PERUGIA facts:

what happened at Perugia’s Court

version  1.40 – for Autodifesa / Self Defense

 

 

 

Rome

 

Index

 

 

 

 

 

.

Introduction:Roma, caput mundi

 

[Note: This is a summary of what happened at Rome,

If you have already such facts, jump directly to next chapter]

 

Into previous decade, some people, with different objective, attempted to our private property, our job and our life. In 2004 we submitted the case to Rome’s public prosecutor’s office by registered letter. After the first report , into the following months we added more and more documentation, but our reports didn’t arrive to destination, except the seventh registered letter, which was assigned to a prosecutor. The prosecutor opened an investigation about the missing papers, formulating the hypothesis that documentation had been subtracted or lost. He advised us by fax about the request of closing investigation, made a few days after the opening. We tried to opposite to closing with all ours forces, sending faxes to Rome’s prosecutor, with others proofs and also with sending again documents disappeared.

At beginning of January 2006, the judge of preliminary investigation closed proceeding: we were not warned about, we discovered it later, exactly on March 2006[G1] . When we read the decree we noticed some absurdities. The decree reported that “no crime was committed in a specific day June 2006, so the subtraction and/or loss was without foundation”, a day of June, according to decree, asserted by us. Really we never assert a date about the disappearance: how we can fixed a unique day for a disappearance happened for papers sent on November ‘04, December’04, February’05, March ‘05, April ‘05 and also registered personally into office “Primi Atti” on April’05?

 

A protest was due: if no crime happened, our crime reports should have to generate some proceedings, why didn’t this come true? In March 2006, as soon as we knew the verdict, we wrote to prosecutor a fax, asking him explanations about the incredible judge’s decree.  He answered a few days later that our missing crime reports are still now ‘not reached’.

He  added that the proceeding is closed, and the only way to proceed is to appeal to the supreme Corte di Cassazione. We had no money for a lawyer specialized into Cassazione Court, and no one helped us in such direction.

 On summer 2006, the situation exceeded any limit.

We remained with fax of prosecutor in contrast with judge’s verdict, and with all unsolved problems: lack of justice, impossibility of guardianship, under menace of death, accusations to which we can’t answer back, and the consequences like poverty.

 

 

 

Dream of a night of ending summer

 

September 08, 2006: a new flight

Tired because of  lack of justice, impossibility of guardianship, under menace of death, accusations to which we can’t answer back, and other  consequences like poverty, we move to a public prosecutor’s office. 

It’s on September 8, 2006: our objective is to submit a crime report in order to obtain justice. Our crime report consists on a four-pages main part, some printed attachments, and a CDROM which collects other data. We enter without problems into public prosecutor’s office: we go to a particular office, used like acceptance, called “ufficio primi atti  literally “office of first acts” . Instead of a normal  employee, we find in service a good policeman, with 30 years of experience, and the same our will of justice.

 

Remark:

[A  translation into English language of the crime report is included into first attachment -> click here]

 

We tell him what happened in Rome, the numerous reports crime disappeared, the bad consequences in our life, and also our fear: he understands us perfectly, he seems to be like us, he reads on our eyes. He confirms it’s not the first time he hears similar problems about Rome. After reading our papers, he runs to the prosecutor on duty, while we wait for the answer. The answer is better then we hope: our crime report will be urgently assigned to a prosecutor belonging to anti-mafia department. So our report is just registered in a special crime log-book. All documents and CD-Rom are closed into a transparent plastic folder, and put on prosecutor’s desk (in order to avoid loss or subtraction or escape of news).

Then the policeman tries to contact by phone the  assigned prosecutor, but he is busy away. He explains how to contact prosecutor and the way to take legal proceedings against Rome: a group of policemen will go to Rome, to acquire  papers, files and all information; suddenly, without warning Rome. They will make a blitz. Thanks to policemen we are very happy. Then we try to contact immediately the assigned prosecutor, but he is always busy, and we go away.

 

 

September 29, 2006: the broken flight  

 

On 29 September we come back to public prosecutor’s office in order to obtain information about. We have great expectations: “have they made the blitz, yet?” was our main question.

When we arrive into prosecutor office  we have the worst surprise: the process has been  transferred to Perugia. We are very angry: Perugia, according to prosecutor, is appropriate for Rome. Perugia’s court is fixed by law to investigate about  problems  happened within  Rome’s public prosecutor’s office, however  every public prosecutor’s office has the power to make an enquiry, also suddenly, if there is a serious crime. Moving proceeding to Perugia, the prosecutor from anti-mafia ambient cancels out the work of the good policeman and of his co-worker, the prosecutor on duty. 

