In the meantime, it should be clarified that the conditions in this matter are mandatory because i points to be clarified they are manifold. For sure, though, the audio streamed from Fourth Republic, that is, the broadcast broadcast on Mediaset networks conducted by Nicola Porro, deputy director of The newspaper of the Berlusconi family, they assisted the whole center to return to thunder against the never forgotten “judicial political coup“. The quotation marks of that audio were anticipated by the newspaper The Reformist, which also claims as the same ruling as the Supreme Court Berlusconi is denied by the verdict of the Civil Court of Milan. A piece of news that, as he wrote ilfattoquotidiano.it, does not correspond to reality.
The author of the sentence – The question of recordings of judge Franco, and for various reasons. The first is a simple question of opportunity: because the judge rapporteur of the Berlusconi judgment decides to speak with Berlusconi himself shortly after making the sentence for the leader definitive Come on Italy? In that interview, the magistrate, among other things, claims to have probably said to his colleagues: “Me I am not writing this sentence, if you want I can sign because I only do the background but here you all sign because I otherwise I won’t sign it“. In effects Amedeo Franco, for 20 years magistrate in Cassation, competent for the tax offenses, is referred to as the drafter who wrote the reasons for the Berlusconi judgment in his own hand. He was chosen precisely by virtue of his competence and is therefore the author of some passages in which Berlusconi is defined as “the creator of the illegal system. Undisputed Dominus “of the system of inflated rights of films bought abroad. He wrote that sentence and signed it together with all the other members of the college: Claudio D’Isa, Hercules April, Giuseppe De Marzo and the president Antonio Esposito.
The note of the CAssazione: “No dissent among the magistrates” – And this is what the Supreme Court points out in its note: “The motivation for the sentence was signed by all five magistrates members of the College, as co-drafters of the decision. It also does not appear that cons. Amedeo Franco has formalized no note of dissent pursuant to art. 16 of the law n. 117 of 1988 (art. 125, paragraph 5, of the Italian Criminal Code) “. If Franco had not agreed – as he himself claims in the audio – he would have had the opportunity, being in the minority compared to the college, to write his dissent and guard it. The magistrates have the faculty and already in the past and happened several times. Even with Berlusconi himself as defendant: during the trial Ruby, the president of the Milan Court of Appeal, Enrico Tranfa, resigned after the acquittal verdict for the accused, not sharing him and considering the former prime minister guilty. But Franco did none of this. More. Before the CSM, which judged the president disciplinary Esposito for giving an interview, he declared to not having felt or conditioned or influenced in the work of drafting the reasons for the sentence on Berlusconi. If he had doubts, if he feared that this sentence had been piloted because instead he declared the contrary before the body’s self-governing body? Similar statements – no influence, no influence – had also come from the other members of the college of ISA and Di Marzo.
The stages of the story: “Urgency due to impending prescription” – Since in the audio the magistrate also disputes “a filth” that is to say having sent the file on Berlusconi to the Feriale Section, in his note the Supreme Court underlines that the assignment took place in “full respect of the natural judge pre-established by law “. “The appeals were registered at the central chancery of the Court on 9.7.2013, after the arrival of the corresponding correspondence by the Milan Court of Appeal, which on 8.5.2013 had pronounced the sentence under appeal – explains the Supreme Court -. By reason of the detected urgency due to the impending expiry of the limitation period for crimes during the working period, the process, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 742 of 1969 and the related table provisions, was assigned to the Working Section, and therefore to a college already established before the arrival of the file to the Court of cassation, therefore in full respect of the natural judge pre-established by law “.
The accusations against Esposito, who denies: “Never pressure” – But not only. In the audio, the magistrate expresses himself completely opposite to what was done before the CSM even on behalf of the president of the college. Even Franco reports to Berlusconi rumors that Antonio Esposito was “pressed“For the fact that his son, also a magistrate, was being investigated by the Milan Prosecutor for”to have been caught with drugs at... “. And then he said again: “The prejudices by force that there were … you could do it … you could choose … you could … you could try to prevent it from ending up in the hands of this firing squad, as it happened, because worse could not happen. ” The Esposito, father and son, both deny: “I never in any way, under pressure neither from above nor from any other direction“Says the former judge Esposito, already finished under disciplinary proceedings for some of his statements on the Berlusconi trial and then acquitted by the CSM by virtue of the statements of the same Amedeo Franco. “The writer is totally alien, in any capacity and in every respect, to the very serious and defamatory insinuations, devoid of logic, that have been made against me,” he says Ferdindando Esposito, son of Antonio and in turn magistrate who in the audio of the alleged dialogue between Franco and Berlusconi is depicted as in trouble for a drug affair in Milan. Circumstance that is definitive “simply false, as completely invented. The extreme gravity of Franco’s assertion involved, before that infamy was given to public opinion, the verification of the merits of this news“.
The post mortem diffused audio – Another unsolved doubt is related to timing: why was such audio released only seven years after the facts? Second The Reformist because Berlusconi’s “lawyers decided to use the registration and filed it in appeal to the ECHR“. But what appeal are we talking about? At the European Court of Human Rights the former prime minister has already appealed without waiting for any decision. After cashing in the rehabilitation by the Milan court, Berlusconi’s lawyers withdrew the appeal because a possible decision “would not have produced any positive effect” for their client. It was the ex-knight who didn’t want to know if his rights had been violated in the end. It must therefore be assumed that he thought better of it by sending yet another correspondence to Strasbourg? But why, then, did he not make the audio with the judge public before? Always the newspaper of Piero Sansonetti claims that the lawyers of the former premier “in recent years they did not use the registration out of respect for the magistrate, who had remained in business “. Then, last year, Judge Franco died. And from Arcore they decided to release the tapes: respect was only valid with alive magistrate. And maybe able to explain the meaning of those words of hers, recorded in all probability without her knowing it.