Chapter VI - Supreme Court Appeal

By this time the claimed repeal had to be arranged, it was obvious that all trials had a common denominator : to create a guilty figure by any means, transgressing law, in front of documentation they had answered through falsehood. Lawyer Bertozzi was hopeful as the Supreme Court of Appeal of the magistrates was in Paris, so no prejudices would have existed .Bertozzi and lawyer Marquet’s thoughts were fallacious, the facts proved the contrary. The elements in arranging the repeal were obvious, and in particular there was already an Appeal verdict ready in relation to the fact that a verdict is useless if witnesses remain in the court room. According to the present documentation, the claim had been prepared based on the main points : facts and proceeding, the events background had been given again, pointing out the irregularities of the First Appeal; particularly about the rogatory’s omission, about Testa and Mangione’s declarations and about the total non-involvement in relationship with Testa ; about the facts that the transfers had been made to three banks : Credit Foncier de Monaco, Compagnie Monégasque de Banque and the Banca del Gottardo, and the defendants were only two. Regarding the Court of Appeal’s motivations, the following transgressions emerged :

I° - Violation of art. 337 and 339 of the penal code of Monaco and violation of art. 14-2 of the international pact of Political and Civil Rights executive in Monaco since 12 February 1998 for : lack of reasons, lack of answers to the conclusions and transgression of defence rights.

II° - violation of art. 14-3 about the upgrading, mentioning an executive law in Monaco from 24 February 1997, for the lack of the explicit acceptance.

III° - violation of art. 14-1 and 2, concerning the lack of reasons, the deficiency of answers to conclusions and transgression of defence rights; about Tiberti’s forgery at Mangione’s verbal trials and about his personality; concerning the fact that I knew Testa , about Iotta’s declarations. It was only her deduction disproving Mrs. Curti, who had been "hidden" at the two instances, and to the employees’ declarations.

IV° -  Violation of art. 307 and 389 and of art. 14-1, about the deficiency of reasons, about the lack of answers to conclusions and transgression of defence rights, as witness remained in the room and so, present at the debate, their testimony was undermined.

In these four points, in 23 pages, the planned schemes in the "justice denied", had been faced. This was the point of a servile application of law. Serdet’s answer, in a page and a half, didn’t satisfy the first three points. Only at the fourth point he defined this transgression as not proved and not substantial!!  It’s the reason why there was no stenographer and/or recording of the speech. It was really scandalous to lie, perfectly knowing it, in front of several people and lawyers. At this point the verdict was awaited, an anecdote among lawyers. It was hoped that they would have never had any relationship with the local Institutions to be sure about their neutrality and the real application of law, but the reality was different. In fact when I received the verdict, I read the last page to know the names of the judges, two out of three, as P. Bilger wrote in the book "Un avocat général s'est échappe",  affected their "trash". At this point I was sure about the verdict result.

The demagogy of judicial power was at its apex. During those months I wondered in what country I was. I read several law books and recognized more and more the figure of the sinister side of the  “kabinettsjustiz” and an un-even-sided behaviour like the trial Dreyfus with the same determination to build everything on falsehood.

In a page and a half, the several points had been examined in the falsification and in falsehood:

at the point n.I°, considerable was the claim that the Rogatory had been done carefully, it was composed in acts!! If this didn’t mean to lie, we should wonder what it was.

At the point n.II°, "omitted" maybe it was not interesting enough to answer.

At the point n.III°, according to the First Appeal, he didn’t consider the documental proof, and considered manipulations and falsehood as if they were the Gospel’s words.

At the point n.IV°, the apotheosis, as there was no proof about the fact that the witnesses remained in the Court Room, the assertion was groundless ! 

The certainty of rights and justice had lost all value in front of such a demagogy, in the full violation of any proceeding, supporting any manipulation, omissions and falsehood starting from investigations to the Court Appeal, it was a real juridical farce.