Brazilian Judge Thais Borges recently declared TelexFree's latest appeal attempt was conducted in "bad faith," marking a new turn in the company's ongoing disputes with the nation's court system. This ruling follows a consistent pattern of the company's public relations strategy, which often involves proclaiming legal victories or new, infallible strategies.

TelexFree typically announces these developments on Facebook or YouTube. After court rejections, another video or announcement appears, often spinning the defeat as an overwhelming success or unveiling a new ploy. This communication style has been a staple since Acre authorities suspended TelexFree's Brazilian operations in June.

More than fifteen TelexFree appeals have been denied in various Brazilian courts. The judge in the Acre case, Thais Borges, appears to have grown tired of the tactics.

Part company owner Carlos Costa previously declared "God used him to create TelexFree." He later appeared in a video surrounded by stacks of books, attempting to look academic. Costa asserted that the presence of many books proved TelexFree was not a Ponzi scheme.

Judge Borges was not swayed by Costa's continued attempts to portray an alternative reality to TelexFree's affiliates. The judge found the company's latest appeal, a "motion to clarify," was filed in bad faith. This particular motion appealed an earlier decision on yet another TelexFree appeal.

The original "motion to clarify" sought to overturn the Acre injunction. This injunction prohibits TelexFree from recruiting new investors or paying out existing affiliates in Brazil. The court had already rejected TelexFree's initial argument that the injunction was invalid.

The second "motion to clarify" then accused the first decision of being "silent and obscure." TelexFree claimed the injunction decision lacked legal provisions, making it "silent." It also argued the decision was "obscure" because the court had never explicitly banned the sale of VOIP services.

TelexFree argued it should still be able to sell VOIP services, but could not due to frozen assets. The company claimed the injunction should be overturned because it did not provide instructions on how to continue VOIP sales despite the asset freeze. Critics noted TelexFree never genuinely offered VOIP services, rendering the point moot.