THIS IS NORMAL WITHIN THE JUDICIARY BROTHERHOOD
On March 19th, the Council of State issued, breaking all time records, the judgment concerning the appeal of 50 citizens of Trieste which had impugned judgment n. 5330/2013 of T.A.R. (Regional Administrative Court) of Friuli Venezia Giulia with whom their appeal requesting the cancellation of the recent regional elections summoned within Zone A of the Free Territory of Trieste had been rejected.
This judgment TAR, defined “legal monster”, did actually break the fundamental rights granted to the citizens of Trieste in the Treaty of Peace of Paris of 1947, declared “subversive” the main appellant (Roberto Giurastante) accusing him of instigate the respect of laws his fellow citizens and, by doing so, to put in danger the sovereignty of the Italian State imposed by violating the international treaties, also, this judgment violates the very Constitution of the Republic of Italy declaring null these international agreements Italy ratified as a defeated country after the Second World War.
What an institutional disruption this is. A disruption now inevitably extended to the international level by the full confirmation of the “legal monster”, with whom Italy revives its idea to change world order, as issued by the Council of State. The citizens of Trieste whose courage brought them to claim their rights, demanding to the justices the enforcement of law have been “punished” with exemplary economic sanctions: a total of 20.000 Euro in favor of defaulters, which are the Italian State and Region Friuli Venezia Giulia.
This is, under all evidences, an intolerable situation even as concerning international balances. The Italian State and its organs violate the norms of international right instituted with the Treaty of Peace of 1947 concerning the Free Territory of Trieste, and with these, their own, internal regulation, having damaged and keeping damaging a plurality of passive, third parties: the Free Territory of Trieste a a State, its sovereign population, its single persons and associated members, its enterprises , as well as all other Countries and third parties, both individuals or collective, even economical, having the right or legitimate interest to benefit – both directly and not – of the norms of the Treaty concerning the Free Territory of Trieste and in particular, its international Free Port.
But how is this ever possible? How comes judgments breaking the law and violating the fundamental principles of the State itself are issued? The case study revolving around the judgment of the Council of State concerning the Free Territory of Trieste allows us to open a door on that underground world which rules Italy, a world made of strong connections between magistracy and Masonic power. This system grants an actual control on any cause with a relevant importance, as well as always having the right magistrate in the right place.
This essentially is that government granted by the so called “Judiciary brotherhood” a kind of super loggia which reunites lawyers, chancellors, magistrates, judiciary officers. And, as for Trieste, they can also count on the support of the rete – deviant as well – of the North East special services: Gladio 2.
Is it possible that such a hot case as that of judgment TAR FVG concerning the Free Territory of Trieste, is assigned to a ultra-nationalistic justice from Trieste, which does not even try to hide his contacts with the Masonic environments of the institutional deviation? It is an absolutely unique Masonry, that in which these particular representatives of judiciary power identify themselves, a Masonry which acts in symbiosis with international criminal nets to trigger all kind of tensions in the Balkans in order to bring these back under Italian control. Nationalist fanatics, covered by an untouchable system of corruption: Italy in its most realistic version as anti State or, even better, State of institutionalized Camorra [an organization similar to the Mafia].
But who is this inexhaustible champion of italic anti-right? We can find many mentioning of him in both local and national records. But it’s always better starting from the beginning. Justice Fulvio Rocco, member of the V section of the Council of State which expressed himself as for the appeal of the citizens of Trieste demanding the fulfillment of the Treaty of Peace which acknowledges the independence of both the city and its International Port, is well known.
Already a magistrate of the T.A.R. for Veneto and professore a contratto in the super ultra nationalist University of Trieste (the one that recently organizes a shameful case study to mystify and defend the same illegitimate judgment of TAR FVG with whose the CoS has then proven its excellent qualities as public organ of the Maso-Mafia), Mr. Rocco has never lost an occasion to express his support to the negationist thesis concerning the Free Territory of Trieste, and he always sides with the groups controlled by the secret services operating in the border area.
And so, in his essay dating back to 2005 concerning the Treaty of Osimo (The Agreements of Osimo: the reception in Italian internal right) he openly sides against the “trading” of Zone B of the FTT to Yugoslavia. Let us read some extracts.
«Some days ago, while preparing this report, I was turning over the pages of a publication which I had received back in 1976 by my friend on. Renzo De Vidovich – then a deputy in the Parliament – and containing [the publication] wide pieces of the interventions of the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Foreign affairs, Deputies and Senators in occasion of the vote which, in October 1975 entitled the Government of back then to conclude the negotiation with Yugoslavia and the resulting Agreements of Osimo.
The President of the Council of Ministers of back then, on. Aldo Moro, even if requesting the favorable vote of the Parliament said – among other things – which “of course remain(ed) a deep bitterness, with is (still) not only that of the fighters and of the expatriated”, acknowledging this way that the solution proposed hurts the sensibility of a huge part of the Italian population.
Among the people involved there was myself, son of Histrians (yet, as for my family of origin, we were nor refuges).
