Accused and proud of it - Marco Travaglio
(46:53)

Watch all the episodes of di Passaparola - Diventa fan di Passaparola su Facebook
Download MP3

Subscribe free of charge for the audio podcats:

Mills the corruptor and Berlusconi the corrupted

The direction these have taken explains the “official” media’s silence on these two hearings. Let’s start with the Mills sentencing. As you know, on 25 February this year the Court of Cassation handed down its ruling, in which the Court finally confirmed Mills’ position. Said Court also deemed his crime of perjury to be statute barred, whereby he lied under oath in two court cases against Silvio Berlusconi in return for a bribe amounting to 600-thousand Dollars, which he was paid immediately after he gave his testimony.
There was a question regarding precisely when he physically received that money, so the prosecution held that the money became available to Mills at the precise moment that it came into his possession, while others believed that it actually occurred a number of months earlier. You should know that the dispute was over a few months. According to those in favour of delaying statute barring, the offence allegedly occurred in January 2000, while the other side reckoned it happened in November 1999. This was a vital issue since the Court of Cassation’s ruling was handed down on 25 February and, if the offence was indeed committed in February 2000, the Courts ruling would have come in time to avoid the 10 year limit for statute barring, a ten year limit that used to be 15 years before the advent of the former Cirilli Law, which, unsurprisingly, was promulgated just after this crime was uncovered.
If, instead, the crime had indeed been committed in November 1999, the Court of Cassation would have been obliged to consider it statute barred because it would have reached the ten-year limit less than three months before the Court of Cassation’s final ruling. So it was a case of nip and tuck, and the Court chose to accept the second version of events and thus declared the crime statute barred for a matter of just three months. It was already clear from the ruling, however, that Mills had indeed committed the crime and, in fact, Mills was being convicted by the Court of Cassation, just as he had been by both the Court of Milan and the Milan Court of Appeal, which sentenced him to pay 250-thousand Euro in compensation to the State, in the person of the Prime Minister, for damages to the public justice system, its impartiality, etc.
You will also undoubtedly also remember that when the sentence was handed down just two months ago, the entire centre right stated that: this is proof that Berlusconi is being persecuted, now even Mills has been absolved. This was on Minzolini’s Tg1 news broadcast, whose headlines blared Free, “Silvio absolved”. Berlusconi guilt or innocence was not even mentioned in that sentence, however, in actual fact, knowing whether the person accused of having been bribed by Berlusconi was indeed guilty or innocent also tells you whether the individual accused of having paid the bribe in the first place is himself guilty or innocent. In fact it was completely proper to link the legal fate of Mills to that of Berlusconi, but the problem is that Mills was never absolved, so Berlusconi could also not have been absolved. Since Berlusconi had the trial delayed by more than a year and a half thanks to the Alfano Bill, and the statute barring deadline for the charges against him was frozen, it means that those charges are still not statute barred – they will only become statute barred around summer/autumn of next year – and the original court case has already been resumed, the judges may still manage to complete it, notwithstanding having to run a slalom course between the legitimate impediments, etc, and to deliver a high court ruling.
The entire centre-right lied outright, including the house organs, in claiming that Mills had been absolved, that, therefore, Berlusconi would also be absolved, that the trial should not even be resumed and that Berlusconi should in fact be compensated for any damages resulting from this trial, while, in reality, Mills was indeed sentenced to pay damages to the State for having perjured himself in exchange for money paid by Fininvest in order to save Berlusconi. In other words, they completely overturned the truth.
In the other camp, no one even bothered to respond. As you know, the other camp is made up of a bunch of arse-creepers who pretend to be impartial but in fact stand by Berlusconi while hiding behind masks. These people said that: we are waiting to see the reasons for the sentence against Mills, but here they are now, the Court of Cassation’s reasons were released just 3 days ago, about forty pages worth of reasons, very legible and very clear and very official since they were issued by the united sections, the highest level of justice in our Country. What do these documents state? They obviously state many things and they make for interesting reading. In essence though, they constitute a biography of our Prime Minister and you will find these documents listed on the website www.ilfattoquotidiano.it. Nevertheless, I would like to highlight one passage from the document. Obviously the document states that Mills was bribed to lie under oath in order to protect Silvio Berlusconi, with money that came from the Finivest slush fund, and the judges could not really say otherwise, given that this fact was established by the Court and confirmed by the Appeal Court. The Court of Cassation’s role is merely to rule on whether or not their judgement was legitimate.
