Her ExcellencyMs . Condoleezza Rice , Ph. D.U.S. Secretary of State C  O  P  Ythrough Embassy of the United States of AmericaVia Veneto , 11900187 ROMEKind attention of Mr. Nicolas ACKER , Esq.Legal AttachéOur Ref .:Documents kindly declassified and released by the U.S. Department of State ( D.o.S. ) following a Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) application in the year 2004.Extradition from United States of America of the italian citizen Dr. Francesco Pazienza Donato on June 18 , 1986. Extradition file sealed by the Government of Italy (G.o.I.) under the State Secret restraining order since 1987. Deceptive behavior of the institutional representatives of the requesting party , the G.o.I. . Multiple willful violations of the Extradition Treaty of 1983 :Art. X ( Extradition Requests and Supporting Documents ) , Art. XVI ( Rule of Specialty ) . Willful unfaithful representations of proffered facts and proofs of evidence . Offense of perjury as per the U.S. Law committed in New York City on Nov. 15 , 1986 by representatives of the G.o.I. . Action memorandum from Mr. Michael G. Kozac of the U.S. Department of State on Dec. 19 , 1986 based on unfaithful documentation delivered by the Government of Italy to the U.S. Department of Justice (D.o.J.) and D.o.S. .Cover up of lybian responsibilities in terrorist activities in Italy . Conviction of Dr. Pazienza in 1995 to ten year prison term by a Court of the city of Bologna with a sentence stating that he was a criminal " agent of influence " of the U.S. Department of State in Italy. Trial having been possible thanks to previous consent to waiver granted by that same U.S. Department of State that , as per the conviction sentence , had

hired Dr. Pazienza as its own subversive agent operating in Italy .

Your Excellency ,

we proffer to your kind attention the following facts with related proofs of evidence attached to, conclusions and requests .

A ) - PREMISE

1. It has been possible to submit this memorandum only at the present date thanks only to the documents kindly released by the U.S. Department of State ( D.o.S. ) and following a Freedom Information Act ( F.O.I.A. ) application over the year 2004 ( Exh. 1 , Exh. 2 ) . All the documents released are posted on the Web site : http : // digilander.libero.it / prigionieropolitico /

2. It has not been previously possible to have any access to the corresponding documentation kept in the Italian Ministry of Justice due to the fact that in 1987 the then italian Minister of Justice , Mr. Mino Martinazzoli , has sealed the file under the strictest restraining order foreseen by the italian law : the State Secret . It means that the documents released by the D.o.S. in 2004 would ludicrously involve for the G.o.I. the revelations of state secrets.

3. In fact such a decision , never taken before , has been deemed necessary as the only way to deny consultation of the file to a prestigious scholar and researcher of international Law at the Rome State University of Tor Vergata . The gag order is still in force nowadays as per the italian Law Nr. 801 of 1977 being only the Prime Minister who has the power to waive it .

4. What is proffered , proved and documented in this memorandum shows how such a hurdle impossible to overcome has been aimed at concealing all the violations of

3

the Extradition Treaty of 1983 between U.S. and Italy as well the blatant infringement of Civil Rights of one of its own citizens perpetrated by the italian counterpart with the commission of serious unlawful acts committed by some of the jurisdictional and institutional representatives of the Government of Italy ( G.o.I. ) charged of the extradition of Dr. Pazienza from the U.S. . The most blatant violations of the Extradition Treaty are hencetoforth enumerate :

a) Malicious misrepresentations of the facts by the then G.o.I. as requesting party to the american counterpart aimed at obtaining extradition as per Art. XVI (1) (c) of the Treaty of 1983 including several illegitimate violations of the Rule of Specialty foreseen in the above mentioned article . The G.o.I. did not even bother to demand the mandatory consent to the D.o.S. for judgements of alleged offenses committed well before the date of surrender .

b) The above said violations took place notwistanding the D.o.S. with telex message n. 190251 of June 16 , 1986 (FM SECSTATE WASHDC to AMEMBASSY ROME - CONFIDENTIAL ) was remembering that " The Department reminds the Embassy that art. XVI (1) (c) of the United States - Italian Extradition treaty requires that Italy seek and obtain the consent of the executive authority of the Unites States before proceeding against Mr. Pazienza on any other than the above stated Milan charges ".

c) Violation of Art. X (2) (c) (d) of the Treaty stating that : " All requests for extradition shall be accompanied by : - omitted - (c) the texts of the laws describing the essential elements and the designation of the offense for which extradition is requested ; (d) the texts of the laws describing the punishment for the offense " .

d) The G.o.I. , while applying for extradition , has deliberately concealed , in violation of the above mentioned obligation , the existence of an italian special and political emergency law ( D.L. 625/79 - Law nr. 15 of Febr. 2 , 1980 - " Urgent measures for the protection of the democratic order and public safety " - ) not having any reciprocity or analogy to

4

the U.S. body of laws thus determining the violation of the terms foreseen in Art. V of the Treaty ( “ Political and Military Offenses “ ) . Such shameful and undemocratic italian law turns at will any kind of offense in a crime of political subversion and terrorism including the libel and/or the slander thus authomatically determining the doubling of the jail term that could be inflicted . Such a law , not included or mentioned in the extradition order issued by the D.o.S. , has been eventually illegitimately applied to Dr. Pazienza for the offense of slander. In other words the slander has been spuriously turned in an act of bloody political subversion .

e) The reciprocity or analogy among offenses and related laws in force in U.S. and Italy allowing the admissibility of a " waiver of the rule of specialty " ( in italian legal jargon : " Deroga al principio di specialità " ) is specified and remembered by the D.o.S. as per memorandum of Dec. 19 , 1986 ( S/S - I MICROFILM DEC. 22 1986 - From Mr. Michael G. Kozac - 8638762 ) : " analogy to the felony under U.S. Law " . Does it exist a law in the U.S. body of laws that can qualify or switch a slander in a violent subversive act ? Certainly not .

f) The unfaithfulness of written statements submitted to the D.o.S. by the G.o.I. with no corroborating documentation attached to as strictly required by the provisions of the Treaty . Unfortunately the D.o.S. omitted to exert any due diligence ascertaining the truthfulness of the documentation submitted by the G.o.I. and acquiesced to receive affidavits hand delivered by emissaries of the G.o.I. within U.S. territory , in italian language only and not through the official diplomatic channels as , again , foreseen in the Art. X and XI of the Treaty . The diplomatic channel is the sole way of legitimate communication in extradition matter . Affidavits that were unfaithfully referring to fanciful incriminating investigation evidences that did not actually exist , did never exist and will never eventually exist . The Department of State and the Department of Justice have been duped by the G.o.I. , there are no other words to define such an occurence . This policy of prearranged deception by the G.o.I. representatives has been

5

crucial for the grant of an extradition through " waiver of the rule of specialty " by the D.o.S. and will be exhaustively dealt with and demonstrated hereafter but already aknowledged even by the italian Supreme Court of Cassation.

g) On Febr. 23 , 1993 the italian highest Court definitely confirmed the acquittal of Dr . Pazienza for an offense of slander . He was charged after stating in a Court of Justice and during a public hearing that his extradition from U.S. had been obtained through the filing of ' phoney papers ' by two jurisdictional representatives of the G.o.I. . On Nov. 15 , 1986 in the city of New York they handed down to Ms. Molly Warlow of the U.S. Department of Justice unfaithful documentation in italian language only , hastily concocted the previous night with a typewriter borrowed by the concierge of their hotel . Hereto what the italian Supreme Court stated : " The arguments developed are mainly based upon the mixup between the proofs of evidences submitted over the extradition procedure and the conjectures made up by the investigating magistrates about them therefore legitimately creating in Pazienza the belief that the magistrates stretched the issues referring facts that were not true with the purpose to obtain his extradition at all costs " (Supreme Court of Cassation , Sixth Section , hearing of Febr. 23 , 1993 . Reg. Gen. Nr. 29468/92) .

h) To better understand what we are meaning we anticipate some elements as an example buttressing our extremely serious assumptions . The G.o.I. was fully aware that were it submitting either before the Department of Justice or the D.o.S. the genuine incriminating documentation in a case whose consent to waiver of the rule was granted on Dec. 22 , 1986 , the Government of the United States of America would have not only objected to but it could have even occurred a diplomatic incident between the two Countries . The case in point was precisely charging ad naming the U.S. Government as the actual accomplice and criminal codefendant of Dr. Pazienza thus realizing the D.o.S. that the related charges were quintessentially only politicallly motivated and falling under the exclusion provisions of Art. V (1) of the Treaty :

6

"Extradition shall not be granted when the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense , or if the person whose surrender is sought proves that the request for surrender has been made in order to try or punish him or her for a political offense " .The truth concealed by the G.o.I. was that Mr. Pazienza had to be tried in Italy because he was a criminal " agent " of the U.S. Republican Party . He had plotted to subvert the italian democracy because to that direction given instructions by U.S. . The G.o.I. did its best to cloak the real reasons and trumpet the trumped up reasons not unveiling what the true charges included in the written incriminating documentation drafted by the city of Bologna prosecutor on May 13 , 1986 were stating ( in italian the legal term was : ' requisitoria scritta ' ) . Hereto few illuminating excerpts of the said incriminating documentation drafted by the Bologna prosecutor against Dr. Pazienza : “ Pazienza was the expression of an intelligence structure of the U.S. Republican Party ( in Italy ) “ (page 415) , or “ And as a matter of fact two years later the emissary of the U.S. Republican Party ( in Italy ) will render the best service to the supporting team , the team Kissinger - Guarino , organizing the Billygate operation " ( page 415 ) , or “ The picture is not clear if it is not taken in the proper consideration the continous nefarious interferences exerted by the U.S. Masonry , the U.S. Republican administration and the U.S. intelligence organizations constantly interwined between them in this subverting situation ( of the italian democracy ) " ( pages 411 , 412) , or “ Pazienza had been indicated by Michael Ledeen on behalf of the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( Center being part of the Georgetown University and where the associates were Henri Kissinger , Alexander Haig , Ledeen , Claire Sterling and the former C.I.A. director Cline ) " ( page 413 ) , or " Pazienza a freemason strictly connected to intelligence and masonic circles of U.S. " ( page 560 ) , or " The task entrusted to Pazienza by his american allies when they sponsored him to enter into the italian intelligence SISMI is sinisterly evoking the infamous Bulgarian Connection of the assassination attempt of the Pope " (Page 555) . In other words Pazienza , on behalf of U.S. , worked to unjustly accuse Soviet Union

7

and Bulgaria to be the inspirators of the assassination attempt of the Pope . On page 504 of the indictment documentation it can be also read how Dr. Pazienza was hired by the Central Intelligence Agency . He was hired by the french oceanographer Jacques Yves Cousteau - who was a notoriously active asset of C.I.A. and whose true actictivity was not that of a scientist but that of an american spy - when Dr. Pazienza was a top manager of a french deep sea diving and marine exploration company being part of the Cousteau Group . Once enrolled by C.I.A. Mr. Pazienza engaged himself in such " criminal activities ( that ) can be explained by the existence of an uncostitutional connection binding him to a secret organization which was conspiring in close connection with C.I.A. circles ( against the italian democracy ) " ( Excerpt from the arrest warrant issued by the investigative magistrate of Bologna on Dec. 10 , 1985 for the crime of subversive association as per Art. 270 bis of the italian Penal Code ) . The above said charges looked as emanating from a Soviet bloc Country and not by the judicial authority of a NATO Country allied with the United States of America . Useless to say that also Israel is included in the overall sinister picture of the prosecution documentation and depicted as a criminal State or a State of criminals . Furthermore U.S. , to be considered as a rogue State , was the actual responsible of the political strife and acts of terrorism that plagued Italy in the years seventies and eighties . These are the conclusions of the Bologna ' s prosecutor along with the investigative magistrate . Useless also to mention to what political ideology such magistrates were very close. It is a matter of fact that when the two prosecutorial magistrates twice filed a penal complain against Dr. Pazienza for a supposed slander against them they decided to appoint as their personal attorneys at law Mr. Giuseppe Giampaolo Esq. and Mr. Guido Calvi Esq. , the two official legal counsels of the Italian Communist Party . Mr. Pazienza would be eventually fully acquitted in both cases by the Tribunal of Florence in 1990 and 1993 .

Would the D.o.S. grant a waiver of the rule of specialty if the above mentioned allegations being the genuine charges

8

against Dr. Pazienza were actually part of the extradition request filed by the G.o.I. ?

B) -THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN THESIGNATORIES OF AN EXTRADITON TREATY

It has to be duly remembered that an international Extradition Treaty represents a binding pledge between the signatories to the compulsory reciprocal respect of its provisions . It represents the legal safeguard for the sought person that the requesting Country is seeking extradition for a legitimate case and not with the aim to prosecute a person for whatever unmentionable purposes . It is for such a reason that the extradition proceeding has to be handled by a judiciary body which is generally assumed to be indipendent in a democratic Country . Even in the case of waiver of the rule of specialty the appraisal of the probable cause and the occurred respect of the due process of law in penal proceeding by the requesting Party over the judgement procedure , if a service of sentence is demanded , are the sole justified and legitimate reasons for a grant . Both have to be evaluated and pondered by the legal Office of the Authority foreseen in the Treaty . In the case of U.S. it is the Department of State after consultation with the D.o.J. while in the case of Italy the decision remains in the hands of a jurisdictional entity : a panel of three judges of a Court of Appeals . It has to be remembered too , and we will see how and why , that on June 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that " The due process of the Constitution applies to all persons within the United States including aliens whether their presence here is lawful , unlawful , temporary or permanent " ( opinion written by Justice Breyer ) and that the " Alien Tort Claims Act " of 1789 has had new life breathed into it by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding its validity . The U.S. Supreme Court has furthermore confirmed its applicability to all such cases involving the blatant violations of Civil Rights suffered by alien citizens and perpetraded by

9

those Countries having a diplomatic relationship with the United States of America . The whole malicious deprivation of defense rights in a criminal prosecution and trial is an unquestionable violation of Human and Civil Rights .

C - DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS

The italian citizen Francesco Pazienza Donato was arrested on March 4 , 1985 for extraditional purposes on demand of the G.o.I. in the city where he was officially living : New York . His american address was officially registered in the list of the italian foreign resident citizens kept , as per the italian law regulating such an issue , both in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( the A.I.R.E. list ) and the registry office of the italian Town Hall where he was previously residing : Rome . The G.o.I. was perfectly aware that Mr. Pazienza was living in New York at least since Jan. 13 , 1983 ( Exh. 3 ) . Notwistanding the G.o.I. had submitted numerous requests for extraditions to the american counterpart and that at that time Mr. Pazienza had never had previous problems with the italian Justice it was decided that the only case that could stand before a U.S. Judge was that of his involvement with the failed italian bank Banco Ambrosiano . The documents released by the D.o.S. show how on Jan.23 , 1984 the D.o.S. had already rejected an extradition request for the same case for the total lack of probable cause that he could have committed the crime . There are several communications between the G.o.I. and the D.o.S. where it is mentioned that the only case that could have been brought before a U.S. Court with some hopeful expectation was again that of the Banco Ambrosiano affair already rejected : amount of the money involved 250.000 U.S. dollars .The documents freed thanks to the F.O.I.A. show the very questionable strategy suggested by the G.o.I. and unfortunately abetted by the D.o.S. and the Department of Justice : avoiding the maximum possible a U.S Court of Justice , getting an extradition order for whatever it could be by a U.S. Judge , shipping back the extraditable in Italy and then granting all the further extraditions through the bureaucracy of the D.o.S. with waivers of the rule of specialty . On charge of the

1

extradition hearings was appointed the U.S. Judge Hon. Charles L. Brieant of New York - South Manhattan - who issued a favorable extradition decision on Sept. 25 , 1985 for two counts related to the bank's failure in Italy . It is a matter of fact that on Judge Brieant it had been exerted the heaviest political pressure from Washington to consent to extradition through Hon. Stephen Trott of the Department of Justice and nowadays judge of the 9th Circuit of the Court of Appeals in San Francisco (CA) . Neverthless , quite disgusted , Hon. Brieant could not restrain himself from writing in his opinon that " All such tales of intrigue , suspicion , undercover police work , and internecine political warfare appear sincerely expressed ( by Dr. Pazienza ) " .The intrigues were going on even over the extradition proceedings. On Aug. 7 , 1985 Mr. Jonathan Kwitny of the Wall Street Journal , who attended at the hearings , wrote on the front page of the newspaper : " A U.S. Customs Agent has testified in extradition proceedings that an ' unidentified group of people ' who he said might be Italian agents , want Mr. Pazienza dead ' ( Exh. 4 ) . Title of the article " Tale of intrigue - How an Italian Ex - Spy Who Helped America Landed in U.S. Prison " . Eventually the minutes of the July 15 , 1985 hearing were unbelievably doctored to shield the G.o.I. and its intelligence agency changing the expression " italian agents " into " international organized crime " . When Dr. Pazienza realized such an abuse on Febr. first , 1986 he officially wrote a second letter from the Metropolitan Correctional Center of New York where he was still detained to Mr. David Denton, U.S. Deputy Attorney , and to Mr. Rudolph Giuliani , U.S Attorney for the Southern Manhattan District , stating that :

" Following my letter of Dec. 13,1985 , I am in the position to definetely confirm that the minutes corresponding to the cross - examination of the U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE Galligan has been edited and forged on the section of pag 18 and 19 related to the hearing of July 15 , 1985 . the meaning of such a forgery has been to protect the italian intelligence organization S.I.S.M.I " .* ( Exh. 5 )

1

Frankly speaking it is quite astonishing that such kind of forgery could have been implemented in a Federal Court of Justice of a democratic Country as the United States of America .Previously , on May 4 , 1985 , the journalist Mr. Massimo Jaus had written on the New York italian daily newspaper " Il Progresso " : " But here we have even verified that prosecutor Denton had warned Pazienza that a ' contract ' had been put on him as per the mafia parlance meaning when there is the decision to hire someone for killing somebody ells , in this case Pazienza . Actually Mafia and italian intelligence seem to be intertwined ". * ( Exh. 6 )

Also very illuminating , regarding the intrigues mentioned by Hon. Brieant , it is what reported in a memorandum of 1984 of the US. Customs Service ( ref. : NY05PR320015 - Exh. 7):

" On Monday June 18 , 1984 we met in Rome with Judge Misiani who was investigating Francesco Pazienza . Misiani stated that he had knowledge of Pazienza and Dominico Lombino ( who has been associated with Salvatore Patafio , Cesare Bonventre , Bonanno family in Brooklyn etc. ) having smuggled 2.1 billion dollars into the United States by air . When asked for documentary evidence the judge alluded to the fact that he could not disclose the evidence at the present time because of Italian law " .

This italian magistrate , Francresco Misiani , had solicited a meeting in Rome with the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Assistant Attorney for the District of Brooklyn , Mrs . Reena Raggi , with the only prearranged purpose to deliberately deceive through lies having never existed and never would eventually exist any case concerning what he referred to the american delegation . The only aim was that of the harassment of Pazienza.Prior to Misiani a different magistrate had intervened in Italy : Mr. Domenico Sica , at that time a close friend of Mr. Misiani .

1

With a deceptive operation masterminded with the italian intelligence agency S.I.S.M.I. , with whom he was in a very cozy relationship , he prepared a phoney documentation aimed at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation that receveid it from the U.S. Embassy in Rome on April 1983 . Such a document was alleging that Mr. Pazienza was " involved in the refining of narcotics and money laundering for organized crime organizations of U.S. , Italy , Spain , Montecarlo and France " . All such alleged criminal activity was carried out from Pazienza ' s office in New York City ( Exh. 8 ) .On Dec. 19 , 1983 the U.S. Embassy in Rome adressed a letter to Mr. Sica that ended saying that : " No further investigation is being conducted by our New York services at this time due to the lack of apparent criminal violations in the United States - signed : Frank J. Walburger - legal attachè - " ( Exh . 9 ) . Again such activity was aimed only at the harassment of Mr. Pazienza and demonstrates how both magistrates Misiani and Sica were perfectly aware that Pazienza was living in U.S. . We will see how this detail is highly relevant from the legal point of view .We are before two italian public officials having cooperated with the italian intelligence to fabricate fake proofs of evidence , lying to U.S. Federal Agencies that had even to sustain a financial burden for investigations of alleged crimes in the U.S. while , since the beginning , the two italian magistrates were perfectly knowing that the informations they were providing were completely bogus .Furthermore to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to the Central Intelligence Agency on March 11 , 2004 for the releasing of " Documentation or internal memorandums mentioning the italian magistrate Domenico Sica ( . . . ) on the years 1984 to 1986 " , on Sept. 16 , 2004 ( Ref.: F - 2004 - 01050 ) , C.I.A. officially refused to consent calling the exemptions listed as (b)(3) : " Obligations to protect from disclosure intelligence sources and methods …" ( Signed : Scott A. Koch . Secr. Agency Release Panel ) .Therefore we can logically speculate that the italian magistrate Domenico Sica at that time was also a "source " of the Central Intelligence Agency .

1

Once arrested on March 4 , 1985 Mr. Pazienza in vain asked that all the cases filed for extradition by the G.o.I. before the D.o.S. and the Department of Justice had to be brought before a U.S. Court of Justice ( Exh. 10 ) .Repeatedly over the previous year - as per the documents released by the D.o.S. - the " requested party " , i.e. the United States , had communicated to the G.o.I. that the documents filed were legally worthless being not able to show that Dr. Pazienza was responsible of the alleged offenses for which extradition was requested due to a lack of probable cause and therefore there were no chances to obtain an extradition order issued by a U.S. Federal Court . It is worth to mention just few of those communications emanating from the D.o.S. :

( P R 102312Z JAN 84 - FM SECSTATE TO AMEMBASSY - LIMITED OFFICIAL USE STATE 007482 ) - " ( Pazienza ) will not be arrested on Milan Charges because of documentary deficiencies . D.o.S. is extremely doubtful that G.o.I , even by revising documents , can present acceptable probable cause evidence to support its extradition request on Milan charges " .

( CONFIDENTIAL - 0 100812Z NOV 84 - FM SECSTATE to AMEMBASSY ROME - STATE 336134 ) - " The vast majority of the material perused so far is comprised of rambling , hearsay information , etc. , which adds up to virtually no hard evidence which could be persuasive to a U.S. Court of probable cause that Pazienza committed crimes for which Italy states it wants him extradited ".

( SECRET - 0 141606Z - FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE - ROME 27861 ) - In this dispatch the U.S. Ambassador to Italy Mr. Maxwel Rabb informs the D.o.S. that on Nov. 14 , 1984 he met with the italian chief of the military intelligence agency S.I.S.M.I. Mr. Fulvio Martini and that on behalf of the italian prime minister Mr. Bettino Craxi he asked for Mr. Pazienza to be extradited even if there were non proofs of evidence.

( CONFIDENTIAL - FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO AMCONSUL MILAN 0 091009Z FEB 85 ZFF4 ) On Febr. 9 , 1985 the U.S Embassy in Rome informs the U.S. Consulate

1

in Milan that the extradition papers landed on the D.o.S. for the extradition of Mr. Pazienza were legally worthless .

( CONFIDENTIAL - FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE PRIORITY 5588 - DEPT JUSTICE WASHDC - ROME 09571 ) On April 16 , 1985 the U.S. Embassy in Rome informs the D.o.S. that following the arrest of Mr. Pazienza in New York on March , 4 a close aide of the italian Minister of Justice , Mr. Rocco Palamara , was very worried that a U.S. Judge might be called to decide on all the cases filed by the G.o.I ; that such a possibility had to be avoided at all costs and adding that the only suitable option was that only italian magistrates had to decide on the fate of Mr Pazienza once sent back to Italy . Therefore it was primarily important , for the G.o.I. , to find a way for an extradition decided by the administrative body of the D.o.S. and not by a U.S. Court . It is a matter of fact that on June 14 , 1985 Hon. Brieant had before him all the cases filed by the G.o.I. . Once he expressed the opinion that the " bunch of cases " ( as per his words ) were worthless all the documentation was withdrawn and eventually extradition consented by the D.o.S. through waivers of the rule of specialty ( Exh. 11 ) . Frankly speaking a very questionable behavior .

It is however noteworthy too that that G.o.I. over the same period of time did not reciprocate U.S. with the same generosity and complacency over the " Achille Lauro - Klingoffer affair " abetting the escape of the palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas highly sought by U.S. .

D - CONTESTED CASE Nr. 1 - THE WAIVER OF THE RULE OF SPECIALTY GRANTED BY THE D.o.S. ON

JULY 2 , 1992 .THE SO CALLED " SUPERSISMI TRIAL ".

VIOLATION OF ART. XVI OF THE TREATY .

Francesco Pazienza Donato having withdrawn his appeal against the extradition decision issued by Hon. Brieant on Sept. 25 , 1985 asked on Apr. 7 , 1986 to be immediately

1

repatriated . It occurred only on June 18 , 1986 . The documents released in 2004 by the D.o.S. show how prominent among the cases filed by the G.o.I. for extradition there was one whose both prosecutor and investigative magistrate was Mr. Domenico Sica : the so called SUPERSISMI TRIAL . The case was about alleged crimes committed by Pazienza when he was an external consultant for the italian spy agency S.I.S.M.I. between 1980 and 1981 .While Mr. Pazienza was sitting in the Metropolitan Correctional Center of New York the G.o.I. secretly and abruptly decided for a judgement by default in Italy with a trial in absentia and for that same case whose extradition request was pending in the United States . It is true that the U.S. Jurisprudence affirms that : " An extradition proceeding is neither strictly criminal nor civil : it is a Hybrid " and that " Since extradition proceedings are not criminal prosecutions , the extradition court may apply procedural standards of a more lenient nature that required on criminal cases . See . e.g. , Melis v. United States , 67 Fd 300 , 3002 ( 2 Circ. 1981) ; United States v. Galanis , 429 F. Supp. 1215 ( D. Conn. 1977) ( " the constitutional safeguards that accompany a criminal trial in this county do not shield a accused from extradition pursuant to a valid treat ) " but it is also true , as previously remarked , that , lamentably , to Pazienza the right to have its extradition case decided by a U.S. Court had been denied and furthermore on 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that " The due process of the Constitution applies to all persons within the United States " . It is equally true that to prosecute somebody viciously plotting to strip him of his defense rights is tantamount to what the U.S. Law defines as " actual malice " and " criminal intent " . Such a misconduct represents a blatant violation of the Sixth Amendement to the U.S. Constitution " Civil Rights in trial enumerated " and paraphrasing an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court of June 2004 the U.S. Government does not have a blank check to abet the judicial obscenities and civil rights violations of a foreign Country even if it is a political ally. The truth was that both the prosecutor Mr. Domenico Sica and the then G.o.I. as well desperately needed to celebrate that trial

1

not giving Mr. Pazienza the possibility to speak out and defend himself. The reasons will be hereafter demonstrated .Beforehand we have to explain how , technically speaking , such a trial might have been possible to be concocted in Italy with the help of falsified documents fabricated by prosecutor Sica giving the judging Court the wrong appearance of a full legitimacy . The italian law peremptorily forbids a jugment in absentia for one of its foreign resident citizens and whose address and whereabout is known by the prosecuting Judiciary ( at that time this rule was foreseen in the Art. 177 bis of the Penal Procedure Code while the Code nowadays in force foresees it in the Art. 169). Furthermore a trial in absentia and with an unjustified declared status of fugitive for an italian citizen living abroad had been qualified as uncostitutional since 1974 by the Costitutional Court of the Italian Republic because in violation of Art. 3 , 10 and 24 of the Constitution ( Sentence Nr. 177 of 1974). Opinion confirmed in 1980 with the sentence nr. 0178 . As demonstrated in this document either the prosecutor Sica or the G.o.I. were perfectly knowing that Mr. Pazienza was openly living in New York City . " Mr. Pazienza left Italy in 1982 and moved to New York , where he leased an office from Mr. Armao near Mr. Armao's office in Rockefeller Center " ( Wall Street Journal - see Exh.4) .Let alone the fact that when the trial started in Italy Pazienza was in a U.S. jail because detained upon a demand of the G.o.I.. Was the G.o.I. possibly unaware that Pazienza was in a U.S. prison ? Please !So well known by everybody was the Pazienza ' s whereabout that on Dec. 9 , 1982 an italian parliamentary commission traveled to N.Y.C. and met with him for an interview in the consular offices of the Italian Republic in Park Avenue . To avoid the kind of pretrial mandatory summons and notices foreseen by the italian law for the foreign residents whose omission , the italian penal jurisprudence says , renders null and void the whole criminal proceeding and to pave the way for a judgement in absentia prosecutor Sica masterminded with his friends within the italian military intelligence the concoction of

