12 maggio 2003

Request of dismissing

The request of dismissing proposed by Public Prosecutor Doctor Renzo Petroselli is reported hereafter in its original form.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
Court of Viterbo

Nr. 4998/02 R.G.N.R Persons unknown

REQUEST OF DISMISSING
(ART. 408/411 c.p.p., 125 and 126 D.Lv. 271/89)

To Mr. Justice for preliminary inquiries
Court of Viterbo

Public Prosecutor Doctor Renzo PETROSELLI
Seen the acts of the penal proceedings above indicated against PERSONS UNKNOWN:

………for the offence of which at art.661 C.P.
Committed in Viterbo on the 13th of September 2002
Registered in the register of information of offences on the 27th of September 2002

Having noticed that the requests for inquiries are inadmissible both formally and for the object of ascertainment;
Having thought that the accusation is openly groundless and that no hypothesis of offence may be verified

Seen articles 408/411 C.P.P., 125 2 126 D-Lv. 271/89

ASKS

That Mr. Justice for preliminary inquiries in seat, disposes the dismissal of the proceeding and orders the subsequent restitution of the acts to this office.

Viterbo, March 27th 2003-06-01

Public Prosecutor
Doctor Renzo PETROSELLI
(Illegible signature)

12 maggio 2003

Luigi Cascioli's OPPOSITION to the dismissal proposed by RENZO PETROSELLI

TO THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE – COURT OF VITERBO
P.M. doctor PETROSELLI
PROCEEDING N. 4994/02 R:G:N:R. against PERSONS UNKNOWN
OPPOSITION TO THE DISMISSAL

The undersigned Luigi Cascioli, residing in Roccalvecce – via delle Province 45/B – Viterbo, referring to himself in the third person in the exposition of the facts,

EXPOSES WHAT FOLLOWS

On the 13th of September 2002, Mr Luigi Cascioli lodged accusation/lawsuit against Don Enrico Righi (parish priest of Bagnoregio) for the offence of which at art. 661 2 494 C.P. in so much as he himself presents Jesus Christ as an historic figure, whilst (according to deep philological studies and studies of textual exegesis led by the same Mr Cascioli on the Gospels and on Patristic literature and on historiography of the I and II century A.D.) Jesus is not an historic figure and, moreover, his figure has been derived from and modelled on the pattern of such Giovanni of Gamala, as an evidence he enclosed a copy of the parish bulletin of the Church of S. Bonaventura of Bagnoregio.
Such deceit directed towards a multitude integrates the abuse of popular credulity and having called Giovanni of Gamala Jesus Christ integrates the substitution of person of which at art. 494 C.P. and so, Mr Cascioli asked for the punishment of the offender, reserving for himself to bring an action against him for the indemnity of the damage from emotional distress, he enclosed his own book “The fable of Christ” to demonstrate the logical presupposition ( non historicity of the figure of Christ and substitution of the figure of Giovanni of Gamala with that of Jesus Christ).
Subsequently, Mr Cascioli presented integrative memory, reminding the subsistence of the aggravation of which at art. 61 n.9 C.P. and quoting some law to support that, enclosing moreover some supporting material.
Afterwards, the offended party asked to Mr Public Prosecutor to proceed to probative objection, according to art.394 of the criminal rite code; the Counsel for the Prosecution remained inert.
With an act notified on the 12th of May 2003, Mr Public Prosecutor asked the dismissal of the proceeding (against persons unknown) with the pseudo-motivation “that the request of inquiry are inadmissible both formally and for the object … that the accusation is openly groundless and one can not verify hypothesis of offence.”
The argument of the public party is groundless and the request of dismissal must be rejected for the following
REASONS IN FACT AND IN RIGHT

