Source: https://fromrome.info/tag/antonio-pappalardo/
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 08:31:37+00:00

Document:
Antonio Pappalardo | FromRome.Info
Tag Archives: Antonio Pappalardo
Stefania Calanni parla con il Generale Pappalardo
May 17, 2020 From Rome Editor	Leave a comment
In this video, General Pappalardo says that in a few days the Gilet Arancioni will ask every party to present its list of candidates for the election of May 30.
He continues to affirm that the government will resign willingly upon seeing how many vote on May 30 and how many citizens come to Rome on June 2 to demand their resignations.
Antonio PappalardoStefania Calanni
General Pappalardo: On June 2, we shall occupy every piazza of Rome!
In this video, published hours ago, General Pappalardo clarifies that Salvini and Meloni have made no agreement with the Gilet Aranciani to use the Piazza del Popolo. Claims to the contrary are false. He has attempted to contact both of them to understand their intentions.
He emphasizes that Gilet Arancioni will offer an electronic way of voting on May 30, so that by the show of millions of votes, they will have garnered the mantle of moral right to act.
He urges the citizens not to fear the police who attempt to stop them from assembling or traveling to Rome. If the police attempt to stop them, he says the people should make citizen arrests (Penal Code 383) of each policeman for a crime against the constitutional right of the people to assemble. If conflicts arise, he says, Let them arise. Police who attempt to stop the people are to be put in handcuffs by the people.
He says the People will not support any more dictatorship. Italy is a democracy.
Viva Italia, che vincerà! — Long live the Italy, which shall overcome! He says at the end.
This discourse seems to be a response to the challenge made by this government, here at Rome, today at noon, by the excessive show of force against a small protest.
All I can say, is that the Gilet Arancioni better purchase about 20,000 pairs of hand cuffs.
Antonio PappalardoGiletJune 2Orange Revolution
Generale Pappalardo: Vergogna che Conte ha chiuso tutta l’Italia per un influenza!
In this message, General Pappalardo announced the significant news that the Union for State Police Employees has decided to withdraw its support from the Government of Giuseppe Conte. The impact of this decision will have a significant effect on the future of Italian politics, because it means that the Government will not be able to rely upon the police of the nation to support them in their unconstitutional measures. If the Government is intimidated by this development, it should show in their next decree on the Corona Response, which is due to be published on May 25-26.
Constitutionality and Right: The 2014 Decision of the Corte Constituzionale
May 8, 2020 From Rome Editor	1 Comment
LA CONSTITUZIONALITA’ E IL DIRITTO NELLA SENTENZA DELLA CORTE COSTITUZIONALE DI GENNAIO 213
The English Version follows here below
Giustizia e diritto sono il base del Tuo trono (Salmo 88:14-15)
Recentemente il generale Antonio Pappalardo ha chiesto una rivoluzione arancione in Italia per ristabilire la giustizia per il popolo italiano. Parte della sua argomentazione si basa sulla decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014. Pertanto, è nostro dovere capire quale sia stata quella decisione e quali siano stati i suoi effetti.
Uno Stato può essere considerato sotto diversi aspetti: come entità geografica, come entità politica, come entità giuridica e come entità demografica o economica.
È un’entità geografica in quanto controlla un territorio geografico che rivendica di diritto.
È un’entità politica, in quanto rappresenta se stessa come titolare di diritti nei rapporti con gli altri Stati e con coloro che vivono all’interno del suo territorio geografico.
È un’entità demografica, in quanto costituita da esseri umani.
È un’entità economica, in quanto svolge attività economica attraverso coloro che vivono nel suo territorio geografico.
Ma è un’entità giuridica, in quanto esiste in virtù della giustizia e del diritto. Perché senza giustizia e diritto, uno Stato non è uno Stato. Infatti, la parola “stato” si riferisce a una stabilità di ordine. E non c’è ordine nel senso proprio dove non c’è giustizia o non c’è diritto.
Ecco perché, per esempio, è corretto dire che l’ISIS non era uno Stato, perché non aveva alcuna pretesa onesta di essere un ordine di giustizia o di diritto in una specifica regione geografica.
Questi principi, essendo evidenti, sono validi anche nei confronti della Repubblica Italiana.
Essere ed effetti
Una delle considerazioni preliminari e necessarie in ogni discussione sulla giustizia e sul diritto è quella che riguarda i principi fondamentali della metafisica, cioè che per ogni cosa che è, si deve distinguere tra ciò che è e quali sono i suoi effetti o le sue azioni.
