22 April 2005

 With regard to the hearing of 20th April05, an appeal to 11 ème chambre de la Cour d'appel de Paris ,13hr30, Palais de Justice, 4 bd du Palais, île de la Cité, 75001 Paris, relative to me. It simply happened orally what exactly I had submitted in written to the tribunal, and broadcast to all.

It is to be regretted that so few people get interested in what concerns them in the first place, and which is fundamental. 

So, excusing myself to repeat what I haven‘t ceased to write before hand, as I excused myself to Madame le Président to repeat at least three times what she visibly wasn't pleased to hear nor wished to, that since the Tribunal of Nuremberg that abolished the founding principle of legality, that is what is more commonly called the non-retroactivity of laws, non-retroactivity written in article 2 of the Code Civil (the law settles for the future, has no retrospective effect), and in what one names « le bloc de la constitutionnalité » of the 1958 Constitution that rules us, that is the preamble of the 1946 Constitution (that bears a social character), and the famous Déclaration des droits de l'Homme of 1789, which in its article 8 affirms that the offence or crime can only be punished by a law established and promulgated earlier, the French law said Fabius-Gayssot being in this logical frame of the tribunal of Nuremberg, there exists therefore no longer a principle of legality, which bears the principle of law, of right, of judiciary apparatus, of magistrate, and so, that I asked, to the Court, looking at them well in the eye, to please allow themselves to introduce themselves, and say who they were, as since Nuremberg there was no right, no palace of justice and no magistrate.

The trouble was manifest, and general consternation visible throughout the so-called judges, present along the procurer, who declared he was consternated that I would use my intelligence for such a bad cause. He vaguely attempted without a skin to under-rate this down to a manifestation of nazi ideas, calling them “nari” [??? ndT], as one of his counsellor named “neocide”, the genocide of Jews, and the procurer to declare: “le Judaism is in continuation of le Zionism.” That was indeed general consternation, confusion and disarray. It is true that listening to somebody who tells you you do not exist, and at the bottom being agreed with him, must be testing very.

Madame the judge asked me if I wanted the discharge (‘relaxe') concerning the accusation of negation of crime against humanity, in the name of the non-constitutionality of the Fabius-Gayssot law. [the one-decade-old and ‘marvelled-at the world over' one that rules this fuzzy scope, in effect forbidding the right to do researches, and to publish results, let alone free speech. ndT]. I answered to her that I only asked those who stood before me who they where, to put me such a question, before to think what to answer to it.

She carried on saying that she understood for the contestation of crime against humanity, but in what concerns the indictment for racial slander, there, there wouldn't be any problem with retroactivity of the law. I said to her that the principle of non-retroactivity being by definition a principle, that is unique, as soon as it vanishes from a narrow domain of right, it disappears entirely from all the other domains of right, and so the law on repression of racial libel was itself groundless.

I recalled to them that the principle of legality (of non-retroactivity of the law) is a principle absolute and universal, meaning it out-scales the french frame, and that the fact of having touched it for once is enough to destroy it totally and everywhere.

Nobody turned angry, as they know too well that what I had said was true, and they know too well that they only keep the apparence of magistrates, furthermore as I didn't deviate one nail from the line of conduct I had it resolute; to keep at all cost an attitude of exquisite politeness avoiding takes for an indictment for outrage à magistrats , which one of the two advocates I know foresaw, while the other ascertained that to dare say this to the judges would surely raise their hair swiftly.

The procurer was subtle in remarking that in what I was doing, it was difficult to determine whether I was referring to the principle of “légalité” or to the one of “l'égalité”, legality or equality, that seemed to fusion in my spirit, which is the case, and which constitute the first half of my statement of case for a cassation, as there can only be right among actual equality between individuals (the definition of conventions' validity by article 1109 of Code Civil), and that this real equality being not, there was no such right, no justice, and no magistrate.

 All this being all well known by those who are professionals of the right, and their work is to ignore it, and to make the population ignore it. It's in first order a work of lie in propaganda manner, and in second, the maintenance of the order by repression by violence.

But since Nuremberg, there is novelty also in the degree of poisoning of the spirits necessary to maintain unconsciousness and submission to the order.

It's becoming so obvious that this regime is founded on pure crime and violence, blind destruction, and deep imbecility, that only a religion can allow it to be admitted by the population.

The judiciary has become a religiosity apparatus, repressing conscience, via the interdict on free thought and on conservation of a critic mind toward the nazi history, to conserve in general one's critic mind, as in similarity with the principle of legality which is a whole, if one forbids at some place the existence of l'esprit critique (freedom of criticism), one forbids it everywhere, and one forbids in general its one very existence.

For this regime to perpetuate to legitimate itself to fate, it must kill the spirit Himself.

This is what is in process now with these antiracist laws that are meant to protect the feeble populations, while in reality they are used to repress those who attack the caste of the Power, and with the use of the antirevisionist law, to attack those who want to preserve existence of intelligence and lucidity.

  This is a state of an end of regime, that goes decomposing and tightens-up to the measure of its decomposition.

One can therefore also fight in the field of right, in claiming to the one of credence, written at the article 1st of the Constitution, for the Shoah is indeed a credence, a new sort of religion to which everybody is constrained to adhere. 

This is supreme religion on top of the traditional religions. Each one has to be shoahist, whether being an atheist, if one wishes so, or christian, muslim or jew. Only matters to be a shoahist.

It's the religion of the end of a world.


Michel Dakar