Chapter  V.02 - Court hearing

On 26 September 2002, the falsehood apology was made, like in the Trial of Dreyfus or Seznec, without any stenographic report and/or hearing recording. In the wide courtroom on the first floor, there was not a massive public attendance, but only people who connected to the hearing and a few unknown people. From the balcony Serdet ogled and from the door it was possible to discern Davost, the ex- manager of judicial services. Witnesses were present, except N. Curti who for the second time absconded, a glaring absence carefully planned to avoid her testimony. The  Landwerlin ‘s President had followed, for the whole of 2001, my useless appeals against Judge Hullin’s "ordonnance", knew the presence of the committed forgeries, as did D. Auter. It was the prelude of a reply like an Inquisition Trial ! At the beginning, together with my lawyers, we were sure about the exhaustive proof and the supporting argumentations, I was sprawled on a wood high-backed seat ( it was a bench). Far away from my lawyers, I had prepared all indictments and the nine dossiers concerning the rogatory, and I was ready to take down every word. But unfortunately what happened confirmed that the plot was again the same one and that everything was planned to continue the hidden plot like in the first instance.

At the beginning of the hearing the various transgressions emerged :

- Advancement of charges : from fraud receiving to defalcation, this was a violation of art. 337 and 339 of the Code of Monaco and a violation of art. 14-3 and b concerning the Political and Civil Rights already effective in Monaco from 12 February 1998, without having any approval by the accused part, simply sic et simpliciter !.

- Witnesses hadn’t been told to go out of the courtroom, a full violation of art. 307 and 389 of the Code of Monaco and of art.14-1 concerning the Civil and Political Rights  already effective in Monaco from 12 February 1998.

It must be underlined that this magistrate had given declarations in newspapers about the respect of Political and Civil Rights, and in the magazine "Revue de droit monegasque" he declared that in lack of the penal code of Monaco, he followed the French one, but in this case he had a deep jurisprudential amnesia, to be considered  like a negative example.

Carrying on, when witnesses had been called, through a superciliousness behaviour, he passed over the fact that Mrs. Curti was not present as if her testimony had no importance ! To remain astonished, a denial to the "defence right" ; at Iotta’s testimony there was the confirmation of the declarations already obtained in the First Instance, her personal supposition of "relata refero" by her subordinate. Lawyer’s Bertozzi interrogation of G. Tiberti was really upsetting. Tiberti was red-faced, sweaty, and spoke gibberish when asked  the precise questions about planned falsehood, he didn’t give any explanation, but he only set the blame on somebody else. Facing the D.I.A.’s matter he had the courage to deny the documental evidence, even through omission of the facts in the courtroom ! It happened also that the C.A. Landwerlin’s President, in perfect naturalness, as if falsehood was a legal fact, removed this testimony. So the guilty person who, "reo admits" a forgery during a trial, is not punishable ! More shattering was the fact to have showed him 1,400 pages about the rogatory in nine dossiers, asking explanation of "scanty" 24 pages. During a pause, an usher had been asked to look for the above mentioned pages in the dossier, and came back carrying a trolley full of tomes. At this point the integrity omission of the rogatory was sure !

What impressed us most was when D. Auter, took the floor. We expected a further virulent attack, but on the contrary, he had understood the precise responsibilities, showing the real guilty people, and considered my presence to be executory but not belonging to M. Testa’s criminal plan. It was obvious that he was clearly aware of the previous inquiries by Richet and the Inspector Van de Corput. Everything was proved by the rogatory’s elements, and emerged that the story was different to what Hullin planned through Tiberti’s falsehood ! Auter abundantly explained all details and acted towards me in a completely opposite way to the First Instance.

Lawyer Bertozzi took the floor but he was interrupted by the C.A. Landwerlin’s President, who invited Bertozzi to conclude quickly because he had to fly to Paris !,This hearing was an act, with a precise purpose. It was useless to go on, because the verdict was already decided ; in fact judgement proved it, in all its evidence.