However, the Court of Cassation provides another very interesting insight, but why? Because the crime of perjury committed by Mills in Berlusconi’s interest and in return for a bribe paid out by Berlusconi’s companies in order to save Berlusconi from being convicted in two separate trials, affects the Court of Cassation, but why? Well, because in those two trials, the Court of Cassation issued a ruling that Berlusconi’s crimes were statute barred, that after Berlusconi had already been found guilty, just as occurred with Mills in this case. We’re talking about the All-Iberian trial involving the foreign account to foreign account payments made to Craxi, as well as other slush funds moved from the Swiss bank accounts held by this hidden offshore company registered in the channel islands and owned by Fininvest. So let’s forget about the All-Iberian case now since we know that it ended with the final first level conviction and the statute barring of the charges against Craxi and Berlusconi for illegal funding, so Berlusconi then had to downgrade the crime.
Now let’s discuss the other trial that Mills sidetracked with his lies and his reticence, because this is an interesting one because it involves the case of the famous bribes paid to the Financial Police by Fininvest. This was Berlusconi’s first trial after his entry into politics, the one where he was famously served with a summons to appear in court while attending an international conference in Naples and the case about which he has been whinging and whining for the past 15 years. This is the case that is being depicted as a symbol of the mother of all persecutions, so it is important for us to understand how it ended. He says that he was completely absolved, so they owe me an apology because I was absolved from the word go. However, if we read the Court of Cassation sentence regarding Mills, we discover the reason why Berlusconi was absolved in the first place and it is important to remember what we’re talking about here. There were 4 Fininvest bribes paid to the Financial Police, which were uncovered by the Milan pool back in 1994, when Berlusconi had only just been elected as Prime Minister, three of which bribes had been paid at the end of the eighties and the fourth was paid in 1992. One of the bribes involved Mediolanum, one involved Mondadori, one involving Videotime and then there was one that involved Telepiù in that the then Guarantor of the Press?, Santaniello?, had sent the Financial Police to investigate and audit Fininvest because it was suspected that, behind the scenes, the company in fact held a controlling interest in Telepiù, the pay-for-view TV company that was the forerunner of our current pay-for-view TV broadcasters, the first company established by Berlusconi and a number of his friends was called Telepiù.
If it had been ascertained that, back in 1992, Berlusconi already held more than 10% of the shares in Telepiù, it would have constituted a violation of the provisions of the Mammi Law, which established that in order to be able to keep his three unencoded television stations, namely Canale 5, Rete 4 and Italia 1, he was obliged to dispose of all his shareholdings in excess of 10% in the pay-for-view broadcasters, as well as selling off his newspapers, however, he proceeded to hand over his newspapers to his brother and his children.
So what did Telepiù do? He held almost all of the shares in Telepiù, but he had entrusted all of the shares, except for the 10% he was permitted, handing them over to a number of friends who acted as proxies. To whom he even gave money to buy the shares, so, in actual fact, the shares belonged to him but were registered as belonging to others.
If Santaniello, the Guarantor of the Press, had been able to confirm that this was the case, this patent violation of the Mammi Law would have resulted in a massive fine being imposed on Berlusconi, as well as the revocation of his unencoded television concessions, so he would instantly have lost his broadcasting rights and he would have had to watch Canale 5, Rete4 and Italia 1 closing down. This is what was at stake and that is why, when the Financial Police arrived on the doorstep, the manager of Fininvest that dealt with these matters at the time, namely Financial Manager Salvatore Sciascia, offered a bribe, some say of 50 million Italian Lire while others say 100 million, to the officers to close one eye, or rather both eyes as regards the ownership of Telepiù. This was the charge relating to the fourth bribe, the one paid out back in 1992 to the Financial Police.

If it weren’t for Mills, Berlusconi would be sitting in jail

In 1994, a number of Financial Police officers confessed to having taken bribes from Fininvest in return for, inter alia, overlooking who the true shareholders of Telepiù were, so what happened next? They tried to silence these officers, but unfortunately for them these officers had already spilled the beans and so began the corruption trial against the Financial Police. In the initial case, Berlusconi, Sciascia and the officers involved were convicted with regard to all 4 of the bribes, while on appeal this was limited to only three of the bribes, namely those paid prior to 1992, and which were then statute barred, while the fourth bribe, the one relating to Telepiù, they were all absolved due to lack of permissible evidence, but why? Well, because there was deemed to be insufficient proof that it was Berlusconi himself who bribed the officers to close an eye, or rather both eyes, with regard to the true shareholdings in Telepiù, since there were also other partners the court could not be certain that he himself approved the bribes and not one of the other individuals.