“He has not the will to investigate!” We think.  Discussing with him, his no-will emerges, because he doesn’t know our reasoning with policeman. He asserts the prosecutor on duty accepted our crime report only for “kindness”, and while he is saying other similar excuses, his face  becomes more and more  purple. He doesn’t remember anything, he seems to ignore the seriousness of the crime and the urgency of  investigation  assigned to him. It was assigned only in a few hours with the confidentiality of a scrupulous operation carried out  with particular guidelines, and passing documents directly to him avoiding their transit into secretary and other offices (a way strengthened by an anti-mafia ambient procedure).

Sorry to say, prosecutor sent “the problem” to Perugia: he is not like his colleagues who wants to make a blitz,  he hides himself behind the excuse of  the “appropriate office”.  If we had believed that Perugia could have make a good work, we would have gone to Perugia by our own legs. We placed crime report just in this public prosecutor’s office, and our dreams could have been concrete only if we had met another prosecutor…

 

L’encens dame sans Mercy

 

 

October 10, 2006: bureaucracy

 

At the beginning of October 2006 we go to administrative office of Perugia’s public prosecutor’s office located at Piazzale Partigiani . In there we ask information about the proceeding coming from the external court. There are no policemen in there, there are only old ladies,  and we receive no direct answer about. A lady gives us a paper sheet: we must indicate name, surname, address and request, then, after two weeks the office will send the answer to our address. “Why had we to wait more than two weeks for data which stays in every computer, available in five minutes?” It’s our question, also in Rome a normal employer can make a query about and supplying the result in a very short time: as we saw in Rome it is necessary no appointment to know this. The lady rejects any argument: she says to us she can’t tell information to anyone. But we aren’t “anyone”, we have name, surname, personal documents, papers from precedent public prosecutor’s office, and above all,  we are just the injured part who submitted the documents to the court! But there’s nothing to do: we go away without information.

 

The first approach to prosecutor

The same day, on October 10, 2006, after the failure to collect data from the ladies of administrative office,  we decide to try to contact prosecutor directly, using the official  court’s web site. Into Internet we find prosecutor’s names in service, as well as their fax number. The idea is to send a fax to some of them, so we decide to write to three person and wait for a reply. We trust that in case of communication will be reached by the wrong prosecutor it will be passed to the right person. 

 

[The fax is included into attachments -> click here]

 

Contents of fax:

1.       we report all data: our identification,  proceeding’s data as assigned into precedent public prosecutor’s office, date of forwarding;

2.       we describe in short the good work of his co-workers in another town;

3.       we describe what’s happened in Perugia about the difficult to have information; we describe how we have fear that our papers can disappear again!

4.       we ask him for an urgent interview, just like other co-workers have recommended to us.

5.       we underline our crime reports and esposti had repeatedly disappeared in different offices and places, so one of the reasons we want to meet him is to control that documents, which arrived from the external court, are not tampered but complete and integral.

6.       we should check that also other documentations, sent to the precedent public prosecutor’s office, after September 8, 2006  have been forwarded correctly (it’s about a verdict of Supreme court of Cassazione).

     

 

October 12, 2006: the first refusal

 

One of the three people to whom we had sent fax is just the assigned prosecutor, and like answer we obtain two pages of fax;

 

Remark

[All two-page prosecutor’s reply  are included into attachments click here]

 

The first page is the answer of prosecutor; he replies writing a message in his own handwriting which overlaps our document.  Prosecutor maintains we don’t explain the reason for an interview (see point 4,5  and 6 above), and  he will permit to us the interview only by his own decision. The second page comes from procurator’s secretary,  lists  information about proceeding, in particular:

1. We are the injured part in a proceeding;

2. The criminal offences are based on article 323 and 490 of crime code;

3. The proceeding is on phase of preliminary investigation.

 

We are worried: we have this first result, but the situation is tangled. The documents, passing from one public prosecutor’s office to another, have lost speed and reserve: now there is no longer possibility in anti-mafia, but in ordinary one. And ordinary ambient in Perugia is worst than any other we have seen,  for example it took  more than  two weeks to know data available on five minutes. Despite it is clearly described on the four-pages of crime report, no one seems to understand we have fear, we have suffered some damages! It’s just like going to the hospital with fractures exposed, and being visited at last, as for a simple cold. The prosecutor seems that he doesn’t understand what we write: we describe the reasons, we want to be sure he will analyze every our papers and he will come really to defines the core of problems.  But the worse aspect is another: about serious crimes committed in a public prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor by himself should be very interested to listened to witnesses: why is he  so sure of his capability?  No one is infallible!