1

some phoney documentation eventually aimed at the judging Court . The italian law strictly foresees again that a judgement in absentia is lawful only when and after a document called " brief of fruitless research " ( in italian legal jargon " verbale di vane ricerche " ) is produced by a judiciary Police body and served by the prosecutor to the judging Court . Only after such an eventuality materializes the Court can go further proceeding with a legitimate trial in absentia . Again the italian law logically foresees that the research of a sought person has to start from the last known city of residence and for Pazienza such a city was Rome .As demonstrated with Exh. 3 the Rome City Hall registry office had enlisted Pazienza as a foreign resident in N.Y.C. since Jan. 13 , 1983 . To implement his fraudolent scheme prosecutor Sica instructed a Lt. Col. Mario Mori , one of his henchman in the military judiciary police and his liaison officer with the S.I.S.M.I. spy agency , to skip over the Rome ' s City Hall administrative offices and to fraudulently fabricate a document dated Nov. 5 , 1984 falsely assessing that the sought person could be found neither in Italy nor elsewhere . (Exh.12)A blatant lie , off course .Thanks to this ruse the legal gimmick for a judgement in absentia was prearranged and laid out with a bogus document . The extreme bad faith and unlawful behavior is demonstrated by Exh. 13 that shows how the italian branch of Interpol had comunicated to Mr. Sica even the Pazienza ' s private home address in N.Y.C. since Jan. 9 , 1984 :2 East 80th Street - Manhattan - N.Y.C. .Once received the notice he just ignored it.Further proof of evidence of such bad faith is a document released by the D.o.S. on Dec. 8 , 2004 ( REVIEW AUTORITHY : FRANK H PEREZ - DATE CASE ID 08 DEC 2004 200400902 - Documento E59E ) . It is a letter from the italian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the U.S. Department of State where it is asked permission for a rogatory of investigative magistrate Misiani : " Department has any objection to the coming to United States of the investigative Judge of the Tribunal of Rome , Dr. Francesco Misiani for the

1

purpose of assisting in the execution of the rogatory of Francesco Pazienza (...) " Date of the letter : June 27 , 1984 .

Mr. Sica and Mr. Misiani were perfectly knowing where Pazienza was living . How come eventually had the announced rogatory not been fulfilled ? Answer : because a rogatory would eventually demonstrate also the falseness of a previous " brief of fruitless research " that had been already drafted by that same Lt. Col. Mario Mori on request of Mr. Sica on Dec 14 , 1983 ( Exh. 13 bis ) before that of Nov. 5 , 1984 . They were both necessary because they were falsely demonstrating how the ' fugitive ' had been repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought for almost a year thus also the pretrial investigative stage could go on with no interrogation of Pazienza as mandatory foreseen by the italian Penal Procedure Code . A behavior definitely not worthy of a magistrate but of a scoundrel .

Therefore thanks to the above said phoney " briefs of fruitless research " the trial of Pazienza as a fugitive was celebrated before a Rome Tribunal starting from Apr. 1985 . Mr. Pazienza was parted by an ocean from his italian defense lawyer , he could'nt communicate with him while sitting in a U.S. prison cell , he could'nt defend himself , he could'nt speak out and he was never previously interrogated over the prosecutorial investigation stage as , again , peremptorily foreseen by the italian law . The legal excuse was that it was impossible to interrogate a person who could'nt be found as previously said .The above proffered proof of evidences demonstrate one of the several reasons that compelled in 1987 the then italian minister of Justice , Mr. Mino Martinazzoli , to seal the Pazienza extradition file under the restrain order of " State Secret " . With no doubt in the file kept and concealed in the ministry there was copy of the letter to the D.o.S. of June 27 , 1984 that would have demonstrated the scheme for an illegitimate trial in absentia to the previously mentioned Rome University scholar of international Law .

A perfect institutional scam !

1

All the witnesses against Pazienza would be agents of the italian military intelligence S.I.S.M.I. whose director , Mr. Fulvio Martini , was a so close pal of magistrate Sica that he eventually acted as the bestman at his marriage . The italian law defines such a behavior carried out by a public official very serious crimes : Ideological Falseness ( Art. 479 of the Penal Code ) and Judicial Fraud ( Art. 374 bis of the Penal Code ) . However Pazienza had never been a fugitive whatsoever and even Hon. Brieant had to concede it as per the extradition hearing minutes of March 5 and 7 , 1985 in the U.S. Court of N.Y.C. ( Exh.14 ) :

THE COURT ( Judge Brieant ) : He didn't leave Italy as a fugitive as I understand it , is that correct ?Mr. DENTON ( Deputy U.S. Att: ) : I think we can accept Mr. Baskins ' s ( defense lawyer ) proffer that he left Italy before the warrant was issued, yes .

Prosecutor Sica started the prosecution proceeeding well after Mr. Pazienza had left Italy and as a retribution of sort . We will see how and why . On Febr. 11 , 1986 Mr. E. Morrison Esq. , one of Pazienza ' s U.S. lawyer and a former deputy mayor of N.Y.C., strongly protested with Hon. Stephen TROTT of the Justice Department for what was going on in Italy with a letter stating that : " It is our understanding that Dr. Pazienza was prosecuted and convicted " in absentia " and as a " fugitive " in Italy in July 1985 while he was being detained without bail in the M.C.C. in New York . The behavior of the Italian Government toward Dr. Pazienza has violated the most elementary standards of human rights and civil liberties " and " The fact that my client was considered a fugitive by the Italian Government while detained in the U.S. by reason of the Italian Government ' own demand is outrageous . That he was then prosecuted and convicted without giving the opportunity of confronting his accusers affronts the very essence that we

2

have come to know as " due process " in the United States and contrary to the Strassbourg Human Rights Convention which binds Italy as well as the United States " * ( Exh. 15 ). At the time of this letter ( Febr. 1986 ) Pazienza was still sitting in a U.S. jail .Such a dubious behavior of the G.o.I. had so astonished the D.o.S. that in the documents recently released we can find the following exchange of communications between the D.o.S. and the U.S. Embassy in Rome .

SECRET STATE 251569 - 0 151459Z AUG 85 - FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO AMEMBASSY ROME . DOJ and Department were surprised to learn of trial in absentia , as this was not raised in the June meetings with the italian prosecutors and MOJ officials . Was Embassy ever notified that a trial in absentia would be held ? Whitehead .

The U.S. Embassy was responding to the D.o.S. : SECRET ROME 20823 - 0 211507Z . Post had not been notified by the italian authorities that a trial in absentia would be held . Rabb .

Further evidence that the trial was celebrated while extradition request was pending and that the U.S. Embassy in Rome knew of the trial and related conviction on July 29 , 1985 only from the press is part of the following message :

R 311054Z JUL 85 FMAMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC 9556 - INFO DEPT JUSTICE - UNCLAS ROME 19057 - The italian press reports that on July 29 a Rome Court sentenced former italian political fixer Francesco Pazienza to eight years and six months in prison ( …) This SUPER-SISMI case , on which Pazienza has now been convicted , was based on the work of investigating magistrate Domenico Sica , whose extradition request on these charges has been sent to Washington . Rabb .

The scam organized by the magistrate Sica and the G.o.I. was even more shameful because on March 1985 the magistrate

2

had met in Rome with two emissaries of Hon. Stephen Trott ( Mr. Philip White , Ms. Molly Warlow of the Department of Justice ) arrived on purpose in Italy for the perfectioning of the extradition papers . Once more Mr. Sica duped the Washington ' s emissaries being at that time already perfectly aware that the decision for a trial in absentia had been taken along with the politicians of the the G.o.I. and also knowing that the beginning of the trial was few weeks away .Furthermore at the dates of the meetings of June 1985 , as remembered by the D.o.S. to the U.S. Embassy in the above mentioned message , not only Mr. Sica did not say a word to the unaware american counterpart that the first degree trial was well under way and even approaching the end . In fact the sentence was handed down by the Rome Tribunal on July 29 , 1985 . The Court register number of the trial was nr. 45/1985 thus demonstrating that it was planned since the beginning of the year 1985 . However , the demonstration of the meeting in Rome of Mr.Sica with the Department of Justice representatives come in Italy on March , 1985 is demonstrated by the following message :

R 081740Z MAR 85 FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC 4072 - CONFIDENTIAL ROME 06104 - JUSTICE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TROTT .

With the message 0 191523 Z MAR 85 FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC the U.S. Embassy in Rome informs the D.o.S. that Mr. Sica is ready to travel to U.S. with the alleged purpose of the perfectioning of the extradition proceeding . What it is written in the above dispatch demonstrates once more how a pathological liar was that italian magistrate . In this communication the U.S. Embassy also informs the D.o.S. that the news appeared in the italian press on March 19 , 1985 and referring the purposes of the Sica ' s travel in U.S. as related to an interview with Pazienza in the U.S. jail of New York had been qualified by Sica himself as pure fabrications of

2

Pazienza leaked to the press as a misinformation strategy of a sort .As usual the truth was totally different and he was lying again . Sica and his future travelmate , that magistrate Francesco Misiani friend of him whose shameful deceptive behavior has been previously demonstrated with the U.S. Customs Service affair (see Exh. 7) , needed the approval of the italian Ministry of Justice for the trip along with the allocation of funds to finance it . The Ministry would consider as nonsense a travel based upon the excuse of the perfectioning of the extradition proceeding having the U.S. Department of Justice already expressly sent two functionaries to Italy just for that same purpose and moreover because the italian Ministry was perfectly aware that a trial in absentia would start in few weeks . A travel for such a reason did not make any sense . The truth was instead that it was just Mr. Sica who officially solicited an affidavit to the italian lawyer of Pazienza urging him for an official assessment of the availability of the extraditable for an interview in the Metropolitan Correctional Center of N.Y.C. and even asking for a pledge in this sense coming from Pazienza himself . Dr. Pazienza sent a telegram from the M.C.C. of N.Y.C. on March 22 , 1985 * and once received by the magistrates Sica and Misiani the italian lawyer adressed to them a final confirmation letter on March 25 , 1985 ( Exh.16 ) . This letter was stating that : " Following the conversations held with you ( Misiani ) and prosecutor Dr. Domenico Sica , I confirm to you that Mr. Francesco Pazienza is available for an interrogation concerning all the prosecution charges " * . With those two documents in their hands Mr. Sica and Mr. Misiani obtained the air tickets and the financial funds from the italian Ministry of Justice .Hereto is what Mr. E. Morrison Esq. wrote to Hon. Trott in the above mentioned letter of Febr. 11 , 1986 that confirms our assumption ( see Exh.15) :

2

" In March , 1985 , the Italian Magistrates contacted the U.S. prosecutor ' s office in New York asking for the permission of my client to be interviewed by them on the subject of the Super - SISMI warrant . Dr.Pazienza agreed to such an interview both by verbally informing the U.S. Prosecutor as well sending a telegram to these Magistrates on March , 22 , 1985 ( See Attachment 1 ) . In addition , the italian defense attorney of Dr. Pazienza sent a letter of acceptance to these Magistrates ( See Attachement 2 ) . Finally , Dr. Pazienza acceptance of this meeting was widely reported in the italian media as a consequence of his press release to this effect . ( See attachement 3 ) . The investigating Magistrate , Francesco Misiani , and the prosecutoral Magistrate , Domenico Sica , left Italy for the United States publicly declaring that they were coming to New York City to meet with Dr. Pazienza ( See attachement 4 ) . In fact , they never came to New York nor did they meet with Dr. Pazienza . "

The proof that Mr. Sica along with Mr. Misiani had to previously settle the above mentioned documentation for their trip to U.S. before their departure taking place only after the italian lawyer's letter of March 25 , 1985 are in the dispatch P 161616Z FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5588 DEPT JUSTICE WASHDC - CONFIDENTIAL ROME 09571 - SUBJECT : PAZIENZA EXTRADITION : PERFECTION OF ROME REQUESTS .

Two were the unmentionable truths about the trip . The first one : Before his trip to U.S. Mr. Sica concocted a strategy with his close pal Fulvio Martini , director of the italian spy agency S.I.S.M.I. , who traveled to Langley (VA) before him for a special meeting with Mr. William Casey , the C.I.A. director . Mr. Martini had solicited himself such a meeting for asking Mr. Casey to take care directly of the extradition of Pazienza from U.S. . We know it because Mr. Martini has boasted with chutzpa such a fact in his autobiographical book published in 1998 where he confirms how part of the scheme was prosecutor Sica (Exh. 17 ) .

2

To a request submitted to the Central Intelligence Agency through the F.O.I.A. related to the release of documents " including internal memorandums concerning a meeting in Langley between Fulvio Martini , head of the italian military intelligence SISMI and DCI William Casey related to the extradition of Mr. Pazienza from the United States occurring between 1984 and 1985 " and " Documentation or internal memorandums mentioning the Italian magistrare Domenico Sica , Fulvio Martini and/or Francesco Pazienza on the years 1984 to 1986 " the C.I.A. on Sept.16 , 2004 refused to release the papers calling as justificaton the exemptions (b)(1) e (b)(3) .

The second unmentionable truth : The italian penal jurisprudence foresees that a public official cannot absolutely use State ' s funds for other purposes but those for what they were precisely allocated . If such behavior is carried out by a public official he commits a crime as per Art. 314 of the italian Penal Code : Peculation .

Peculation is exactly the crime that magistrates Sica and Misiani committed over their travel to U.S. in 1985 when they used the State funds for unknown purposes and surely not for an interview with the extraditable being such one the only reason for what the funds had been allocated by an Agency of the italian State .We actually do not know what the true purposes of the travel were but it is plausible that Mr. Sica had to discreetely meet with some C.I.A. official in Washington D.C. following the trip of his pal and accomplice Martini . In short he lied several times . Firstly to the italian Ministry of Justice saying that his trip was for an interview with the extraditable thus obtaining the funds and permission for the trip ; then he lied to the american officials of the U.S. Embassy denying what the press had published and falsely affirming the need of a further perfectioning of the extradition papers and finally he lied by omission concealing to the Americans the decision already taken to try Pazienza as a fugitive with no extradition consent .