Mills’ testimony would have been decisive in the appeal case for the bribery of the Financial Police, because he was the person that had set up the offshore companies through which Berlusconi had funded the proxies so as to enable them to apparently buy out the shareholdings in excess of the 10% in their own name although Berlusconi still controlled said shareholdings. So Mills knew precisely to whom Telepiù belonged, so what did he proceed to do? He ducked and dived, as he later wrote to his accountant and, testifying with reticence, he refrained from linking those companies to Berlusconi personally but rather to the Fininvest Group in general. Thus the judges deemed that there was insufficient evidence to support the earlier conviction and, for this reason, they absolved Berlusconi on appeal in terms of Clause 2 of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedures Act. So what did the Court of Cassation do next? They ruled that there was insufficient evidence with regard to all four of the bribes and thus the court proceeded to absolve him on all four counts.
Now, however, in the Mills sentence handed down just the other day, the Court of Cassation states that, with regard to the issue of perjury, the absolution for lack of evidence would have instead resulted in the conviction of both Mills and Berlusconi if the former had told the truth and had not accepted a bribe from Berlusconi’s companies in return for protecting Berlusconi himself. In other words, in order to conceal the truth regarding the true ownership of Telepiù, bribes were paid to a number of Financial Police officers who were sent to inspect and audit the companies controlling Telepiù, Mills was bribed so that, when he stood up to testify, he would not tell the whole truth, and then, in order to conceal the fact that Mills had been bribed, they proceeded to carry on the campaign that has continued for so many years, including the introduction of the Alfano Bill and the other bullshit, but why? Simply because that which has emerged is now so big that it can no longer be stopped, so the only remaining option is to stop the actual trials, or to attempt to stop them, which is precisely what has happened.
The Court of Cassation, which was obliged to absolve the accused due to lack of evidence, evidence that should have been provided by Mills, who did not provide said evidence because he was a bought witness, now almost makes amends, saying that: had we known this when we were busy judging him, well, we certainly would not have absolved him. I’m going to read you the section in question so that at least, from now on, when you hear Berlusconi claiming that he has always been absolved, you will know that this is not true because he was obliged to downgrade his crime or reduce the statute barring limit in order to have six cases statute barred, plus another two sentences involving offences that, thanks to his efforts, him, the accused, are no longer deemed to be crimes in terms of the law. Furthermore, that sentence that says “absolved”, albeit for lack of evidence, that sentence handed down in the initial trial involving the bribing of Financial Police officers, is not actually an absolution, but simply a ruling, “bought” by paying off a witness, since they were unable to pay off the judges because they couldn’t find any judges in Milan that were willing to be paid off. That is what the Court of Cassation ruling has classified as an error of judgement. So you see, errors of judgement do not only apply to the conviction of innocent people, but also the absolution of the guilty ones, especially when the guilty parties manage to waylay their trials by bribing a witness.
The Court of Cassation says that: the crux of Mills’ reticence in the appeal case regarding the Finevest’s bribery of the Financial Police in 1998, if we are not mistaken, definitely revolves around the fact that he only referred to Fininvest in general terms and not to Berlusconi personally, the owner of the offshore companies that he (Mills) had created and that were used to fund the proxies that allegedly bought out Berlusconi's shareholdings in Telepiù. With this lie, they changed the course of the trial against the Financial Police.
The judges presiding over the initial trial were obliged to proceed by instinct and the result was that, on appeal, the lack of hard evidence concerning the true ownership of the offshore companies that were used to fund Berlusconi’s proxies in Telepiù resulted in the absolution of Berlusconi on appeal and finally by the Court of Cassation.