 

 

October 13, 2006:  A verdict of Cassazione

 

On October 13, we send to prosecutor, by email, an important verdict sentenced by the court of  Cassazione. The verdict invalidated  the closure of investigations made during a preliminary phase. This verdict had been sent to precedent prosecutor too, after September 8, 2006 but because the transfer of proceeding to Perugia we were not sure that documentations successive had been sent together with main papers. So we think it had better to sent a copy directly to Perugia.

The Cassazione’s verdict is very important because it underlines the importance of preliminary investigation and the necessary care about every detail during such phase: it stated that a preliminary investigation stopped because of superficial analysis of proofs can generate the biggest damages, worse  than into other phases. The above verdict of Cassazione had cancelled a sentence of closing investigation, just in phase of preliminary investigation, because the judge closed the process without listened to the injured part, and the relative closing caused a lot of damages. It was just  what had happened to us in Rome: judge, into preliminary phase, closed our investigation without collecting further our proofs (into Rome’s case some proofs were not considered to be valid  because they  were sent by fax, instead of by person). Furthermore, judge and prosecutor in Rome weren’t interested to talk with us for a crime so serious! And also the Rome’s verdict was confused and  reporting even wrong data on it. If  Rome’s judge  had talked with us before to write the verdict, he would not have done  a lot of mistakes.

We send this verdict of Cassazione in order to demonstrate that  both Rome’s  judge and prosecutor made a big mistake to refuse our proofs during  preliminary phase, like verdict of Cassazione teaches.

Into electronic mail we also write a list of papers that should have been delivered from precedent public prosecutor’s office, asking to control that they stay in Perugia too; the first two pages includes both the list of attachments gives printed into paper and the list of files recorded into the CD-ROM, then into following pages there is the text of verdict. We also underline that on his precedent fax the last lines, written by pen, are not legible.

 

Remark: [Our email is included into attachments click here]

 

 

October 17, 2006: prosecutor loses list of documents …

 

Our email of 13 October is received, printed into paper,  and submitted to prosecutor.

Into our letter we tried to ask again an interview explaining better the reasons. Prosecutor put down  his reply by pen in a blank area of the first paper sheet. He  gives the directive to forward his message to us, including into reply also his precedent message (because we indicated it arrived without the final part). Unfortunately, prosecutor  another time doesn’t grant an interview and ignores our explanations, the only thing he does is to give the command to check the presence of  all listed material we reported into our communication. His message is forwarded to us on 17th October by  a two-page fax as report into attachments.  Notice that our list-of-files is not completely included into first page and it  finishes on the successive page, which is not included into reply.  We are worried and we wonder whether  he could have sent a partial list to his office too.  The page of precedent fax, not legible,  is sent again, but it is received by us again not legible into the last passage: he wrote outside the margins, where the scanner can’t read!

 

Remark: [The two-page fax  is included into attachments click here]

 

 

October 27, 2006: another email for asking to check list of documents

 

The prosecutor’s  reply of  October 17 leaves us dissatisfied. We are scrupulous because in the past it had just happened that a CD-Rom we gave in another office of another place was illegible. On the occasion the secretary didn’t contact us to ask for a copy, and we discovered it by chance. So, this time we want be sure our CD-Rom is still functioning, and moreover we want to resolve any doubt about the truncated list we told into previous passage, that is related just to files recorded into CD-ROM. Therefore, we think it’s better to write another email, as in precedent case. Into the new one we control all text can be printed into only one page, this could reduce eventual loss of information.

On October 27, we send a new electronic mail to prosecutor; this time we write further information, namely: a progressive number and  the number of pages for each document.

 

Remark: [The single-page email  is included into attachments click here]

 

 

November 2006: no signal from Perugia

 

November 2006,

Time goes by, no one consults us, and a lot of questions are running in our minds: maybe the prosecutor so busied to  have not yet the time to read the verdict of Cassazione or the time to read better our crime report? We write others faxes in others department: no answer! We try to obtain a whatever contact: no results!

We go directly to public prosecutor’s offices in Perugia at Piazzale Partigiani: an old lady stops us at main entrance:  “you can’t enter, you have nothing to do there,” she says. We answer we don’t want to disturb the prosecutor, we would like to talk with his officers, we say  it’ just arrived  the end of November, the proceeding is opened here from more then two months and we have no information yet … we are exposed. We add “What’s happening?”