2

E - THE TRUE UNMENTIONABLE REASONS THAT PRODUCED THE CASE Nr. 1 AND WHY PAZIENZA

HAS BEEN FRAUDULENTLY STRIPPED OF HIS DEFENSE RIGHTS AND TRIED IN ABSENTIA .

As far it concerns the magistrate Domenico Sica .

Mr. Sica had been a friend of Pazienza soliciting favors for his career advancement . The relationship between them turned sour when Pazienza refused on his demand to release a false testimony against a former magistrate colleague of Sica turned politician with the Christian Democratic Party and when the same political party refused to back him who was aiming at the chairmanship of the italian civil intelligence agency S.I.S.D.E. . Hereto again it is what Mr. E. Morrison Esq. wrote to Hon. Trott in the above mentioned letter of Febr. 11 , 1986 (see Exh.15) : " Incredible to be sure , but nevertheless true , is the fact that the promoter of this so called Super - SISMI investigation and prosecution of Dr. Pazienza is Magistrate Domenico Sica . This is the same Domenico Sica who has had a personal animosity against Dr. Pazienza since 1981 when he lost his bid for the Chairmanship of the italian Civil Secret Service called SISDE ( See Attachment 6 ) and apparently blamed Dr. Pazienza for not securing the appointment to this position " . The U.S. Embassy in Rome confirmed with bafflement to the D.o.S. such a previous personal relationship between Pazienza and Sica and the SISDE affair as well with the following message : " R 301303Z APR.85 - FMAMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC 6192 - DEPT JUSTICE WASHDC - LIMITED OFFICIAL USE ROME 10845 - JUSTICE FOR ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL TROTT " .

2

During the investigating stage Magistrate Sica forced the former fiancée of Pazienza to have a sexual relationship with him under threat of a possible indictment . The young woman , Ms. Marina De Laurentiis , was the niece of a famous Hollywood movie producer , Mr. Dino De Laurentiis (see Exh. 4 ) , thus she had to give in to avoid a possible scandal . A heinous blackmail . Mr. Sica knew that Pazienza had been informed of such a highly despicable and unlawful behavior and he could not run the risk to have him in a Court of justice in Italy revealing this kind of niceties . The habit of Mr. Sica to solicit sex from female witnesses and defendants was indeed business as usual and not an exception . Almost everybody was knowing his unsavory habit in Rome istitutional circles but nobody ever acted or objected .On August 26 , 2003 the daily International Herald Tribune reported on pag. 5 that a judge from Santa Fe ( New Mexico ) was sentenced to nine years in prison ( six years suspended ) because found guilty of offering female defendants lighter sentences in exchange for sex .Italy is a different planet in a different galaxy . . .

The Super - Sismi trial was meticolously prearranged by Mr. Sica and the S.I.S.M.I. spy agency as introductory and instrumental to the Case nr. 2 described hereinfater and whose aim was to cover up the lybian criminal responsibilities in the Bologna ' s train station bombing of Aug. 2 , 1980 . Pazienza had to play the scapegoat .

Once Pazienza was set free in Italy , on Dec. 10 , 1988 the magistrate Sica , freshly promoted by the G.o.I. to the post of High Commissioner for organized crime investigations , implored Pazienza to keep his mouth shut on what he was knowing about him not to ruin his career . The meeting between them took place in the office of the official legal counsel of the Christian Democratic Party , Mr. Giuseppe De Gori , Esq. as per Sica ' s begging . All the above mentioned disgusting facts have been thoroughly described in a book written by Pazienza while sitting in jail ( title " Il Disubbidiente " - publishing house : Longanesi of Milan ) and released in Italy on Sept. 1999 . Mr. Sica neither

2

filed any complain nor took any legal action whatsoever against Pazienza and the publishing house ( Exh . 18) .

As far it concerns the then Prime Minister Mr. Bettino Craxi :

in 1980 Mr. Craxi had received a multimillion dollar slush fund in Switzerland by the banker Roberto Calvi , chairman of the Banco Ambrosiano , and he was believing Pazienza was actually knowing the illicit transaction . Such a secret , were it unveiled , could have been devastating for him . Mr. Craxi was eventually betrayed in 1993 by one of his closest confidant over the " Clean Hands " criminal investigations of the Milan judiciary with the disclosure of that story , the so called " Conto Protezione " affair . Because of it he was prosecuted and convicted by the Milan Tribunal to eight years prison term and compelled to escape from Italy . He died in exile in Tunisia in 2000 . Mr. Craxi tought that such a secret , that Pazienza was not even knowing , required that Pazienza deserved to be neutralized or debunked at all costs .

On Dec.10 , 1983 Pazienza wrote an official letter to Mr. Craxi from his N.Y.C. office asking him to be freed by a possible ' State Secret ' obligation for what he did and knew as a consultant for the italian spy agency S.I.S.M.I. between 1980 and 1981 . Pazienza knew , among other deeds , that a faction of the italian military intelligence S.I.S.M.I. was illegally passing very delicate informations to the lybian secret service ( Exh.19) . Hereto an excerpt of the letter : " I was personally taking care of the relationship with the director general of the french intelligence agency S.D.E.C.E. Mr. Alexandre De Marenches because even having the french a representative in Italy and the italian S.I.S.M.I. one in France the french did not trust to communicate through the official channels . I had been informed that the french had discovered how some top S.I.S.M.I. officers were on the payroll of the lybian intelligence " . Once received the letter and put it under the ' SECRET ' restraining seal Mr. Craxi immediately dispatched a copy to Mr. Sica . It is a matter of fact that such informations allowed the lybian secret service goons to know the hideouts of lybian political refugees in Italy they were chasing for and to carry out their assassinations . The first

2

assassination took place on June 11 , 1980 . Almost eighteen years after this lewd story would be eventually discovered by the roman prosecuting district attorney office that was investigating the DC9 plane downing near the Ustica island of Sicily . The name of the informant was precisely identified with that of a Col. Demetrio Cogliandro of the Rome ' s Counter Espionage Center of the S.I.S.M.I. spy agency , Center being part of the First Directorate that is mentioned in the Pazienza ' s letter to Mr. Craxi of Dec. 1983. Notwistanding that , contrary to the U.S. judicial system , the Art. 112 of the italian Constitution foresees that the prosecution is a compulsory obligation whenever a crime is noticed no charges had been ever brought against the officer for complicity in murders. We will see however how prominent the above name will be in the case Nr. 2 . The problem was that such a treason was perpetrated with the full accord of certain italian political circles not to damage the oil interests of the Republic of Italy . On Juanuary 2005 the former french ambassador in Italy , Mr. Gilles Martinet , has confirmed in his book of memoirs published in France this unbelievable plot and how the G.o.I. even abetted the assassins allowing them to safely return to Lybia ( See the italian daily Corriere della Sera of Jan. 9 , 2005 pag. 35 ) . So scared was the then G.o.I. that Pazienza might unveil those kind of unsavory secrets that the documents released by the D.o.S. show how the G.o.I. refused even to consent that the Iran-Contras U.S. congressional commitee might meet Pazienza once repatriated in Italy while kept in solitary confinement in a Turin jail for years . The committee wished to interview Pazienza on his relationship with Mr. Michael Ledeen ( See the message " CONFIDENTIAL - 0 311626Z JUL 87 FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7429 " ) . All that explains too what the Wall Street Journal published in the front page on Aug. 8 , 1985 about the need to eliminate Pazienza ( See Exh.4 ) .

F - CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR THE CASE Nr. 1.

THE WAIVER OF THE RULE OF SPECIALTY WRONGLY GRANTED BY THE D.o.S. ON JULY 2 , 1992

2

IN VIOLATION OF ART. XVI OF THE EXTRADITION TREATY

Whereas :

we have to remember that the Extradition Treaty of 1983 between U.S. and Italy foresees in the Art. XVI ( " Rule of Specialty and Re - Extradition " ) thata person extradited under the Treaty may not be detained , tried or punished in the Requesting Party except for the offense for which extradition has been granted or an offense for which the Executive Authority of the United States consents to the person's detention , trial or punishment .

the United States Department of State has to honestly concede as of today with the proofs of evidence provided with this document that the G.o.I. has explicitly and repeatedly lied misrepresenting the facts.

the United States Department of State has to honestly concede as of today with the proofs of evidence provided with this document that the G.o.I. blatantly infringed the Civil Rights of the italian citizen Francesco Pazienza Donato artificially and treacherously denying his defense rights prosecuting , trying and convicting him in absentia while detained in the Metropolitan Correctional Center of New York on its own volition .

the United States Department of State has to honestly concede as of today with the proofs of evidence provided with this document that a trial in absentia might have been very vaguely justified only if Pazienza had escaped from Italy to avoid the enforcement of an arrest warrant , if the prosecution of the case had begun while he was still living in Italy and if the G.o.I. had not submitted an extradition request for that same case .

such a bevahior put in action by the G.o.I. is totally contrary to those human and civil rights practice for which U.S. claims to stand therefore U.S. had , and still has , the

3

moral duty and legal authority to shield and protect a person from such abuses denying extradition in those cases where the constitutional due process of law requirements in criminal proceedings had been so outrageously infringed by the requesting Party . Paraphrasing the words of the U.S. Judge Joyce Hens Green on January 2005 the D.o.S. " cannot negate the existence of the most fundamental rights for which the people of this Country have fought and died well over 200 years " .

we may concede that the D.o.S. could not be aware or even suspect at that time of what was actually going on in Italy behind the scenes .

a different story applies to the Department of Justice ( D.o.J.) that had been quite thoroughly informed since Febr. 11 , 1986 as per the letter to Hon. Trott ( see Exh. 15 ) .

the Department of Justice had been noticed again on Oct. 23 , 1989 with a letter sent to Ms. Warlow of the D.o.J. through international courier by the italian defense lawyer Mr. Scipione Del Vecchio Esq. of the Bar Association of the City of La Spezia that was remembering that : " On the contrary the proceeding named << Supersismi >> ended with a judgement of the 6th Section of Court of Cassation dated March 10 (...) International law violations perpetrated during the << Supersismi >> proceeding are patent . In fact , Court of Cassation not only proceeded against Doct. PAZIENZA without having obtained the consentment of the U.S. Executive - as foreseen for such proceeding , in breach of provisions under Section 16 of the Extraditon Treaty between U.S.A. and Italy etc. etc. " .

it has to be precisely pointed out and duly remembered that the italian judicial system foresees as per its Constitution ( Art. 27 ) that a service of sentence can be enforceable only once the mandatory three degrees of judgement are terminated being the ultimate degree the trial before the Court of Cassation .

3

the former is a full trial but focused only on the checks of possible violations of judicial procedures and due process occurred over the two previous judgement degrees .

the procedures were appearing as formally flawless before the Court of Cassation for a judgement in absentia thanks to the above demonstrated phoney documentation concocted by prosecutor Sica and served by him to the judging Court over the first degree stage falsely assessing that Pazienza was not traceable neither in Italy nor elsewere i.e. a fugitive (see. Exh. 12 and 13 bis ) and furthermore because the then italian minister of justice , Mr. Mino Martinazzoli , had intentionally concealed to the judging Court that an extradition request to U.S. was pending for the same case . At that time , when the Penal Procedure Code of 1930 was in force , the italian jurisprudence was oddly foreseeing that a trial with no consent of the requested party might have been possible only if the extradition request for that same case was not submitted to the State where the sought person was actually living . The concealing of the above fact represents a further explanation of the decision to seal the extradition file under the ' State Secret ' restraining order .We have learnt that an extradition request was pending before the D.o.S. only thanks to the documents released by the D.o.S. following the F.O.I.A. application in 2004 .

no possibility is allowed to the defendant , or his defense lawyer , before the Court of Cassation , to defend himself , to testify or to intervene upon the merits of the facts constituting the charges of the case proffering new elements with related proofs of evidences that were not included in the previous two stages of judgement.

such occurrence is possible only over the first and second degree trials having been held while Pazienza was sitting in a U.S. prison and not having had the posibility to meet his defense lawyer .

3

the first degree ended on July 29 , 1985 and the appeal on March 14 , 1986 while Pazienza had been repatriated only on June 18 , 1986 .

apart from any consideration about the blatant civil rights infringement surrounding this case Francesco Pazienza asked to be repatriated on Apr. 7 , 1986 and he was phisically onto the territory of the Republic of Italy starting from 10 a.m. of June 19 , 1986 .

Pazienza asked to be rushed back to Italy to thwart a new scam trial in absentia plotted by Mr. Sica and Mr. Misiani , thoroughly planned to begin on Oct. 1986 and expected to terminate while he was still sitting in a US. jail because awaiting the decision of a U.S. Court of Appeals and eventually that of the U.S Supreme Court related to his opposition to the extradition decision of Hon. Brieant issued on Sept. 25 , 1985.

again no chance for Pazienza to defend himself had been meticolously planned by the G.o.I. and again , in this case , he was falsely resulting as an irretraceable fugitive thanks to further bogus " briefs of fruitless research " ( in italian legal jargon " verbali di vane ricerche " ) arranged again by that Lt. Col. Mario Mori for Mr. Sica and Mr. Misiani .

once repatriated the D.o.S. consented immediately to the waiver of the rule of specialty for proceeding as prearranged between the Parties and after the related cases were abruptly withdrawn from Hon. Brieant 's bench as previously demonstrated.( See the dispatch P 112016Z JUL 86 - FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY - LIMITED OFFICIAL USE STATE 217960 )

Pazienza was eventually acquitted on Febr. 27 , 1987 on all charges by a Rome Court of Assizes. During the trial it turned out that upon the investigative period of the proceeding several witnesses had been threatened , offered money to , thrown in jail with interrogations starting in the middle of the night , kept in cells with no sanitary facility and infested by

3

rats . The purpose was to extort incriminating declarations against Pazienza . As usual it came out that the mastermind of such a strategy was prosecutor Sica . It is a costant customary standard in Italy that the magistrate in charge of the preliminary criminal investigations is acting too as the trial prosecutor . Being Pazienza in Court to defend himself Mr. Sica neither dared nor had the nerve to have a confrontation with him . He never showed up letting a different prosecutor to plead in Court .

the trial before the Sixth Section of the Court of Cassation related to the so called SUPERSISMI TRIAL took place instead on March 10 , 1987 and being Pazienza onto Italy 's soil it might have been considered as vaguely legitimate , as per the then italian jurisprudence , only if the G.o.I. had'nt submitted an extradition request for the same case that was pending before the U.S. administrative Authority i.e. the D.o.S..

the G.o.I. had the compulsory obligation to preliminary obtain the consent to trial as per Art. XVI (1)(c) of the Treaty.

the documents delivered by the D.o.S. until Dec. 2004 demonstrate how the G.o.I. not even bothered to have such a consent before the trial . As a consequence the trial itself was totally illegitimate and it has to be considered and qualified as null and void as per the provisions of the Treaty .