Therefore, Sciascia’s backhander paid to the Financial Police back in 1994 in return for ignoring the true ownership of the pay-for-view broadcaster and while Berlusconi was in the process of becoming Prime Minister for the first time, would have been punished by the conviction of Berlusconi himself, were it not for Mills’ bought testimony. In 2001, when the Court of Cassation absolved him for the first time in the case where there was deemed to be insufficient evidence, he would have been convicted for corruption and he would have landed in jail for 4 or 5 years because, at the time, he would not even have been eligible for a reduction of his sentence as a result of any pardon. So, instead of returning to Palazzo Chigi in 2001, he would have landed up at San Vittore, where he would have landed up in any event on the 25th February this year if it weren’t for the Alfano Bill that separated his trial from that of Mills and if it weren’t for the former Cirielli Law that reduced the deadline to qualify for the statute barring of both cases from 15years to 10 years, they would both have landed up in jail, some say with the chance that Berlusconi could have received house arrest, which is not so because, according to the former Cirielli Law, house arrest may only be granted to persons who are already 70 years old and was put in place precisely to save Berlusconi and Previti just when they were getting ready to celebrate their seventieth birthday.
So go and take a good look at this ruling, it is extremely interesting because it essentially rewrites part of the history of Berlusconi and the revisionism, supported by the servants that surround him, that he would have us believe, which is instead entirely false. So he is only absolved either because he has paid off the judge or the witness, otherwise he would be convicted. And if his cases are statute barred, it is only because he has reduced the statute barring limit and if he is absolved, it is only because the crime is no longer recognised as such in the law, which means that he has de-criminalized the crime, he himself, the one that committed the crime in the first place!

de Magistris was right

Now for the second court case. Here we’re talking about a totally different matter, but how did it end?.
It is relatively brief, a mere 21 pages of notification of conclusion of the investigations, which also serves as an arrest warrant for certain of the accused. But what is a notification of conclusion of the investigations precisely? When, after 6 months, a year, one and a half years or at most two years in the case of matters involving the Mafia, which is not the case here, a Magistrate completes his investigation, he is required to notify the individuals under investigation, the Attorneys and any victims of the crime that the investigation has been completed, after which the parties have 20 days within which to request further investigation or to request that they be questioned if this has not yet been done. Once they have submitted their requests and the Magistrate has dealt with any outstanding matters, the Public Prosecutor then requests that the matter be remanded for trial, which is almost always the case because when a Magistrate intends to request that the case be archived, he doesn’t send out any notification of conclusion of the investigation, but simply forwards the case file directly to the Preliminary Investigations Judge. In this case, they didn’t request that the case be archived, so who are the addressees of this notification of conclusion of the investigation? And who are the authors? The Chief Public Prosecutor of Salerno, namely Public Prosecutors Maria Chiara Minerva, Rocco Alfano and Antonio Cantarella, led by the new Chief Prosecutor, Franco Roberti. Salerno should remind you of something, or at least I hope so, because we have mentioned it on several occasions. Salerno’s is the Public Prosecutor’s Office that we have had reason to mention just recently because this is the Public Prosecutor’s office that has on two occasions, nay three, arranged to remand the current Mayor, Vicenzo De Luca, for trial. The very same gentleman that regularly insults Grillo, yours truly and numerous other people and who has just been absolutely trounced in the Regional elections in Campania. Can you believe that they were saying: in the Democratic Party, that he is a so-so candidate but he is a strong contender, very strong candidate, but now we have seen just how strong he truly is. Just imagine if he had been weak, he would have grabbed his overcoat instead of getting trounced, but never mind, let’s leave him be.
Furthermore, Salerno is also the Public Prosecutor’s office that sent people to go and search another Public Prosecutor’s office in December two years ago, namely that of Catanzaro, but why? Well, because the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office has jurisdiction with regard to any crimes committed by members of the Catanzaro Public Prosecutor’s office, while the Naples Public Prosecutor’s office in turn has jurisdiction with regard to any crimes committed by members of the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office, the Rome Public Prosecutor’s office has jurisdiction with regard to any crimes committed by members of the Naples Public Prosecutor’s, Perugia over those committed by the Rome office, and so on and so forth, and the Florence Prosecution has jurisdiction over those committed in Perugia, while Bologna has jurisdiction over Florence … this is the rule, essentially you may not investigate your own roommate and you have to approach the nearest Public Prosecutor’s office with jurisdiction over such matters whenever there is any crime committed by the Magistrates themselves. But were there any crimes involved, perhaps committed by Magistrates? Well. Luigi De Magistris had reported certain of his superiors, who had relieved him of the “Why Not” and “Poseidone” investigations, the first having been taken away from him by the Chief Prosecutor Dolcino Favi and the second by Chief Prosecutor Mariano Lombardi. He had also reported a number of his colleagues who, after the investigations had been highjacked from him, began to split them up, break them down and, in essence, bury them.
