23 August 2008

The brazen-faced ones

Prime Minister Berlusconi has once again taken to talking about justice, even though he doesn’t want anyone else to talk about justice. Every time I broach the subject, both he and his henchmen are quick to retort that: “Di Pietro and the Italia dei Valori party are forever harping on one single topic. They are obsessed with the justice system and can speak of nothing else”. In actual fact, it is he that is obsessed with justice, but only the kind that suits him. His most recent pearl of wisdom for August was when he said that the justice system must be overhauled because that is what Judge Falcone wanted.
Falcone is a man who gave his life while attempting to ensure that everyone would be equal before the law, fighting a battle against large-scale organised crime and, above all, fighting against any form of collusion and connivance between organised crime and the institutions. As far as justice is concerned, hearing Berlusconi quoting Falcone is somewhat like hearing the devil himself claiming ownership of the holy water in order to get his own way.
Falcone fought against the Mafia. Berlusconi, instead, has not only lived with the mafia's stable boy, but has welcomed him into his own home. Who does Berlusconi think he is fooling? He, the very same Berlusconi, knows that world very well and has in the past had convivial relationships with certain mafia types, such as Dell'Utri, whom he has now gone and brought into Parliament.
Falcone was certainly not against the independence of the judiciary, anything but. Berlusconi, on the other hand, would like to see a judiciary that is dependent on the executive. Indeed, he goes so far as to insist that the Upper Council of the Magistrature be made up of senior lay people, in other words, people appointed by the politicians. He wants to see a justice system that is subordinate to the politicians and that takes a step back when it comes down to the matter of prosecuting politicians. This is precisely the opposite of that which Falcone wanted. Every time I have the temerity to point this out to him (Berlusconi that is), both he and his lackeys indignantly state that: “The Honourable Di Pietro must refrain from even mentioning the name of Judge Falcone”, however, he of all people is the one who should take that advice.
What I would say to people such as Martelli, our revered Justice minister who has in the past been found guilty and sentenced for his involvement in the Enimont scandal and who has just recently stated that: “Di Pietro must leave Falcone out of it because Falcone himself scorned the ‘Clean Hands’ investigation and the Milan judges” (for what it’s worth coming from someone who was sentenced as a result of the very same Clean Hands investigation), is that, at the time of the commencement of the Clean Hands investigation, and prior to his death, as director general in the Ministry of Justice, Falcone handled all of the international rogatory letters that were being sent out to the various judicial authorities around the world, in particular the Swiss authorities, on behalf of the Milan judges. It was precisely thanks to Falcone’s involvement that the initial investigations were carried, as proven in the documentation, which I am more than willing to produce.
The person that first put us in touch with judge Dal Ponte, and the very same person that instituted and forwarded the letters of request for assistance, which I personally drafted, in the investigation of 42 individuals, was none other than Giovanni Falcone himself. I find it hard to believe that any judge who apparently, as is being claimed, scorned the Clean Hands investigation and hated the Milan judges would do so much in terms of driving forward the rogatory letters required by the very same Milan judges that he supposedly scorned.
This is the real truth. The rest is nothing more than unfounded claims made by certain accused and sentenced criminals whose only desire is to change history so as to be able to exploit the memory of a hero for their own purposes.
I again reiterate that I am not the one who first dragged up Giovanni Falcone’s name. I say that he should be left to rest in peace after so many people fought so hard against him while he was still alive and eventually managed to kill him. However, we cannot simply stand back while the very same Prime Minister, who has often in the past had dealings with known mafia associates, proceeds to exploit the memory of someone who was killed by the mafia, solely in order to improve his own image and to justify certain reforms that are clearly counter-reform and are aimed purely at causing the justice system to fail because otherwise he would risk allowing the system to reveal his own involvement. Remember that the legislation regarding the justice system that he himself instituted was specifically designed to prevent him being prosecuted, because otherwise we would not simply have a Prime Minister, but one that has been prosecuted and perhaps even sentenced.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

21 August 2008

Summer sunstroke

The senators of the government and in the superficial opposition have united and following on from the Summer sunstroke, they have given birth to the “Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo” that expresses in a really clear way, the wish to reform the justice system by making it yield to political control. It’s not just me saying this, but also Bruno Tinti, the deputy prosecutor at the Turin Prosecutors Office and author of the book "Toghe rotte" {Torn Togas}
In the article, published yesterday in l'Unità, Bruno Tinti explains in a few points how the abolition of penal obligation is an outrageous error that can lead to local interpretations of justice and severe political interference in the choice of crimes to be followed up.

Furthermore, the author draws attention to a series of reforms of the justice system to make the machinery of justice more efficient with the already existing resources and avoiding resounding actions of throwing in the towel. A democracy cannot exist if Justice is under the control of the Executive.


I’m publishing Bruno Tinti’s article entitled "Giustizia, che cosa fare subito".{Justice, what to do straight away}

”On 29 July, some senators of the PdL and of the PD gave birth to the "Atto di Sindacato Ispettivo n° 1-00019", containing a number of proposals relating to the justice system that with a laudable euphemism can be said hard to agree with. Here I am commenting on one of them.

The mixed patrol sent out on its exploratory mission proposes: “a) the abolition of the obligation to start legal proceedings with the setting out of a process for fixing criteria for the use of means of investigation and for the exercise of starting criminal proceedings as well as a process that sees the participation of public prosecutors and others in institutional roles and that identifies an institutional subject that is politically responsible in relation to Parliament for their effective and uniform implementation at an operational level;”

Said like that, you can be reasonably sure that citizens don’t even understand what is being discussed. Let’s try and translate this.

“Obligation to start legal proceedings” means: every time that a crime is discovered you have to put on trial whoever is suspected of having committed it. The contrary of this is the non-obligation of taking penal action: not for all of the crimes discovered do you have to put someone on trial, but only for some of the crimes. It’s a bit like saying that if you live in a big house, you can decide to clean all the rooms; or to clean just a part.

But why should something like this be done? It is obvious that it is nicer and more healthy to live in a really clean house rather than one that is only half clean. The response is obvious: because you don’t have enough cleaners to clean the whole thing; or you have lazy cleaners who are layabouts; or you really don’t need to use some of the rooms so there’s no point in cleaning them. . Thus you have to make decisions: take on more cleaners (but perhaps I can’t afford that), sack the lazy ones (no use, each one is lazier than the next); move to a smaller house (I’m sorry, there aren’t any). So I have to leave some of the rooms dirty, there’s no way round it. ...."

