The incredible story



With testimonies made by Paola DiMeglio and I

( the *** are for concrete names)

Note: :
1. The term “PAHLAVI” represents the name of the Dynasty of the father Reza and is used with his name;
2. The term “PALHEVI” indicates the name of the son Ivano and appears in the headings of his great capitals.

February 1995

I had phoned the lawyer ***, who followed my separation, to ask Ivano to assist Ivano for an unjustified as well as ignominious complaint put against him by an ex colleague, *** , and another strange character.

The lawyer looses literally his head as soon as he sees Ivano in his study, or, better, he “recognizes” him. He tells me, very irritated, and afraid, that I would have had to tell him that it was “that” friend of mine and that I would never have had to bring him “HIM.”

He gives no explanations of his behaviour neither he wants to defend him.

March 26th 1996

I am summoned as witness at the hearing of the procedure for failure to help towards *** on the occasion of the accident he caused in February 1994.

The sentence of acquittal for the investor is passed (you look at the combinations!) by the judge honorary lawyer *** (everything preannounced – SIGH! – by the same *** by telephone to Ivano):

The fact doesn’t subsist – therefore there has been no failure to help – because there was no “loss of blood” on face!

Confident in the justice after some weeks, I accompany Ivano in Court to ask the motivation of the sentence: there is among the employees some panic, accompanied by some hesitancy.

Then a chancellor in career puts an end to the matter, tearing the issue from then hand of the employee stayed immovable behind the door.

He denies any right to know the motivation, because “the matter doesn’t concern him”.

I have recognized in him the fiancé (now husband) of the lawyer *** of the legal study *** which followed the complaint.

April 22nd 1997

I accompany Ivano to the Police Office of Cuneo, to lodge a complaint in consequence of the umpteenth accident.

Someone has tried to strike him with a big stone, while he was covering the road to go to the Church, “Madonna della Riva”, in Cuneo.

We find in service the inspector *** who listens with attention, oddly showing to have framed well the situation, as if in reality he knew it and he says: “Probably there is upstream a very rich family and big affairs. There are the extreme to begin the investigations, but I have to report to my superior”. He commits himself to call me next morning, to confirm the appointment.

Obviously he doesn’t phone anybody to confirm the appointment. I call the police and they tell me that the inspector is far…

When the following Saturday Ivano, from my house, looks for his superior, this badly addresses him summoning not to disturb anymore the police for some foolishness.

(It seems that the inspector *** has been transferred forever.)

October /November 1997

I accompany again Ivano to the lawyer *** : he delivers him a letter for a medical study that would have had to perform some analyses. I find strange that he has underlined the name and last name in the body of the same one.

A few weeks after the lawyer withdraws himself, for “pressures from upper.”


February 2000

It enters scene the marshal of the policemen of Mondovì, *** , who starts an investigation on my case.

March 2000

Ivano is called by the attorney dr. Bausone of the Proxy of the Republic of Mondovì (CN).

I am called too, informally, as witness. The questions are reduced to a: “Do you confirm?”.

Summer 2000

The investigations continue. I know from Ivano that the marshal B. has declared that they would positively have been concluded within the year.

November 2000

At the Tributary Registry I find the correspondence of Ivano Tassone with Pahlavi Savoia Garro, been born November 12th 1957 in Iran.

I immediately inform Ivano who in his turn communicates it to the marshal. I will know that he himself will make then some searches at the office of Mondovì, acquiring further useful data.

February 6th 2001

It was on Tuesday. In the Office the marshal B. arrived. He delivered, in my presence, an order of the Attorney Bausone’s for investigations at the Tributary Registry for what concerns the subject: Tassone Ivano Palhevi Savoia Garro.

He asked me to be present at the investigations. The manager had to accept and in his turn he wanted to be helped by the responsible person of the access codes of the Office, Mr. *** .

In reality it was not permitted me to access the data and *** himself several times intervened to braking my impatience. At the end, however, Mr. *** was much more satisfied than me. According to him there was nothing to see. Neither the marshal contradicted him who, going out, reassured me on the fact that he would have returned soon and he would have forced them, considered the evidence of the data at his disposal, to say the truth. He also asked me to come and see him an evening with Ivano.

A few days after, irritated by the behaviour of my colleague and disappointed by the marshal, asked an appointment with the Manager of the Office, I asked him expressly to pull out the documents of Ivano which I knew to be in the Office. He hid himself behind an “I am the last arrival, I am not responsible, I don’t know”. He pretended then that there were no reserved superior levels when, because of his attitude, I asked him to have the access to all the data.