Così, un uomo è un essere umano, ma le sue azioni sono le sue opere, le sue parole o i suoi pensieri. Le sue opere, le sue parole e il suo pensiero non sono il suo essere, né lui stesso, ma gli appartengono e fluiscono dal suo essere.
Questa distinzione è chiamata dagli Scolastici la distinzione tra il primo atto dell’essere (primum esse) e il secondo atto dell’essere (secundum esse).
Questo principio della metafisica governa in materia di giustizia e di diritto, come in tutte le questioni che riguardano la considerazione dell’essere e degli effetti.
Così, se una cosa è giusta, i suoi effetti sono giusti. E se una cosa è fatta in accordo con il diritto, i suoi effetti sono in accordo con il diritto.
Così, se una legge è giusta, è giusto anche ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto. E se una legge è ingiusta, ciò che la legge fa sì che sia fatto è ingiusto.
Allo stesso modo, se ciò che ha fatto nascere una legge è ingiusto, allora l’applicazione della legge è ingiusta, e ciò che è fatto in accordo con la legge ingiusta sarà fatto ingiustamente.
Tutto questo è vero, indipendentemente dal fatto che le azioni specificate dalla legge siano giuste di per sé.
Per esempio, se un tiranno ti ordina di lavarti i denti, anche se lavarti i denti è una cosa buona per sé, non è solo che ti ordina di farlo, e se obbedisci al suo ingiusto comando, anche se lo spazzolamento è buono, il tuo diritto alla libertà è stato comunque violato anche se hai acconsentito e obbedito.
La sentenza 2014 della Corte costituzionale italiana
La prima decisione della Corte Costituzionale italiana del 2014 è l’oggetto del presente saggio. È possibile leggere la decisione in originale sul sito web del tribunale:
https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2014&numero=1
La sentenza della Corte è stata precisa e concisa: sono state dichiarate incostituzionali le modalità di assegnazione dei seggi al Parlamento italiano previste dalle leggi del 1957 per l’elezione della Camera dei deputati e dalla legge del 1993 per l’elezione del Senato, e dalla legge del 1993 che toglieva all’elettore il diritto di scegliere un individuo, piuttosto che un partito.
Questa, ovviamente, è una decisione epocale nella storia della Repubblica italiana. Perché se tutte le elezioni della Camera bassa dal 1957 e tutte le elezioni del Senato dal 1993, e tutte le elezioni del 1993 per i partiti piuttosto che per i candidati sono state incostituzionali, allora tutte le azioni del Parlamento italiano sono state private della giustizia e del diritto per gli ultimi 71 anni.
Non intendo qui contestare la decisione dei giudici del Corte in questa materia. Essi hanno basato la loro sentenza sulla considerazione dei termini della Costituzione italiana che ogni elettore ha diritto a una rappresentanza uguale per tutti gli elettori, e che quindi la rappresentanza proporzionale, se ostacolata dall’assegnazione di più seggi a qualsiasi partito, di quella parte ottenuta in proporzione ai voti ottenuti è stata una violazione di quel diritto costituzionale. E quando un cittadino era tenuto a votare per un partito e non per un individuo, gli veniva negato il diritto di acconsentire a chi lo rappresentava.
Ma ciò che è del tutto degno di discussione è la follia della posizione assunta dalla Corte nel modo in cui ha affrontato gli effetti della sua decisione. Essa ha stabilito che, poiché riguarda il bene comune di tutto lo Stato italiano che rimane in esistenza, ciò che è stato fatto deve essere considerato come un fatto compiuto e, quindi, solo in futuro, tali leggi devono essere modificate. Ma ha lasciato a un Parlamento eletto in modo incostituzionale il compito di approvare le leggi per correggere le leggi sulle elezioni.
La decisione di sanificare gli effetti di leggi incostituzionali, viola molti principi di logica e di diritto.
Prima di tutto, se una cosa è ingiusta, lo sono anche i suoi effetti. Non si può quindi essere razionale e dire che se una cosa è ingiusta, dobbiamo considerare giusti i suoi effetti. Ciò significherebbe affermare che gli effetti che possono venire solo da A e mai da B devono essere considerati come venuti da B solo perché lo diciamo noi.
In secondo luogo, se la Corte ha deciso che tutte le elezioni sono state incostituzionali, e poiché la Corte stessa è costituita dal Consiglio di Stato, i cui membri includono il Presidente della Repubblica, eletto dal Parlamento, così, dichiarando che le elezioni del Parlamento per 71 anni sono state incostituzionali, hanno dichiarato in effetti illegittima la loro pretesa di essere legittimi giudici della Corte costituzionale.