Hereto a further indirect demonstration of our assumption that demonstrates the bad faith of the G.o.I.. On Dec. 8 , 2004 the D.o.S. has released a document ( REVIEW AUTHORITY : FRANK H PEREZ DATE/CASE ID : 08 DEC 2004 200400902 Documento E93B - UNCLASSIFIED - RELEASED IN FULL ) being a letter from the italian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the U.S. Department of State dated Nov. 18 , 1986 . Excerpt : " The italian Embassy presents its compliments to the Department of State with reference to previous correspondence concerning Mr. Francesco PAZIENZA who has been extradited

3

from United States in Italy , has the honor to undeline that Italian Authorities in order to proceed in Italy against Pazienza for the crimes specified as follow : " ( ... ) B) as far as the warrant of arrest mentioned under N.2 is concerned , the Italian Ministry of Justice in its note of July 28 , 1986 called the attention of the U.S. Embassy in Rome on the sentence of March 14 , 1986 issued by the Court of Assizes of Appeals of Rome . This sentence had changed the sentence , issued on July 29 , 1985 by the inferior Court of Assizes of Rome ( ...) " The italian embassy mentioned a waiver of rule of specialty for proceeding i.e. the consent to trial remaining the judgement before the Court of Cassation to be held . Had such a consent been granted it would be eventually absolutely preposterous to ask on Febr. 7 , 1989 for the consent to service of sentence ( Exh. 20 ). On the other hand the Treaty doesn't foresee whatsoever that a consent to service of sentence is needed after a consent to proceeding has been granted being the former inclusive of the latter one . No doubt about .In short the G.o.I. proceeded to trial before the Court of Cassation without D.o.S. consent being perfectly aware that such a consent was necessary for the legitimacy of the trial itself . The above said fact furthermore explains why the then italian minister of Justice , Mr. Mino Martinazzoli , sealed in 1987 the extradition file under the restraining order of " State Secret " . Mr. Martinzzoli is a well reknown trial lawyer and litigator thus he was perfectly aware that if the previously mentioned scholar of international law of the Rome State University , who asked permission to accede to the file , were reviewing the file documents she would realize the patent violation of the Treaty and the juridical non-existence of the conviction sentence.

the consequence stemming from all that is that equally null and void , as a trial held with no consent granted by the requested Party , is a sentence that had become only apparently valid and enforceable after a trial that the Treaty qualifies as having no merit . In other words a sentence stemming from a trial that is null is by itself

3

equally null . The D.o.S. consented to service a sentence that is juridically null and void .

that is just what has happened when the D.o.S. on July 2 , 1992 consented to the service of sentence related to the SUPERSISMI TRIAL following the above mentioned request of the Embassy of Italy in Washington D.C. of Febr. 7 , 1989 with the note Nr. 01350 : Three years and two months for peculation and personal favoritism having been Pazienza acquitted on the appeal trial on two other charges ( see Exh. 20 ).

the demonstration of what stated above is Exh. 21 being an arrest warrant dated May 4 , 1987 submitted as evidence by the G.o.I to the D.o.S. with reference to the SUPERSISMI TRIAL request for consent to waiver and where it is specified that the service of sentence had become enforceable only on March 10 , 1987 in the aftermath of the trial before he Court of Cassation .

the above said waiver of the rule of specialty might have been considered legally valid only if we absurdly assume and consider in accordance with the international legal standards that the signatories of an international Treaty may legitimately mutually agree to ignore its provisons to the detriment of a third passive party included in the bilateral pact and that such a violation is a lawful deed because the full respect of an international Treaty is a case by case option and not a compulsory mutual obligation .

we hope that such an occurence has happened as a fortuitous bureaucratic oversight incurred by the D.o.S. , caused by a lack of communication with the D.o.J. and not due to a willful act of illegitimacy with the predetermined decision to infringe an international Treaty underwritten by the Government of United States of America in contempt of its compulsory obligations .

3

the Republic of Italy has instead willfully violated the Extradition Treaty while in its Constitution exists a specific provision imposing the strict respect of all underwritten international treaties ratified by the national parliament : Art. 10 .

in the matter of its citizen Francesco Pazienza Donato the G.o.I. did respect neither its own Constitution nor its own Penal Procedure Code that forbids a trial in absentia for a citizen living abroad whose address is perfectly known .To overcome such a hurdle the G.o.I. has resorted to the fabrication of fake documents as above undisputably demonstrated .

we humbly recall once again that the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 has established that the due process of the Constitution applies to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction and how in this case the G.o.I. has pursued a misconduct in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that should be a shared undisputable value among those democratic Countries where it exists , or it should exist , the rule of law and related due process : the right for a defendant to a fair trial .Nothing can excuse the behavior of the G.o.I. .

Frankly speaking in this case what has been applied with the complacency of the D.o.S. is not an extradition proceeding but an extraordinary rendition of sort disguised as extradition and having no rules . It happens often in the opposite direction but upon arrival in the United States the normal rules of due process in criminal proceeding kick in and the suspect is entitled to a fair trial . The then G.o.I. has instead substituted for the rule of Law a mockery of Justice . Presently Mr. Michael G. Kozac is a prominent Acting Assistant Secretary of State and on Febr. 28 , 2005 interviewed by a press reporter whether the present U.S. Administration is working to redress abuses that occur he said “ I think you’ve seen the U.S. being very active “ . So we have to remain very hopeful . . .

the United States Department of State has to furthermore aknowledge as of today that on Apr. 8 , 1987 , thus after the

3

trial before the Court of Cassation on March 10 , 1987 , a different full jurisdictional italian Court ( the Second Jurisdictional Section of " Corte dei Conti " of Rome ) with the sentence Nr . 100/87 drafted by Hon. Augusto Sanzi has declared the prosecution , trial and conviction of Dr. Pazienza a judicial monstrosity since the inception due to the fact that he had been prosecuted as per the Art. 314 of the italian Penal Code ( Peculation ) being such an offense enforceable only to civil servants and public officials while Mr. Pazienza , the above said Court stated , had ever been neither a civil servant nor a public official but a private citizen .

It was however quite ironical that prosecutor Sica , while pursuing a case against Pazienza for the impossible crime of peculation , was using plenty of cars and helicopters of the italian State to attend the trysts with his forced lover and witness in a spa resort located fifty miles from Rome . He was indeed and with no doubts a public official .

The United States Department of State has to furthermore aknowledge as of today that on Aug. 13 , 1994 , in a sentence drafted by the investigative judge Hon. Otello Lupacchini of the Rome Tribunal ( Case nr.1164/87 G.I. ) at the conclusion of a criminal investigation lasted several years and concerning a different case , it turned out that Mr. Pazienza did never commit the offense of personal favoritism for which he had been prosecuted and convicted in absentia in 1987 .

Pazienza voluntereed in the above case to testify before the judge Hon. Lupacchini starting on Dec. 1993 thus demostrating that he had nothing to do with the alleged personal favoritism .

For the above proffered reasons it is absolutely well grounded to petition the U.S. Department of State to promptly declare as null and void the waiver of the rule of specialty granted to the G.o.I. on July 2 , 1992 for the service of sentence of three years and two months prison term related to the SUPERSISMI TRIAL . The D.o.S. has consented to service a sentence that is juridically non-

3

existent legally meaning that U.S. has never lost jurisdiction on Pazienza as far it concerns this case .After this action the G.o.I. shall have consequently the right to submit to the D.o.S. a request as per Art. XVI (1)(c) for the person's retrial being the previous judgement illegitimate because in full violation of the provisions of the Treaty. The present request to comply has to be fairly considered by the U.S. Department of State as its inescapable legal duty and not a favor asked to being it only a legitimate right of the petitioner to ask for the compensation of a violation implemented by the G.o.I with the blatant disrespect of an international Treaty and the most elementary standards of civil rights as well .Pazienza has the right to a fair trial where he could finally defend himself thus demonstrating his innocence .

Few final considerations with reference to the moral standing of the U.S. counterparts representing the then G.o.I in the extradition proceeding in the above said case : Mr. Domenico Sica and Mr. Francesco Misiani .On Oct. 19 , 2004 the second section of the italian Supreme Court of Cassation with the sentence nr. 40799 has established that after having ' taken care ' of Pazienza the above said magistrates tried to besmirch the heroic italian judge Hon. Giovanni Falcone killed by the Mafia on May 23 , 1992 . The sentence states that on June 21 , 1989 Mr. Falcone had been the target of a previous killing attempt in Palermo and eventually Mr. Sica and Mr. Misiani had handed over to the Court judging the persons indicted and then convicted for the crime a very questionable fact finding report insinuating that the criminal act was dubious and probably to be considered as a form of self promotion put in action by Mr. Falcone himself .The Court of Cassation named as being responsible for the above said highly questionable fact finding report that Lt. Col. Mario Mori who also drafted the fake " briefs of fruitless research " mentioned above .In 1998 Mr. Misiani had to resign from the Judiciary for an alleged scandal and in the aftermath he wrote a book titled " The Red Robe " .

3

He flaunted that over the period he investigated Pazienza , whose name is duly mentioned in the book , he was very cozy with those fringe factions of the extreme political left being adjacent to the red political subversion and terrorism . Today Mr. Misiani , Esq. is the defense lawyer of an affiliate member of the new Red Brigades accused of a political homicide carried out in 1998 . Business as usual again .

G - CONTESTED CASE Nr. 2 .THE WAIVER OF THE RULE OF SPECIALTY

GRANTED BY THE D.O.S. ON DEC. 22 , 1986 . VIOLATIONS OF ART. X (2) (c) AND ART.XVI OF THE

TREATY PERPETRATED BY THE G.O.I. .

UNFAITHFUL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PROFFERED BY THE G.O.I. .

Whereas :

A. prosecutor Domenico Sica while pursuing the case Nr. 1 decided to gradually pass the fake documentation he was concocting with the help of the italian spy agency S.I.S.M.I. to the prosecutor of Bologna who was investigating the station bombing of August 2 , 1980 .

B. The Bologna prosecutor agreed with Mr. Sica to issue an arrest warrant against Francesco Pazienza Donato for the crime of pluriaggravated slander (Art. 368 of the italian Penal Code ) on Nov. 11 , 1984 . The arrest warrant was referring to an alleged activity of Pazienza in complicity with two officers of the S.I.S.M.I. spy agency and the head of the P 2 Masonic

4

Lodge , Mr. Licio Gelli , to leading astray the investigations concerning the Bologna ' s bombing .

C. Mr. Pazienza was once more declared a fugitive thanks again to the above said phoney documentation arranged by Mr. Sica and passed to the Bologna prosecutor .

D. on Dec. 10 , 1985 a superseded indictent with a new arrest warrant was issued by the Bologna judiciary against Pazienza as per the Art. 270 bis of he italian Penal Code having instituted , promoted , and organized a subversive association aimed at the overthrowing the democratic institutions of Italy .

E. Pazienza was again declared a fugitive while , at that time , he was sitting in a U.S. jail .

F. on March 17 , 1986 the G.o.I. submitted an extradition request to the D.o.S. while at that time Pazienza was still locked up in a U.S. jail .

G. the extradition request as usual never landed onto the bench of a U.S. Judge .

H. on Jun 12 , 1986 Mr. Kurt Muellenberg , Senior Counsel of International Law Enforcement of the D.o.J. in the U.S. Embassy in Rome wrote a letter to Mr. Rocco Palamara of the italian Ministry of Justice stating that : " <<Bologna charges >> - The documentation submitted will not support an extradition order against Mr Pazienza and we will not file these charges in their current state ".

I. in this letter of June 12 , 1986 it is furthermore confirmed the very questionable confidential agreement between the Parties to avoid at all costs a U.S. Court in the matter of the extradition of Pazienza : " Mr. Pazienza can be surrendered in the near future on the Milan charges . The G.o.I can then request the U.S. Government to waive the rule of specialty as to the Rome and Bologna charges , which will have to be ruled on by the Secretary of State " and then " Pursuant to our agreement , please treat this memorandum as an unofficial

4

communication to assist you in your internal discussion . " ( Exh.22 )

J. on July 10 , 1986 Mr. Abraham D. Sofaer , Esq. senior counsel of the D.o.S. in Washington wrote : " With respect to the Bologna charge , the supporting information received prior to Pazienza ' s surrender ( June 18 , 1986 ) was not , in Justice ' s view , sufficient to justify proceeding . " ( See : 8621515 - UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT of STATE - 10 JUL 1986 - S/S MICROFILM JUL 14 1986 - Orig. to FAIM - ) .

K. on Dec. 19 , 1986 Mr. Michael G. Kozac legal counsel in Washington of D.o.S. wrote an action memorandum to the acting Secretary of State ( See : 8638762 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE -S/S - MICROFILM DEC 22 1986 - Orig returned to L. 12/22 - ) stating that : " In July of this year , you consented to two previous Italian requests to waive the rule of specialty , both involving Pazienza . Although at that time was pending request from Italy for consent to try Pazienza on the Bologna charges , we did not request your consent because the U.S. Department of Justice did not believe the evidence of criminality then available was sufficient to warrant a waiver of the rule of specialty with respect to those charges . In November 1986 , however , the Italian government presented additional evidence to the U.S. Department of Justice in support of its request to try Pazienza on the Bologna charges ".

