STUDIO LEGALE
AVV. GIUSEPPE SMECCA
Via Ettore Romagnoli,146 - 93012 Gela (CL)
Tel 0933.921755 Fax 0933.1936556
Cell. 347/5472803 - 320/7815877
Email: giuseppe.smecca@poste.it
C.F. SMCGPP75R02D960P - P.I. 01682820855
ECC.MA CORTE DI APPELLO
DI CALTANISSETTA
ATTO DI APPELLO
Nell’interesse di DI BLASI Saverio, nato a Gela il 24/09/1961 ed ivi residente nella via Timoleone n. 14, rappresentato e difeso, giusta Prosecutor at the bottom of this Act, by Adv. Joseph Smecca at which the study site in Gela in the way I live No 9, states of domicile;
AGAINST
sentence no 511/08 issued on 24/06/2008 by the Court of Gela, Criminal Division, in single judge, whose side moved was filed at the Court on 12/09/2008 as a result of criminal proceedings RGNR No 214/02 dependents, in fact, Saverio Di Blasi art. 595 cp
FACT
Infurna Francis, on 25/01/2002 before, on 08/02/2002, then, filed a complaint-complaint before the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Gela against Saverio Di Blasi, defining the latter "self-styled" responsible environmental association "Our Italy".
Indeed, Infurna Francis claimed by the first claim, that for about 15 days a leaflet circulated in Gela Italy due to our, and especially to that Saverio Di Blasi, author and considered it responsible for their own offensive epithets personality, professionalism and integrity set out in that wheel, the latter also containing defamatory and slanderous statements.
By its second complaint, then, presented the 08/02/2002 at 15:30 at the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Gela, time simply strange, because at that time the prosecutor is not receiving the public, Infurna Francis lamented that the activities implemented by Di Blasi Xavier still continued in an unabated, to the point that he learned that he had found that activity of leaflets execution is first petrochemical plant at Gela, and all ' interior of the premises of the Municipality of Gela by posting on a bulletin board at the entrance of the latter, the latter being used to trade unions, both at the Hospital "Vittorio Emanuele" Gela.
On 28/11/2002, then, the public prosecutor at the Court of Gela advanced skills required to GIP is in storage because the injured party had used a very personal interpretation of the phrase about a very specific question in the leaflet, whether they thought the contents of the leaflet, regardless of whether the suspect was or was not the author, the expression of a "critical fully admissible against who represents the information and is attentive to some problems of the city and not to others. "
The prosecutor, therefore, justify its request to dismiss because the contents of the flyer did not constitute the crime of defamation.
against the above claim, therefore, proposed Infurna Francis, on 21/02/2003, opposition which, though devoid of the requirements of Article. 410 Code of Criminal Procedure, veniva regolarmente accolta, ragion per cui il G.I.P. presso il Tribunale di Gela, mediante ordinanza ex art. 409, comma 5, c.p.p. pronunciata in data 12/01/2004, disponeva la formulazione dell’imputazione carico di Di Blasi Saverio.
In data 19/05/2004, infine, il G.U.P. presso il Tribunale di Gela disponeva il rinvio a giudizio di Di Blasi Saverio per il reato a lui ascritto, così indicando la data del 24/11/2004 ai fini della comparizione dell’imputato innanzi al predetto Tribunale.
MOTIVI DI APPELLO
A) INATTENDIBILITÁ DI TUTTI I TESTI ESCUSSI
Il teste Francesco Infurna, parte civile in seno al procedimento in questione, afferma di “essere venuto in possesso, un giorno, di una copia di un volantino che poi ha trovato affisso sui muri della città, in diversi punti della città”, senza però mai indicare l’esatta ubicazione, così preferendo rimanere sul punto alquanto vago.
Ed invero, il fatto che il teste abbia dichiarato palesemente il falso emerge con evidenza alle pagg. 4 e 5 del verbale di udienza del 05/05/2006; ed infatti, alla suindicata pag. 4 lo stesso afferma testualmente: “… il Di Blasi non ha mai smentito di essere l’autore del documento, ritengo che come ha pubblicato questo documento, così lo ha affisso in vari punti della città”.