E se la loro pretesa di essere giudici della Corte era illegittima, anche se la loro decisione di dichiarare l’incostituzionalità delle leggi precedenti era oggettivamente vera, la loro autorità di sanare gli effetti ingiusti di tali leggi era inesistente.
In terzo luogo, il loro approccio fondamentale al concetto di continuità dello Stato italiano confonde le nozioni di Stato come entità politica con quelle di Stato come entità giuridica. Lo Stato italiano come entità politica esiste sia che sia giusto o meno, perché sotto questa considerazione lo Stato italiano è l’essere nell’ordine politico, prima di ogni considerazione di giustizia. Ma lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica è l’entità che esiste in virtù della costituzione italiana, e se tale entità è illegittima, allora non solo non ha il diritto di esistere, ma non è mai esistita, perché “essere illegale” è in diretta contraddizione con il suo stesso principio di essere persona giuridica.
Pertanto, il ricorso della Corte alla necessità di continuità dello Stato è un inganno. Si rivendica l’entità giuridica che ha un fondamento solo nei confronti dell’entità politica.
Cosa avrebbe dovuto fare la Corte nel 2014
La decisione della Corte costituzionale italiana del 2014 può avere un solo effetto ragionevole e giusto, cioè che lo Stato italiano come entità giuridica deve essere interamente ricostituito, perché non è più costituzionale dal 1957. Tutte le leggi e le modifiche della Costituzione dal 1957 sono illegittime, illegali, illegittime, ingiuste e inesistenti. La Repubblica italiana deve essere ricostituita nello Stato che era nel 1957 con nuove elezioni del Parlamento. Questo è ciò che la Corte avrebbe dovuto ordinare nel 2014.
Qual è l’effetto della decisione irrazionale della Corte?
Quello che la Corte ha fatto non è solo ultra vires, che è al di là della sua autorità, ma manca di ogni legittimità giuridica. Perché viola il principio che dice che gli effetti di ciò che è giusto sono giusti, e di ciò che è ingiusto sono ingiusti. In agire così, la Corte ha tentato di intervenire come un Leviatano o un Dio e di fare ciò che è ingiusto, giusto, ciò che è malvagio, il bene.
Così facendo la Corte ha attaccato l’ordine costituzionale. Ha commesso una grave frode nella dichiarazione della sua sentenza. Ha messo in atto un colpo di Stato, o più precisamente ha dichiarato che se i politici violano la Costituzione, sono immuni da un crimine. L’unico ricorso, secondo la Corte, è che i reati cessino dopo aver preso una decisione, ma ciò che si ottiene con il reato prima che la sua decisione sia legittimamente ottenuta.
Così la decisione della Corte ha aperto la porta alla tirannia. Ha proclamato che i politici possono abusare dei diritti dei cittadini e violare impunemente la Costituzione. Lo ha dichiarato perché, dicendo che non c’è rimedio alle ingiustizie del passato, ha dato il permesso per tutte le ingiustizie e ha dichiarato che i politici che fanno queste cose sono immuni.
La sentenza della Corte Costituzionale della Repubblica Italiana del 2014 dimostra che non esiste un ordine costituzionale in Italia. La Costituzione non è mai stata osservata per 71 anni, e anche la forma in cui esiste oggi è incostituzionale, essendo stata modificata da parlamenti illegittimi nel corso di 7 decenni.
Quindi parlare oggi della necessità di procedere in modo costituzionale per remediare la situazione è semplicemente assurdo, a meno che non significhi tornare allo status quo del 1957 e indire nuove elezioni.
E per questo credo che Giuseppe Conte, che è avvocato, sappia che i suoi decreti incostituzionali non sono stati un grande crimine e non avrebbero mai portato ad alcuna sanzione per sé o per il suo governo. Sa che non c’è una costituzione, e che il popolo italiano è stato ingannato per 7 decenni. Cosa c’è di sbagliato nella tirannia aperta?
RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 136 DELLA COSTITUZIONE
Si potrebbe sostenere che, in virtù dell’articolo 136, la Corte aveva il diritto di sanificare gli effetti delle leggi inconstituzionali e delle elezioni illegittime del passato. Ma quell’articolo dice solo che le norme delle leggi dichiarate incostituzionali cessano di avere effetto il giorno dopo la pronuncia della sentenza. Non dice nulla sul potere della Corte di fare giusto ciò che è avvenuto prima della sentenza. Il significato dell’articolo riguarda solo l’applicazione futura della legge. Così dal silenzio dell’articolo 136 non si può dedurre che la Corte abbia il potere di fare giusto ciò che è stato ingiusto. Né c’è nulla nella Costituzione che conferisca tale autorità allo Stato.
RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 1 DELLA COSTITUZIONE
Si potrebbe sostenere che la sovranità del popolo, essendo limitata alla sua espressione nella Costituzione in Articolo 1, rende illegittimo il ricorso a qualsiasi appello a nozioni di diritto o di giustizia provenienti da fonti esterne alla Costituzione. A questo, dico, che interpretare questo articolo in modo così restrittivo viola i principi della giurisprudenza, secondo i quali le norme restrittive devono avere il minor effetto possibile, cioè interpretate nel senso che violano il meno possibile i diritti altrui. Pertanto, questo articolo deve essere inteso semplicemente per affermare che la Costituzione è l’esercizio della sovranità del popolo quando viene osservata. E così, quando non viene osservata, l’Articolo 1 non solo non ostacola l’azione del popolo per cercare la giustizia, ma la garantisce e le conferisce il suo fondamento assoluto nel suo diritto all’ordine costituzionale.
RISPOSTA ALLE OBIEZIONI SOLLEVATE DALL’ARTICOLO 137 DELLA COSTITUZIONE
Si potrebbe sostenere che, poiché non è possibile ricorrere alle sentenze della Corte costituzionale secondo Articolo 137 della Costituzione, nessuno può contestare la sua decisione nel 2014 e quindi è al di là del diritto di chiunque di opporsi ad essa. A questa argomentazione, dico, che la decisione della Corte non solo contradice il principio che la giustizia degli effetti scaturisce dalla giustizia della causa, ma invalida anche la stessa pretesa della Corte di emettere una sentenza insindacabile, perché la Corte stessa ha dichiarato che gli stessi poteri che la costituivano sono stati illegittimamente eletti e nominati. Non si può quindi ragionevolmente fare ricorso all’articolo 137, perché si riferisce ad un tribunale costituito costituzionalmente e non ad un tribunale che ammette di essere stato composto in modo incostituzionale.
Frà Alexis Bugnolo, in quanto cittadino italiano, ha la voglia di fondare un partito politico cattolico per guarantire e avvanzare i diritti dei Cattolici in Italia. Se ha interesse in aiutare, lascia un commento qui sotto con il suo recapito. — Grazie!
POSTCRIPTUM: Per una discussione più ampia sull’irragionevolezza della sentenza del Corte vedi: Antonello lo Calzo, La convalida delle elezione e gli effetti della sentenza del Corte Costituzionale n.1 del 2014.
Justice and right are the foundation of Thy throne (Psalm 88:15 in the Vulgate)
Recently, General Antonio Pappalardo has called for an orange revolution in Italy as a way of restoring justice for the Italian People. Part of his argument is based on the decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014. Therefore, it behooves us to understand what that decision was and what its effects were.
A state can be considered under several aspects: as a geographical entity, as a political entity, as a legal entity, and as a demographic or economic entity.
It is a geographical entity inasmuch as it controls a geographical territory which it claims by right.
It is a political entity, inasmuch as represents itself as a holder of rights in relations with other states and with those who live within its geographical territory.
It is a demographic entity, inasmuch as it is constituted by human beings.
It is an economic entity, inasmuch as it conducts economic activity through those who live in its geographical territory.
But it is a legal entity, inasmuch as it exist in virtue of justice and right. Because without justice and right, a state is not a state. For, the word “state” refers to a stability of order. And there is no order in the proper sense where there is no justice or no right.
This is why for example it is correct to say that ISIS was not a state, because it had no honest claim to be an order of justice or right in a specific geographical region.
These principles, being self-evident, are valid also in regard to the Republic of Italy.
Being and Effects
One of the preliminary and necessary considerations in every discussion of justice and right is that which regards the fundamental principles of metaphysics, namely, that for every thing which is, one must distinguish between what it is and what its effects or actions are.
Thus, a man is a human being, but his actions are his works, words, or thoughts. His works, words and thought are not his being, nor himself, but belong to him and flow from his being.
This distinction is called by the Scholastics the distinction between the first act of being (primum esse ) and the second act of being (secundum esse).