An army of old ladies drive out from public prosecutor’s office in Perugia, without we could ask anything to officers who work into the prosecutor’s office. Furious, as soon as we find the nearest  box phone we phone to prosecutor’s office!  At last a gentle woman answers: we present all our data, name, surname, number of proceeding and so on,   we explain we really need  information. The answer is she couldn’t refer us anything, by phone, but considering the heavy situation an exception can be made...

 

We report a piece of  the above dialogue (S= secretary, U= us):

S:   I couldn’t refer you anything, by phone, but considering the heavy situation….

U:   Why heavy situation?

S:   Prosecutor has started the real investigation… Now we are waiting the result … Prosecutor should communicate some acts, but he is not in position to contact you… You live far away from Perugia, and there are nobody at your home address…

U:   We don’t live in that town, it’s too much dangerous for us. We explained  the situation very well inside crime report… But, did the prosecutor really read it?

S:   He also has contacted your local police force… They are not capable to contact you, too … It seems you are impossible to find…

U:   We have some problems with our local police force … we had to move away also because of them… But we have even explained such into the four-pages crime report,  indicating more details into enclosed papers… In particular, inside the crime report we have written we have been forced to migrate. See into crime report the last point of ‘Declaration’ and   the point (c) of “We Ask”, here we have talk about.

S:   I’m sorry, I haven’t your papers…

U:   Ok, and what about the result you are waiting?

S:   Well, prosecutor has started the real investigation… now we are waiting the result from Rome.

U:   From Rome or about Rome? Why from Rome?

S:   From Rome, we have requested an investigation to police in service  into Rome’s public prosecutor’s office… Now they are making an internal investigation…

U:   But it’s absurd! Our crime report comes from another public prosecutor’s office and  in there public officers have explained us how a serious investigation should be made!… It should be made by  external police in the reason crimes in Rome might have been committed just by person that you have entrusted the investigation! Do you understand this?

S:   I’m sorry…It’s not up to me… It was up to our police…Perugia’s police delegated Rome’s police for an internal research!

U:   I’m very sorry too. Now what should we do? Prosecutor has our fax number and our email address,  but we haven’t received any message about…We have written to him more times, his last answer was sent on October 17 … Shall we go to prosecutor’s office?

S:   But you are so far…

N:   No, absolutely we are not far!  We are calling from a phone in front of your office: it takes two minutes on foot…

S:   I’m sorry, I had to ask….

 

We wait for a few minutes, then the connection is interrupted suddenly.

 

THE CONNECTION IS INTERRUPTED SUDDENLY.

The connection  will remain interrupted, with secretary, prosecutor as well as with police. No one will contact us. It’s absurd  we are in front of prosecutor’s office, we want to enter but we  cannot.  While, officially , we are “impossible to find”.

The  “impossible-to-find” mark will persecute us for long and long time, it will create problem with other policemen: if those policemen we find are intelligent people, after seeing fax from both Rome’s and Perugia’s  prosecutor’s office, they understand the problem is more complex, and they realize they have been  scoffed too, like us! Otherwise, if we find  stupid or hypocrite people, they deny whatever proofs and evidence. 

 

Here you are how our dream of justice has been stopped, broken by prosecutors. It was broken firstly by the prosecutor  who sent crime report to Perugia, and secondly it was broken  just in Perugia, by its prosecutor and its judicial police: they never had the will to research the truth.

 

From December 2006 to February 2007: rejected from civil society

 

Between December 2006 and February 2007, we spent those cold months in houses for poor people, where often the owner is the municipality and the management is entrusted to Church. A lot of defamations were just spread in the circle of religious associations. So we were rejected from a place to another, like the worst criminals, worse than prostitutes, burglars, merchant of illicit drugs, and so on, that is, people who normally lived in such houses. 

We tried to push Perugia to find a solution or to move a reaction about, without  any result. It was not only a problem of law and civil and human rights, it was  a concrete drama, it sounded as “how we can live, work, eat and  sleep, if someone has given us civil death penalty, and nobody wants (or can) stop the massacre?”

In February, we go to the police headquarters in the town we live at moment. We explain the situation to different policemen, and more than one offers his help: one of them  scolds operators in religious circles without education, knowledge and skill, who are interfering too much in our life and in legal aspects.