In the request of dismissal it is established that “the accusation is openly groundless and one can not verify hypothesis of offence”.
To begin with one must remark the first anomaly: the proceeding is against “persons unknown”, while in the accusation/lawsuit the responsible of the offence was precisely identified in the person of Don Enrico Righi, parish priest of Bagnoregio and , besides, the signature at the foot of the parish bulletin enclosed to the accusation/lawsuit is his; therefore, one does not understand why the above-named priest is not inscribed in the register of inquired people and that one proceeded against “persons unknown” also in presence of a precise indication of responsibility.
Another preliminary question, which highlights the carelessness with which Mr Cascioli's accusation gas been examined is that the proceeding would result open only for the offence of which at art. 661 C.P., while the accusation is also clear and firm in maintaining the existence of the offence of which at art. 494 C.P. (substitution of person).
About this subject, it is incorrect to maintain, on a logic and legal point of view, the open groundlessness of the notitia criminis, as – if the figure of Jesus Christ is not an historic one – the contested offences exist in all their elements, as diffusely articulated during the accusation and the subsequent memories, deductions to be all understood as here recorded and transcribed.
In fact, ascribing to a third person a false name (Cass.Sez. V 19.3 1985 n.2543) amounts to a fact-offence , so if Don Enrico Righi ascribes to Giovanni of Gamala the name of Jesus Christ he commits an offence in word and the specific malice is constituted by the “aim of getting a patrimonial or non patrimonial advantage for himself or for other people” (Cass. Sez. V 13.4. 1981 n.3207) which, in this specific case, is constituted by a greater number of proselytes and by a grater yield of 8 times one thousand and greater offers for the parish.
The two contested offences are in a formal concurrence between themselves (Cass. Sez. V 16.10. 1998 n. 10805, in matter of fraud and substitution of person).
Therefore, one opposes to the request of dismissal because it is groundless.
In relation to the request of inquiries (and more precisely of valuation to be assumed with the form of a probative objection) the same is rejected with the crypto-motivation that it would be inadmissible “formally and for the object”; the measure is assumed in open violation of Art. 125 and 394 C.P.P. as it does not explain at all (neither in the concise forms required by decree) which the formal inadmissibility would be and why the object would be inadmissible.
One has to remember that Cass. Sez. Un. 21.9.2000 n.17 has established that “one has lack of motivation not only when the justifying apparatus is missing in a physical-textual sense, but also when the motivation is apparent … completely incongruous when compared to the measure that it should justify” (in conformity to Cass.Sez. VI 1.6.1999 n.6339); in the case being examined here it is obvious that the motivation is apparent and so there has been violation of the law.
Therefore, one reiterates the request of probative objection, for the following reasons.
The probative objection to be accomplished is a valuation that aims at determining if the figure of Jesus Christ, as diffused by the catholic faith, has a real basis and is adherent or not to historical data.
The valuation is determinant for the existence of the offences as, if the valuation ascertained the historic nature of such a figure there would not be any offence, while if the figure of Jesus Christ was a mere theological construction without any historic verification, then there would undoubtedly be a basic falseness that, integrated with an opportune psychological element (that certainly exists, as better explained in the accusation/lawsuit), would determine the subsistence of the offences mentioned in the above-mentioned accusation/lawsuit. Therefore, in the case examined here the requirements provided by art. 393 I sub-section C.P.P. are the following:
a) accomplishment of a valuation aimed at determining the historic or fantastic nature (theological one of Jesus Christ, which constitutes a logic prius for the subsistence of the offences for which it is required to proceed;
b) the evidence is to be assumed against Don Enrico Righi
c) the evidence cannot be remitted to trial, as it would provide a suspension superior to 60 days and so one is in the field of application of art. 392 II sub-section C.P.P.
The last statement is justified by the fact that the expert would have to examine carefully all the original and coeval sources at the time of the presumed life of Jesus Christ and, where possible , in their original writing language and not in translations that may betray the primitive meaning of the words used (on possible corruptions of meanings in the translation from one language to another see what has been diffusely written by the accuser in the book “The fable of Christ” deposited in acts; besides, the expert would have to verify (inside the primary sources) if there are or not passages interpolated by subsequent copyists (often of Christian faith and hence ideologically brought to model the text according to their belief); finally, the research of the expert will not be able to be grounded exclusively on documentary sources, but it will have to be extended to verify also epigraphic, material, monumental, topographic, palaeographical, numismatical sources and all that serves to verify the truthfulness or not of the following statement “Jesus Christ is not an historic character”. It appears very clear that the inquiry is complex or long and that it would bring to go beyond the times indicated by art.392 II sub-section C.P.P. (60 days).
It appears opportune that the valuation is entrusted to one or more experts of history of religions and /or roman and middle-east history referring to the period Ist century B.C.- IInd century A.D., and also in epigraphy and palaeography and in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin languages.
The offended party reserves for himself the right to nominate a technical consultant in the field of the requested valuation.
Maintaining that the request would be inadmissible for a presupposed indisputability of the historic nature of Jesus Christ is not a correct or legally sustainable hypothesis, as a reading of the studies of the accuser operated with a critical value, but without prejudices or apodictic taking up of positions, determines a deep doubt even in beliefs which are deeply rooted in the psyche of every Italian person (Cattaneo wrote about our impossibility of not considering ourselves catholic ) and , however, the personal beliefs of the actors of the process (Justice, Counsel for the Prosecution and Counsel for the Defence) must never forget that the aim of the penal proceeding is the application of the law and not of one's own beliefs, for which it would be contra ius to deny the probative object required.
Therefore one asks that Mr Justice for preliminary inquiries invites Mr Public Prosecutor to formulate the accusation against Don Enrico Righi, parish priest of Bagnoregio, that is to say to carry out the above-mentioned inquisition, and also invites Mr Public Prosecutor to enlist Don Enrico Righi in the inquired people register for having supposedly committed the offences of which at art. 494 and 661 of the Penal Code, as these offences have been clearly ascribed during the accusation and the subsequent memories. That stated and considered, the undersigned Luigi Cascioli
OPPOSES