Read in Italian "Colpo di sole estivo" {Summer sunstroke}

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

24 July 2008

Telecom: the double truth (Part 2)

Only a day has gone by since the deposition of the trial papers by the Milan Prosecutors and already the story starts to be disentangled.
First of all, the declarations made by the person directly involved, Marco Tronchetti Provera to the Prosecutor are being taken note of.
Apart from the formal distancing from his accuser, in essence, Tronchetti recognises what Giuliano Tavaroli is saying: to be the one used to fix up meetings for him with various political people. Certainly, Tronchetti Provera now says: “…convinced after the fact that he, Tavaroli, used me a lot to give credence to himself …” But the fact remains that up until 2006 he allowed him to do that.
Thus Tronchetti received Tavaroli in his office and from him – whether he wished it or not – he received information.
Certainly, he said that Tavaroli “ … has never been reporting directly to me …” but he admits that he was not just anyone inside Telecom in as much as “… he started to report directly to Dr. Buora …” (who was the number 2 in the company, straight after Tronchetti himself) and anyway “… in specific cases, if it was something of general importance in the company that related to me directly as president of the company, signor Tavaroli turned to me directly…”
So basically, Tavaroli, in the company behaved exactly how a recognised and accredited Head of Security should behave and he regularly referred to the CEO and when necessary directly to the President.
Thus, when Tavaroli refers facts and circumstances, these cannot be, sic et sempliciter, thrown in the waste paper bin, but we need to go and reconstruct the context and to go and “clean up” the affirmations to try to disentangle the truth from that of the possible rumours, from influence peddling or from calumny.
Still from the documents, however another circumstance emerges, that goes back to an earlier date, to 2001 (and that is to a time that is not compatible with the arrival of Tronchetti himself in the company) the “OAK FUND” operation, that is the spying operation set up by Tavaroli and Cipriani (a private investigator paid by Telecom, who is now himself under investigation) that concluded with the attribution to leaders of the D.S. party of a foreign account in London where sums of money were made to land up on behalf of Colaninno, who was the first to take an interest in the Telecom operation.
If that is true, this means that, independently of the truth or not of the “OAK FUND” operation, Tronchetti Provera cannot be accused of anything that is criminally relevant in relation to that. Not even if – following his arrival in Telecom – that had been told to him by Tavaroli (as the latter sustains and as Tronchetti slightly modestly denies).
Meanwhile, the attention must be moved somewhere else: who had an interest in reconstructing this operation? Or rather: who had an interest in “constructing it”, in concocting it, that is to throw a “cloak of responsibility” on to the shoulders of Fassino, the then Secretary of the D.S.?
And above all exactly in the same period in which they were trying to let another dirty cloak fall onto Fassino with the false Mitrokin scoop?
And who gave the orders to Tavaroli to carry them out? And still in a more meaningful way: the order was to discover a bribe or to construct false proof – even by means of gratifying documentary evidence – to make it appear that that was the case?
And are we certain that the one who went off to search for “disseminated proof” along the track that led to London had knowledge of the possible instrumentalisation with which it was set up on purpose and on command?

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

23 July 2008

Telecom: the double truth (Part 1 )

The investigation by the Milan Prosecutors office into the activity of creating dossiers and spying set up by Telecom has finished with a good 41 items on the charge sheet against 34 people: security officials within Telecom itself, paid private investigators, qualified top brass in the secret services, from officers and sub-officers in the Police, the Carabinieri and the Finance Police. There are 371 pages that illustrate a clear division between the Italy that is made of spies and those who manoevre who were working behind our backs and on our heads to collect information and blackmail people and institutions. Anyone wishing to read the whole text of the document click here.
Up until now, there’s nothing new in the light of day, it’s the usual “Italietta” of the deviated secret services, of the disinformation centres, of the centre of secret powers, of the numerous tiny and big “P2s” that are coming back.
However there is a “but”, a discrepancy that prevents the circle from being closed: who was, or rather, who is the beneficiary of their activity of spying and creating dossiers? Take care now, on a strictly judicial level, the “beneficiary”, can only be – by a geometric overlay – the brains behind the crimes committed.
The order does not say this, or rather it says it but - at least in its present state - it doesn’t identify them as a “physical person” but as “two persons in law”: Telecom Italia Spa and Pirelli Spa.
If I weren’t familiar with the way the Milan Prosecutors office works and if I didn’t have certainty of the really high professional standards of the investigating magistrates that were in charge of the inquiry, I could be led into thinking that they are hiding behind a veil so as to not write the first and second name of the “physical” “brains”, given that – by definition and by nature – no crime can be committed by an inanimate body, as are the “persons in law”: Telecom and Pirelli, but always and always by people who have eyes and hands and above all a “head”.
However, since I know how the investigations work, I am ready to bet that today’s notice of closure of the investigations is in reality not a “closure” but simply a “new opening”. A new phase in the “chess game”, still with everything to play and that the Milan Prosecutors office is getting ready to play on a full field, using the debate stage as an investigative “picklock” to get over the circle of “omertà” and cover-up that could have formed around the declarations of Giuliano Tavaroli, the organizer of the misinformation centre. A technique that has already been tried out by so many investigators and also by myself at the time of Mani Pulite {Clean Hands}, when in the ENIMONT trial at first I asked just for Sergio Cusani to be sent for judgement, and then to use the debate stage to put one in front of the other the various convenient versions that the protagonists of the affairs were reciting.
Even in the Telecom affair, I believe that it will happen like that because it is unthinkable (and for Armando Spataro impossible even to think of it) that the Milan Prosecutors office has renounced to search for the “brains”. Tavaroli, who has done so much for his company and in whose interests he was working, will feel that he has been turfed out and he will seek revenge by vomiting on those who sent him, all the facts and the bad facts that he knows about (or more simply that he says he knows about).
That will be the most sensitive moment for the magistrates because they will have to distinguish the facts from the opinions, the truth from what seems true, the certainty from the conjecture, the direct knowledge from that that is referred to, the truth of the vendettas.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

Tangentopoli’s metastasis

In my meeting with the foreign press, I tackled different topics including the scandal of the bribes in the health system and I discussed the details and highlighted how it is different from Tangentopoli.
Antonio Di Pietro: In Italy there’s an unresolved moral issue dating back to the 1990s.
The unresolved moral issue of the 1990s was referred to with a term that gives a good explanation of the issue: Tangentopoli (the town of bribes}
At that time it was meant to mean an environmental situation in which corruption was the merchandise to be bartered in business and in the politics of managing the institutions.
This is a moral issue that created an enormous deficit in our country and also a reduction in the democratic spaces and in the liberal economy.
The characteristic of that environmentalism of the phenomenon, or rather, the engine that was driving that environmentalism was identified as being the infrastructure system, that is in the assigning of public contracts in general for roads, railways, and all the rest.
Fifteen years later, that system is still intact, that is the system of a widespread Tangentopoli and of environmental action, of corruption as the merchandise to be bartered, that still keeps the liberal economic system blocked as well as the liberal institutional democracy.
The difference between then and now is above all to be found in the fact that the driving engine has been moved from the infrastructure sector to the health sector.
This means there is a greater difficulty in perception of the phenomenon and a greater difficulty to fight it.
At that time we could centralize the investigations as the major companies in the infrastructure sector were based in Milan and by investigating the entrepreneurial system, false accounting, misappropriation, bankruptcies and so on, it was possible to coordinate together the investigations in the various sectors.
Health is one of those topics that has been subject to the so-called regional federalism.
On top of the regional federalism that is typical of the health system, there has been juxtaposed bribe federalism and corruption.
Each region has its own system and thus this has given rise to many locations, and many “Tangentopoli”. There is not a single “Tangentopoli” as there was in the 1990s, but an infinity of small “Tangentopoli” that makes it even more difficult to perceive the phenomenon in its global seriousness, and it makes it still more difficult to tackle this type of criminality because although you can stop a single link in the chain, you are not stopping the whole chain because each link is self-sufficient.
In the “Tangentopoli” of the 1990s by investigating the system of financing the parties at the national level, it was blocked.
In the “Tangentopoli” of the 2010s if you block and identify that facts happening in Abruzzo, whatever’s happening in Calabria gets away.
Journalist: That’s a lot of money 110 billion euro that you want to spend on State Health. But is it necessary to change the health system?
Antonio Di Pietro: Rather than changing the health system, we need to change the people.
I have always thought that each time something happens, they change the procedures, but if they don’t change the people, nothing changes.
The real problem is that in Italy the ruling class that has been compromised have stayed in position, whereas we of Italia dei Valori have always maintained that you need four clear regulations that can give a clear sign of turnaround: anyone who is convicted can no longer be a candidate, anyone who is convicted must be expelled from the institutions in any role he might have as a public official, anyone who is on trial must be suspended from their job, and finally not only the gains from a crime that a person has been caught doing must be confiscated but also his possessions so as to pay compensation for the damage. If you don’t give the idea that whoever makes a mistake has to pay, then you get nowhere.
I have always been accused of putting people in prison, but I have always thought that we need to say thank goodness that I put people away.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

