013 in European Physical Journal:

The quantum vacuum to the origin of the speed of light - (DOCUMENT 15)


In the article, the physical space proposed for the same structure proposed by the author in his book QRT: that space has structure consisting of particles and antiparticles (fermion and antifermion). In physics there are two basic types of particles: fermions and bosons (there are others, such as leptons, but that does not concern us here). A single particle is a fermion. Agglutination three fermions fermion gives rise to another, such as a proton, three quark formed. Agglutination two fermions (fermion and antifermion) results in a boson, such as a photon. In item 3 of article (The vacuum permeability) the authors say:

“We propose a physical mechanism to produce the vacuum permeability from the elementary magnetism of the charged fermion pairs under a magnetic stress. Each charged efemeral fermion carries a magnetic moment proportional to the Bohr magneton.

We assume the orbital moment and the spin of the pair to be zero. Since the fermion and the anti fermion have opposite electric charges, the pair carries twice the magnetic moment of one fermion”

The Author sent email to the editor of the European Physical Journal, warning them of plagiarism, and requesting that his theory was quoted in the article, in order to mischaracterize plagiarism (DOCUMENT 16). The editor of the magazine simply ignored the request of the author, leaving it unanswered.


The refusal of the physics community to acknowledge the merits of the QRT stems from a frustration that physical feeling comes with these recent new experience that comes by demolishing the current theories. For physicists want to move to the public an image that they belong to a community of demigods who deciphered the mysteries of Nature. This pride when we see some new astronomical discovery confirms a prediction of Einstein. All the world's newspapers and television are unanimous in with fanfare disclose further confirmation of the great magician of Physics, with titles such as "Einstein And once again hit". But we have seen the media release with fanfare the news "Einstein was wrong", after the publication of the experience of 2011 The news only appeared darkly in the Times of India, under the title "Light created from vacuum shows empty space is a myth "(title that does not even mention the mistake of Einstein) and the physics community was silent. And the strategy seems to be obvious: hope that in time this failure of Einstein is forgotten.

In contrast, recognition and disclosure of the merits of Author in having correctly predicted that space is not empty (and proposed a structure for the space and that was plagiarized by European Physical Journal) would consequently precisely the opposite of what the physics community want: to expose to the public the failure of Einstein, they expect to be forgotten and lost in time (that is not tarnished the golden glorious that the physical and the media have created to dazzle the audience with the mythological Einstein).

There is yet another reason to wish that the physical experience of 2011 into oblivion. It is that experience (which showed that the space must have structure) knocks the current theories: Supersymmetry in string theory and the Higgs boson. Here's the sequence of events:

• Physical assumed that there is a super-symmetry in the structure of the matter, namely that each particle has its symmetric, the antiparticle it.

• But the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider-LHC in 2012 belied supersymmetry

• Experience 2011 (demonstrating that the space must have structure) suggests that symmetry does not exist in the structure of matter, but it is there in the structure of space: each particle has its antiparticle of the ether (as proposed in QRT in 2006, and subsequently proposed in 2013 in an article published in European Physical Journal).

• As a result of space having structure, the Higgs (which was detected at the LHC in 2012) is not the Higgs boson that physicists supposed to be. The boson is detected just a boson like any other, without the function of giving mass to the particles that give it (the proposed Higgs theory).

• Having the LHC failed to prove Supersymmetry, physicists are already planning to build a superacelerador 10 times more potent than the current LHC. This will cost billions and billions of dollars, which will generate employment for thousands of physicists for years. But admitting the theoretical consequences of the result of the experience of 2011, the construction of this new superacelerador is meaningless, because the theoretical consequences of this experience in 2011 imply the definitive fall of Supersymmetry, the Higgs boson, and string theory. Therefore, this experience of 2011 is not welcome in the current circumstances. And it is understood that the refusal of physicists recognize the merit of the author's theory is related to their refusal to recognize the theoretical consequences of the experience of 2011.

Another reason for the resistance against the recognition of the physical theory of the Author is consensus that currently exists in the physical that the definitive discovery of the structure of matter is a task for groups formed by hundreds of physicists working with sophisticated mathematical theories and building powerful superaceleradores to confirm their theories. And do not admit that the mystery of the structure of matter can be deciphered by a single person, as evidenced in the words of physicist Daniel Lopes:

"Of course, his theory may be right, the same way that an elementary school gari garbage collector has the chance to discover how to unify gravity and quantum theory, but is highly unlikely."


Because of the strong force acting between protons and neutrons with the same intensity she operates between two protons, according to the current Nuclear Physics heavy nuclei with peers and equal amount of protons and neutrons must have spherical or ellipsoidal shape (the 92U232 nucleus oscillates deforming If between spherical and ellipsoidal shape, like an accordion).

But in early 2013 physicists at the University of Liverpool reported the result of research that indicated that the core has 88Ra224 pear shaped. To explain this unexpected format 88Ra224, Professor Peter Butler proposed a hypothesis: that there is a Z-axis that divides the nuclei:

(see the Z-axis designed by Prof. Butler on the blackboard - DOCUMENT 17).


But the existence of the Z-axis is impossible considering the current principles of nuclear physics. For this reason some physicists now think the possibility of a fifth fundamental force of nature, who would act differently between protons and neutrons. Proposal, however, the existence of a fifth fundamental force already demonstrates the merits of the QRT, they are currently considered only four fundamental forces. Admit a fifth force would mean a change in the current principles of physics, and the need for change in the Principles of Modern Physics was the main argument advocated by the author in his book QRT.

But according to QRT no need to admit the existence of a fifth force, because the existence of the Z-axis has been predicted theoretical Author, without the existence of a fifth force. The existence of this arises from the Z-axis core structure proposed in the QRT.

The existence of the Z-axis is described in Article CRITIQUE TO THE MODELS OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS and Article BETA-DECAY, the following pages from the book:

Page 126 (18 DOCUMENT)


Page 127 (19 DOCUMENT)


Page 129 (20 DOCUMENT)


Page 130 (21 DOCUMENT)


Page 131 (22 DOCUMENT)


Page 133 (23 DOCUMENT)


Page 160 - on this page the author summarized the various tracks (nuclear phenomena) that existed until that moment, and that required the existence of the Z-axis in atomic nuclei. Such clues corroborating its new nuclear model (DOCUMENT 24). The spherical shape of the nucleus Ra224 detected by experiments in 2013 was more a nuclear phenomenon to be added to the tracks already mentioned by the author in his book.


Page 161 (25 DOCUMENT)


7- Face to the above

, wishing to conserve their rights, this is to question the pleading, for the same within 10 (ten) days of the relevant summons, come recant plagiarism for publishing your QRT book.

Everything under penalty of being filed their action Damages, getting them subject to court costs and attorney's fees.

This asks you made ??the intimarão pleaded, already qualified, paid the fees and elapsed forty-eight (48) hours, to proceed with the delivery of interpellation to the supplicant regardless Shuttle, for legal purposes.

Give to the cause the value of R $ 1,016.50 (one thousand sixteen dollars, and fifty cents) for purposes of costs and scope.