L. the so called new evidences filed by the G.o.I. on Nov. 1986 positively convinced the U.S Department of State to consent to the waiver of the rule of specialty for the Bologna charges on Dec. 22 , 1986 : pluriaggravated slander and subversive association .

M. the waiver was communicated with dispatch R 24080 DEC 86 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO AMEMBASSY ROME - UNCLASS STATE 396944 - Excerpt: " (1) Pluriaggravated slander ( false accusation ) by leading astray the investigations concerning the August 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station ( arrest warrant issued November 11 , 1984 in Bologna )

4

; and (2) having instituted , promoted , and organized with other individuals a subversive associaion aimed at the overthrowing the democratic institutions (...) Art. 270 bis of the italian penal code >> DEPARTMENT OF STATE - WASHINGTON , DECEMBER 22 , 1986 END OF TEXT . WHITEHEAD " .

§§§

The new evidences submitted by the G.o.I. on Nov. 1986 were totally unfaithful .

§§§

We have already demonstrated our assumption in the PREMISE ( see pages 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ) .Hereto we proffer further undeniable proofs .

On Nov. 1986 the G.o.I. sent two Bologna magistrates to New York , the prosecutor and an investigative magistrate , where on Nov. 15 they had a meeting with Ms. Molly Warlow of the Department of Justice .They delivered a new extradition memorandum ( Exh.23 ) that , as previously said in the Premise , had been concocted in their hotel room the night before the meeting with no proofs of evidence attached to and in italian language only. No a word was mentioned concerning the fact that Pazienza was accused by them to have acted as an emissary in Italy of the U.S. Republican Party and as a C.I.A. operative whose task assigned by his american accomplices was to destabilize the italian democracy through acts of terrorism as demonstrated again in the Premise.The delivered new memorandum was instead reporting the following assertions and hereto is also the demonstration of their unfaithfulness :

I. The Bologna investigative police had allegedly discovered few days earlier a new set of evidences against Pazienza that were included in a written report of Oct. 29 , 1986 . The Police report was not attached to the memorandum .

4

§§§

The proffered assertion was contrary to the truth having made the magistrates the whole thing up because the mentioned investigative police report did never exist . They had just invented it . Hereafter the demonstration.

§§§

II. The memorandum delivered to Ms. Warlow was stating that the Police investigations had definitely unveiled the motive for the crime and the Pazienza decision to engage himself in a criminal activity aimed at leading astray the Bologna investigations . The Bologna magistrates wrote that Pazienza had to help a neofascist university professor accused to be involved in the Bologna bombing plot , arrested in the aftermath of the terrorist act and who , in the past ( 1972 ) , helped Pazienza out to obtain a fraudolent magna cum laude degree from the Rome State University .

§§§

It was again an unfaithful statement because the magistrates had indeed previously investigated the topic receiving months earlier a report emanating from the Rome D.I.G.O.S. Police department dated June 23 , 1986 assessing the contrary i.e. that the University degree of Pazienza was perfectly regular and legitimate . ( Exh. 24)

§§§

III. Attached to as Exh. 25 the minute of the hearing before the Court of Assizes of Bologna of Oct. 15 , 1987 where the chief of the Bologna police D.I.G.O.S. department , Mr. Francesco Modica , who allegedely was the officer having discovered the new proofs of evidence , testifies that the report of Oct . 29 , 1986 mentioned in the new extradition memorandum of Nov. 15,1986 did never exist and that the University degree of Pazienza was perfectly genuine . It can be also noted as the prosecutor ( mentioned as P.M. in the minute ) firstly denied the existence of that memorandum delivered to Ms. Warlow ,

4

then he conceded its existence but denying that he ever signed it and finally confronted with his own signature he blamed his travelmate for having induced him to sign .

IV. When Pazienza protested for such behavior declaring that his extradition had been obtained with ' phoney papers ' he was again charged with a count of multiaggravated slander . A judge of Florence threw the charge out and finally the Supreme Court confirmed his acquittal in 1993 with a sentence whose text is reported on pag. 5 (g) of the present document .

V. The memorandum of Nov. 15 , 1986 alleges too a fanciful criminal relationship of Pazienza with neofascist characters that were for real only in the fantasy of the two signatories of the document delivered to Ms. Warlow . Attached to as Exh. 26 , 27 , 28 are three reports on Pazienza drafted respectively by the Commander in Chief of the Italian Financial Police (" Guardia di Finanza " ) , Gen. Nicola Chiari , on Nov. 23 , 1981 ; the central D.I.G.O.S. Police department of Rome on Oct. 31 , 1984 and finally again by the D.I.G.O.S. Police department of Rome on July 13 , 2002 .

VI. Please verify if in these reports there is the most ephemeral mention to Pazienza proximity either to neofascist political circles and ideology or any kind of political activity whatsoever. These documents unanimously state that Pazienza had lived and worked in France for almost ten years , he returned to Italy on the beginning of 1980 and he was officially resulting again as a foreign resident on Jan.13 , 1983 as previously demonstrated in this document . His working activity is also depicted being not only fully legitimate but being as well on the highest levels of international business circles . Let alone any idiocies concerning organized crime , Central Intelligence Agency , Mr. Gelli and his P2 Masonic Lodge. All reports mention the collaboration of Pazienza with the french oceanographer Jacques Yves Cousteau turned by the Bologna judiciary in an ominous and dangerous C.I.A. spy as previously mentioned in this document .

VII. How Pazienza could have been in the position to organize and promote a subversive association on behalf of his american

4

masters aimed at the Bologna station bombing of August 2 , 1980 having returned in Italy only few weeks before that date has remained an unsolved mistery .

§§§

On the matter of extradition of Francesco Pazienza Donato from U.S. it is above unquestionably demonstrated that the then G.o.I. on Nov. 15 , 1986 has allowed and induced two of their representatives being onto the soil of United States of America to file before the U.S. Government an extradition document reporting facts contrary to the truth and being the two representatives fully aware of such a unfaithfulness .Anyone filing a petition adressed to the U.S. Administration ( or related departments and agencies ) with a rendition of the facts that is , wholly or partially , intentionally unfaithful commits perjury : a crime admitting no statute of limitations .

§§§

Furthermore as per today the U.S. Department of State has to take into account the following facts :

The waiver of the rule of specialty granted by the D.o.S. on Dec. 22 , 1986 was based on unfaithful documentation filed by the G.o.I. on Nov. 15 , 1986 .

Following the D.o.S. grant of waiver on Juan. 7 , 1987 Pazienza was locked up again in Italy and kept for almost three years in the most ferocious solitary confinement in a Turin prison nothwistanding the waiver of the rule of specialty was mentioning only consent to trial and not also consent to detention being the former circumstance clearly separated from the latter as per Art. XVI (1) (c) of the Extradition Treaty .

On Jan.8 , 1987 , the day after Pazienza ' s arrest , the D.o.S. was immediately thoroughly informed by the U.S. Embassy in Rome of such an abuse . The D.o.S. did not judge convenient

4

to intervene whatsoever .( See dispatch : 0 081702Z JAN 87 FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8977 ) . In this same message the U.S. Embassy in Rome communicated the whole text of a letter of Dec. 31 , 1986 from Pazienza to ambassador Maxwel Rabb with copies to president Reagan , Secretary Schultz and Attorney General Meese where Pazienza was noticing and warning the D.o.S. that the reasons for his prosecution and persecution by the Bologna judiciary was only based on his alleged subversive activity on behalf of United States of America . Hereto the full text of the letter : " I take the liberty to inform you that is my firm intention to stand trial and defend myself in the so called << Bologna case >> where I have been charged as a principal in a << Subversive conspiracy >> in which I was allegedly the liason channel of U.S. Government circles whose long standing goals - according to he judges of the City of Bologna - have been the political destabilization and strife of the italian life including the use of terrorist acts . In the indictment it is mentioned that such a strategy was conceived , planned and developed within the Georgetown University and more particularly in the Washington based Center for Strategic and Inernational Studies with the full sponsorship of the G.O.P. . Of course , I will not waive the principle of specialty because I need to fight this further battle as a free man after the almost two years of unjust incarceration I have suffered . The main aim of this meaningless and silly story is to obtain a waiver of the rule of specialty from your government in order to throw me in jail again violating once more the most elementary civil and human rights . This trial will result in the vindication of my honor as well as that of your Country , since the Bologna judges have depicted United States in their documents as a terrorist state using bombings and massacres as a tool ot its foreign policy . In the meantime , I strongly ask you to examine any possible information within your government and related federal agencies to enable yourself know how ridicolous , trumped up , and false are the charges concerning my supposed criminal cooperation with your Country for the destabilization of Italy "( Exh.29 copy of the original letter ) . The Embassy comment was only that " The letter was clearly drafted before Pazienza learned that specialty had been

4

waived in his case " . Nobody bothered in the D.o.S or elsewhere to verify if what Pazienza was saying was the truth or not .

After a judgement that lasted almost nine years Pazienza was convicted to ten year jail term on Nov. 22 , 1995 only for the crime of slander . The jail term was twice as many years because it was enforced a special law whose meaning has been thoroughly described on pag. 2 (c) , 3 (d,e) not included either in the extradition request or in the D.o.S. consent to waiver of Dec. 22 , 1986 .

It has been absolutely impossible to convict Pazienza for a subversive association as per Art. 270 bis of the italian Penal Code not having had any relationship whatsoever with his alleged italian neofascist codefendants . His only criminal relationship remained that with his american accomplices . It has to be pointed out that the Art. 270 bis is presently enforced in Italy for the islamist terrorists of Al Qaeda thus meaning that the american personalities and institutions repeatedly mentioned in the true indictment documentation never mentioned in the extradition requests as being in criminal association with Pazienza were judged to be tantamount to present Al Qaeda terrorists .

An attempt to create fake proofs of evidence for the subversive association fizzled out on June 27 , 1985 when Pazienza was sitting in a U.S. jail and while the SUPERSISMI trial was still going on in Italy. In the maximum security prison of the northern city of Bergamo a misterious character was caught in the act to induce an imprisoned neofascist terrorist to accuse Pazienza . Prosecutor Sica , Lt. Col. Mario Mori and the Bologna prosecutor were promptly informed with a report drafted by the Carabinieri territorial branch on June 28 , 1985. No one ordered any investigation , the misterious spook was allowed to leave undisturbed the prison and it has been impossible to know who was and who sent him ( Exh . 30) .

Pazienza has been acquitted from the charge of subversion and then , in fact , convicted for the same charge applying to the

4

crime of slander the already mentioned special law . Such an occurence is generally defined as double jeopardy or non bis in idem thus falling under Art. VI of the Extradition Treaty : " Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been ( ...) acquitted (...) for the same acts for which extradition is requested " .

It is now of the utmost importance to submit some questions with related answers :

1. Was the italian law D.L. 625/79 - L. Nr. 15 of Febr. 2 , 1980 applied to Pazienza ever mentioned and/or included by the G.o.I. in its request of waiver of the rule of specialty to the D.o.S.? The answer is nope .

2. Does the Art. X (1) (c) (d) of the Extradition Treaty impose on the Requesting Party to file their request along with " the texts of he laws describing the essential elements and the designation of the offense for which extradition is requested " and " the texts of the laws describing the punishment for the offense " ? The answer is yes .

3. Does the above said italian special law spuriously switch at will any crime in that of violent subversion and/or terrorism ? The answer is yes . Hereto the core of this law : " For the crimes committed with purpose of terrorism or subversion of the democratic order punishable with a prison term different from life the punishment is increased by half " . Attached to as Exh. 31 the whole text of the law .

4. Does that law has been applied to the crime of slander only once and for Pazienza ? The answer is yes .

5. Does the Extradition Treaty on Art. V specifically determine when a subversion act can be qualified as a common crime and not a political offense ? The answer is yes and the definition is as per follow : the offense has the predominant character of a common crime when its consequences could have " endangered public safety , harmed persons unrelated to the politcal purpose of the offender , or was commited with ruthlesness ."

4

6. What has in common the above definition of subversion with that of slander ? The answer is none .

7. Does Mr. Michael G. Kozac of the D.o.S. determined that the slander being the object of the request submitted by the G.o.I. for a waiver of the rule of specialty had to be considered as analogue to the U.S. crime of obstruction of justice in the above mentioned memorandum of Dec. 19 , 1986 to the acting Secretary of State and that only this kind of analogy was authorizing the consent for waiver ? The answer is yes .

8. Following the analogy reference evoked by Mr. Kozac does it exist a law in the U.S. body of laws that can turn an obstruction of justice based on " trasmitting false information to the court in the form of supposed intelligence reports prepared by the italian secret service " ( as again per Mr. Kozac words ) into a violent subversion act or even a plain terrorist act ? The answer is definitely nope .

§§§

Furtermore :

Hereto as Exh. 32 excerpts from the conviction sentence of Pazienza for the crime of slander of May 16 , 1994 . The part concerning Pazienza specifically takes few pages . It can be observed as :

1. On pages 401 and 441 there is the ultimate hilarious and shameful fairy tale of Pazienza espionage activities on behalf of the Americans . Pazienza has been convicted for having been - picture this (!) - a malevolent agent of influence of the U.S. Department of State to the detriment of the Republic of Italy .

2. How come that that same D.o.S. has extradited one of his spy so running the risk that its spy might spill the beans ? Sorry for the sarcasm . . .

5

3. How come that such a devastating incriminating proof of evidence evoked in the conviction sentence to ten years prison term had not been part of the new extradition memorandum delivered by the Bologna magistrates to Ms. Warlow of the D.o.J. on Nov. 15 , 1986 ?

4. The sentence states that Pazienza had been enrolled as an agent by Mr. Michael Ledeen , special adviser to the Secretary of State , and by Mr. Alexander Haig , the Secretary of State himself. Presently Mr. Ledeen is a consultant for the administration of President George W. Bush and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute . The Bologna Court did not even bother to verify if at the time of the alleged criminal activity of Pazienza on behalf of the United States Department of State the above mentioned gentlemen , Ledeen and Haig , were part of the U.S. Republican Administration of the Reagan presidency and if that incriminated U.S. Administration was already in power . The sentence states that such unlawful activity has taken place between Sept. 9 , 1980 while culminating on Jan. 13 , 1981 . The problem is that the Reagan administration began his tenure only on Jan. 20 , 1981 .