21 July 2008

Prosecuting the unpunishables

On the 9th July I published the first courtroom summary by our reporter Daniele Martinelli concerning the Mills case. After yesterday’s hearing, namely 19 July, from Milan it would appear that any chance that the public may have had of finding out the truth regarding the money that changed hands between the Prime Minister and attorney David Mills has finally gone up in smoke. As a matter of fact, as I explained in my article entitled "Silvio frees everyone", dated 16 July, between the Alfano Bill and all the last minute amendments that were made, both of the accused will now thwart the judge’s attempts to enforce the will of the justice system.
Silvio Berlusconi has admirably carried out the task for which he got himself elected by the Country’s voters, namely to avoid having to settle his account with the justice system. However, the electorate voted him in for very different reasons and they are now paying an extremely high price for his electoral lies.
Milan, 18 July 2008, Daniele Martinelli:
The Court of Milan was the scene for the final hearing in the Berlusconi-Mills case, with the deposition submitted by the Premier’s tax consultant who attempted to explain that the millions of dollars that made their way into a myriad of foreign accounts throughout the whole of Europe really had nothing to do with the dealings between the two accused.
This will be the last hearing related to this case because the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Alfano Bill on Tuesday, which will make Berlusconi immune from prosecution in any Court and cancel the jurisdiction of the judicial council chaired by Nicoletta Gandus.
The new law is scheduled to be published in the Government Gazette on Wednesday, followed by instant approval on Thursday, without even waiting for the prescribed 15-day cooling-off period to expire.
Thus, in one fell swoop, Silvio Berlusconi will go from being a defendant accused of corruption relating to legal documents, to being a free man.
His co-accused, David Mills, will also get away scot-free following the last minute amendment that the Government introduced into the so-called security package, which will, in fact, further reduce security in that it will make criminals guilty of any crimes punishable by up to 7 and a half years of imprisonment, go totally unpunished.

As regards David Mills, all he has to do is enter a plea-bargain, in other words, he pleads guilty for his part in the crime in order to access the generic extenuating circumstances, plus he gets a one-third discount off his sentence, which, in the case of a 7 year sentence for corruption, would be reduced to 5 years thanks to the plea bargain, and then further reduced to 2 years after a further 3 years are deducted for the pardon. At the end of the day, he would get a 2-year sentence, which, being less than the 3 years, would result in the Silvio Berlusconi’s British nominee avoiding having to serve any jail time. An inexplicable sentence indeed, without any explanation of the reasons for pleading guilty and that in David Mill’s case would necessarily involve the now-immune Silvio Berlusconi who, while he may avoided any criminal charges, would not go equally scot-free on the moral issue, nor as regards his public image abroad. What this means is that the last minute amendment has effectively shut down this case without having shed any light on possible crimes committed by the two accused.
David Mills was the founder of the foreign companies that can be traced back to Berlusconi, as well as being the architect of the money laundering activities that took place via said companies, All Iberian amongst them, used by the Premier to provide 22 billion Italian Lire of funding to Bettino Craxi’s socialist party, just before the Tangentopoli scandal hit the headlines.
An entire spider’s web of foreign companies through which, according to conservative estimates, at least 2 thousand billion Italian Lire were transferred, all well out of sight of the Italian tax authorities and, therefore, also hidden from the Italian citizens.
In order to save 2 defendants that would surely have been found guilty, the Berlusconi Government has shredded the judiciary and leaving thousands of other criminals out on the streets.
All in the name of so-called security.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

20 July 2008

Shut up you, Mr. Policeman

The Italia dei Valori is a party that refuses to tolerate corruption and, for this reason, we are like a pain in the neck for the other parties.
That which is happening in the Abruzzo Region has already happened before in the Lazio Region and, even more recently in the Lombardy Region’s clinics. There is nothing new under the sun, and nothing will change until such time as some new faces are seen in politics.
At the time of the Tangentopoli scandal, construction entrepreneurs were bribing politicians in order to be able to continue working while now, it is the politicians themselves that have the money, the funds from the healthcare system, those funds entrusted for independent allocation by the regions themselves, and the politicians are using those funds for the purpose of buying favours and votes so that the system will ensure that they maintain their grip on power.
The Italia dei Valori party repudiates this way of doing politics. This is a party that would rather reveal the rot that has invaded politics because it finds these kinds of compromises totally unacceptable. This party’s "virtuous" behaviour, which we call "normal", distinctly bothers both the centre-right and the centre-left and has drawn all sorts of attacks against us and against myself personally by other politicians, who often make use of the public media that they control.
These constant efforts, aimed at discrediting us, are thwarted by reality, which sees the ruling class involved in theft and all sorts of other immoral behaviour on a daily basis.
Our protests continue to increase because, every day, the citizens are becoming more aware that they are being shamelessly ripped off and look to us for support. Unlike the gentlemen in question, the Italia dei Valori party does not have its own newspapers, nor its own television channels. All we have is our ethics, our morality, our competence and our sense of civic duty.
There is an earnest desire for change in this Country and the Italia dei Valori Party represents the only real alternative for radical reform of Italian politics.
In this interview granted to the foreign press, I highlighted the true reforms that are urgently required in order to overhaul the judicial system and to enable it to operate efficiently. These reforms are very different from the vile attacks, the decrees and the shameful laws that the current government has been implementing since the day after the elections, with the sole aim of liberating themselves from the machinery of the justice system and to be able to continue undisturbed along their chosen path.
The text of the interview will follow shortly.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

17 July 2008

Silvio liberates all

Today I’ve made certain declarations to about 30 journalists of the foreign press. I found the journalists very interested, if not incredulous, about what is happening in our country. A period of economic difficulty, of recession, made worse by a habit that is spreading of bad management of the public sector by a political class that seems to be living on another planet.
Effectively this sensation is more than justified given the parliamentary activity of the last few months. I am publishing a part of the speech about the new and amazing regulation “save the friends of the Premier”.
The issue is simple, most of the crimes can no longer be punished. Now the Italian justice system is KO. Let’s hope that this is enough to allow the gang in the government to act in the interests of the citizens.