To the request of dismissal formulated by Mr Public Prosecutor and notified to the same on the 12th of may 2003.
Obiediently
Luigi Cascioli

I enclose to this a copy of the request of the probative objection and a copy of The “addition notes” already presented with the accusation /lawsuit of the 13th of September 2002 and made of three chapters:
A) JESUS' APOSTLES (16 pages)
B) JOHN THE NAZIREUS (11 pages)
C) REPLY TO OBJECTIONS (12 pages)
Luigi Cascioli

------------

DISMISSAL COMMENTS

There is no need for particular explanations to demonstrate that the dismissal required by Public Prosecutor Doctor Renzo Petroselli takes us back to one of those medieval trials in which the courts of the state, under menace of the most serious retorts, had to behave according to the will of the Holy Office.
Even though there are no more stakes and confiscation of properties, one can understand that the means the clergy has at its disposal to punish those who do not show their faithfulness are however extremely effective, from how the lawsuit instituted by Luigi Cascioli against a priest, an exponent of a monstrous octopus, the Vatican whose power keeps in awe even the most powerful people on earth, is considered foolish by everyone.
Excluding that a person competent in law, and one can suppose that a Public Prosecutor is, may have proposed for his own belief the dismissal of the accusation/lawsuit of Luigi Cascioli adducing so clearly deceitful reasons, what else can one conclude but he acted according to a pressure received from those who want to avoid a trial causing great problems to christianity?
A) How could a justice in full possession of his faculties ascribe an accusation/lawsuit to persons unknown when it is addressed in the most exact and circumstantial form to a certain don Enrico Righi, parish priest of Bagnoregio, if he had been free from every kind of influence or coercion?
B) How can a serious and careful justice, as a magistrate who is engaged in respecting an ethics under oath, how can he not realize that the subsistence of offence of which at art.494 c.p. that refers to “substitution of person” is clearly and firmly maintained in the accusation?
C) How can an expert justice who has been leading a legal activity for 30 years, maintain that the notitiae criminis expressed in the accusation are groundless when they subsist instead in all their clearness through evidences drawn from documents well defined in their historic authenticity?
D) How can a justice who has undertaken the task of making people respect the law, how can he violate in such an indecent way art. 125 and 394 C.P.P. declaring that the required inquiries are inadmissible both under a formal point of view and under the point of view of the object, without explaining the reasons?
It is through the examination of these four errors, which render the request of dismissal a true concentration of illegality and abuses, that we will be able to understand how it has not been a lay, impartial justice to decide, but a man who acted under the influence of prejudices to avoid the trial to the offender, a trial which involving in the person of don Enrico Righi all the ministers of the Chirch could represent nothing less than the end of christianity as was clearly explained by a follower of this religion in an e-mail addressed to his fellow believers: “To my fellow believers: proving that Newton has not existed does not put back into question his equations, but saying that proving the non existence of Christ does not put christianity back into question is more than ever false and extremely false for the simple reason that christianity is not a theory that has to be confirmed or rejected by experiment, but a teaching essentially based on the idea of the original sin and of its ransom through the sacrifice of Jesus. If Jesus has never existed all the Christian building collapses. I do not believe that you will arrive at persuading these non believers in spite of your brilliant demonstrations of faith. Do not forget that these people are atheists and that it is a mistake to appeal to faith to prove the sacred. They are only permeable to reason and if you want to do a charity action and bring them back on the right path it is only through reason that you can do it”. (Michel Second).
And the Church knows that, it knows it too well to allow a process in which the non existence of Christ is demonstrated.
Let us now analyse the four questions.
A) Attribution of the accusation to persons unknown.
Question: why did one ascribe the accusation to persons unknown when it is openly directed against a well identified person with name, surname, address and profession?
Answer: because if one had ascribed the accusation to a certain person, as in this case to don Enrico Righi, the lawsuit for calumny and slander that would have followed against Luigi Cascioli for groundlessness of evidence, would have brought about once again a trial that one wanted to dismiss. The dismissal, referring to a penal proceeding against PERSONS UNKNOWN who cannot sue, impedes every further proceeding.

