12 June 2003

To Mr President of the Republic – Quirinale Palace – Rome
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 personage.
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 uncomfortable cases.
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.
Therefore,
I APPEAL
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,

Luigi Cascioli