Chapter III - Preliminary trial's conclusion and commitment for trial

After 409 detention days, the apotheosis, on 15 May 2002, the adjournment commitment for trial had been issued as follows:

- recycling, fraud, and receiving  

Reduced everything to:

- RECYCLING; declaring: dismiss the case for others. Several readings were necessary, and I understood the purpose, from the 14 pages emerged a sense of rancour and fury far from juridical ethical sense. He started from indictment, without any proof, considering it as if it was appurtenance. He concentrated only on the calumnious sense with arrogance, mentioning groundless facts and events. They were simple ideological falsehoods, truth manipulation of the facts and documents, they were only great mistakes and the demonstration that acts hadn’t been read. Looking for accusing proof, it’s easy to understand that from the refusal action dated 16 January 2002, he declared that the inquiry was going to be closed.

Later, when the detention act was renewed on 31 January 2002, the dossier was going to be closed in the following hours, and it was repeated through another action on 29 March 2002, and after four months the commitment for trial was reached. From the last interrogatory on 5 October 2001, inquiry was stagnant at suppositions. Later a lot of elements emerged, but his purpose was to underline the image of a person who belonged to the Italian Mafia! This was really this judge’s obsession about Italians.

In fact it was important for him to point out the presence of criminal records to underline much more the doubtful ethic. During the proceeding of commitment for trial, all mentioned facts were full of great mistakes:   

1) Regarding MINNIE S.c.i., bad faith and manipulation of documents emerged. The concrete documental truth of the company hadn’t been considered; after inquiry, he “discovers” that this company had been founded in favour of Mr. Luigi ARDINO and that subscription fees had been held by a certain Mr. Gaetano SANGIORGI; all of them were people of doubtful ethics. Reading the formal registered act , it emerges that the members are Mr. And Mrs.CUTINI and Mrs. Andrée BURINI FROLLA, in any official act of the company the mentioned names appear, totally unknown even professionally.

Mr. And Mrs. CUTINI, introduced by lawyer Renato ALBERTI in San Remo, asked for legal advice to resolve a company problem about a false assembly organized by the manager who was in charge; consequently the handwritten assembly, all acts changes had been made by the Notary AUREGLIA, and through legal proceedings at the Court in Monaco, defended by lawyer D. ESCAUT.; the company won such trial and was given back to its lawful owners, Mr. And Mrs. CUTINI.

2) Dr. Giampiero CATONE ,  who was a  business consultant in Rome and who taught Economy at the University PIO V in Rome , was chief Secretary for Minister Rocco BUTTIGLIONE, asked for legal advice to create some companies according to English rules : the precise purpose of such holdings was to buy subscription fees of Italian companies, to handle some properties in Italy, specialized in import/export; the only purpose was to reduce the burden of taxation. Everything had to happened through precise planning and paying the due taxes. About his activity, from company documentation, it clearly emerged that such transaction was legal ; it must be pointed out that DENICRAFT Ltd  and DEMEAN Ltd had never been in trade and never invoiced. They obtained only fees from Italian  S.r.l companies, as they were holding. The handled companies weren’t forty; it was another manipulation of the facts and statements which were disproved in the rogatory, taken by Italian reporters who didn’t verify facts and details.

3) Lobbying for BINGO, the classic transaction in cooperation with Italian entrepreneurs, who were introduced to me by accountant Fausto Magnarelli in Rome. A company should have been constituted to handle the BINGO game, defined by the all-knowing judge as an ill-defined business, which was without any logic. According to such declarations he showed his ignorance of the system known as “rope” used in the companies, even if such system was legally and normally used internationally.  

4) Company TAILLEUR Industrie, according to the credit transfer made at the Banca del Gottardo in favour of IF Fiduciary Ltd. It was declared to SICCFIN the fraud attempt  against the TAILLEUR Industrie. Such assiduity WAS NOT for everybody. After verifying the rogatory in Paris,it emerged that the false credit transfer order was in favour of the Fiduciary Ltd account n. 24369 on 29 December 1999 ; for pure “ illogical ” intuition, the above mentioned transfer had been charged to the IF FIDUCIARY Ltd n. 16322. From the rogatory documents it emerged that there was not any relationship between the  TAILLEUR Industrie and the IF FIDUCIARY Ltd. It had been mentioned without any relation to the event. 

5) Relationship with Alain DEVERINI. He had only been a client of the Cabinet. After having searched for him many times to settle his balance situation, any business consultant activity had been closed ; only later I knew about the events which took place in Vienne, and the rogatory, showing once again that I was not involved in any affair.  

6) Relationships with Daniele BIZZOZERO,an Italian entrepreneur who worked in the car trade, introduced by Dr. Fiorenzo SQUARCIAFICHI, consultant in Ventimiglia and representative Consul at the Principality of Monaco in Italy. He had been given legal advice to create an import/export car company according to English law system. There had never been any problems in the course of his activity; in fact he was a normal client. 

According to the main, but not exhaustive points , it seemed to be a real eristic treatise, even taking all Verbal Trials for granted, all transformed by the Police Inspector  G. Tiberti. Even in the presence of documentation about the English, Irish companies and others, Tiberti made declarations which were really ridiculous : the omission of the clients; the proof of the obsession that I knew Mario Testa; the mysterious investigations which omitted to mention all connected banks, to show all proof elements through manipulation and/or omission, the various interpretations of documents  without any correlation with reality.    

It’s easy to recognize the sybaritic individualism moved by envy, light echoes of mad puritanism against “rich people”, over condemnations and pains caused by those who think they represent justice, the light touch of malignity to cause suffering without any reason. I’d like to underline that I read in a book about the peroration of a judge, who for an inquired colleague, underlined that he had a family, children.... I wonder if Tiberti made such a consideration as he defamed a person with the purpose of carrying out his plan. This is the conclusive aspect of compulsion for the pleasure of having power and revenge for having rebelled against falsehood.

This fact should make one think about all used proceedings, about Institutions which are without any control, about the certainty of remaining unpunished in front of any perpetrated defalcation. It’s a sort of violence against somebody; I’m talking about a psychical violence used to have power and authority, helped by institutions. According to the tradition of the ”habeas corpus” in the XVI century in England, which wants absolutely and with every means a guilty person. As Beccaria’s theorem says, even through falsehood, you are “guilty”.