De Magistris thus reported his superiors and a number of his colleagues to Salerno because the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office had jurisdiction. His colleagues in Salerno in turn, reported De Magistris, saying that he was the one that was doing wrong things and that they had finally managed to rid Calabria of this idiot, this fanatic and visionary magistrate. Now , at the time, the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office, run by Chief Prosecutor Luigi Apicella and two very active substitute Prosecutors, Gabriella Nuzi and Dioniglio Verasani, conducted an investigation and decided that the complaints against De Magistri’s superiors and colleagues were unfounded and the entire matter should be archived. The Preliminary Investigations Judge subsequently archived the matter while, instead, De Magistri’s complaints regarding his superiors and colleagues were indeed well-founded and the investigations continued, given the theory that the “Why Not” investigation was buried to protect certain highly placed suspects, not so much Prodi, who was had been classified as a suspect for technical reasons involving the registered ownership of a telephone line, but more so because it was believed that he was the person who had the “Why Not” investigation stopped and given that the prosecutors that took over the case file from De Magistris had not sent all of the documentation through to the Preliminary Investigations Judge, who made his decision without having all the pertinent information at hand regarding Mastella’s involvement. This at least is the prosecution’s hypothesis, and in order to determine whether or not, in their archiving request to the Preliminary Investigations Magistrate, the prosecutors that took over from De Magistris indeed left out a few sheets of paper, we would need to examine the entire folder relating to the “Why Not” investigation and compare it to that attached to the archiving request to see if indeed everything was included. So that’s why the Salerno Prosecutors began to ask their Catanzaro colleagues, now charged with serious offences, for authorization … They didn’t immediately go and seize the said documentation but simply asked for the folder in order that they could make photocopies and then send back the original. Merely to make photocopies, you understand? Something that would perhaps take one day for a large folder if someone is appointed specifically to make the copies.
For 7 or 8 months, almost an entire year, two years ago, the Catanzaro Public Prosecutor’s office refused to deliver these documents. They sent only bits and pieces, then they procrastinated, then they sent more bits and pieces, but the entire folder never arrived, so, after an infinite series of reminders, at a certain point the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office had to carry on but could not do so, so they got together with the General Investigation and Special Operations Unit and went down to Catanzaro with a search and seizure warrant in hand in order to collect those documents by force, with the right to search the Magistrates’ homes and offices to see whether the individuals were hiding any documents on pen drives, diskettes, home computers, laptops, etc. This was the famous search of 3 December 2008, so what happened then? Well, a perfectly legal activity such as that carried out by the Salento Public Prosecutor’s office gets sold to the Italians as a war between rival Prosecutors’ offices, but why? Because, instead of complying with a legal request from their colleagues with jurisdiction over them, the Catanzaro office chose to be evasive, with the Chief Prosecutor claiming that this was a subversive act, rich coming from the person under investigation and a Prosecutors office that is refusing to hand over the “Why Not” dossier and then proceeds to seize back the documentation just seized by the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office and starts investigating their magistrates who went to search the offices at Catanzaro. There is just one small problem, namely that the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office has jurisdiction over Catanzaro, but the opposite is not true, because the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office can only be investigated by the Naples office, so a request should have been submitted to Naples, but instead they did it themselves, which was an abuse of power.
So we have one Public Prosecutor’s office that is merely doing its job in terms of the law, and another that is unjustifiably rebelling against a legal act, just like the family members of Camorra members do when the Police come to arrest some or other Boss in Scampia, throwing flower pots and tiles at them in an attempt to hinder the course of justice, except that, on this occasion, it was the Prosecutors of Catanzaro who were doing it to their Salerno colleagues.
Then, instead of rejecting this abomination, the usual blabbermouths of the press, the television, as well as left wing and right wing parties lovingly working together on this occasion, talking about the Csm, the Magistrates Association, a war between different Prosecutors’ offices, a truck takes out a bystander, until no one knows any longer precisely who attacked who!
I would like to read you this little brochure released just a few hours after the commencement of the search, while the Magistrates of Salerno were still busy searching the Catanzaro Prosecutor’s offices: On the orders of State President Giorgio Napolitano, the Secretary General of the State President’s office, Donato Marra, today despatched the following letter to the Public Prosecutor’s office of Salerno: Yesterday the Public Prosecutor’s office of Salerno carried out a search and seizure operation involving magistrates and the offices of the Catanzaro Public Prosecutor. Due to the methods used, such investigations have unleashed major speculation in the media and have raised certain disturbing questions. Furthermore, a letter sent to the State President by the Public Prosecutor of Catanzaro raised serious issues regarding the seizure of the official folders relating to the “Why Not” investigation, which falls within the jurisdiction of that office and has resulted in delays.
