Mr President of the Republic – Quirinale Palace
To Bar Council – Piazza Indipendenza – Rome
To Mr President of the Court of Viterbo – Piazza
Fontana Grande n° 19 – Viterbo
To Mr Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Rome
– P.zza Adriana – Roma
To Mr Public Prosecutor at the Court of Viterbo –
Via Cardarelli – Viterbo
The undersigned Luigi Cascioli, resident in via delle
Province 45/b Roccalvecce (Viterbo)
Exposes what follows:
During the last month of September, the undersigned
presented an accusation-lawsuit against Don Enrico Righi,
parish priest of Bagnoregio, for the offences of which
at art.494 and 661 of the Penal Code because he publicly
maintained the historicity of the figure of Jesus Christ,
while I could ascertain, (after long and deep studies,
summarised in my book: “The Fable of Christ”)
that Jesus Christ is not a historical figure but an
artificial one created by the posteriors, drawing inspiration
from a certain John of Gamala.
For this reason there is abuse of popular credulity
and substitution of person: if one wants to give a mythical
personage as Zorro or Superman out to be a historical
In the accusation-lawsuit I clarified that the object
of my action is not the existence of God (everyone is
free and has the right to believe or not that there
is a God (or an Allah), but simply that I wanted to
avoid that people are deceived giving out facts that
are not so to be historical ones.
Together with my accusation-lawsuit, I deposited my
book to let the Public Prosecutor examine carefully
my reasons and realise that what is taken for granted
after that catholic education with which we are all
more or less imbued, is in reality a fable: the fable
of Christ, actually. I enclosed also a copy of the parish
bulletin from which it is clear that Don Enrico Righi
states that Jesus Christ is a historical figure.
I have deposited also further memories, complete with
further studies and replies to possible contestations
of my thesis.
Subsequently, I made a request for a probative objection
asking that a valuation was set out to ascertain the
historical or non historical nature of Jesus Christ
on the basis of all contemporary and extra textual sources.
The proceeding was assigned to Doc. Renzo Petroselli,
who, undervalued the question and managed the proceedings
in a completely anomalous way and beyond correctness.
As I could ascertain his request of dismissal dating
the 27th of March 2003 (against which I presented a
ritual and opportune opposition that has not yet been
discussed) the proceedings come out to be against persons
unknown (and not against don Enrico Righi whom I have
openly indicated as the author of the offences) and
only for the violation of art. 661 C.P., forgetting
that I had indicated the committing of the more serious
offence of substitution of person.
Furthermore, Doc. Petroselli, considered my request
of inquiry inadmissible “formally and for the
object of ascertainment”, without offering any
other explanation, thus violating the principle of motivation
of a magistrate's acts sanctioned by our Constitution
and that (historically) marked the change from the era
of the absolute State to the era of the liberal State.
Why did one not indicate the cause for formal inadmissibility?
Maybe because it does not exist!
Besides, how can Doc. Petroselli be sure that Jesus
Christ really existed? As he could not have this certainty,
he had to require the probative objection to the GIP,
because the question (historicity or non historicity
of Jesus Christ) is the central core of the offences:
if Christ did not exist, the offences exist; if he existed,
no offence is committed. This ascertainment was and
is right and proper, because the penal action is compulsory
and, so, it must be exercised also in these apparently
I want justice and I want to believe that in this Country
it is still possible to obtain it. I want my accusation
to be carefully valuated in full respect of the procedure
laws in force and not rejected as a rug on the basis
not of contrary proofs, but on the personal convictions
of the Public Prosecutor if it is true that the magistrates
are only subject to law and not, as in this case, to
their religious belief. That is the true laity of the
State sanctioned by art.7 of our fundamental Chart.
To You so that, everyone for his competence, each one
be engaged to let me obtain the respect and justice
which are an inviolable right of every citizen of this
Republic, which, up to now, have been denied to me,
and so that every disciplinary and deontological violation
be sanctioned that has been committed by who has treated
so improvidently my request of justice formulated with
the accusation-lawsuit against Don Enrico Righi.
Being sure of obtaining Your Attention, I am Dear Sirs,