February 9th 2001

(I remember well because it was my birthday)

At his home the marshal reinstated the very positive state of the investigations and the fact that the matter would be soon concluded with the declaration of Ivano’s identity, in reality first-born male of the last Shah Reza Pahlavi and Maria Gabriella of Savoia.

He also confirmed that his true parents were also married and that he was legitimate child, only heir of the title and the patrimony, according to the Islamic law.

Finally the Proxy of Mondovì dismissed the case, not noticing any anomaly in the documents, even having noticed the truthfulness of the affirmations of the petitioner and the correspondence of the personal data, i.e. to be the same person Tassone Ivano and Palhevi Savoia Garro.


December 8th 2002

We tried the way of the Appeal to the Court of the Human Rights for Europe of Strasburg.

January 8th 2003

The Court responded us and registered the appeal itself.

Every dispatch of mail to Strasburg contained documents, accompanied by a letter of mine and one of Ivano’s. Authentic copy of the sent letters is in our possession.

January 14th 2003

We formalized the appeal transmitting the first elements.

May/August 2003

Transmission of documents and answers of acquisition.

Moreover the Court of Strasburg asked Turin for the documents concerning Ivano.

A judge prepared a folder to send, but he was prevented from doing it by the highest Italian authorities. At his protest he was relegated in an office where he was unapproachable, as attested by the judge of Cassation contacted by me. (see bottom: End August 2003)

August 2003

Then I came in contact with an adviser of Cassation, ***, jurist known besides his position, also for different texts and publications, expert of International Familiar Law.

Already at the first dialogue it had clearly emerged that he knew well the matter of Ivano. Therefore, after some days, I had called him back and clearly and directly spoken of the case, informing him that I legally represented at Strasburg one friend of mine who lives in Italy under other identity, but who is in reality, the son of Reza Pahlavi, last Shah of Persia and Maria Gabriella of Savoia.

“Yes, the first son of the Shah”, he himself underlined, without showing the least surprise, not only, but with expression of who affirms with conviction.

This time he had also shown to know the introduced appeal and its motivations, inviting me even in a too much implicit, to accept, in the interest itself of my “assisted”, an European reimbursement of 50.000 euros!

Subsequently to the decision of Strasburg I sent to the judge an excerpt of the documents of the proof of the true identity of Ivano.

When, after about a week, he phoned me (I had left him a message in his automatic answering device in which I told him I wanted to communicate him further developments), he called me an “irresponsible crazy person” several times, reproaching me – without any conviction – of the errors committed by me in the procedural iter. He suggested me to proceed to a civil action of recognition, or better, of “disownment” of the paternity. He didn’t put, however, in doubt that what I sustained was true: he was surely the son of the Shah, but poor guy, my incapability had prevented him seeing recognized his rights. (correct iter: civil cause).

After I sent him a copy of the letter transmitted to Strasburg.

He confirmed me by phone (he probably never wrote to me because “verba volant…”) what he had already affirmed, i.e. that I was right, but, that the “substantial truth” of the facts was useless for me, because the “juridical” truth was different.

***, speaking of the judge who has been relegated in Rome so that he didn’t follow any more the case of Ivano anymore at Strasburg, says that he is “unapproachable”.

I sent then him the photos of Ivano, of the false parents, of the Shah, of the Shah with him child at court.

“It’s evident that two are not his parents”, he told me without hesitation.

This time too he confirmed the truth of the facts, still suggesting a civil iter, this time towards the heirs of the Shah.

He didn’t call me more an “irresponsible”, but he recognized that I was legitimated to classify as “ignoble” the behaviour of who, in the Institutions, inclusive judges, had very damaged Ivano.

He would not have done it, he would have thought over it 50.000 times, before denying him his rights!

To my solicitation on the opinion about the man and the judge, he asked me to acknowledge to him that he had nevercontested me the substance of the truth of the facts about which it spoke.

He knows that Ivano is the son of the Shah Reza Pahlavi and of Maria Gabriella of Savoia.


