- My
formal and substantial praise of Judge Commissary Philippe NARMINO
who was the only supporting figure at a “ right trial “ ; the only worthy
Judge of deep legal knowledge . In the first trial step I lodged Italian
documentation which he accepted and had translated. Such proceeding actually didn’t
match with the normal commercial laws ; in fact for a professional activity
it was applied the rule of a commercial activity ; such anomaly raised many
doubts confirmed by French judges and in Monaco.
- Before dealing the
trial steps I must fix some premises to understand how the matter coming
from the employees , timely suborned, who asked the insolvency condition
because the salaries of March mysteriously hadn’t been paid giving to the
Bank my supposed unrecognizable signature .
In
order
:
-
- -
After 14 April the zealous employees had given each account elements to the
Cabinet Garino planning the plunder and the degradation of the Cabinet.
- -
Although in
“active” balance on 21st June 2001 the Court in the first instance, as amply
proved, declared “Insolvency“ thanks to the freeze on the bank
accounts as it was falsely declared that they held funds relevant to the
"Banca
di Roma" fraud .
- -
Each
official and administrative item was openly available.
- -
On the
24 May 2001 the lawyer P. Cohen wrote to the payer Mr. Garino (judicial
liquidator) , giving
each element of the “active” , never considered, and asking the reduction of
the staff charges, but the obtained answer confirmed the doubts.
- -
On the
6th July 2001 the lawyer P. Cohen elucidated all points of the matter and
the developments giving all account elements of the direction explaining
that such proceeding was baseless.
- -
The
publication on 13 July 2001, having requested passive debts for
suppliers and
others agreed, with the accounts which had been continuing without a legal
warden since 14 April 2001, thus allowing for the looting of the Cabinet.
- -
After my
repeated requests I managed to meet with Mr. A. Garino and the lawyer JM. Bertozzi ,
for the examination of same files, several
colossal mistakes emerged and I asked to be able to analyse the documentation.
- -
On
26 November 2001 I wrote to Mr. P. Davost, the person in charge at the
Judicial Authority in Monaco, but I was denied the means of proving
the truth , such as with documents and portable PC . I was only given a
verbal answer in a corridor by a third party who omitted to write the answer down
in order to avoid giving proof of the
violation of my right to defence .
- -
On 30 November 2001,
with the support of my lawyer, I asked for a meeting for
clarification but I did not receive an answer.
-
Following this preamble, it must be
underlined that thanks to the unfair action of the preliminary inquiry
and the abuse , everybody was sure of my insolvency . On 17 January 2002
I received the above mentioned “
declaration” of insolvency and the liquidator A. Garino, defended by lawyer C. Pasquier Ciulla
, summoned me to appear at the Tribunal on 24 January 2002, thus
not allowing me any means of defending myself. After reading the “declaration” I had the confirmation that none of the
evidential elements had been considered , but that everything was based on
statements which had not been verified. The figures shown were completely
out of the context of the accounts. In fact unfounded figures and fraud
attempts were included in the balance in red. Even though it was
meaningless I prepared the defense indictment which was registered in
Italian and accepted by
Judge Narmino.
- Although every
element
was exhaustive and every economic movement was fully examined, in
spite of the accounts freeze about which Mr Garino wrote to Judge
Hullin four times without getting an answer, the verdict was reached .
And nothing was done to get back the assets side which were not considered.
But this time the law was totally observed, my notes and the defence were
accepted. Until 17 January 2002 the deficit hadn't been verified and the
mentioned numbers were completely wrong . But I couldn’t prove anything
because of the “denial” of means and documents. In the context of the
verdict my formal protest was clearly reproduced, but I thought it was
excessive to ask for an agreement as the activity and my family were
economically killed that it was impossible to face daily expenses . As it
happened the Court of 30 October 2001, in a dissertation which was
perplexing in its contents. The "Calvary" of the adjournments began
with this verdict. In November 2003 the balance in red was confirmed for the
amount of Euro 1,844,429.93 compared to the Euro 4,612,736.31 mentioned in the verdict. But it was
not enough: the frauds of F. Castellino and of A. Di Fani and
many other mistakes were resolved only in 18 June 2006 !