Interview:
Antonio Di Pietro: I believe that the main job of the Government as well as that of the Opposition, today in our country, but not only in our country, must be the issues relating to the economy, especially as we are facing a galloping recession and in view of the purchasing power that is blocked for the families, and as regards Italy, which is different from the other countries, of a public deficit that is potentially increasing as well as an irrational waste of public money that is not yet under control.
These are the ills of Italy that are growing on top of the ills of the modern liberal democracies that we find inside the Western world.
In relation to this topic, that represents the urgency of the Italian political agenda, on the contrary, already from the first day that the current legislature took office, we have been busy with anything but that.
We are actually busy with urgent decrees, as though these were the urgencies and the emergencies of this country and not the issues that I mentioned earlier.
Among these, I’d like to draw attention to a progression of laws that have been approved for the specific personal interests of the Premier. First of all, I’d point out this situation. Up until now there has been no urgent measure that did not have within it at least one regulation that is of personal interest to the Premier himself, or some of his friends.
And the anomaly that we of IdV are contesting is that these “ad personam” regulations are inserted into measures that on their own could have even an important relevance but that become a vehicle for strictly personal interests.
Having said this, going back through the urgent regulations created in these few weeks, we can see that the first action of the government has been the decree to approve and ratify a series of requirements from the European Union and from the European Commission, which have seen an extension to a whole series of obligatory deadlines that were about to fall due, the so-called “deadline-extension” decree.
The first decree to have been passed. It was a really urgent decree. If the terms fall due, and things are not finished, they have to be done, but inserting them in that measure and what’s more in violation of the European Court of Justice, the “save-Rete4” regulation is a personal abuse in legislative acts.
And thus, it is necessary to do a series of interventions to make the fight against crime more efficient, but inside these to insert a regulation to reduce the wiretaps, preventing the publication of the relevant ones, because of really personal needs of the President of the Council, actually his night-time needs. To us this really seems an abuse of his position.
So we of Italia dei Valori are contesting the fact that within the security package, that basically we think is good as there is need for legislation that gives more security to the citizens, there are clauses inserted that in fact manage to create even more insecurity.
With the measure approved yesterday, a final last-minute amendment, in fact has made all criminals who are convicted and sentenced to a term in prison of up to seven and a half years cannot be punished. Every Italian citizen who at the end of their trial gets a prison sentence of up to seven and a half years, will not spend a single day in prison.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

10 July 2008

It’s not possible to lie all the time

In the article on 27 June I wrote that on 7 July a representative of Italia dei Valori would have followed the hearing of the Mills trial, just as I did for the Spartacus trial. This is the resulting report in which you can follow the interview with Nicolò Ghedini, Silvio Berlusconi’s lawyer and Silvio Berlusconi’s Parliamentarian.
”Berlusconi-Mills trial. The Prime Minister is on trial for corruption in judicial acts and risks a 6 year prison sentence. In today’s hearing the deposition of a defence consultant who is trying to explain the movement of money through Berlusconi’s offshore companies.

Daniele Martinelli: We are in the Milan Tribunal. Behind these doors the hearing is going on in the Mills trial that has Silvio Berlusconi as a defendant. It’s not possible to go in with the TV cameras, that has been forbidden, thus it is not possible to record the images, nor to record the presentation by the Prosecutor. The hearing started at about 11 am. It’s now 1:20 pm so about two and a half hours have gone by. Avvocato Ghedini has come out. He is the Parliamentarian who is directly concerned with the Prime Minister’s case. He has given some interviews, but we are still waiting to have some news.

Here is the judge Nicoletta Gandus, challenged or rather refused by Berlusconi. Obviously the move is useful in lengthening the time frame of the trial and bringing nearer the statute of limitations and even the annulment by way of the “lodo Alfano”, a “lodo” that smacks of being unconstitutional that has already been approved by the Senate and it has been put above all other priorities in the Lower House. A “lodo” that gives immunity from any crime to the President of the Republic, the President of the Chamber, the President of the Senate and obviously the President of the Council of Ministers, the only defendant.

Ghedini: I hope that our majority changes this because obviously to remove resources from the justice system right now is a big mistake. I have always said that the magistracy must have great resources and must have absolute independence.

As you have heard, the Parliamentarian who is Berlusconi’s defence lawyer criticizes what the majority that he himself represents is about to do, that is to make a 40 % cut in the funding for the justice system. But let’s try to get near him.

Martinelli: Excuse me Avvocato Ghedini. The Mills trial, this affair of the trial is connected in a way to the fact that Berlusconi talked about the “red togas”, but we rightly have to remember that it all started with the denunciation of the English tax authorities who transferred to the Italian tax authorities.
Ghedini: It’s all part of an investigation not by the English tax authorities, but of an affair that is much older about rights. Then there’s a transmission that rightly the prosecutors weighed up and started an investigation. I believe that this investigation should have been stopped after the examination of the further evidence that we brought.

Martinelli: But you are in a great hurry to approve first the lodo Alfano and the block on trials to avoid a verdict?
Ghedini: No, you see, here they are doing everything in a hurry to finish the trial. We are happy because we are convinced that we will be absolved. The “lodo” is instead a political matter in which there is a wish to remove a reason for criticism and political polemics.

Martinelli: But what’s the reason for blocking all the trials before 31 June 2002?
Ghedini: That was a choice of the people who presented it and it is connected to the statute of limitations. You know that the statute of limitations in the new regulations, with the most recent laws, is extinguished in 6 years in “atti interruttivi”. Now let me go and eat….

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

4 July 2008

Ronchi’s non-response

Yesterday in my interpellation of Ronchi, the Minister for European Affairs, about the responses that the government must provide to the questions that the European Court of Justice has put forward on the issue of Europa7, there was the maximum of evasion. I am attaching the transcript of Minister Ronchi’s reply so that citizens may know that these responses are still not there and that the words of Andrea Ronchi, the employee of Silvio Berlusconi are taking the citizens of Italy for a ride.
Right now we know that the President of the Council has no intention to hand over to their legitimate owner, the frequencies that are occupied by Rete4.
We know even now that the Italians will pay 350 thousand euro a day with backdated application starting from 1 January 2006.

Antonio Di Pietro: We of Italia dei Valori would like to understand how the current government intends respecting the verdict of the European Court of Justice, given that on 31 January 2008, it gave a verdict against the Italian State for not having respected the principle of the free provision of services and no objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria in assigning frequencies.
Last week, the European Commission set out a total of 20 specific questions to ask how the government intends putting into effect the verdict of the European Court of Justice.
Given that the Italian Government, in the latest law decree, even though it expressly had the title of executing the verdict and the measures of the European Union, it did not resolve this problem. We want to know, now, in a clear, clear way what you intend to do in relation to the questions put by the European Commission.

Maurizio Lupi: The Minister for European Policies, Andrea Ronchi may respond.

Andrea Ronchi: Mr President, I thank the Honourable Di Pietro for this question needing an immediate response in which he asks the Government to supply elements about the topic of the authorisation to transmit and the assigning of frequencies in digital mode, with particular reference to the issues set out in the European Community on the pre-existing legislation and the measures that have been recently approved.
As a preliminary I would say that since the European Commission sent the questionnaire referred to in the question on 25 June and thus, since replies are being prepared to the questions posed, it is not possible right now to give a definitive response to the specific topics in the questionnaire.
Having said that, it is first necessary to point out that, with an opinion explained on 18 July 2007, the European Commission formulated points of incompatibility with the Community in relation to the aspects relating to the exercise of the activity of operator of a digital network on terrestrial frequencies and to the regime of the transfer of frequency equipment with the aim of creating digital terrestrial networks.
In relation to the first profile, the European Commission has pointed out that the transitory regime of individual licences of the unified text on the radio and TV would be in contrast with the measures in the the authorisation directives, as, according to the framework of the European Community, the right to exercise the activity of operator of networks is the general authorisation and not the individual licence.
The modifications brought in on the initiative of the Minister of Economic Development are exactly appropriate to remove this difficulty as article 8-novies, comma 1, of the law number 101 of 2008 modifies article 15, comma 1 of the unified text on radio and TV, so as to be precise that the activity of operator of a digital network is subject only to the general authorisation regime, that is also in reference to the transition period.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