After De Magistris was removed from the investigations, they slept on them for more than a year, until the Salerno Prosecution came along and said: we’ll take them away for a few days and make some photocopies, which we have been asking you to do for months without success. Suddenly stung into action on the “Why Not” investigation, the Catanzaro Prosecutors write to the State President saying: they have taken the dossier away and we can no longer continue with the investigation. Just imagine, they were scared of losing another 24 hours, now that’s urgency for you.
I’m buggered if the State doesn’t swallow their shit and claims that what happened is somewhat disturbing, especially taking into account everything that State President Napolitano has given me to do, says his Secretary General, requesting that the Salerno Public Prosecutor to urgently provide information and, where possible, any documentation that will help to provide clarity regarding this unprecedented event, beginning with any opinion on the merits. Bloody hell, he’s just asked for explanations and documentation and now he also wants to know about the merits!
This is exceptional and has serious implications for the institutions, mainly that of paralysing the legal processes, but who will be working on the “Why Not” investigation on the very day that Salerno is making photocopies before returning the folder to Catanzaro? The only risk is that the paralysis that had been in place for more than a year, without giving a damn, would continue for one more day. Indeed, they went so far as to throw out De Magistris from Salerno. It was none other than the Csm itself that threw him out, chaired by Napolitano himself, and when the Chief Prosecutors and Prosecutors highjacked the investigation from De Magistris, not a soul within the Csm chose to defend him, indeed they proceeded to punish him instead!
As regards the paralysis of the court proceedings that resulted, as the Constitutional Court has reiterated on numerous occasions, the compromising of any good that comes from the efficiency of a trial, which is the principle of the indefinability of the jurisdiction, what we’re dealing with here is whitewashed sepulchres! This is the communiqué issued by the Quirinale, which climbs helter-skelter into the midst of an ongoing investigation, into a search that is still in progress and asking for an explanation, not from the party that is rebelling illegally against a legal search, but from the party that is conducting the legal search.

de Magistris was right

You know how it all ended? They threw Prosecutor Apicella out of the department and removed Prosecutors Nuzi and Verasani from Salento, exiling them to two prosecutor’s offices in the Lazio region, with all of the associated difficulties, especially for Judge Nuzi who has a young child, because they can no longer be allowed to work as prosecutors in Salerno and never again as public prosecutors, as stipulated by the gentlemen of the Csm, namely messrs. Mancino, Napolitano and the rest of the members of the Csm in unanimity. But what is written in the notification of conclusion of the investigation conducted by Apicella’s replacement, Chief Prosecutor Franco Roberti, and the replacements for Verasani and Nuzi, namely Minerva Alfano and Cantarella? They will no doubt say: Yes, now some good, kind prosecutors have arrived, not like those others that were sent away. Franco Roberti has come and he is well known because of he has often appeared on television as the Public Prosecutor of the battling against the Gomorra. He is the Assistant Prosecutor from Naples who, until a few months ago, was co-ordinating the activities against the Casalesi clan and who, in the past two or three years, has been responsible for the capture of the leadership of the clan, as well as the boss of the Casalesi clan.
We can trust these guys, what could they have done? Will they have taken that famous search and seizure warrant from two years ago that was rejected by Napolitano, the Csm, the left wing, the right wing, Tg1, Tg2, Tg3, Tg4, Tg5, Studio Aperto, as well as all the right wing and left wing newspapers and torn the investigation against those gentlemen Prosecutors of Catanzaro that are so good …, no, because in the notification of conclusion of the investigation, we see the very same charges formulated earlier by Apicella, Verasani and Nuzi in the famous search warrant, the one that everyone claimed was too long. Do you remember that, at a certain point, not knowing what more to say, they said that the search warrant was too long, as if there were a standard length for search warrants.
Albeit a little shorter, this one says the same thing, now we’ll wait and see whether they will now also throw out Roberti, Alfano, Cantarella and Minerva for having completely confirmed the investigations conducted by the magistrates that were thrown out.