A pag. 5 del verbale di udienza di cui sopra, invece, il teste afferma: “lo distribuiva lui. Ci sono state other people have seen it, but I also saw myself, I saw him one evening to distribute this flier, so, in the streets. " And again: "I reported in my complaint, my complaint I told who had already seen in front of the petrochemical plant, the Municipality of Gela put up the poster board and in the streets." But why
Infurna Francis initially stated that it was Saverio Di Blasi is the author of the leaflet that the author of the poster itself, so simply expressing their own thoughts, but then claim to have seen one evening, the accused engaged in the distribution in the square?
A P.. 8 of the minutes of the hearing on 05.05.2006 also Infurna Francesco dichiara: “Si, è un dipendente comunale (sarebbe Guido Dato) che ha visto affiggere alla bacheca comunale il manifesto, una copia di quel volantino che mi diffama”.
I testi Cerro Rocco e Dato Guido, indicati da Infurna Francesco come testimoni oculari dei fatti in questione, hanno smentito Infurna Francesco in quanto hanno entrambi riferito di non avere mai visto l’imputato né affiggere né distribuire volantini, ma hanno soltanto visto il volantino in questione affisso su una bacheca sindacale del Comune di Gela.
La considerazione secondo la quale Infurna Francesco basi, coscientemente la propria accusa semplicemente su illazioni, emerge con maggiore evidenza laddove lo stesso ritiene Di Blasi Saverio author of the flyer "because it is signed, is the signature, then why is the signature."
It is clear that any unknown, as which has already been reported by the accused at the hearing on 12.21.2006, can write a leaflet through your computer and then plug in full, always using the computer, the name of a person perhaps well-known and famous in the city which, in fact, Saverio Di Blasi, since that is not affixed to the wheel in question is no signature. **********
interrogation made by the texts As Guido (now municipal employee union CGIL) and Cerro Rocco (municipal employee and Director of the "Corriere di Gela") dated 30/06/2006, clear any doubt: both attribute the authorship of the flyer in question Saverio Di Blasi only because they are given the same, by writing mechanized, the name and surname of Saverio Di Blasi same, but none of them, at the request of the Chairman of the bench Dr. Amato, says he has never seen the defendant distribute and / or post the same.
Indeed, both city employees claim to have seen this flyer at the same occasion, the day when it was found affixed to a bulletin board inside the town of Gela at P.za S. Francis, space usually used in the syndicate.
Il teste Cerro Rocco, poi, come è dato evincere alla pag. 11 del verbale di udienza del 30/06/2006, afferma: “io l’ho visto, e mi ricordo che chiamai pure il collega quando lo vidi nella bacheca del comune per dirgli che c’era qualcosa che lo interessava, e lui mi ha detto che già sapeva”.
Appare pacifico, quindi, che il volantino trovato in bacheca sindacale non è stato rimosso da nessuno dei presenti, ed in particolar modo neppure dall’interessato, ovvero Infurna Francesco, atteso che dalle dichiarazioni rese dal teste Cerro Rocco emerge che quest’ultimo viene a conoscenza del volantino in un momento successivo rispetto all’odierna parte civile che, stranamente, non si adopera, even be offended, for the removal of the wheel, allowing that others could access them. The heads
Antonio Burgio, then heard as a witness at the hearing on 30/06/2006, relates, as inferred from the data page. 7 of the minutes of the hearing, the existence of a single wheel. The latter, in fact, the question put by the President Amato has never heard of posters were hung around Gela and related ol'Infurna ... or, he replied, "not as a manifesto, there was a poster that ... there ... just a poster I made and I've brought to my director. " It seems strange as the heads Burgio, which makes statements entirely comparable to those made by its director, he of the television journalist and cameraman Channel 10, the poster claims to take interest in what its director, but is unable to respond to the content of the same .