At the time of these facts I was about to start my third year as a law student in Trieste, where I was as well the President of the then Movimento giovanile [Juvenile Movement] of the Unione degli Istriani [Union of Histirans].
The conclusion of the Agreements of Osimo and their following ratification determined, even in the obvious and general aversion to the political and economical content of these dame Agreements,a change, even if not immediate, to the top of the Union, necessary induced by the system ruling Trieste, of that particular political laboratory of which he greatly spoke this morning, my friend lawyer Roberto Spazzali.
So, lawyer Lino Sardos Albertini, up to then President of the Union, left his role, with the awareness of the conclusion of a strategy which politologists would nowadays define bypartisan [that is misspelled in the original Italian text] and with which – despite the lack, in the present “bipolar” political asset – all political forces have traversally been sensitized, not only to oppose but even (and especially) the mayor coalition of government, concerning the need not to allow the trading of Zone B of the Territory of Trieste: an this – remarked – through the special defense committees of Zone B” risen about everywhere, not only in Italy, and acting bringing on an action that we would today call lobbyng [that is misspelled in the original Italian text]».
Once again in this text stuffed with nationalistic ideal visions meant to deny the validity of the Treaties subscribed by Italy concerning the question of Trieste, the magistrate does even admit his own incompatibility to fulfill his functions in his hometown: «As for my job, I feel more comfortable somewhere else, in cities in which – no matter how little that was – I have not been “part” and where, because of that, nothing can be charged to me as for my “living” before the exercising of jurisdictional functions and of whim, by the way, I repudiate nothing. At the same time, exactly out of the circumstance that my activity as a justice does not have to do with Friuli Venezia Giulia and that, rebus sic stantibus, I assume this will be true in future as well, I accepted this invitation».
But destiny chose elsewhere: the anti FTT magistrate has been chosen to evaluate a case in which for his own admission he was incompatible because of his progressed activities, not only as concerning to politics. Might it be a coincidence? Well, some more doubt emerges as we learn this “patriotic” magistrate is charged with embezzlement and corruption. It seems like the highest ideals of the “nouvelle vague” of italic irredentism do not get along well with an healthy management of public life…
from newspaper “Fatto Quotidiano” [Daily Happening] of February 25th, 2014:
Adminsitrative justices: rather than homicide, it seems more like suicide, by Alessio Liberati, February 25th, 2014
In the last days, in the environment of the grand commis cries for the homicide of administrative justice (Tar, Council of State and Court of the Counts) since President Renzi has (finally!) decided to put a limit to the double career of administrative justices, no longer allowing their presence in the key roles of administration (legal offices or leaders of the cabinet of ministers).
Yet, to me, more than homicide it seems like suicide: just look at what administrative justices did in the past years – facts I am denouncing since years on this blog – to understand what I am talking about.
I have already written in the past about a wide group of administrative justices charged with different crimes: among these, two distinguished presidents of the Council of State (Paolo Salvatore and Alberto de Roberto) are to be added, and, this is important, they both used the prescription terms for some crimes charged on themselves: as for the investigation on the c.d. Giovagnoli case, a Counselor of State (Fulvio Rocco) is accused of interfering in a trail to favorite his own daughter, while the president of the Tar section Adriano Leo, is even accused of having changed a judgment once that had already been decided in a different sense.
To this we should then add the position of the Csm [Superior Council of Magistracy] of administrative justices which, after the report (proven to be grounded) stating the (sleeping) membership to the Masonry of some magistrates (which is forbidden by the law) took the decision to restrict with disciplinary measures the persons that had reported such scandal rather than who has actually been proven to be a Mason, refusing as well to discipline said matter once again, despite explicit requirements in this sense.
And in conclusion, all the privileges which they have obtained in the past years, for example, a un’inedita kind of extraordinary stipendio ammouting to 1.300 Euro per hearing: first, the Csm of administrative justices has reduced the maximum workload of administrative justices (and we’d better remember they only have two hearings per month!) then it gave them the faculty to increase their own workload which has previously reduced (which so goes back to the same as it was before, which is almost nothing compared to that of ordinary justices), but only as for supplementary hearings, kind of a overtime work charged on taxpayers and amounting to about 1.300 Euro per magistrate, at every single hearing! All of this, de facto, with three months of vacation each year.
Finally, a matter of logic: is Pm Gratteri, which is an ordinary magistrate whom has devoted his life to anti-Mafia struggle cannot became the minister of justice (since it is inopportune for a magistrate occupying “his own” ministry), how can anybody sustain that the justices of the TAR, of the Council of State and of the Court of Counts can occupy the key roles of public administration concerning whose they then must pronounce themselves (just thin about Frattini or Patron-Griffi, which once becoming former ministers have returned pronouncing themselves as for the provisions of their own governments or the next ones)? Does this rule vale only for an Anti-Mafia Pm which fought since always the conjunctions of politics, Masonry and organized criminality?
Questo post è disponibile anche in: Italian