29 June 2008

Government pimp

A while ago now, I talked to the press in no half measures about the tapped telephone conversations between Berlusconi and Saccà, when I described this political class as acting more like a bunch of pimps, intent on finding places for dancing girls, at the taxpayers’ expense, rather than dealing with their own problems.
I also believe that, given the recent developments, the Prime Minister would make far less of an effort and take far fewer risks were he making such shady deals involving his own television stations rather than the public television broadcaster.
The problem is the same as it has always been, namely, the use of public roles to manage private affairs. Proof of this is that, in order to win the elections, Berlusconi and Bossi exploited the public’s fear about illegal immigration, blowing it out of all proportion. Suddenly, and with unseemly haste, illegal immigration becomes a crime. Europe condemns the move but the Government ignores this condemnation. After all, the path towards benign dictatorship has already been taken. The Government ignored Europe’s objections regarding the Alitalia bridging loan, just like they ignored the European decision regarding the illegal occupation of broadcasting frequencies by Rete 4, and nothing will stop them from carrying on in the same vein when it comes to illegal immigration.
Immediately after the media-created illusion dished up to the electorate in all the news broadcasts and newspapers, now comes Berlusconi’s personal counterattack. Just a few days ago in fact, while the Lega were beating their collective chests in pride at having delivered on their election promises, in Government the same party was obliged to turn its back on the very same voters. In fact, the same anti-prosecution law that will block all judicial corruption charges and thereby protect Berlusconi for the next year from certain developments in the Mills case, which could make life rather uncomfortable for Berlusconi, will also prevent illegal immigration being classified as a crime. However, the citizen subjects do not “need to know” anything about this minor “detail” and so, the usual media blackout in the newspapers and “free” television stations once again descends upon the country.
All in all, the anti-prosecution law is convenient for both the left wing and the right wing, and perhaps, we of the Italia dei Valori party are the only ones that don’t want it, since we are part of the opposition. The only opposition, if the truth be told.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

Citizens, not subjects

The Lodo-Schifani law is an embarrassment, in the same league as the embarrassment of the court-case blocking amendment. One is the child of the other.
The court-case blocking amendment aims to suspend some 100-thousand court cases for a period of one year, amongst them a case that involves Silvio Berlusconi, and to do this it will have the same effect as a pardon.
The Lodo-Schifani law aims at doing the same thing, creating a circle of untouchable politicians and suspending their court cases for a period of 5 years.
What the citizens want is to have honest people filling the highest position in Government, people from whom they can learn by example, people without criminal records, without any court cases pending against them and without any unfinished business with the Justice Department.
It is a difficult concept to get accepted by a Parliament containing 17 finally convicted criminals and at least another 70 individuals who are experiencing certain problems with the law.
On Monday 7 July there will be a scheduled hearing in the Mills court case, which also involves the Prime Minister, and there are still two other scheduled dates prior to the summer break, namely on 14 and 18 July.
On the occasion of these dates, a reporter from the Italia del Valori party will be providing a detailed summary of the proceedings, just as we did in terms of the Spartacus case.
Then I want to remind all of our supporters that we will be in Piazza Navona on the 8th July at 18h00, to take back what these untouchables are trying to steal from us, namely our dignity.
Dignity is what distinguishes a subject from a citizen.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

25 June 2008

The Vote of Shame

Today we’ve seen the Vote of Shame in the Senate. The majority were united in voting in favour of the “trial-blocking” law, bowing their heads to the wishes of Silvio Berlusconi.
I don’t believe that the citizens who voted for the Lega or the former AN were expecting that the leaders would be betraying the trust put on their shoulders with the elections of 13 and 14 April. Perhaps, and I sincerely hope this, not even the voters of the former Forza Italia were expecting a decree like this.
No citizen was expecting a decree against their own security, just as in the previous government, no one was expecting the Great Pardon. Simply because no citizen had asked for it and no political entity had inserted it into their political manifesto.
Travaglio, during the Passaparola broadcast yesterday, gave a complete list of crimes that the justice machinery will be obliged to “ignore”.
I’m giving them here, one after the other, as you do for a list of dead people, because today what is dying is a part of the democracy of this country.

- unauthorized abortion
- abuse of office
- adulteration of food substances
- associating to commit crime
- fraudulent bankruptcy
- calumny
- abuse of a vulnerable person
- corruption
- corruption of judges – this is the one crime for which Silvio Berlusconi has done this decree
- holding false documents for foreign travel
- possession of pornographic or pedophile material
- extortion
- falsification of public documents
- tax fraud
- mugging
- burglary
- clandestine immigration (“just think, with all the threats they’ve made with the stories of clandestine immigration, now they suspend the trials” – Marco Travaglio)
- arson and fire-raising in a woodland
- illegal wiretapping
- domestic abuse
- harassment
- culpable homicide caused by medical intervention
- culpable homicide caused by violation of traffic regulations (“all those who are drunk and wipe out people on the streets, will not be on trial” – Marco Travaglio)
- embezzlement
- carrying or possessing weapons even in secret
- robbery
- computer crime
- receiving stolen goods
- revealing official secrets
- kidnapping
- exploitation of prostitution
- administration of dangerous substances
- rape and sexual violence
- trafficking refuse
- defrauding the European Community
- usury
- sale of products with counterfeit brand names
- violence to the person.

All of these, because they have penalties lower than 10 years in prison, will be suspended.
To suspend the trial of one citizen, namely Silvio Berlusconi, it has been calculated by the Association of Magistrates that about one hundred thousand will be suspended.
With this, it is really unavoidable that people will come out into the streets. On the blog, I have decided to launch this initiative against the “trial-blocking” law. It’s an initiative calling on all voters to show that they are disassociating themselves from the choices made by the representatives of their parties.
The rule of law is at the basis of every democracy. Without the rule of law there’s just the totalitarian regime or anarchy.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (1) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

21 June 2008

The Spartacus Case – Appeal Court Decision

Back on the 4th June I said on this blog that I would be following the Spartacus court case very closely, and that I would keep you informed as regards the proceedings. Here is a summary sent in by our man on the spot in Naples, Daniele Martinelli.
"Thursday 19 June 2008. Greetings from Daniele Martinelli. I find myself standing outside the Poggioreale prison in Naples, waiting to hear the appeal court decision concerning the members of the Casalesi clan. Around thirty members all in all, with a business turnover of around 30 billion Euro and branches worldwide.
There is some tension apparent in those standing outside the prison due to a fear of some sort of sensational act after the threats made against journalists in the courtroom for Monday’s hearing by Sandokan, alias Francesco Schiavone, who said that he did not want to appear on camera. Schiavone had already been sentenced by the court to life imprisonment. Therefore, no parking around the perimeter of the prison, carefully selected police snipers lying in wait within the surrounding buildings, armed guards on the street corners around the prison and even an inspection of the sewers that fortunately failed to turn up any explosive devices. Meanwhile, we of the press are led into the bunker-style courtroom to await the entrance of the appeal court judges, who eventually came in at midday.
As I said before, there are a total of around thirty members of the camorra, amongst which are the historical clan leaders, accused of no less than 16 murders committed between 1988 and 1991 in the lagro aversano area. The initial decision handed down by the court in September 2005 saw 21 life sentences being handed out. The Public Prosecutor, Francesco Iacone, represented the prosecution in these proceedings. In amongst the crowd we spot Roberto Saviano, hidden behind a veritable wall of policemen. He is the author of Gomorra, the book that mentioned names and surnames and turned the spotlight of the entrepreneurial camorra of Casal di Principe. As a result of having written the book, Saviano is now under armed guard and one cannot even get near him for an interview. Inside the bunker-style courtroom, the defence attorneys representing a number of the accused that are currently locked up in the prisons at Aquila and Alessandria are following the proceedings via teleconferencing.
Now let’s hear the reading of the sentence by the Chief Judge of the First section of the Naples Court of Appeal, Raimondo Romeres:
“Life sentence with two years of solitary confinement for Bidognetti Francesco, Caterino Giuseppe, Iovine Antoni, Schiavone Francesco of '54, Schiavone Francesco of '53, Schiavone Walter and Zagaria Vincenzo. Life sentence with one year and six months of solitary confinement for Alessandro Cipriano and Diana Raffaele. Life sentence with three months of solitary confinement for Martinelli Enrico and Zara Alfredo. Life sentence for Caterino Marco, Ian Giuseppe, Diana Giuseppe, Tanaro Sebastiano, Canosa Luigi and Zagaria Michele.”