1) – Content of the Appeal to the Court of Strasburg

It exist sure documental proofs of the true identity of Palhevi Savoia Garro, born in Teheran (Persia) in November 1957, son of the Shah Reza Palhevi e Maria Gabriella di Savoia.
After his birth it was built a false identity, that one of Tassone Ivano, and he was deprived of all his rights, those dynastical, patrimonial and even all his fundamental human rights.
He is till now oppressed with any kind of racism, psicological pressures and unjust and unlawful impositions, also at work.
His real birth is of public domain and the Town Registry Offices have continued to certify the false.
The Financial Offices have been important instrument for the “deviation” of his capitals on items of convenience where till now draw the same ones who have deprived him of his most elemental rights. The Registry Offices and the Financial ones have always denied him all access to his data, refusing the certificates too.
Even, the Registry of Cuneo in presence of witnesses has asserted Tassone Ivano to be “non existent subject”.
He turned himself to the Proxy of Mondovì which dismissed the case not noticing any anomaly in the documents, even having noticed the truthfulness of the affirmations of the petitioner and the correspondence of the personal data, i.e. to be the same person Tassone Ivano and Palhevi Savoia Garro.

2) – Letters written by me to the Court in subsequent times.

a) In these early days of January 2003, they are intensified toward me, above all at work, acts of abuse, of oppression and blackmail, in a way more marked then in the past, so that it seems intolerable to continue this way.
Unfortunately, I can’t turn myself to any Scholastic, trade-union, civil, politic, judicial or police Authority, because , as confirmed by the experience of the past, nobody seems to can or to want to take an interest to my case.
I asked me several times, if somebody thinks that my claim to be a Palhevi Savoia was the result of an unsound mind of a mythomaniac, why I am considered able for teaching and it doesn’t do everything to pension me or to put me aside. According to good sense, besides, it would be natural that toward an exhausted person with unsound mind (if this was the case) one has compassion and comprehension of his situation of weakness and feeble health, to not overload more his body and mind already weary. For what concerns my person, against any logic, it doesn’t happen so.

b) Verified by now that it has even gone as far as to remake the Registry books; to hide legal documents; to hide articles and news concerning my case, so now I have good reasons for thinking, very important organisms and persons of Italian State, are blocking who wants to find documents concerning my person.
This organisms and persons besides work lively to falsify the documents and to delay as much as possible the work of this High Court, which aims to define my identity and to restore my rights.
Besides, those who have helped me and continue to sustain me, are controlled, warned, and sometimes threatened to forget everything.
Persons and Institutions of primary importance in Italian State are expending time to take up my case.

c) However it remains absurd that a person like me, described ad a lucid paranoiac, can trouble so high personalities and organisms so that it has tried and it is tried continually to hide and destroy proofs declared to be non existent, because it was imaginary ideas of a crazy man. If this was the truth, one could doubt of the soundness of mind of those who worry about me and his claims.
Couldn’t one think that they have some interests, personal or of others, they must defend, those who manifest secret and obstinate interest to oppose the result of the work made to throw light on my identity and my civil, legal and property rights?

I am sure the Only One, the Only Omnipotent, the Lord of the world, of men, of the history has always showed and made toward me, also in all my vicissitudes, thoughts of goodness, attention and protection.
I can’t say that these are the thoughts of those who since many years by now, certainly since my majority, have hide and have acted as absolute lords on me. I received the identity which I claim as gift by birth. Of his will, my father has then recognized and signed on me this dignity, linking to my person the goods kept under my real last name.

Till now, submissive to the word and sustained by the spirit of the Merciful, I have been able to survive in the arrogant contempt and indifference of persons who, trampling the dignity of a person and the father’s will on him and using his goods with avidity, behaved as jackals, vile persons, slave-traders and jailers, even if they appear absolutely honest and enjoy general estimation.
I had send messages to them, in which I promised to hide and not to divulgate the facts concerning me, if it was delivered to me the documents of my identity and give me back rights and goods left by my father and yet this proposal it has been given importance.

But if those don’t subject themselves to the High Lord, I will be obliged to note the realization of what is written in the proverbs of Salomon: “Because a man is poor, do not therefore cheat him, nor, at the city gate, oppress anybody in affliction; for Yahweh takes up their cause, and extorts the life of their extortioners”.


End August 2003

Against every expectation, in contradiction with the positive news which were until then reached us, the Court rejected the appeal, alleging to motive that the appeal wasn’t fit to be proposed, and this although in the process itself it was already passed the procedural phase and it was already transmitted the documents which would allow to enter already in the judgement of merit, in the scheduled time of six months now passed.

