FALSEHOOD always has its origin in a collective representation which is already present. It’s an orchestration of people who are bound by lobbying and/or interests, to create a criminal plan, to have a “STORY” to build an indictment and to have a guilty party.

As in France we can remember the case of Dreyfus, Seznec and the last Outreau affair: in Italy the case of Tortora, in the Principality of Monaco the Iagher case. Starting from the police inquiry, investigations, trials, everything was based and built on FALSEHOOD.  

Judge Hullin’s several assertions are evident: an eccentric genius of falsification, through a paroxysmal pathology over anything he can label as Mafia and/or banditry for Italians: a real phobia.

During his logorrhoea indictment he didn’t look for proof, verification and grounds. On the contrary as influenced by Amanita Muscaria it was a shocking progression of declarations aimed at accusation. Beccaria’s expression to want “a guilty party” is appropriate.

Without any hesitation, manipulating and mystifying truth, helped by police inspector Tiberti, as with inspector Bonny in the Seznec case, devoted to creating several contradictions in his verbal trials to please Hullin.

This police inspector wanted to rise to a young “VIDOCQ” and to delight to impunity like “administrative guaranty “, going back to the Bonaparte Consulate (art. 75 Const.22 Frimaio anno VIII – 13/12/1799), as he didn’t hesitate to do verbal trials with apocryphal signatures and inquiries.

Such acts, which are prosecutable, even though they have emerged and are known to magistrates, were silently endorsed, in a declaration. In the newspaper Nice Matin on 6 April 2003 the attorney Serdet, declared that such complaint was groundless (sic!), even though it was supported by documental indisputable proof  such as the D.I.A.’s answer, transcribed in the answer, manipulating truth making exactly the contrary emerge.

Beyond all doubt, it was a collective representation of falsehood on which the whole investigation would be based. In fact judge Hullin’s “Ordonnances” were “eristic” treaty, the corrupt art of being right even when the condition was to be wrong. In his Ordonnances he had used all possible tricks until an absurd situation in his last “ Ordonnances” in which he declared that the investigation would have been concluded in the following hours, but on the contrary another 2.496 hours passed again.

In total indifference!

Judge Hullin was looking for supports for his lies. In fact in front of claims and/or refusal of acts, it was obvious that he was endorsed by several magistrates who were restorers of the “Kabinettsjustiz”

absolute monarchies but “nicodemian” the truth. It was very clear that he was executing a precise order as in the “ LETTRE DE CACHET”, those letters used by the kings to close inconvenient trials.

In his “ mendacio” it’s interesting to read ,on page 191 of the book “Monaco et le blanchiment” of the French Assembly with President Vincent Peillon, relator Arnaud Montebourg, that Italian police and judicial authorities must be taken by the hand during international rogatories.

On 7 February 2003 it was upsetting that the European Court of Human Rights and more precisely 7 lawyers, condemned several French magistrates, even Hullin, defining them “ delirious, injurious and groundless… omissis”. 

In fact during the international rogatory H091 in Rome, he clearly exalted his forgery. Even though reported to P. Davost, the ex manager of the judicial office, and to attorney Serdet. Through tacit condescension they confirmed the evident collusion among judicial units. It’s sure that they would have never taken part in the “ Ordine dei Filateti” founded in France in 1773, whose greek meaning is “ Fond of truth”, an utopia even for them.

It was clear that the precise will and purpose were to distort the precious inquiry of police inspector Van de Corpus and Judge Richet. It was necessary to find another guilty party and this is proved if we read what is declared in the book “Judge a Monaco” of Charles Duchaine, to avoid the bankers as they are the untouchable.

In fact in the French C.P.P. the article n. 434-1 reads: “Anyone who knows of a crime and it’s still possible to prevent or limit the effects...omissis” is punishable. But it doesn’t happen in Monaco. Even though the bank knew the existence of such crime as it was forewarned by the Banca di Roma that had discovered the fraud, they did not take any actions to prevent and limit the effects.

It was eye-opening to read Judge J.F. Landwerlin’s claim in the “Revue de droit monégasque”who declared to follow the French C.C.P. in the gaps of the C.C.P. in Monaco, but in this case he had a deep juristic amnesia.

The commitment for trial had no limits to what was declarable. It was a real obsessive trying to find guilt in every case and everywhere, his clear pathology as Jung defined “enantiodromia”, which means overturn to the opposite.

In this judicial act the following emerged : glaring errors, falsification and manipulation of facts and documental truth, notaries documents which hadn’t been read and verified, the rogatory’s documents in Rome had been omitted through forgeries.

All judicial acts had been based on “ DECLARED FALSEHOOD” without considering jurisprudence , distorting it in its application , according to Enzo Tortora’s quote: “ a real judicial slaughter”.