From the foregoing it is clear that: 1
) Infurna Francis Since Cerro Guido and Rocco have never seen Saverio Di Blasi post and / or distribute the leaflet in question;
2) Infurna Francis declares clearly indicates where the false, by the two complaints bags, Mr and Mrs Since Guido, Cerro Rocco and Antonio Burgio which people are informed of the facts (flyer poster board at City Hospital and Vittorio Emanuele” di Gela, distribuzione volantino davanti stabilimento petrolchimico di Gela);
3) Burgio Antonio, teste indicato dalla stessa parte civile, fornisce una deposizione alquanto contraddittoria per logica e contenuto;
4) Nessuno ha visto Di Blasi Saverio e/o altri distribuire volantini innanzi lo stabilimento petrolchimico di Gela;
5) Infurna Francesco, Dato Guido, Cerro Rocco e Burgio Antonio hanno reso una testimonianza palesemente falsa, così calunniando ingiustamente l’imputato Di Blasi Saverio.
**********
Nell’opposizione proposta dalla parte civile avverso la richiesta di archiviazione avanzata dal P.M., Infurna Francesco dichiara testualmente: “…Italia We do not recognize in the recent positions that he expressed in the pamphlets Franco Infurna shame, by the thieves from Gela, Gela mourns the Mayor, who deal with matters pertaining to the statutory objectives of the association. Therefore, these statements Saverio Di Blasi must be considered personal.
In another area, you find that is not true that the Di Blasi Xavier has failed to post or to post, place the flyer in kidnapping, because the photographic evidence that has now taken place and stating the Poster c.so Vitt . Eman. Angle Piazza Umberto I ".
From the foregoing it is clear that the date, 21/02/2003 Infurna Francis continues to slander, so undaunted, today's defendant, since it has not at least try to show the posting of the flyer, when it states that it has posted Saverio Di Blasi, or gave the order to do this post. In fact, it is undisputed that Francis Infurna expresses thus a suspicion that, since not even know if the actual activities carried out by the accused.
Clearly, then, that the plaintiff does not say anything relevant when states that "it is true that the Di Blasi Xavier has failed to post or to post, place the flyer in kidnapping, given that today is the photographic documentation and has been certifying Poster C.so Vitt. Eman. Angle Piazza Umberto I ". The photographic record, in fact, which takes up "strangely" the witness Cerro Rocco careful reading of a flyer posted, there is no evidence as to the guilt of the accused, if not confirmation that the statements are simply the result Infurna Francis conscious and volunteer their own personal speculation. **********
hearing on 21/12/2006 Attorney. Rocco Guarnaccia, defender of the faith of plaintiff, defendant asks: "... There is a record of the proceedings Marshal Lombardo says that he has gone at the headquarters of Italy Nostra, at his home, to search for these documents and made the seizure of the leaflets, the accused replied: "I'm sorry, I owe ... if you have these statements is false. At my house no one ever came. I can tell this openly. "
Marshal Lombardo, indeed, heard as a witness at the hearing on 4/15/2008 states: "... I simply made the transmission of a flyer to the court. Nothing else.
seems clear, therefore, that no seizure activity, such as falsely alleged by the plaintiff's legal advisor, has never been put in place either by Marshal Lombardo, nor by others.
Pertanto, appaiono evidenti sia il tentativo di trarre in inganno il giudicante, facendo così capire che Di Blasi Saverio stava dichiarando il falso dicendo di non avere subito alcun sequestro né presso la sede dell’associazione, né presso la propria abitazione, al punto tale che ancora oggi non è dato capire sulla scorta di quale documento detto legale abbia avuto contezza di simile provvedimento, sia l’accanimento mostrato nel corso di tutto il processo nei confronti di Di Blasi Saverio.
Ad oggi, però, è un altro l’aspetto che rimane ancora avvolto nel mistero più fitto: come è mai possibile che il Maresciallo Lombardo trasmetti già in data 15/01/2002 una nota alla Procura della Repubblica at the Court of Gela, while the first complaint of Francis Infurna was dated 25/01/2002? **********
hearing on 05/05/2006 Infurna Francis says, as given on page deduced. 4 of the minutes of the hearing: "... Di Blasi has never denied being the author of the document, as I believe that it has published this document, as it posted in various parts of the city."