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

17 June 2008

The only opposition: Arrest us all

Here we are once more talking about and deciding what to do in relation to the telephone wiretaps, according to the measure taken by the Council of Ministers some days ago. It is a draft law, therefore it still has to go to Parliament.

We of Italia dei Valori will make our voice heard both within and outwith Parliament, because decisions have been taken that are clearly against the interests of the magistracy and of investigators, but above all against our interests, about crimes that are discovered. Then above all, there are a whole series of measures taken to stop you from knowing. You will not be able to know anything until the debate stage starts in a trial. It’s as though the trials are carried out behind closed doors like during the Spanish Inquisition. It’ll not be possible to know whether there is a clinic of horrors, if there are some local wide boys, if there is the President of the Council who makes agreements about the broadcast of some programmes and the non-broadcast of other programmes, for the allocation of affairs between the public service and the private service. With the excuse of “privacy” they want to “do everything in privacy”, and this is not good.

We, of Italia dei Valori have decided to do two important things. Firstly, on a technical judicial level, this law can be stopped, if not in Parliament, and we will give it are all, otherwise by means of a referendum to repeal it, that we will start to put into motion straight after its approval. We of Italia dei Valori will ask for help from the bloggers and by having big demonstrations to raise the awareness of the general public and to gather support. We would need to collect at least five to six hundred thousand signatures in a few weeks.

We invite all who have the possibility of helping us in this mass demonstration to be with us. And then by means of an act of civil disobedience, that does not mean going against the law. It means putting this law up for discussion in relation to the principles of the Constitution and with respect to the principles established by the European Union, that is the freedom of information understood as being free to inform, to be informed and to inform oneself. They are constitutional principles that are violated by this law.

On this blog we will give out everything that they don’t want you to know. We will do this, having accepted Marco Travaglio’s invitation. He too has said he will not accept a gag over his mouth and he will broadcast all the same, even at the cost of going to prison. But we are convinced that in the end we will send them to prison, because this is a crime-causing law that violates the Constitution, that violates international laws on the freedom of the press and the freedom of expression, on the freedom to talk about the things as they are.

Obviously on this blog, we will not broadcast things that are false, but things that are true and that we will take the responsibility for broadcasting, and we invite all of you bloggers, that like us as we become aware of similar facts to tell you about, to make them known. You can also turn directly to us to make things known to a wide audience. If you make facts known and someone raises legal difficulties for you, we will give you legal help as long as the facts are true, not because we don’t want to tell false facts but because we don’t want to stay silent about telling facts that are true.

Help us with this battle for freedom.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (3) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

15 June 2008

Justice gagged

The Government has proceeded to rape one of the regulations required by the magistrates. The proposal put forward by the Upper Council for the Magistrature is simply a step backwards when compared to the announcements made in recent days and the situation is bad.
Certain of the provisions are illogical, contradictory and counterproductive. Indeed they make the tapping of telephone conversations more difficult, something that is important to the magistrature and an essential factor in fighting crime. Here are a couple of gems:

1) The Government intends to limit the tapping of telephone conversations to only those crimes carrying sentences of ten years or longer, thereby leaving out crimes such as financial fraud, tax evasion, business crimes in general and aggravated fraud against the State. In other words, precisely those crimes that are so typical of the “caste”. It is difficult to grasp the reasons for this move, or rather, we understand only too well. What has indeed been taken away from the magistrates is the authority to use telephone tapping as a tool in precisely those five or six types of crimes that are so often committed by those close to the interests of the Cavaliere himself.
2) As far as the Government is concerned, such telephone taps must be authorised jointly by no less than three judges. We of the Italia dei Valori party cannot agree with this imposition. In fact, this proposal is inconsistent since the current judicial rules make provision for a single judge to make even final decisions, such as those concerning sentencing. So, what we have is that, on the one hand, a single judge with the authority to make a final ruling regarding the sentence handed down to an individual while, on the other hand, we need at least three judges to be involved when it comes down to authorising a preliminary investigation. Above all, we cannot agree with this because, when we make decisions that increase the magistrates’ workload, we must also create an adequate structure to support the magistrates in question.
Given an unchanged number of judges, dealing with an unchanged number of cases in progress, but with an absence of reforms aimed at speeding up the court proceedings, we land up imposing a further increase in the workload. Therefore, day after day, the same people are forced to shoulder an additional amount of work and the court proceedings slow down even more, instead of being expedited.
3) The Government has stipulated any evidence obtained from telephone taps and used for the purposes of a criminal case, cannot be used for the purposes of other court cases. This is something that we most certainly object to, based on the merits. We believe that it is absurd to dictate that if, while listening in to a conversation as part of the investigation into a specific crime, which must in itself be sufficiently serious in order to warrant the user being placed under investigation, we come across proof relating to a different crime for which there is a separate ongoing court case, then we cannot use such information. Paradoxically, this means that we could well land up having one Public Prosecutor prosecuting an individual on murder charges, and another, totally different Public Prosecutor from the same Public Prosecutor’s Office prosecuting the very same individual on robbery charges. For example, if an individual under investigation for murder receives a (tapped) telephone call, from which it emerges that the same individual has committed another unrelated crime, this information cannot be used in the other criminal case. Therefore, the legislation proposed by the Government is a total absurdity that simply serves to prevent the magistrates from using any new evidence emerging from any conversation.
4) The Government has stipulated that, “sic et simpliciter”, the content of tapped telephone conversations may not be made public prior to the commencement of the hearing.
We of the Italia dei Valori party cannot accept this. We wish to point out that the official court proceedings only commence after the preliminary hearing and that these proceedings may begin only many years after the offence was committed. Therefore, we must make a clear distinction between which telephone calls are important in terms of the investigations and which are not.
As regards those telephone calls that are important in terms of the investigations, and that reveal to the public precisely what is happening in our Country, we must, purely in the interests of investigative confidentiality, establish that the content of such tapped telephone conversations cannot be divulged until such time as the individual involved has been informed. However, once the individual involved is aware of the tapped conversation, for example once precautionary measures have been instituted and adopted, then it is only right that the information, such as the individual’s name, why he is under investigation and what the charges against him are, be made public, since we supposedly live in a democratic country. For example, according to the Government proposal, we should not have been made aware of cases such as the one involving the Santa Rita clinic in Milan prior to the commencement of the official court proceedings. I believe, instead, that the public should be made aware of what is happening, in good time and without waiting for the commencement of the court case.
All other tapped telephone conversations regarding unrelated matters are a totally different matter, of course, and should rightly be deemed to be confidential.
So, it is right for the person that revealed the tapping to be prosecuted rather than the journalist who brought it to the public’s attention.
5) It is also untrue to say that telephone tapping is permissible in the case of mafia and terrorism-related cases because, in fact, perjury and other related crimes have been excluded.
We of the Italia dei Valori party will continue to voice our objections both inside and outside of Parliament and, should the provision ever become law, we will call for a referendum.
In this way, the Government will understand that the public does not considers these regulations to constitute any guarantee for their security.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

11 June 2008

Interpellation of the Minister of Justice

Just recently, at the Chamber of Deputies, I presented an urgent interpellation of the Minister of Justice Alfano in relation to the topic of telephone intercepts. Here below, I am publishing the transcript of the speech.


