Update. In 2016 the I.P.R. F.T.T. the International Provisional Representative of the Free Territory of Trieste, established at the initiative of the Free Trieste Movement, released an expertise about the adminsitrative judgments in question.
The title of the Law Commission’s expertise is “Monitoring of the Italian administration of the Free Territory and international Free Port of Trieste – FALSIFICATION OF THE TREATIES AND SIMULATION OF SOVEREIGNTY in Italian administrative and judicial acts: judgments TAR FVG No. 400/2013 and No. 530/2013 and the documents related or similar to them”.
Read the document HERE.
***
DEVIATED FREEMASONRY, ITALIAN NATIONALISM, AND THE FREE TERRITORY OF TRIESTE
March 19th, 2014: in record time, the Italian Council of State issued the judgment of second instance about the case brought by 50 citizens of Trieste who impugned judgment No. 530/2013, with which the Regional Administrative Court (TAR FVG), rejected their action for the annulment of the 2013 regional elections summoned in the present-day Free Territory of Trieste.
About judgment 530/2013 TAR FVG (first instance)
The Regional Administrative Court for Friuli Venezia Giulia rejected the instance for the annulment of Regional elections, but instead of explaining why an Italian administrative body summon elections in a foreign State as is Trieste, it is filled with Italian nationalistic propagandas and threatens the appellants.
This judgment of first instance is a “legal monster” because it breaches fundamental human rights by declaring “subversive” the main appellant (Roberto Giurastante) for addressing a Court seeking the enforcement of laws in force and he, with his fellow citizens, is accused of endangering Italian national unity (!) despite Italy’s borders being established by the 1947 Treaty of Peace and by the 1948 Constitution, none of which includes Trieste.
This judgment is an institutional scandal, but it is even more of a scandal that it was confirmed by the Italian Council of State.
The judgment of second instance
Surprisingly, the Italian Council of State has now fully confirmed the “legal monster” as if an administrative judgment could rewrite international law, or if Italian judges had the power to declare international treaties null and void.
But Italy has a civil law system, it doesn’t follow common law; administrative judges can only declare null and void the acts impugned before them – in this case the summoning of regional elections – and since the Court rejected Free Trieste’s appeal, the decision is not final. Indeed, the appeal can be repeated over and over again.
Back to the Italian State Council:
Despite the Italian Government’s commitments to the British and U.S. Government, Trieste is in the hands of a local nationalistic camorra which simulates Italian sovereignty over the city, hurting in the process not only the Free State and its people, but also the international Free Port of Trieste and all of its international users.
In exchange for this “loyalty” the local system enjoys huge profits and immunities, even if its attempts are long overdue: the Cold War is over, and so is the dissolutive crisis of Yugoslavia. Its nationalism is anachronistic and harmful.
So why is it still there? And why do Italian Courts issue judgments against Italy’s own laws? The judgment of the Italian Council of State about the Free Territory of Trieste is a good case study to answer both questions.
The Italian establishment is full os magistrates with rather thorny connections: this is the shade government of so-called “judicial brotherhood”, an Italian deviant, pseudo-masonic, nationalistic Camorra (mafia-like organization).
The British secret service had already discovered during the good British-US administration of the Free Territory of Trieste, denouncing its connections with identical Italian circles: ever since, with propaganda or subversive actions, this system tries to “return” Trieste to Italy.
There is an interesting report about it HERE.
What is the “judicial brotherhood”?
The “judicial brotherhood” is a group of lawyers, chancellors of the Courts, magistrates, ministry officials. And, when it comes to Trieste, an equally deviant network supports it: a special service devoted to the Eastern Border area: the so-called “Gladio 2”.
Is it by chance that a delicate case about the question of the Free Territory of Trieste was assigned to an ultra-nationalistic judge from Trieste, who does not even bother to hide his contacts circles infested with Italian nationalistic deviant freemasonry? It is rather “bizzarre” that a freemasonry supports nationalism instead of universal brotherhood.
As for this topic, we suggest analysis “Which Freemasonry in Trieste?” on investigative newspaper La Voce di Trieste.
The Italian deviant freemasonry that unites specific members of the Italian judiciary is ferociously nationalistic, close to international criminal rings, fond of increasing tension in the Balkans to get back the territories Italy has lost after WWII. It is not a freemasonry, it is a mafia-like organization: in the name of its loyalty to Italy all crimes are forgiven. This is an anti-State or, a State of institutionalized Camorra.
But who is the champion of Italian anti-law?
Judge Fulvio Rocco.
Judge Fulvio Rocco was in the V section of the Council of State and confirmed the decision of the TAR FVT, including threats to the appellants.
Before the Council of State, he worked at the Regional Administrative Court for Veneto while also a contract professor at the nationalist University of Trieste (see the recent conference mystifying and defending the TAR’s decision. Soon, the Council of State followed suit, showing that it can be a political body that does not think twice before trampling on the law of the State itself).
Mr. Rocco has never refrained from supporting the theses according to which the Free Territory would have never existed (regardless to the very Italian system saying the opposite).
For example, in a 2005 essay about the Treaty of Osimo (“Gli accordi di Osimo: la recezione nel diritto interno italiano” – The Osimo agreements: implementation in Italian domestic law) Mr. Rocco, as spokesman of the Italian nationalistic thesis, claimed that, in 1975, Italy has “traded” Zone B of the FTT to Yugoslavia, implying that Italy had never lost sovereignty over it (again, despite all laws that confirm the opposite).