Another policeman sends us to a journalist of a daily newspaper: he is worried about the idea we are living in dangerous and degrading place, not good for a family. To policeman, the newspaper  article should make known our situation to public opinion, in order to obtain home and work. Indeed we think the public prosecutor’s office will be completely indifferent, because an article on journal is something of small importance  to move a prosecutor….

On the contrary to our opinion, journal will make a certain effect to prosecutor…

 

 

March 2007: mass media  break silence and indifference

 

The article is broadcasted into newspaper on March, 04 2007, and it tells in short our story. It introduces some legal aspect, our  help request to authority and relative waiting for an answer. Furthermore since religious circles have nothing for us, or better, they have told us to go away, it also describes  we are looking for home.

Nobody intervenes: municipality keeps on silence, normal people keep on silence, but  religious circles are angry because we have made a negative imagine about their work, however they have fear of mass media and this aspect permits to us  to stay more time into their structure for poor people . A few time after, we try an underpaid job, in a place not far away from the town, in a place where employers don’t know us and don’t know anything about the newspaper article. We stay further time into religious circles, because we have no enough money to get a new life independently (we earn a little and we must pay also some medical treatments into such period). Religious  circles having fear of mass media  they will invent different ways in order to expel us from their structure. The last thing  will be the best:  restructuring of buildings, decided from municipality.

 

 

In the meantime, the article doesn’t stop the rumor,  simply it slows down its march and its demolishing force. At the end, because of restructuring, we had to move away: we will leave the town without a precise destination, sure that all old injuries, and also the new ones, will travel with us, preceding or following us.

 

We utilize the piece of news  for legal aspect sending  it to another Authority, describing what’s happened in Perugia and  hoping such  Authority would take an action about. We take care to avoid to involve prosecutor directly, because every our actions give the same result: the silence.

 

 

 

 

May 23, 2007: Death in Perugia

 

More than two months after newspaper article, a fax arrives to us transmitted from police headquarters of the town in which  the article was appeared and in which  we were still living: it is the  Perugia’s prosecutor’s response, a wretched page,  with our verdict of death. As soon as possible we run to chief inspector to ask explanation about. What we read is awful.

 

Remark: [The two-page fax  is included into attachments click here]

 

Prosecutor didn’t send communication directly to us, he affects we are “impossible to find”. We think it’s impossible that our email address, with our data and even our fax number,  are all together  disappeared from every computer and  from general administrative office. We remind that between  November and December 2006 we had continued to write to public prosecutor’s office and in many different offices.


 

ANALYZING THE VERDICT

The verdict path

It doesn’t arrive directly from prosecutor, this is the communication path:

1. It leaves on April 17, 2007, from recording office of Perugia with destination  Perugia’s police who had to investigate about our case (judicial police). There are on total 11 pages.

2. It leaves on April 20, 2007 from Perugia’s police with destination police headquarters of newspaper’s town: At this arrival there are only 4 pages, seven pages there aren’t.

3. From our policeman it leaves on May 23, 2007 with destination our fax number.

The effective communication we receive from prosecutor is just of one page, the others seven pages (11-4=7) are missing and remained into Perugia police’s office. We ask to our policeman if he is sure about the remaining 3 of 4 pages are internal pages. As response, the policeman shows, a little far away, the entire fax  (he shouldn’t shows internal document!)

Therefore we see:

On first page there is a wide list of destinations giving the idea we are “impossible to find”.

On second page an opening internal message  and others data.

On third page the same page fax which has been sent to us.

On fourth page the newspaper article.

 

The verdict’s preface

1.       Prosecutor remembers he already refused the interview on October, 12 2006, that is, according to him we didn’t explain the motive of an interview. Indeed we had  written the motive —that was “to be sure he has all papers and papers are true copy, in accordance with original”—  but prosecutor didn’t see and read it!  Personally he had no reason for an interview!

2.       Our request of protection slipped on void, without having a result in our life, stopping an eventual other demand. Note the diabolic cunning: it wasn’t rejected but it slipped on void. It demonstrated both prosecutor’s and police’s  “good will”, because it took zeal to create a monster, a barbaric sentence by modern law. We analyze better:

-          Prosecutor gave the assignment to Perugia’s judicial police: it was normal activity.

-          Perugia’s police sub-delegated its task to our local police force that we had denounced for threats and other aspects. This delegation was not normal activity, because not only it didn’t follow the law, but it was pure madness from every point of view. Perugia’s police might have assigned the task to another type of police force, but absolutely not to an involved part.

-          Local police force invited Perugia’s police to say us we had to refer to the competent police in order to obtain protection! Who was competent police?