And yet, at the hearing on 16.5.2008, the lawyer. Guarnaccia, reliable defender of the civil state, "however, since it is an opposition procedure no. RGNR 214/02, which is what I want to say .... Where admits have compiled, published and distributed the flyer, however, the subject of proceedings in even number of 300 copies, and there is also a source of pride for this act ... (page 7 record of the hearing of 5/16/2008) ... that is a kind of confession written "(p. 6 minutes of the hearing of 16.05.2008).
opposition to the request for storage, 21/02/2003, signing Att. Guarnaccia, says: "Our Association Italy. ... You do not recognize in the recent positions that he expressed in the pamphlets Franco Infurna shame, by the thieves from Gela, Gela mourns the mayor, dealing with matters pertaining to the statutory purpose of ' Association. Therefore, these statements Saverio Di Blasi must be considered personal. "
should be noted that the contention by the lawyer. Guarnaccia about the distribution of 300 leaflets and the subsequent confession, were not related to the leaflet "Franco Infurna shame, since the 300 leaflets mentioned by the accused is related to the resignation of Mayor Frank Gallo (" Gela weeps Mayor ") and / or the leaflet" The Unemployed die. "
This has been the subject of clarification by the accused who, sitting on 21/12/2006, absolutely denies the fact of granting the author of the flyer in question.
In reality, however, già lo stesso Presidente Amato, come è dato evincere alla pag. 10 del verbale di udienza del 05/05/2006, afferma: “allora, cioè, il problema è questo qui, cioè, a monte della domanda parliamo dello stesso volantino a cui lei dà una interpretazione di carattere diverso, oppure che lo stesso giorno sono stati distribuiti altri volantini aventi diverso oggetto”.
A pag. 13 del medesimo verbale di udienza, poi, il Presidente Amato chiede ancora al teste Infurna Francesco: “c’erano stati episodi, cioè lamentele da parte di qualcuno che magari, appunto, chiedeva alla sua emittente televisiva di dare visibilità ad alcuni problemi”?
Appare pacifico, quindi, che detto Judges had already realized that the witness Infurna Francis had misrepresented the facts, to the point of asking him if there had been complaints from other entities, in a nutshell, the judge was trying to figure out if they could be the other authors of the leaflet in question.
B) CONTRADICTION AND / OR STATEMENT
The unreasonableness of the Court of Gela recognized the defendant responsible for the crime ascribed to him as it is possible to trace the preparation and distribution of the leaflet on the subject of the proceeding in question is owned by Saverio Di Blasi by virtue of the fact that its content is perfectly compatible with the existing relations between the accused at the time stesso e la parte civile, sia in virtù del fatto che quanto riferito da Infurna Francesco, il quale ha dichiarato di avere visto personalmente Di Blasi Saverio distribuire il volantino, è stato confermato dal teste Burgio Antonio.
A prescindere dal contenuto assolutamente scarno che caratterizza la motivazione dell’impugnata sentenza, occorre rilevare quanto segue.
Nella denuncia datata 25/01/2002, Infurna Francesco si limita a riferire che “da circa 15 giorni circola in Gela un volantino riconducibile ad Italia Nostra, ed in particolare al suddetto Saverio Di Blasi … Nel contempo, poiché a tutt’oggi l’odierno querelato denunciato continua prettamente e/o per interposta persona a distribuire il volantino ... said. "
Therefore, the plaintiff does not claim to have personally seen the accused put up and / or distribute flyers defamatory and slanderous, so simply bring our association Italy, and in particular to Saverio Di Blasi, the authorship of these leaflets, not even specifying the reasons for this assertion.
The same plaintiffs then called in the hearing on 05.05.2006, reported that it had held one day a copy of a leaflet found then posted on the walls of the city, even in different parts of the city, stating, then, a thought just simply asserts that if "I feel as published this document, as it posted in various parts of the city. " But it is the same
Infurna Francis, however, to dispel any form of doubt about the authorship of the leaflet at issue where Xavier Di Blasi declares that it considers the latter as responsible for the leaflet referred to above were given the name and surname Saverio Di Blasi.
Infurna In the second complaint filed by Francis on 08/02/2002, nearly two weeks later than the first, he claims to be aware of the fact that Di Blasi Xavier or others from the same clearly in charge, continued in their efforts with flyers in front of the ENI petrochemical plant durante la pausa pranziale (ore 12:00–13:00), nonché affiggendone copia nelle bacheche poste all’interno del Comune di Gela e dell’ospedale di Gela.