The truth is, the 1975 Italian-Yugoslav treaty was just a political, bilateral agreement to end mutual claims between the two States, and it does not affect the status of Trieste (about the real reason why Zone B does no longer exist: LINK).
But let us allow judge Rocco to write for himself:
«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 – who was a deputy in the Italian Parliament at the time – wide records 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 the time to conclude the negotiation with Yugoslavia and the resulting Osimo Agreements.
The President of the Council of Ministers of that time, on. Aldo Moro, notwithstanding requesting the favourable vote of the Parliament said – among other things – that “of course remain(ed) a deep bitterness, with is (still) not only that of the fighters and of the expatriated”, thus acknowledging that the solution proposed hurted the sensibility of a huge part of the Italian population.
Among the people involved there was myself, son of Istrians (yet, as for my family of origin, we were not refuges).
At the time, I was about to start my third year as a law student in Trieste, where I was also the President of the then Movimento giovanile [Juvenile Movement] of the Unione degli Istriani [Union of exiles from Istria].
The conclusion of the Agreements of Osimo and their following ratification determined, even with the obvious and general aversion to the political and economical content of the Agreements, a change, even if not immediate, to the heads of the Union, necessary induced by the system settled in Trieste that is past of the t particular political laboratory of which has greatly spoken this morning my friend lawyer Roberto Spazzali.
So, lawyer Lino Sardos Albertini, then the Union’s President, resigned from his role, aware that this was the conclusion of a strategy that nowadays political scientists would call bypartisan [sic] and with which – despite the lack of the current “bipolar” political asset – all political forces were sensitized, by different meant, not only from the opposition but also (especially) the ruling coalition of government, about the need to not allow the trade of Zone B of the Territory of Trieste: an this – remarked – through special “Committees for the defense of Zone B” established about everywhere, not just in Italy, and carrying out n an action that today would be called lobbyng [sic]».
A matter of compatibility:
This document is stuffed with nationalism, it denies the validity of all Italian Treaties regarding question Trieste, but there is more! The author does even admit he is incompatible with decisions about his hometown!
«As for my job, I feel more comfortable somewhere else, in cities where – for little that my contribution can be – I have not been “part” and where, therefore, nothing can be blamed on me because of my “living” before exercising jurisdictional functions, a living of which, by the way, I repudiate nothing. At the same time, exactly given the circumstance that my activity o judge 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 fate had different plans. This enemy of the Free Territory was put in charge of a case he admittedly was incompatible with. A coincidence? Hard to believe, especially after learning that this “patriotic” magistrate is being investigated for misappropriation and corruption.
Just one more evidence of how, very often, the highest ideals of Italian neo-irredentism do not properly match with the healthy management of public affairs.
Translated from blog “Ambiente e Legalità” – “Environment and Legality” by Roberto Giurastante
***
Follows the translation of an article from Italian newspaper “Il Fatto Quotidiano” (February 25th, 2014) giving an insight of how the connections between magistrates, deviated masonry, and organized criminality work in the nearby Italian Republic:
Administrative judges: rather than murder, it looks like suicide, by Alessio Liberati, February 25th, 2014
Lately, the circles of the grand commis cries for the murder of administrative justice (Regional Administrative Courts, Council of State and Court of the Counts) since President Renzi has (finally!) decided to limit the double career of administrative judges by no longer allowing their presence in key roles of administration (legal offices or leaders of the cabinet of ministers).
But, to me, this looks more like suicide than murder: just look at what administrative judges did in the past years –I am denouncing this since years on this blog – to understand what I am talking about.
I did already written about lots of administrative magistrates under investigation now, two former presidents of the Council of State (Paolo Salvatore and Alberto de Roberto) are to be added to the list and, this is important, both of them used the circumstance that the crimes charged on them were time-barren in the investigations on the so-called Giovagnoli case, a member of the Council of State (Fulvio Rocco) charged with interfering in a trail to favour his own daughter, while the president of the Regional Administrative Court Section, Adriano Leo, was charged with changing a judgment after a different, final decision was made (The article, in Italian: LINK).
We should add to this the position of the CSM [Superior Council of Magistracy] of administrative justices which, after the complaint (proven to be grounded) denouncing the (sleeping) affiliation of some magistrates to Freemasonry (which is forbidden by law) sanctioned with disciplinary measures the persons who reported the scandal instead of those who has actually been proven to be Freemasons, and even refused to regulate again the matter, despite receiving explicit requests to do so.
In the end, there are all the privileges that they obtained in the past, for example, an original form of extraordinary wedge, amounting to 1,300 per hearing: first, the CSM of administrative justice reduced the maximum workload of administrative justices (we’d better remind you they do only have two hearings per month!) then it allowed them to increase their own workload – the same that was previously reduced (so it goes back to the same as it was before, almost nothing compared to that of ordinary justices anyways), but only when it comes to supplementary hearings, kind of a overtime work that is charged on taxpayers and amounts to about EUR 1.300 per magistrate, for every single hearing!
All of this, with three months of de facto vacation each year.
Finally, a matter of logic: if Public Prosecutor Gratteri, an ordinary magistrate who devoted his life to struggling against the Mafia, cannot became Minister of justice (since it is inopportune that a magistrate occupies “his own” ministry), how can they claim that the judges of the Regional Administrative Court, of the Council of State and of the Court of Accounts occupy the key roles of public administration that are then subject to their rulings (just think about Frattini or Patron-Griffi, who, after being ministers, returned to express themselves on the measures adopted by their own governments or the following governments)?
Does this rule count only for an Anti-Mafia public prosecutor who has always stood against the connections between politics, freemasonry and organized criminality?