The notification of completion of the investigations affects former prosecutor Lombardi, the man who relieved De Magistris of the “Poseidone” investigation, Salvatore Murone, his assistant prosecutor who helped him to highjack De Magistris’ investigations, Antonio Saladino, Head of the Works Company of Calabria, Giancarlo Pittelli, the famous Forza Italia member, Giuseppe Galati, the famous UDC member, Maria Grazia Nuzzi, the prosecutor’s live-in lover, PierPaolo Greco, the prosecutor’s step-son, Dolcino Favi, the public prosecutor that relieved De Magistris of the “Why Not” investigation, Enzo Iannelli, the public prosecutor that took over that position and rebelled against the Salerno search, as well as Alfredo Garbati, Domenico De Lorenzi and Salvatore Curcio, the three assistant prosecutors that inherited the investigations taken away from De Magistris. All in all there are 12 people under investigation, who now risk becoming defendants very soon and who are allegedly involved in offences ranging from the same as Apicella, Nuzi and Verasani were accused of and include Legal fraud like Mills and Berlusconi, and/or abuse of power, and/or making false declarations, and/or refusal to supply official documentation for failure to deliver the documentation, and/or favouring individuals under investigation.
But what are the theories proposed by the magistrates of the new Salerno Prosecutor’s office? That the Chief Prosecutors of the Catanzaro Prosecutor’s office at the time of De Magistris were being bribed by Saladino, Pittelli and Galati with favours, money or other things, etc., in return for sandbagging or delaying the investigations being conducted by De Magistris, who was eventually isolated and relieved of his investigations, or that those who did the deed did it because they disliked De Magistris, or that they did it in return for favours provided by De Magistris’ prime suspects, that is the prosecution’s contention, and when Salerno came asking for the documentation, they refused to hand them over, but why? Perhaps because those documents contained proof of what was going on.
This notification of conclusion of the investigations is also available on the “Fatto quotidiano” website, providing ample proof of corruption aimed at buying off the senior staff of the Catanzaro Public Prosecutor’s in return for money or other benefits. These are appalling examples of how these investigations have been highjacked and how the prime suspects in the “Why Not” and “Poseidone” investigations have managed to protect themselves. Contrary to popular belief, an alleged conflict of interest was created between Mastella and De Magistris so as to relieve De Magistris of the investigations and, once highjacked, the investigations were split up and broken down into numerous threads by assistant prosecutors who knew nothing about investigations. Furthermore, since the investigations were started by De Magistris, there was also some illegal interference aimed at delaying the investigation and favouring suspects like Saladino, Pittelli and Galati, and all because of an illegal pact between Attorney Pittelli and Prosecutor Lombardi. These are simply the charges, not a sentence, and merely a notification of conclusion of an investigation, however, because they conducted the investigation and because Nuzi, Verasani and Apicella were eventually thrown out, yet now we find that their investigation was sound and have been confirmed by totally unrelated prosecutors, and that the prosecutors of Catanzaro did indeed unduly refuse to hand over legal documents required for investigations being conducted by the Salerno Public Prosecutor’s office, to now find out that those investigations were in fact so good that they have been confirmed by a new batch of magistrates simply proves that there is no truth in the claims of a war between prosecutors’ offices, but that one of them was in the right and the other in the wrong. Reading through the various sources and the statements made by Mr. Genchi, who was a technical consultant working for De Magistris and was immediately ostracised because he had the temerity to stick his nose in these matters, and who now risks being expelled from the Police simply because he dared to defend himself against these allegations instead of shutting up and being happy to earn his daily bread, This makes us think that someone at top government level authorised the spreading of lies regarding a war between prosecutors’ offices, and that, even if they didn’t start it, certainly encouraged the witch hunt against honest magistrates such as Nuzi and Verasani of Salerno, should be ashamed of themselves and at least apologise, because De Magistris has now gone into politics after they prevented him from working as a Public Prosecutor and Apicella has since gone into retirement.

But Nuzi and Verasani are still working in the Public Prosecutor’s office, exiled to Latina one of the other offices in the Lazio Region and, at least for them, the Head of State, the President of the Csm, the entire Csm and the ANM, which left them in the lurch, as well as all the politicians, with the exception of Di Pietro, who failed to raise a finger to stop this huge injustice, should be ashamed of themselves and then apologise to these magistrates, as well as perhaps doing something to restore their dignity and bring them back to Salerno and nowhere else. Pass the word and have a good week!