5. Pazienza had been convicted with a sentence stating that he was an agent of influence against his Country on behalf of a foreign government that did not exist yet .

6. Whoever better than the D.o.S. can estimate how such a statement held in sentence is totally baseless and how politically biased is the conviction ?

7. As it can be read the sentence refers to the declarations of two top directors of the S.I.S.M.I spy agency Mr. Lugaresi and Mr. Cogliandro . It is however quite astonishing that two intelligence officers of a Country allied with the United States of America volunteered to perjure themselves with the aim to harm Pazienza but meantime hurting the U.S. reputation .

8. As previously said that Mr. Cogliandro was that same traitor who illicitly passed informations to the lybian goons enabling

5

them to assassinate their political refugees living in Italy and never prosecuted .

9. It is very interesting to precisely pinpoint what it is stated on pag. 441 of the conviction sentence , " It has to be remembered that the America ' s sponsorship is an hypothesis whose crediblity has been largely substantiated by S.I.S.M.I. officials . In relation to that it is well-founded to believe that Gelli had been compelled to accept the U.S. imposition with no possibility to argue " . What that actually means ? Hereto is the answer : the Bologna Court and prosecution alleged that the P2 Masonic Lodge and its criminal activities were strictly controlled and directed by U.S. . In 1978 the Americans , being highly unsatisfied of the actual Grand Master of the Lodge Mr. Licio Gelli , anointed Francesco Pazienza Donato as the new chief shipping him back to Italy to replace Mr. Gelli . Pazienza gotta to be a genius because in 1978 was only 32 years old .

10.How come that the above folly was not part of the new extradition memorandum handed out in N.Y.C. to Ms. Warlow by the Bologna magistrates on Nov. 15 , 1986 ?

11.Twice the Ministry of Justice of the Swiss Confederation rejected an extradition demand of the G.o.I. for Mr. Licio Gelli declaring that the Bologna prosecution and trial had to be considered only as a political harassment having nothing to do with a criminal proceeding . Contrary to the D.o.S. the Swiss pretended to receive all the corroborating documentation attached to the memorandums submitted by the G.o.I. .

12.On Apr.14 , 2003 the Rome Tribunal investigative judge Hon. Giovanni De Donato ( case 9679/98 R.G.G.I.P. ) drafted an opinion stating that Pazienza had been the victim of a conspiracy masterminded by the S.I.S.M.I. spy agency over the hereby defined Case nr. 1 and Case nr. 2 : " the partial demonstration to his assertions proffered by Pazienza with the corroborating documents supplied by him and related to murky operations put in action against him within the S.I.S.M.I. in what can appear as a dark conflict between factions inside the same circles gravitating round the S.I.S.M.I. in that period

5

and among power circles connected as well to them it requires a full investigation to understand what it is possible to understand " . Unfortunately the pursued case had to be terminated because of the providential death within the nexth forthcoming months of the two persons under criminal investigation for slander and ideological falseness against Pazienza: Mr.Fulvio Martini , the spy agency former director pal of Mr. Sica and Mr. Demetrio Cogliandro , the traitor. The judge lambasted as well the deception operation related to the phoney documentation cooked up by prosecutor Sica in 1983 and sent to the U.S. Embassy in Rome ( see Exh. 8 and 9 ) .

13.The Bologna sentence refers , as a further proof of incriminating evidence , to the help given by Pazienza to the U.S. Republican Party when he collected the informations that lead to the so called Billygate affair on the eve of the american election of 1980 that helped President Reagan to win by a landslide . ( See also the Wall Street Journal article - Exh. 4 ) .

14.On June 6, 1987 the Court of Assizes of Bologna rejected the Pazienza petition to interrogate Mr. Michael Ledeen deliberating that he could not testify on his favor because he had to be considered as an almost defendant and an accomplice of Pazienza himself . ( Exh. 33 )

15.On page 404 it is emphasized that the proof of Pazienza ' s guilt is the conviction sentence of July 29 , 1985 of the Tribunal of Rome .

16.It is the above mentioned " Case Nr. 1 " , the so called SUPERSISMI trial where Pazienza was prosecuted tried and convicted as a fugitive while sitting in a U.S. prison .

17.No more reference at all in the sentence to the motive for the crime depicted in the extradition memorandum of Nov. 15 , 1986 delivered to Ms. Warlow of the D.o.J with the fanciful story of the neofascist university professor and disappeared as well are the neofascist acquaittances described in the same document .

5

18.On pages 439 - 440 , as a new entry or novelty in the hit parade , the conviction sentence states that Pazienza decided to engage himself in an unlawful behavior because he was a minion of the head of the P 2 Masonic Lodge , Mr. Licio Gelli , getting as compensation for his help to leading astray the investigations the introduction and sponsorship to banker Roberto Calvi of the Banco Ambrosiano .

19.How come this assertion was not mentioned by the Bologna magistrates in the new extradition memorandum delivered to Ms. Warlow on Nov. 15 , 1986 being the motive for a crime the crucial explanation of the unlawful behavior of a suspect ?

20.On page 20 of the second written indictment documentation ( in italian legal jargon " Seconda requisitoria scritta " ) drafted by the Bologna prosecutor on Dec. 11 , 1986 it is said that one of the proofs demonstrating the proximity of Pazienza to the head of the P2 Masonic Lodge was again Mr. Michael Ledeen being the american very close to Mr. Gelli .

21.How come the above proof of evidence was not mentioned by the Bologna magistrates in the new extradition memorandum delivered to Ms. Warlow just a month earlier and eventually landed on the D.o.S. ?

22.As far it concerns the novel motive for the crime concocted in the sentence and never mentioned before in the extradition documents with reference to the introduction to banker Calvi such a circumstance is blatantly false again .

23. The falsety is demonstrated by two memorandums of the U.S. Customs Service that investigated Pazienza in U.S. in the aftermath of their special agents trip in Italy and the meeting they had with magistrate Francesco Misiani on June 18 , 1984 who cheated and deceived them ( See pag. 10 , Exh. 7 ) .

24.From pag. 31 of the U.S. Customs Service memorandum NY02PR220027 of 1984 : " It is also worthy to note that the person who introduced PAZIENZA to Roberto Calvi , was Domenic Scaglione , a Senior Vice President of Chase Manattan . "

5

25.From page 20 of memorandum NYPR320015 of 1985 the U.S. Custom Service wrote : " Mr. Scaglione aknowledged knowing Roberto Calvi because of Calvi's prominent role in Italian banking circles . He was introduced to Francesco PAZIENZA by Monsignor Fratelli , Dean of the Catholic University in Rome . Mr. Scaglione stated that he had introduced PAZIENZA to Roberto Calvi at an International Monetary Fund (IMF) years ago in Washington D.C. " ( Exh.34 , Exh. 35 ) . The meeting of the Custom Service with Mr. Scaglione took place as per the memorandums on Sept. 4 , 1984 .

26.It's a matter of fact that the Bologna prosecutor and the judges of the Court of Assizes received both U.S. Customs Service memorandums from the unsolicited Milan judicial authority on Sept. 1988 but they simply ignored their existence because not convenient for their prearranged biased theory .

27.On May 7 , 2002 ( case Es. nr. 827/01) Hon. Sergio Silocchi , president of the Third Section of the Milan Court of Appeal , drafted a clear and well developed decision specifically stating that Pazienza was innocent and that the Bologna conviction of 1995 was patently meritless due to the fact that as estabilished since 1992 by the Milan Tribunal with arguments based on undisputable proofs of evidence (i) Pazienza never belonged to the P2 Masonic Lodge , (ii) he did never meet or know Mr. Gelli , (iii) he never abetted or collaborated with him , (iiii) he was never introduced to the banker Calvi by him and (iiiii) he was instead even a foe of both Mr. Gelli and the P2 Masonic Lodge top brotherhood ( Exh. 36 ) .

28.The top brotherhood of the P2 Masonic Lodge , including Mr. Gelli , was tried for various crimes , among them also a count of subversive association , by the Rome Court of Assizes starting from 1993 . Not only Pazienza was not a defendant but he was even called as a prosecuting witness . Therefore on the same time Pazienza was an hostile witness in a Rome Court and a codefendant of Mr. Gelli in the Bologna Court for the same facts. Niceties of the italian justice system . . .

5

29.The D.o.S. had however sufficient clues on its own to suspect that the new extradition memorandum of Nov. 15 , 1986 was , euphemistically speaking , non very faithful thanks to previous several dispatches received from the U.S. Embassy in Rome since Dec. 1985. Prominent among them was 0 131855Z DEC 85 FM AMEMBASSY ROME TO SECSTATE WASHDC CONFIDENTIAL ROME 30939 . Excerpt : " The judges ( of Bologna ) mentioned without further explanation , that the << occult structure >> formed by Gelli , Pazienza ( ...) had << close contacts with sectors of the C.I.A. >> .

30.How come the above proofs of evidence had not been mentioned in the extradition memorandum of Nov. 15,1986 delivered to Ms. Warlow of the D.o.J. and how come no mention at all to the P2 Masonic Lodge and its Gran Master Mr. Gelli ever appears in that document being both these points the backbone of the conviction sentence ?

31.On pages 413 - 414 of the first indictment documentation of May 13 , 1986 ( in italian legal jargon " Prima requisitoria scritta " ) the prosecutor wrote that Pazienza had been shipped to Italy in 1978 by the C.S.I.S. ( Center for Strategic and International Studies of the Washington D.C. Georgetown University ) to destabilize Italy . Once arrived in Italy he sought and received the help of the then prime minister Giulio Andreotti .

32.Upon a recess of the hearing of Oct. 13 , 1987 before the Court of Assizes of Bologna the prosecutor discreetely solicited Pazienza to confirm those fanciful allegations for his own sake . He refused . On April 15 , 1988 Pazienza denounced in Court what had happened during the previous hearing . Pazienza was charged again for the crime of slander against the prosecutor . On June 6 , 1993 the Second Section of the Tribunal of Florence with sentence Nr. 494 fully acquitted Francesco Pazienza on request of the same trial prosecutor . It turned out that what he said was the truth thanks to the testimony of three Carabinieri police officers that overheard the conversation between Pazienza and the Bologna prosecutor on Oct. 13 , 1987 .

5

33.It is out of question that if Pazienza confessed and confirmed what the Bologna prosecutor and investigative magistrate wrote in their indictment documents - so lying - i.e. to have been an american spy quite certainly today he would be walking on the street and not still rotting in jail . Presently he is bitterly regretting such a decision .

34.How come that those precise accusations against Pazienza in connection with american institutions and personalities including as well all the allegations previously reported on page 5 of this document were neither part of the extradition memorandum of Nov. 15 , 1986 nor of that of March 17 , 1986 ?

35.On pag.11 of the " Order to stand trial " ( in italian legal jargon " Ordinanza di rinvio a giudizio " ) drafted by the investigative magistrate on Dec. 27 , 1986 , so immediately after his return from U.S. and five days after the consent to waiver granted by the D.o.S. , he wrote that Pazienza was an escape goat for the Christian Democratic Party faction of Mr. Andreotti but because he did not want to confess the responsibilities of the politician and his Party he had to be punished standing trial .

36.How come the above alleged proof of evidence was not mentioned in the new extradition memorandum signed also by that same magistrate few weeks before in N.Y.C. and delivered to Ms. Warlow on Nov. 15 , 1986 and how come instead of the Christian Democratic Party were mentioned the neofascists as the pals of Pazienza ?

37.In the second indictment documentation drafted by the prosecutor on Dec. 11, 1986 ( in italian legal jargon " Seconda requisitoria scritta " ) , so few days after his return from U.S. , the magistrate wrote that a further proof of incriminating evidence against Pazienza was his relationship with " the Agent of U.S.A. Ledeen " ( as per his words ) and because Pazienza was sympathetic to the israeli Jonathan Institute that was maliciously and wrongly attributing terrorist activities to the arabs and to the international " communist world " ( as again per his words - pages 3 , 4 - ) he deserved to stand trial .

5

38.How come the above proof of evidence was not included in the memorandum delivered to Ms. Warlow on Nov. 15,1986 ?

39.After the reconciliation of Mr. Domenico Sica with Pazienza as previously said hereto is a conversation with him secretly recorded by Pazienza in 1993 in his Bologna office after having been him appointed prefect of that City. The conversation appears on pages 594 - 595 of the book written by Pazienza ( Title : Il Disubbidiente - publishing house Longanesi - Milan - 1999 - Exh . 37 ) . At the time of this conversation the Bologna trial was still going on .

Domenico Sica ( D.S. ) - " You see , my friend they blew out the Itavia plane . Whoever had to understand , in Italy , did not understand and then they reiterated with the bombing of the station "Francesco Pazienza ( F.P.) - " But who are they ? "D.S. : " The lybians , Lybia , come on ! "F.P. : " And then ?! "D.S. : " And then whoever had to understand , understood , that's all "F.P. : " Therefore in Italy there are people knowing it " D.S. : " Sure "F.P. : " And what about this trial in Bologna ? "D.S. : " They ( the Bologna judges ) put all in a pestle and cooked out a minestrone "F.P. : " But did you talk to them or you kept everything for you ? "D.S. : " No , I told them " F.P. : "And they ? "D.S. : " They said they would see "

After having proceeded to the above recording Pazienza petitioned the Court of Assizes of Appeals of Bologna to hear Mr. Sica as a witness . As usual the Court rejected his request . In 1994 Pazienza was tipped off that his phone conversations with Mr. Sica , at that time prefect of the same City , were regularly eavesdropped by the Bologna prosecutor office .On June 11 , 1997 Pazienza , in prison since Nov. 1995 , had an official confirmation from Hon. Arcibaldo Miller of the district prosecutor office of Naples : in 1993 and 1994 all his phones were regularly eavesdropped by the Bologna prosecutor office .