Anche in questo caso, quindi, appare evidente che l’odierna parte civile, a differenza di quanto poi dichiarato all’udienza del 05/05/2006, apprende da terzi rimasti ignoti le attività di cui sopra, ragion per cui Infurna Francesco non ha mai avuto visione e/o conoscenza diretta dei fatti contestati a Di Blasi Saverio. Con riferimento, poi, all’episodio del 07/02/2002, secondo cui Di Blasi Saverio abbia distribuito, durante la pausa pranzo, volantini innanzi allo stabilimento ENI di Gela, occorre rilevare che non soltanto detta circostanza non è stata minimamente provata, ma per di più preme evidenziare che in dette circostanze di tempo e di luogo l’imputato si trovava a lavoro presso la Ripartizione Urbanistica del Comune di Gela sita nella via Rossini, ragion per cui è assolutamente impossibile che lo stesso potesse trovarsi simultaneamente in due posti distinti ed alquanto lontani tra loro.
Anzi, seppur dipendente dello stesso stabilimento, la parte civile non è stata in grado di indicare anche un solo teste a sostegno della propria tesi, e ciò sebbene lavorino alle dipendenze di detto stabilimento circa 1.500 persone. Addirittura, poi, avrebbe potuto richiedere anche l’acquisizione della videocassetta, atteso che la zona interessata è munita di un sistema video surveillance.
The fact that the Judges put their decision on very weak foundations can be seen in the sentence where there is no mention of any given text Cerro Guido and Rocco, and that although the latter have been indicated from the civil right of such witnesses' leafleting activities carried out by the defendant, a circumstance, in fact, contradicted by them because they have never seen anything.
The decision of the Court of Gela, also appears somewhat contradictory and illogical with regard to that part of the facts are proved following the deposition of the witness Burgio Antonio.
In fact, as previously mentioned, the heads mentioned above initial speaks of the existence of a single poster, only to report in the second part of his deposition, the availability of many leaflets, but excluding their bills, thus making similar statements to those made by its director, or Infurna Francis, all clear contrast with respect to the content of the two complaints lodged by the plaintiff. The same test
Antonio Burgio, a journalist and cameraman of the TV station Channel 10, and a close associate of Infurna Francis, hereby make the poster was interested in what its director, but the question put by the President Amato on the content of the flyer, not is able to report anything.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the Court of Gela reached considered evidence of the facts against the accused, in fact, clearly a stranger to all the facts in that context.
A demonstration of the strangeness of Saverio Di Blasi, consider the circumstances under which the President of the bench Dr. Amato, sitting on 21/12/2006, after an examination of the accused, states: "... Okay. And he took it, and it seems to me that precisely the position of the accused to be absolutely clear "(p. 12).
seems clear, therefore, that the Court of Gela, based in part only on the evidence contradictory and patently false, flying, Instead, the evidence on other precise which exclude any liability against the accused, has provided a reconstruction of the story totally wrong and distorted. **********
In light of the above, today's defendant, as above represented and defended,
ASKS
In total reform of the contested decision, in terms of both criminal and civil leaders, give a judgment of acquittal for failure to commit crimes, or because it does not exist.
In the alternative, issue, acquittal pursuant to art. 530, paragraph 2, Code of Criminal Procedure for failure and / or contradictory evidence as to the existence of the alleged offense and not the actual commission of it by the accused.
Gela, there
29.10.2008
With best regards Mr. Joseph Smecca
the undersigned, Saverio Di Blasi, who was born in Gela on 24/09/1961 and settled in the street No Timoleon 14, relative to the proc. pen. No 214/02 RGNR,
APPOINTMENT
defender of confidence Attorney. Smecca Joseph, the Court of Gela, which awards the faculty of law, and specifically - to this end by appointing a special prosecutor - the right to appeal the sentence no 511/08, dated 24.06.2008 the single judge in the Court of Gela, filed on 12.09.2008.
Gela, 31.10.2008
F.to Saverio Di Blasi For authentic
Attorney Joseph Smecca
0 comments:
Post a Comment