”Mr. President, representative of the government, we of the Italia dei Valori group have presented this urgent interpellation, because we are among those who think that the interpellations have to be presented before, not after the facts have come to pass, in as much that, after the facts have happened, it’s only possible to cry over spilt milk.

I am saying this because I have already heard in the corridors or even in public statements by Government representatives, comments like: “We have not yet approved anything, so what are you complaining about?”
In fact, we are not complaining; we are asking ourselves and we are doing this because it is allowed by the Regulations of the Chamber of Deputies, where it states and explains that the interpellation should be directed in writing, every time that a group or a parliamentarian wants to know the intentions of the conduct of the government. We really want to know the intentions and we would like to have a response to this question, not being put off till after Friday, because after that date, the damage is done. That is, we would like it to be possible to reflect together into the merits and before the measure is adopted to know whether this is useful to the country or is useful to whom.
The urgent interpellation that we have presented – I repeat – is aimed at finding out if it is true or not that the government intends to modify the procedures for telephone intercepts; if it’s true or not that by modifying these procedures, it intends to abstain from what is formally, officially – not in the bar round the corner – as referred by the President of the Council, who has that role for 24 hours a day, not just when he is seated in Palazzo Chigi or when he is in a meeting with the young industrialists or something else. When he affirms that he wants to do something as the President of the Council, we take his words like flowing gold (perhaps we are mistaken when we think of this President of the Council).
It wasn’t late in the evening, but early in the morning when he stated according to the text, that he intends, as soon as possible, to adopt a measure, together with his government, by committing his majority, to set out an absolute prohibition – not on committing crimes, not that – but on ordering, executing and divulging telephone intercepts, apart from for investigations relating to camorra, mafia, 'ndrangheta and terrorism.
We are trying to understand: the absolute prohibition relates to ordering, executing and divulging telephone intercepts. I want to remind myself ( I can’t possibly remind the representative of the government whom I know well, because we have a past when we were together in the judicial offices in Milan and he knows as much as I do – and I know because I learned from him what they are) that the telephone intercepts are actually a means of searching for evidence and they are tools that are useful for the judicial authorities to identify – according to the law – and ensure that a trial has useful elements about the facts referred to in the charge, the possibility of punishment and in determining the penalty. Thus, the telephone intercept is like a scalpel in the operating theatre, one of the tools that a surgeon needs for his operation. And the surgeon, in the operating theatre needs to operate with the scalpel, not just when there is a metastasis – that is a criminal association – but also when there is a specific intervention relating to a serious illness, that is a serious crime.
Allow me to ask you, Mr. Undersecretary, to refer to the President of the Council – given that you know this full well - that crimes of association to which he referred as for camorra, terrorism, 'ndrangheta and mafia are crimes that anyway have a reason to exist, and they can de discovered, they can be contested, as, either upstream or downstream, specific crimes are committed. That is an association is organised to commit a series of crimes.
Thus, when the Prosecutor sees a shooting and the body disappears, how does he find out that that the dead person was shot, and that at the back of things there was a husband who had been betrayed and not a delinquent association of a criminal type if he doesn’t do the investigations to find out?
Every crime, every delinquent association needs, in order to survive, a series of crimes that are committed and the delinquent association is the result of an investigation. Only following a series of investigations, carried out on a series of crimes that have been committed by the same people that are associated with each other, can it be said that the association is a criminal one.
Basically, you are teaching me that the criminal organisation is the final moment of a preliminary investigation, not the initial moment. And if it is the final moment of a preliminary investigation, how can I carry out the investigations, if one of the fundamental tools to find evidence about the crime and then subsequently I will be able to contest that there has been a criminal organisation, namely telephone intercepts, is taken from me?
This is why we are taking action beforehand: to try to invite some reasoning from the one who is adopting this measure. This cannot be the reason!

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

Intercepts: no credit arrangement

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

9 June 2008

The Regulation “Save the Caste”

I’m publishing an interview I gave on the topic of intercepts. It appears in today’s La Repubblica.

Antonio Di Pietro: With that law, the Clean Hands investigation would have been born and would have died immediately. Because we caught Mario Chiesa in the act because he was being intercepted. And the same applies for all the others that came after him.

La Repubblica: Absolute prohibition on intercepts, five years for anyone who carries them out and who publishes them. Honourable Di Pietro, Prime Minister Berlusconi is trying again. But this time he has the numbers of the majority on his side.
Antonio Di Pietro: It’s a criminogenic project that we of IdV will attempt to beat down both within and outwith Parliament. If necessary, even using the mechanism of a referendum. Because it is not worthy of a State based on the rule of law that when faced with a real problem, crime, the tools available to fight it are eliminated.

La Repubblica: This would save the investigations into organised crime and terrorism. But not the crimes of corruption and abuse of office by a public official. Basically the white collar crimes. What does that mean?
Antonio Di Pietro: Meanwhile, it means that the government is even renouncing giving chase to the big crime world. Because in order to uncover that a group of people are committing crime in an organised way, that a series of specific crimes make up part of a criminal design, it’s first necessary to carry out investigations, to do intercepts in fact. From the point when it’s forbidden to do this, they are excluding the possibility to get to the organisation.

La Repubblica: Do you have the feeling that it’s a question of an “ad personam” law?
Antonio Di Pietro: It’s the usual Berlusconian model. Harshness against the weakest and gentleness towards friends. Rather I would define it an “ad personas” law. In favour of those who form part of the Caste. That’s what it is, a “Save the Caste” regulation.

La Repubblica: Prison for the journalists, heavy fines for the publishers. Have you got the impression that the media are in its sights?
Antonio Di Pietro: Not just an impression, it’s exactly that. With the evident intention of stopping the general public from knowing anything about illicit happenings within the palace of power.

La Repubblica: You will admit that in recent years, excesses have not been absent. Private dialogues intercepted and then published without motive.
Antonio Di Pietro: We should distinguish between legal intercepts and those that have been illegally acquired. The latter, like the Telecom and Pio Pompa are not for publication. But the legal ones, what should be avoided is that they are published before the deposition of the acts. The rest should be within the realm of the professional conduct of the journalists. That cannot be within that realm if they are talking about the sending of kisses by SMS by Anna Falchi to Ricucci. It’s not for this reason, however, that the general public have to stay in the dark about the activities between the neighbourhood wide-boys and the governor of the Bank of Italy.

