One is impatiently waiting for a sign of life from him.

At this stage, the voluminous Swedish part of this affair has been launched, and it would be pitiful to see Monaco being incapable of finally repairing the continuous and / or continuing damages, since the Principality has mixed up and criminally used the Swedish authorities for their own goals, however unsuccessfully. We still hope to not having to ask Sweden to take over the file.

Philippe Narmino and Brigitte Gambarini have worked hand in hand since the first days of this scandal that started in 2004. This duo now seems to have had but no choice than to remain inseparable, considering what one knows on the other, and to the extent of celebrating together, side by side, as if linked by invisible handcuffs, the civil princely wedding.

Many another know that Narmino and Gambarini are clearly responsible for the illegal ruling of the 21 July 2004 which consists in the green light for the authorities to indulge in any organized State crime, such as thefts, burglaries, blackmail on an international scale (still going on), forgeries in public writs committed by public ministerial officers, usurpations, etc. This is by now known as a LEX GAMBARINI: “In Monaco, the State assumes the right to rob its residents, and burglary through ruse, breaking and entering is being committed in its name”. The proof consists in the fact that said ordinance still has not been nullified.

On 2 June 2010, Mister David Fristedt wrote, to H.E. Statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden, not least the following:

“I hope now that the Minister of State of the Principality of Monaco, His Excellency Mr Michel Roger, with his substantial, legal background, will be able to remedy to that for which Monaco bears responsibility.”

For how much longer will H.E. the Minister of State of Monaco, Mister Michel Roger, judge in a part of this affair before the Supreme Court, continue to let the snowball effect of this affair continue? Does he really not understand the gravity of the situation at this stage? Does Michel Roger not want honest people to invest in Monaco?

Herewith the first envoy to the fourth Chief Prosecutor in the Staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair. The letter has also been sent to the Monegasque weekly magazine Monaco Hebdo. Since the Council of Europe confirms that Monaco still is devoid of free press, one thing is for sure: the Monegasques, contrary to their universal Rights, have not had the Right to the information concerning their highest authorities. This is hereby being compensated for.


1/13 [of the original version]

Monsieur le Procureur Général [Chief Prosecutor]
Jean-Pierre DRENO
Palais de Justice
5, Rue Colonel Bellando de Castro

[Registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt]

First envoy (133 pages) for the attention of the fourth Chief Prosecutor of Monaco, in
The Staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair

Mister Chief Prosecutor,

I ask you hereby to instruct the “Staples, marker pen and IT-bug Affair” (1 and 2). Its protagonists have through three chief prosecutors in a row made all in their power to bury it. Indeed, the Criminal Code has prepared harsh sentences for the magistrates that commit crimes in order for them to hide their initial felonies, or those of others, in order to avoid any instruction from the prosecution. We are now faced with overwhelming criminal intentions / premeditations that can be followed through a thread of evident logic, since these lawyers know what they risk, whereas their desperation, leading them to commit even more blunders. Many a breach of the law intrinsic to the preparation of the present Affair and of its continuous and / or continuing character is punishable by 20 years in jail. For others, the Monegasque Legislator has provided the hardest sentence of the law (Article 137 of the Criminal code). It is out of concern for future translation that I must start with an explanation at once, of some elements of the Monegasque Criminal code.

In order to make sure that You have got all documents pertaining to this Affair, and in view of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, You will be able to compare your file with mine. Indeed, I have reasons to believe that certain documents have vanished from Your Prosecution’s Office, in light of the nature of the ongoing criminal complaints (3).

The Minister of State, Mr Michel Roger, acknowledged receipt of two letters (4 and 5) in which He was asked to make sure that a certain ordinance (a criminal ruling made by a hence incriminted judge) be officially nullified; demand that the said Minister of State affirms having caught all His attention (6), whereas He was to get another letter (11), from one of the victims of the criminal ruling, known as The Criminal Gambarini Ruling (7).

In fact, this ordinance saw the light of the day within its most flagrant illegality, and its content is even more illegal. However, the Monegasque authorities continue to base themselves upon it, since without it, many another knows what they risk, particularly since not having pulled into reverse in time. The blackmail that I am suffering would stop delivering its effects should the Prosecution’s office once and for all take it to put an end to the disturbances of public order. The whole Affair would resolve itself, inexorably and logically. I shall do my best to try to convince you of the latter in the present envoy. Nevertheless, I affirm that You have what it takes to compare with what Your predecessor eventually will have left you, along with what has been written on and will be written on www.bimcam.com .

The major problem consists in that the responsible nr 1 is no one else but the Director of Judicial Services, and that such responsibility goes back to when he was President of the Court of First Instance. However, the Legislator has clearly anticipated such situation, and Your mission consists in enforcing the reprehension of crimes, not least and particularly if they have been committed by magistrates or by public ministerial officials. This is why I have given a right to inside information to the Cour de cassation (France’s judicial Supreme Court) in this matter, so as to make sure that the Director of Judicial Services, Mr Narmino (herewith called Narmino), not be able to take over the dossier against himself (see my letter to the Chief Judge (Premier Président) of the Cour de Cassation, Mr Vincent Lamanda (24), sent the day before I undersigned were to learn the name of the successor of Mr Raybaud, herewith named as Raybaud.

One of the victims, my mother, seized the Monegasque Supreme Court only in order to prove a denial of justice, which public evidence I now make use of, not least to show the criminal intentions of Raybaud, in terms of omitting information to the named Tribunal, information concerning himself, and attached to the present (12, 13 and 14).


(pdf format)

Article 137 of the Monegasque Criminal Code, in French and in English

Article 137. – Hors les cas où la loi règle spécialement les peines encourues pour crimes ou délits commis par les fonctionnaires ou officiers publics, ceux d’entre eux qui auront participé à d’autres crimes ou délits qu’ils étaient chargés de prévenir, constater ou réprimer, seront condamnés comme il suit:

– s’il s’agit d’un délit : au maximum de la peine attachée au délit de l’espèce;

– s’il s’agit d’un crime :
• à la réclusion de cinq ans à dix ans, lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine du bannissement ou de la dégradation civique;

• à la réclusion de dix à vingt ans, lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine de la réclusion de cinq à dix ans;

• à la réclusion à perpétuité lorsque le crime emporte contre tout autre coupable la peine de la réclusion de dix à vingt ans ou à perpétuité.
Article 137 – Apart from the cases in which the law specifically regulates the sentences provided for aggravated crimes or crimes (1) committed by employees of the State or its public officers, those, pertaining to these categories, who will have participated in other aggravated crimes or crimes that they were in charge to prevent, take legal notice of, ascertain or to see prosecuted, shall be sentenced as follow:

– In the case of a crime, to the maximum of the sentence attached to the crime at stake;

– In case of an aggravated crime:

• to an imprisonment of five to ten years, when the aggravated crime suggests to any other guilty a person the sentence of banishment or that of the civic degradation;

• to an imprisonment of ten to twenty years, when the aggravated crime renders to any other guilty a person the sentence of five to ten years imprisonment;

• to life imprisonment when the aggravated crime renders to any other guilty a person the sentence of ten to twenty years or life imprisonment.
(1) This is not an official translation, whereas the original is being reproduced too. “Délit(s)”, in French, means any crime that renders up to 10 years imprisonment; here translated as “crime(s)”. “Crime(s)”, in French, means any crime rendering from 10 years to life imprisonment; here translated as aggravated crimes.