 

Prosecutor® Perugia’s police ® Our Police Force  ® Competent Police ® ? ® Repeat request

 

We spent a lot of time to search the competent police, we searched in different headquarters, ranging from those in where we was living to those of every new town in where we had moved too. Despite our widely exploration,  no one answered in positive manner.

Surely Perugia’s police was  competent to investigate about Rome: Perugia’s police had every possibility to understand what had happened in Rome, determining the real state of investigation made over there, taking the fascicules, detecting who worked in such offices, finding exactly the path of our crime reports before their disappearance, discovering who was behind disappearing and injuries, and so on.

Because Perugia’s police was the police force tasked by prosecutor in service into Perugia’s public prosecutor office, which is, as a rule, the official court competent to judge Rome’s prosecutor’s offices. Perugia’s police did not its work! Perugia’s policemen  let their duty was made by their colleagues of Rome, as it is described into this document at “November 2006: no signal from Perugia” /conversation by phone with prosecutor’s office.

We underline that the enclosed files, listed in this part, are missing. Also the policeman is irritate; he will write a fax to prosecutor, asking the lacking pages, but no one will respond him!

 

The “sentence” is a complete refusal:

1.       Prosecutor doesn’t want the interview. Thence, he remarks one more time what he had already decided on October 12, 2006. nothing has demolished his convictions, or shifted his position about. All our successive explanations had no effect, that is,  our emails of October 13 and of October 17, 2006, others communications —in particular the discussion by phone with his personnel —Even  our imploring when we were a few minutes by foot from his office. The prosecutor administers justice, the good and evil, maybe he thinks he is an omnipotent god, better then the biblical and legendary king Salomon. Also king Salomon questioned people, noble or popular one! 

2.      Prosecutor denies an intervention in our favor about social aspect.

Prosecutor lets us “condemned to civil death penalty”, because the consequences of lack of  justice and papers disappearing  produce, first of all, social consequences.

We understand he is not a social assistant, but a good administrator of law can stop, or at least, can reduce the damages caused by Rome’s public prosecutor’s office. Even if the Perugia’s prosecutor doesn’t have the firmly will to make a strong  investigation —for example making a blitz into Rome’s court like planned by policeman and prosecutor on duty in precedent public prosecutor’s office from which the proceeding come from (see on this document  “September 8, 2006”)—, at least he should have the necessary good sense of man of law. In crime report we asked, fundamentally, the possibility to live and work, despite of someone doesn’t let us in peace in every place we move.

There are other consequences, among them there are legal consequences (also relative to ownership and private properties), but the principal aspect is to remain hale and hearty, living with dignity: prosecutor shows a law management without mercy. He is an obstinate man  in a blind bureaucracy, and  he moves on the same line established by others (like Roman co-workers).

 

No one is innocent about the “verdict”

 

Principally we have talked about Perugia’s prosecutor  because behind each single passage, paper or action, there was his personal decision, his signature,  however we have to assign a “special tribute” to Perugia’s policemen: they aren’t better than prosecutor.

o        They had entrusted our life to their colleagues of our local police (the police in service where we lived until 2005 and where we still had our official domicile). Their action was very inappropriate because local police was an involved party into proceedings. It was a boo-boo that not only endangered our life, but also their action gave inopportune information to the other party about proceeding. 

o        They  entrusted the inquiry to Rome’s police  who was in service under the command of Rome’s judges —charged just into the proceeding—. Rome’s police might have been involved into paper disappearing too. How could Rome’s police move against its bosses  or against its colleagues?  We are still waiting for results of such investigation.

o        They also wanted to conceal their jam: their office never sent enclosed files in which it was written as they managed and discussed about our protection. About that managing we know nothing, neither who is the “competent police” sentenced about. As concerning  “competent police” for establishing the truth about Rome it was exactly Perugia’s police force: it was fixed by law! Furthermore, no information was contained into verdict about the assignment of investigation to Rome’s police, we discovered it by chance talking with prosecutor’s secretary (see the November’s dialog).

So, to sum up,  we have found a prosecutor who believes himself better than King Salomon, and we have found  policemen  who work  on the contrary, that is, giving our life-protection to those who had threatened us, and asking stolen properties to those who had stolen it!

This is how justice is administrated in a famous and glorious town like Perugia!

 

 

What happened at Perugia is also described into the Youtube video “Perugia lacks”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Main Index


 [G1] Probabilmente non si può mettere: when we had the first occasion to collect money to go to Rome.