B) Art. 494.
Question: why did one want to ignore art. 494 referring to substitution of person?
Answer: because as this article involves a discussion about an existed personage, Giovanni of Gamala, son of Judas the Galilean organizer of the revolt of the census, would have annihilated the intention of transforming the historical process into an ideological one, that ideological process to which Public Prosecutor Renzo Petroselli certainly refers later, when he maintains that the inquiries are inadmissible because it is impossible to accomplish any form of inquiry on an object of divine nature (Jesus).
In fact it is for this erroneous conviction that the great majority of people, included those who do not believe, maintain that it will never be possible to demonstrate the non existence of a god whose essence is sustained by dogmatic convictions unassailable by reason. This has been one of the reasons for which many of the lawyers that Luigi Cascioli consulted refused to assist him in the trial even though they declared themselves atheists: “One will never be able to discuss in a penal court the existence of Jesus, because he is a god”.
This conviction is clearly expressed in the proposal of dismissal when it is stated, violating art.125 and 394, that the inquiries are inadmissible for the nature of an OBJECT that ignorance and opportunism lead to consider only in its qualification of god.
This refusal of the lawsuit for inadmissibility of the inquiries for the nature of the object that mistakes the figure of a Jesus god with the one of a human Jesus, cannot be but a purposeful misunderstanding, a true escamotage to prevent people from acknowledging truth.
Cascioli Luigi, conscious of the fact that a court will never be able to solve diatribes between atheists and believers which have been going on for millenniums regarding the existence of God, if he has summoned a priest as a representative of christianity to all intents and purposes, he has not done that because don Enrico Righi believes in Jesus as a theological supernatural entity but only because the latter, maintaining the existence of a man who has never existed in reality, draws economic interests from an historic falseness.
Luigi Cascioli does not mind, after having ascertained that Jesus Christ is not an historic personage, if those who believe in him continue to consider him as the god of eternal salvation, in the same way as no historian is interested in Switzerland continuing to honour William Tell as a national emblem for its independence, even if it has been demonstrated that he has never existed.
Many are the islamic people who ask Luigi Cascioli to start the same legal proceeding against Mohammed. From the negative answer he gives them one can understand, without further explanation, that the accusation/lawsuit is not against a god but against a man: “Mohammed, differently from Jesus, has existed in reality”.
Why does the Church avoid such a trial? Why does not the Church, who maintains the historic existence of Jesus, take advantage from Luigi Cascioli's accusation/lawsuit to silence once and for all the disputes that have always been addressed to her by hundreds of exegetes and historians? And the answer is only this one: the Church as it built up false documents on which the figure of Christ is based, is the first one to be conscious of the fraud.
Did not Pope Leo X (1513-1521) declare: “We all know too well how much profit the fable of Christ brought to us and to our closest followers”?.
Did not Pope Paul III (1534-1549) say that Christ has never existed?
“Paul III pushed his disrespect to the point of stating that Jesus was no other than the sun, adored in its Mitraic sect, and Jupiter Ammonis represented in the paganism in the shape of a ram and of a lamb…and he said that there was no valid document to demonstrate the existence of Christ and that his conviction was that Jesus had never existed”. (Mendoza, ambassador of Spain in the Vatican).