5

In 2003 Pazienza tried , as per his rights , to obtain the transcriptions of the recorded phone conversations even recurring to the italian Ministry of Justice .Impossible task , they were unobtainable .Mr. Domenico Sica has never denied that such a conversation of 1993 had taken place after the book written by Pazienza was distributed in the bookstores all over Italy . How could he if the proof was a tape ?In the year 1996 Mr. Giuseppe Zamberletti , a former minister of the government in charge in 1980 , wrote a book confirming the assertions of Mr. Sica in 1993 .In 1998 F.B.I. and/or C.I.A. ( it is not clear what U.S. Agency actually was ) submitted a former operative of the italian branch of the NATO “ Stay Behind “ network under the control of S.I.S.M.I. spy agency to a thorough lie detector examination in the New York City Immigration Naturalization Service headquarters . The operative , Mr. A. Arconte ( name in code G.71) , confirmed the 1993 version of Mr. Sica concerning the responsibilities of the lybians in the Bologna train station bombing . He described how he was part of the team that stealthily rescued out from Lybia the political opponents , how they were relocated in safehouses in Italy , how they were assassinated , why the culprits of the bombing in Bologna had to be considered the lybian special services , how in the aftermath several of his team mates knowing the truth had died in very suspicious accidents , how himself was the target of an assassination attempt , how he was eventually neutralized and debunked after dope had been planted in his home with a consequent arrest , how the prime minister of Italy in 1986 , Mr. Bettino Craxi , energically invited him not to unveil those kind of lewd secrets and why a massive cover up of the lybians responsibilities took place with the help of certain italian political circles to protect the interests of oil and industrial italian groups : specifically E.N.I. and F.I.A.T. the former having been bailed out and saved from bankruptcy by the lybians just few years before becoming the second major stockholder of the industrial conglomerate . The outcome of the lie detector was flawless and the former agent delivered to his american examiners a multitude of corroborating documents buttressing his allegations . He said only an impropriety not detected by the machine . Being he

5

unaware that it had been the same spy agency for which he was working that betrayed him and his team mates with the above said Col. Cogliandro he wrongly attributed the responsibility of the treason to the S.I.S.D.E. italian civilian spy agency . All the corroborating documents delivered by the operative to the U.S. agents are posted in the web site :

http // w w w geocities . com / pentagon / 4031

The moral of the story :

the Germans prosecuted and convicted the lybians for the La Belle Club bombing in Berlin ; the French prosecuted and convicted the lybians for the UTA plane bombing over Africa ; the Britons prosecuted and convicted the lybians for the PAN AM bombing over Lockerbie while the italians behaved as if nothing happened letting the lybians to freely assassinate their political refugees onto their national soil abetting the murderers , to carry out a bombing with 83 deaths and 150 wounded and furthermore covering everything up with a trial where a defendant was convicted as a conspirator on behalf of the Americans. Those same Americans who extradited him after having been convinced , with those fake documents provided by the G.o.I. , that his criminal behavior was motivated by the need to protect a bogus magna cum laude university degree . Terrific ! However it is perfectly true that in the aftermath of the Bologna rail station bombing of Aug. 2 , 1980 the spy agency S.I.S.M.I. implemented an operation to leading astray the investigations but that was aimed only at protecting the lybian responsibilities in the terrorist act .The initiator was a general Musumeci with whom prosecutor Sica had a score to settle for an old affair between them . The initiative undertaken by the general was so poorly and laughably executed that once prosecutor Sica discovered the scheme someone tipped off the Communist Party that officially intervened with one of its legal counsels with a letter dated Oct. 24 , 1984 ( Exh. 38) . The legal counsel informed the Bologna prosecutor ; prosecutor Sica passed his proceeding records to his Bologna colleague and on Nov. 11 , 1984 the arrest warrant for the crime of slander was

6

issued . All the affair turned as an all internal political warfare plot of neofascists , P2 Masonic Lodge , christian democrats with the external help of C.I.A. , Washington C.S.I.S. and U.S. Department of State all intertwined between them in what a late repentant Mr. Sica defined in 1993 as a minestrone . At that point it started the second misleading operation implemented by a different faction inside the same spy agency S.I.S.M.I. with the concoction of phoney proofs of evidence that could satisfy the investigation needs of the left oriented magistrates of the city of Bologna and their conspiracy theories. Such theories were picturing a very dark scenery where Italy was a fake democracy where Masons of the P2 Lodge , neofascist terrorism , christian democrats belonging to the center and right of center factions of the Party including Mr. Andreotti were constantly conspiring against the Communist Party and the italian democracy under the inspiration of the U.S. Republican Party and administrations. Dr.Pazienza had to play the role of the liaison officer between U.S. and the above said circles carrying orders and directives .Was it needed Dr. Pazienza becoming a spy of the americans because that was what the magistrates wanted to hear ?No problem at all , Pazienza became a spy of the americans as testified by the S.I.S.M.I. officers and buttressed by bogus written reports dated Oct. 1981 but fabricated over the first week of Nov. 1984 .Was it needed accusations by some rightist terrorist against Dr. Pazienza ?No problem at all again , a misterious character was shipped inside the Bergamo prison as above said and demonstrated .Pazienza was furthermore particularly dangerous because he was knowing some very unsavory secrets concerning the lybians as unveiled in his letter to the prime minister dated Dec.10,1983 ( see Exh.19 ) so what a better way than that to neutralize debunking him with the stamp of being the mastermind of the first misleading operation ? Nobody , including all the press directly or indirectly controlled by the F.I.A.T. Group , the Communist Party and E.N.I. Group , meaning at that time almost eighty per cent of the overall media , had the interest to unveil the truth i.e. the lybian responsibilities . The leftist faction of the Christian Democratic Party was happy , the Socialist Party whose

6

political turf of influence was the E.N.I. Group was happy too , the Communist Party was very happy as well very happy was the top management of F.I.A.T. Almost everybody was happy .End of the story .

H - CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR THE CASE Nr. 2

Whereas :

On April 1988 the Italian Communist Party sponsored and financed a trip from Beijing of a delegation of chinese prosecutors to attend hearings at the Bologna trial as observers . Pazienza , who was kept in courtroom inside a metal cage as a zoo animal , was proudly shown to them by their political hosts , and the prosecutor as well , as the busted terrorist spy of America . Those were the same chinese prosecutors who would eventually prosecute the students of Tiananmen square in 1989. Approached by one of them Pazienza was asked in broken english why had he plotted against his Country on behalf U.S..

The italian legal system foresees that a lawyer can stand by the prosecutor and act as a private prosecution of sort during the trial . In the italian legal jargon it is called as " legale di parte civile " . Against Pazienza was acting the chief legal counsel of the Italian Communist Party , Mr. Guido Calvi , Esq. , on purpose dispatched from Rome by the Party. He was that same lawyer , as previously said , who was also appointed by the Bologna prosecutor as his personal legal representative when he twice asked the Tribunal of Florence for trials against Pazienza for the crime of slander being himself the alleged victim .Pazienza was acquitted in both the cases .

§§§

The U.S. Department of State is certainly not responsible for a monkey trial before a cangaroo Court but because of the above proffered reasons it is absolutely well grounded

6

to petition the U.S. Department of State to promptly determine that the Government of Italy finally abide by the Extradition Treaty of 1983 .That means that from his conviction to ten years prison term for the crime of slander the effects stemming from the enforcement of the above said law D.L. 625/79 - L. Nr. 15 of Febr. 2 , 1980 unforseen either in the extradition request or in the D.o.S. consent to waiver of the rule of specialty of Dec. 22 , 1986 , have to be immediately void . The G.o.I shall have eventually the right to submit to the D.o.S. a new request for extradition extension asking for the enforcement of the above said law juridically explaining how a slander can be turned in a crime of violent political subversion or terrorism and meantime being in accordance and compliance with the legal and juridical rule of analogy and/or reciprocity to the U.S. body of laws . A principle established by Mr. Michael G. Kozac of the U.S. Department of State as being essential in extradition matter and as per the above said memorandum of Dec. 19 , 1986 .It is out of question that one thing is the obstruction of justice or slander for what Pazienza has been extradited from U.S. while a total different thing is a crime of violent political subversion or terrorism .

I - CONTESTED CASE NR. 3 - MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS PERPETRATED BY THE G.O.I. OF ART

XVI OF THE EXTRADITION TREATY.BREACH OF THE RULE OF SPECIALTY.

Whereas :

1. on April 2 , 1997 the First Section of the Rome Court of Appeals with sentence Nr. 124/97 acquitted Pazienza from an offense that had been forgotten by prosecutor Sica and investigative magistrate Misiani to be pursued before a Court .

2. the trial prosecutor did not appeal against the sentence before the Court of Cassation so becoming the sentence itself definitive .

6

3. the alleged offense was in relation to facts happened in the year 1982 thus well before the surrender of Pazienza dated June 18 , 1986 .

4. the G.o.I. proceeded against Pazienza not caring again to ask for consent to waiver as foreseen in Art. XVI (1) (c) of the Extradition Treaty .

5. the Hon. Brieant favorable decision to extradition of Sept. 25 , 1985 related to the Banco Ambrosiano failure was authorizing proceeding only for two charges .

6. the D.o.S. with telex message N. 190251 of June 16 , 1986 ( FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO AMEMBASSY ROME - CONFIDENTIAL ) stated that " The Department reminds the Embassy that art. XVI (1) (c) of the United States - Italian Extradition treaty requires that Italy seek and obtain the consent of executive authority of the United States before proceeding against Pazienza on any other than the above stated Milan charges " .

7. Pazienza had been instead tried for five charges before the Tribunal of Milan with reference to the Banco Ambrosiano failure with no consent to waiver for the three additional charges in violation of Art. XVI (1) (c) .

8. over the pretrial investigative stage Pazienza was compelled to accept interrogations on the remaining three charges but vigorously demanded to no avail that consent to waiver had to be asked to the D.o.S. doing it before and during the trial .

9. Pazienza had to accept interrogations to forestall an illegal new arrest warrant for the three further charges plotted by the Justice Minister Mr. Mino Martinazzoli. The plot is again demonstrated in the following dispatch released by the D.o.S. thanks to the F.O.I.A. application in 2004 :

"0 111128Z JUL 86 - FM AMEMBASSY ROME - TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2297 - INFO DEPT JUSTICE WASHDC IMMEDIATE - LIMITED OFFICIAL USE

6

ROME 16937 - ( omissis ) - 4. The urgency in this case arises because of Pazienza ' s having spent 15 months in jail in U.S. while at the Milan case was considered by U.S. Court and extraditabilty determined . Italan law on maximum period for pre-trial detention would allow Pazienza's release from jail now << on provisional liberty >> pending a future trial on Milan charges . The justice ministry wants to forestall Pazienza's release . If they were able to proceed against Pazienza on other charges , he would be kept in jail for another period " .

10.it is true that Mr. Martinazzoli was a politician of the Christian Democratic Party but it is also true that he was belonging to the leftist faction of the Party a.k.a cathocommunists constantly conspiring in league with the communists against the center and right of center factions of his own Party while Pazienza was considered a friend of the president of the Party , Mr. Flaminio Piccoli , as confirmed in several dispatches from the U.S. Embassy to the D.o.S. .

11.presently Mr. Martinazzoli is part of the left political coalition allied with the post communists , the Party of the Refounded Communism and the Communist Party of Italy .

12.on Febr. 1987 the Milan Tribunal on charge of the habeas corpus ( " Tribunale del Riesame " ) stated that the G.o.I. kept Pazienza illegitimaly in pretrial detention nine months in excess of what allowed by the Law and that he had to be freed on March 4 , 1986 while kept in jail in the M.C.C. of New York .

13.no personal booty stashed away for personal benefit had been found by the Milan judiciary having Dr.Pazienza doled out payments to third entities on the orders given by the chairman of the bank including several huge installments aimed at supporting the activities of a trade union in an East European Country in 1981 and 1982 .

14.Pazienza refused to defend himself in Court for the charges having no consent to trial arguing that there was a total lack of jurisdiction on them .

6

15.the Court of Appeals of Milan has mantained that the consent to proceed is’nt needed when , after the surrender , the extradite person accepts to answer questions related to charges different from those for what extradition had been granted . The acceptance to answer questions , the Court said , entails that jurisdiction has been accepted and such an acceptance has to be considered as (i) non retractable and (ii) including as well the trial and service of sentence . In other words , for the Milan Court , a third passive party not signatory of the international Treaty has the power to waive the rule of specialty by himself . A juridical interpretation of the rule of specialty that seems quite original .

16.on Apr. 22 , 1998 the Fifth Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation conceded and aknowledged that Pazienza had been tried in absence of consent for charges not included in the extradition decision issued by Hon. Brieant but because the Extradition Treaty of 1973 was foreseeing that the extradited person has the power to accept jurisdiction indipendently of the requested Party in this case the preliminary consent to trial was’nt needed . The Court made an incredible blunder referring to a Treaty that was no more in force .

17.the decisions of the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot be appealed against .

18.we do not know what the extradition Treaty of 1973 was foreseeing but we do know that the Extradition Treaty enforceable in this case is only that of 1983 and that as per Art. XVI the preliminary consent is always indispensable as confirmed in the above dispatch 190251 of June 16 , 1986 from D.O.S. to U.S. Embassy Rome .

L - CONCLUSIONS AND REQUESTS FOR THE CASE NR. 3

Dr. Pazienza has been acquitted for one out of the three charges with no consent to proceed granted by the requested party and convicted to six months prison term for each of the remaining two cases .

6

Therefore it is absolutely well grounded to petition the U.S. Department of State to promptly determine that the Government of Italy finally abide by the extradition Treaty of 1983 . That means that the above said 12 months conviction term could not be enforced and they have to be declared has null and void as per the Extradition Treaty of 1983.The G.o.I. shall have eventually the right to submit to the D.o.S. a request for consent to waiver for proceed thus a retrial for those charges shall be possible .

§§§

We are grateful for the attention provided to this document humbly remembering once more that what it has been asked for is only the due respect of an international Treaty undersigned by the governments of United States of America and the Republic of Italy that has been repeatedly violated .We believe that is our right to obtain an answer the soonest possible after years and years of imprisonment suffered by Dr. Francesco Pazienza Donato good part of them in solitary confinement and absolutely undeserved .It seems to us that the very crime of Dr. Pazienza has been to believe in the United States of America and its alleged rule of law .

Very respectfully yours

_______________________Dr. Francesco Pazienza Donatoc/o Correctional Center of Livorno - Italy -

Copy to :

Mr. Renato Borzone , Esq.Defense Lawyer and President of the Rome Bar Association

6

Rome - Italy -

Livorno ( Italy ) , March 10 , 2005Registered Mail

6