In other words, to say simply that “the appeal wasn’t fit to be proposed” it wasn’t necessary at all to use the whole time at disposal (six months precisely) to issue a real sentence.


Attached documents:
Copy of the record of hearing (att.1);
Communication of Chancellery of the Ordinary Court of Rome (att.2).

Beginning of the appeal at Rome accompanied by the Lawyers Francesca Salucci and Roberto Galeani.
Once the Appeal introduced it was necessary send to the concerned parties the notifications.

The Princess Maria Gabriella of Savoia receives the notification at Geneva.
Notification send back because she isn’t there resident.
At Montecarlo, Monaco princedom, is not possible to notify.
Notification at Naples, princess’ birth town.
At the hearing her lawyer is present and in papers given declares that the princess is resident at Geneva, in the same address where the previous notification had arrived ad sent back.
Also from Montecarlo arrives the answer of a received notification sent to the given address of the princess.

Cyrus and Pahlavi Family. One first notification is sent back. The family is not resident at the stated address.
The second notification sent again to the same address is accepted by representatives. De facto the answer is given through F.B.I. agencies, for security reasons.
The whole documentation is in my possession.

The documentation offered has been plentiful and the hearing date was set.
All return notification papers were given to the court

Copy in Italian of hearing records (att.1)

(faithful transcription of the text)

Udienza di prima comparizione Udienza del 10/6/2005 tenuta dal G.I. Franca Mangano è stata chiamata Ivano Tassone contro Savoia M.Gabriella comparsi il ricorrente personalmente … gli avv.Roberto Galeani nonchè della pratica forense il dott.Barolo  .952443. Per parte resistente Maria Gabriella di Savoia è presente l’avv.Giampiero Pallotta Il ricorrente dichiara di non aver potuto notificare il ricorso alle parti
convenute eredi Reza palevi.

Il ricorrente dichiara mi chiamo Ivano Tassone per lo stato Italiano figlio legittimo di ARIAMMER Tassone Eugenio e Garro Lucia Anna il primo vivente l’altra deceduta all’inizio di
aprile. In realtà io sono “PALHEVI SAVOIA GARRO MONHUD”. (Firma)Tassone Ivano

Il difensore del ricorrente dichiara con consenso del ricorrente presente, di rinunciare alla domanda dei convenuti
oggi non presenti e dei quali non è in grado di provare la notifica.
Il giudice riserva la decisione al Collegio con termine fino al 30.9.05 per note.

Il cancelliere Il Giudice

Liana Micangeli

Il cancelliere Il Giudice

Tribunale Ordinario di Roma (All.2)

(Trascrizione fedele del testo)

00192 ROMA RM
Sezione 01 c/o TRIBUNALE DI ROMA
Comunicazione di Cancelleria
Tipo procedVolontaria giurisd.
Numero di ruolo generale: 401044/2004
Data prossima udienza: Ore:
Parti nel procedimento
Ricorrente/Istante princ. TASSONE IVANO

Oggettoscioglimento di riserva
Testo di comunicazione
Vedi allegato

Roma 18/10/2005

Il cancelliere

REP. 1104/05
N. 73/05


(Trascrizione fedele del testo)

così composto:
dott. Alberto BUCCI Presidente
dott. Massimo CORRIAS Giudice,
dott. Franca MANGANO Giudice
con l’intervento del Pubblico Ministero;
sciogliendo la riserva che precede
Visto il ricorso depositato il 9.4.2004 e notificato il 9.12.2004 ex art. 143 c.p.calla sola parte Maria Gabriella di Savoia con il quale Ivano Tassone ha chiesto cheai sensi dell ‘art. 274. c.c., sia dichiarata ammissibile l’azione volta al riconoscimento della maternità e paternità naturale di Maria Gabriella di Savoia e di Reza Pahalavi;
Rilevato che a fondamento della sua domanda il ricorrentepremesso di essere stato iscritto all’anagrafe come figlio legittimo di Lucia Garro e di Eugenio Tassone, assume di essere il figlio naturale di Maria Gabriella di Savoia e di Mohammad Reza Pahalavi e di essere in realtà nato in Persia il 12.11.1957 e non già i1 20.11. 1957 come indica l’estratto per riassunto dell’atto di nascita;
Rilevato che Maria Gabriella di Savoia si è costituita in giudiziodeducendo la infondatezza della domanda;
Sentite le parti costituite all’udienza del 10.6.2005;
Esaminati i documenti e le memorie autorizzate depositate dalle parti,entro il termine del 30.9.2005;