La Repubblica: The Minister of Justice Alfano has reminded us that the intercepts amount to 33% of the overall costs of the Justice System: “excessive”. Do you agree?
Antonio Di Pietro: Why not save even on the remaining 70%? Perhaps by reducing the investigations by the police and the carabinieri? It’s necessary to cut all waste at all levels, not to cut the tools of the magistracy. The Minister should remember that in the last 10 years what has been confiscated from criminals and deposited in the post office amounts to 1 billion 560 million. Like a mini budget. That’s also thanks to the intercepts. It’s a shame that that treasure trove is lying there unused: we propose that it is used to make the justice system work. If Alfano needs money, let him recover it from there, and don’t prevent the investigators from doing their work.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (2) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

1 June 2008

Trust in the judiciary

Here is the text of my participation in the Otto e Mezzo programme on Thursday, 29 May, where I answer questions regarding the judiciary, put to me by Lanfranco Pace.
Antonio Di Pietro: You have asked me: "Don’t you think that insisting on the principle of legality is simply obstinacy?" No, I don’t think it is. Someone who stands on the principle of legality is not being obstinate, but simply stating a democratic principle. Secondly, You asked: "But is it possible that all magistrates are doing the right thing and that none of them ever make mistakes?" Anything but, of course they sometimes make mistakes. The problem is that in our Country, in recent times, instead of taking it out on those that make mistakes, they have been taking it out on those that don’t make mistakes, but that have been doing their job very well. If you were to ask me "give us a name of a magistrate that has made mistakes ", well then, what about Judge Squillante, who has been found guilty and sentenced. Yes?.
Lanfranco Pace: Give me the name of one single judge that has been sanctioned by the top structures of the judiciary.
Antonio Di Pietro: Listen to what I’m saying. Squillante...
Lanfranco Pace: OK, but the judiciary punished this man for other reasons, not for failing to do his job.
Antonio Di Pietro: Since when?
Lanfranco Pace: Is there any magistrate that has failed in his duty?
Antonio Di Pietro: There are many.
Lanfranco Pace: Were they punished by the Csm?
Antonio Di Pietro: Certainly they were. Let’s try something, why don’t you make it a habit to go and review the sentences that the Csm has handed down, and continues to hand down in recent cases against judges that have apparently failed to do their jobs properly. Secondly, I believe that there are judges that make mistakes and that do not do their jobs, and it is only right that action is taken against these people. The Italian problem does not lie herein, but lies in the fact that, in the past ten years, since the Tangentopoli scandal broke, the only ones being victimised are those that have done their jobs properly. You see, when the Milan magistrates began with certain investigations involving people close to and associated with the Prime Minister, the full force of the controlled media has always been unleashed against the investigating magistrates, instead of against those involved in criminal activities. For example, they took their anger out against Boccassini rather than against Squillante in the Milan case. What I am trying to show is that attempting to lay the blame on the investigating magistrate instead of on the individual that commits the crime is one of the most serious problems of our Country. This is mainly due to the fact that the Italian media system is subject to a patent conflict of interests, to the point where it skews the reality, which passes of a battle between guards and thieves as being simply a battle between rival groups and is aggravated by the fact that, on occasion, the magistrate is also the thief.
Ritanna Armeni: I’m sorry, but there is one thing that you surely cannot deny, and that is that the judiciary has often made a big and rather public song and dance regarding its very invasive interference in politics.
Antonio Di Pietro: And vice-versa, right?
Ritanna Armeni: Perhaps also vice-versa. Like certain recent events in Naples, with 25 investigation notifications...
Antonio Di Pietro: In Naples, they have been aware of this inquiry for some time, to the extent that precautionary measures were already asked for as far back as January. It takes at least 2 or 3 months to draft an 800-page precautionary provision and to read through at least one and a half million pages. The mistake is not that the Naples magistrates, specifically today, acted against certain people for alleged offences, but rather that those people, being perfectly aware of the situation they find themselves in, choose to proceed with the institutional activities concerning the very same matters for which they are being investigated. The error is not, therefore, the fact that the magistrate is busy investigating, but the fact that the person being investigated, instead of running to the magistrate, instead runs in an attempt to avoid prosecution. Come on!
Lanfranco Pace: So, in your opinion, the mistake lies in not drafting a 600-page application for committal to trial, and then to submit one and a half million pages in dossiers, in other words one thousand five hundred dossiers, containing a thousand pages each, which, in terms of quantities, is equivalent to the Encyclopaedia Britannica times a thousand. Do you honestly believe that this makes for a speedy and modern justice system? I don’t think so.
Antonio Di Pietro: That is not true, I’m sorry, in the sense that you cannot take some proof and some dossiers and simply throw them away simply in order to have a smaller dossier. Come on! What kind of justice is that?
Lanfranco Pace: There are still too many.
Antonio Di Pietro: The blame does not lie with the magistrates, but rather with those that commit the crimes that force us to compile many pages of statements.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

22 May 2008

Surprise action by the sweet dictatorship

Once more Berlusconi has shown that he is a crafty one, in fact wily. Within measures that have to be passed, he inserts amendments that are useful to himself. And taking for granted that the measure has to be approved in as much as there are obligations in relation to the European Union but then what is also approved is stuff for his own consumption.
The European Court of Justice says to the Italian State: “you have to stop putting things off, stop using transitional legislation for an issue that has to be resolved once and for all” and that is exactly the respect of the law and the plurality of information and the fact that even Rete 4 has to move to satellite because that frequency was one time assigned in a competition to Europa7. It’s the European union that said that and what does he do: he inserts an amendment at the last minute without the possibility of discussing it, without the possibilityof making it known to the general public, with a surprise action that is worthy of the sweet dictatorship that I’m always talking about. An amendment that says “once more as a transitional arrangement the frequencies as once assigned are still valid” It’s exactly the measure created by Craxi in the 1990s when it was decided to oblige Berlusconi to give up the frequency to those that had the right to it. At that time it was done by Craxi with a clandestine legal decree. It was urgent and was due to last for a few months. By now not just 15 years have gone by, almost 20 and we are at the starting point with an amendment that puts off this decision “sine die”.
It is a politically incorrect way of behaving that is at the limits of institutional legality, and will certainly lead us to be derided in Europe and laughed at because once more we show that the laws, the institutions, Parliament, and the government are used for personal objectives.

We of Italia dei Valori inside Parliament and outside Parliament as a sign of the commitment that we have established with the voters, the true opposition, the only opposition, we will make our voice heard every moment because we have a memory, and as we said at the beginning of this legislature, we know history and we know the personal story and the entrepreneurial, political and judicial story of the President of the Council and it’s certain that he won’t take us for a ride.

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (2) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

8 May 2008

Vain Hope

I’m publishing a brief statement I made today at the end of the consultation at the Quirinale with the President of the Republic, on the topic of justice.
”If it’s true, as it is true that you can identify a good day first thing in the morning, we will understand already in the next few hours what this government and its President of the Council intend to do when we can see the name of the Minister of Justice. Because by looking at that name we will be able to understand what real space will be given to a commitment related to the fundamental topics why the Centre Right has won the elections giving the Italians to believe that it can do better than us in dealing with justice and security.
If there really turns out to be a clear rethink, and thus solid action in relation to security interventions, Italia dei Valori will give its own contributions in terms of ideas, solutions and support. Naturally, knowing who we are dealing with, first we want to be able to read the documents, to evaluate them and then take action.”

Posted by Antonio Di Pietro in Justice
Comments (0) | Write a comment | Sign-up | Send to a friend | Print

6 May 2008

Violence and Political Propaganda

The young man who was beaten up in Verona by a group of neo-Nazis for refusing to give them a cigarette, has died. I offer my condolences to his parents and I hope that those who are guilty will pay for the crimes.
The parties are exploiting his death, it is a right wing death, just as the death of signora Reggiani at the hands of a Roma person was a left wing death.
Violence is becoming an alibi to give direction to public opinion and to create still more new monsters.

The problem of violence is rooted in the non-punishability of most crimes, from a destabilisation of the magistracy that has come about during the government of the last fifteen years.

The magistracy has neither the material nor the legal means to intervene effectively. It’s necessary to get rid of the shameful laws, to simplify and shorten the trial process to reestablish a correct relationship between the citizens and justice.
Perhaps the time has come for the country to start to talk about the reasons for which justice has become not applicable and to ask who are the people responsible for this situation.
The citizens can no longer be taken for a ride. On the one hand there’s a call for security, on the