rilevato che il ricorrente si dichiara figlio legittimo di Eugenio Tassoni e di Lucia Garro, nato a Peveragno (CN) il 20 novembre 1957 (registro degli atti di nascita dell’anno 1957, parte II, serie A, n. 21);

rilevato che ai sensi dell’art. 253 c.c. non è ammesso in nessun caso un riconoscimento in contrasto con lo stato di figlio legittimo o legittimatosicché l’azione che Ivano Tassoni intende proporre per la dichiarazione giudiziale della maternità e paternità dei convenuti non è ammissibile;

ritenutopertantodi dover concludere per la reiezione del ricorso;
ritenuto che, a seguito della soccombenzail ricorrente va condannato al pagamento delle spese di causa che, in favore del resistentesi liquidanod’ufficio, in complessivi € 1.700,00, ivi comprese € 250,00 per spese, € 500,00 per diritti di procuratore e € 900,00 per onorari di avvocato oltre lva e Cap;.
a) dichiara inammissibile la domanda di dichiarazione giudiziale di paternità proposta da Ivano Tassoni nei confronti di Maria Gabriella di Savoia e degli eredi di Mohammad Reza Pahalavi;
d) condanna il ricorrente al pagamento delle spese di causa che, in favore della resistente costituitaliquidad’ufficio, in complessive € 1.700,00 oltre Iva e Cap.

Roma,14.10.2005 IL PRESIDENTE


– Here how the facts happened-

From the reading of the declaration given and signed by me in the above quoted “verbale dell’udienza” (all.1) (i.e. “Record of hearing”) a quite strange thing arises.

In fact I declared that for the Italian State  I am “… legitimate son of ARIAMMER Tassone Eugenio ..” Thing evidently absurd, since the title of: Ariammer (i.e.: “Light of the Aryans”, also written Aryamehr) is appropriate only for the Shah of Persia Reza Pahlavi and certainly not for Mr. Tassone Eugenio

Where comes from such a contradiction in an official document?
To understand it, we must carefully follow up the facts as they had precisely happened.

When I was asked to declare who I am, I started to say: “My name is Ivano Tassone for the Italian State, legitimate son of Ariammer

At this point, while I was going to say: …Ariammer Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and of Maria Gabriella di Savoia…., I am stopped and ordered to say instead who I am according to the official documents of the Italian State then I must obviously answer:

” Tassone Eugenio e Garro Lucia Anna the first one still alive the other dead at the beginning of April.”

Here at last I can resume my talk stopped by others and say what is my true identity, so I end in saying:

“Really I am PALHEVI SAVOIA GARRO MONHUD”. (Signature) Tassone Ivano.

The clear contradictory official declaration written in the minutes (att.1) testifies, without any doubt, my will to have wanted to  say immediately who really I know to be.

Here then the final result, as written in the “Communication of Chancellery” (att. 2) :

……“noticed that the “ricorrente”  declares himself  legitimate son of Eugenio Tassoni and of Lucia Garro, born in Peveragno (CN) the 20th November 1957 (registry of the birth certificates of 1957, part II, series A, n. 21);
noticed that as the art. 253 of c.c. states it isn’t admitted in any way a recognition in contrast with the state of legitimate son or “made legitimate” son, so that the action which Ivano Tassoni intends to propose  for the judicial declaration of maternity and paternity of the present convoked  isn’t admissible“; …….

It appears in the whole evidence the “pretentious juridical argument” : “forcing me” to say whom I would be according to the official Italian documents (falsified). So for the Civil Code any other contrary affirmation (as that one affirming my true identity) pronounced later on, would become “contrasting” with the first one, since legally  depending on this one.

In other words, “forced” to repeat – in good faith as first declaration – what is written in the Registry documents: ” son of Eugenio Tassone” I myself would have approved as mine this lie.
As necessary consequence, the second declaration
“Really I am: Palhevi Savoia Garro Monhud , would be of no importance anymore, because “contrasting” the previous one.

Unfortunately is not explained the presence of that “Ariammer” which, as from the record of hearing, comes before the name of “Tassone Eugenio

At last I can say ”we arrived to make the “whole truth” on my case”!


My lawyers have already predisposed all for the complaint that will be immediately made as soon as the regular notification will come, not yet reached me till now (January 2006).