This principle of metaphysics governs in matters of justice and right, as in all affairs which regard the consideration of being and effects.
Thus, if a thing is just, its effects are just. And if a thing is done in accord with right, its effects are in accord with right.
Thus, if a law is just, that which the law causes to be done is also just. And if a law is unjust, that which the law causes to be done is unjust.
Likewise, if that which brought a law into being was unjust, then the application of the law is unjust, and that which is done in accord with the unjust law will be unjustly done.
All this is true, regardless of whether the actions specified by the law are just in themselves.
For example, if a tyrant order you to brush your teeth, even though brushing your teeth is something which is good of itself, it is not just that he order you to do it, and if you obey his unjust command, though the brushing be good, your right to liberty was still violated even if you consented and obeyed.
The 2014 Sentence of the Italian Constitutional Court
The first decision of the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014 is the subject of the present essay. You can read the decision in the original at the website of the court:
The decision of the court as precise and concise: the manner of awarding seats in the Italian parliament as specified in the laws of 1957 for the election of the House of Deputies (the lower house in the Italian Parliament) and in the 1993 law for the election of the Senate, and in the 1993 law which took away from the voter the right to chose an individual, rather than a party, were declared unconstitutional.
This, obviously, is a momentous decision in the history of the Italian Republic. Because if all the elections of the lower house since 1957 and all the elections of the Senate since 1993, and all the elections since 1993 for parties rather than candidates were unconstitutional, then all the actions of the Italian Parliament were deprived of justice and right for the last 71 years.
I will not contest here the decision of the court in this matter. They based their sentence on the consideration of the terms of the Italian constitution that each voter be allowed equal representation, and that therefore proportional representation, when obstructed by awarding more seats to any party, than that part obtained in proportion to the votes it garnered was a violation of that constitutional right. And when a citizen was required to vote for a party and not an individual, he was denied the right to consent to whom represented him.
But what is entirely worthy of discussion is the insanity of the position taken by the Court in how it dealt with the effects of its decision. It ruled that, because it pertains to the common good of all the Italian State remain in existence, that what was done is must be regarded as a fait accompli, and hence forth in the future only, such laws must be changed. But it left to a Parliament elected in an unconstitutional manner to pass the laws to correct the laws on elections.
The decision to sanitize the effects of unconstitutional laws, violates a lot of principles of logic and right.
First of all, if a thing is unjust, then its effects are also unjust. Thus, one cannot be rational and say that if a thing is unjust, we must regard its effects as just. That would be to assert that the effects which only can come from A and never from B must be regarded to have come from B just because we say so.
Second, if the court has decided that all the elections were unconstitutional, and since the Court itself is constituted by the Consiglio di Stato, whose members include the President of the Republic, elected by the Parliament, thus, in declaring that the elections of parliament for 71 years were unconstitutional, they declared in effect that their own claim to be legitimate justices of the Constitutional Court were illegitimate.
And if their claim to be judges of the court was illegitimate, even if their decision that the previous laws were unconstitutional was objectively true, their authority to sanitize the unjust effects of those laws was non-existent.
Third, their fundamental approach to the concept of the continuity of the Italian State confounds the notions of the state as a political entity with the state as a legal entity. The Italian state as a political entity exists whether it be just or not, because under this consideration the Italian state is the being in the political order, prior to all considerations of justice. But the Italian state as a legal entity is the entity which exists in virtue of the Italian constitution, and if that entity is illegitimate, then not only does not have the right to exist, it has never existed, because “to be illegal” directly contradicts its very principle of being as a legal entity.
Hence, the Court’s appeal to the necessity of continuity of the State is deceptive. They are making a claim about the legal entity which only has a basis in regard to the political entity.
What the Court should have done in 2014
The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court of 2014 can only have one reasonable and just effect, namely, that the Italian State as a legal entity must be entirely reconstituted, because it has not been constitutional since 1957. All the laws and modifications of the Constitution since 1957 are illegitimate, illegal, unlawful, unjust and non existent. The Italian Republic must be reconstituted again in the state it was in 1957 with new elections for parliament. That is what the Court should have ordered in 2014.
What is the effect of the irrational decision of the Court?
What the court has done is not only ultra vires, that is beyond its authority, but lacks all legitimacy in legal right. Because it violates the principle which says that the effects of what is just are just, and of what is unjust are unjust. The Court has attempted to intervene like a Leviathon or God and make what is unjust, just, what is evil, good.
In doing so the Court has attacked the Constitutional Order. It has committed grave fraud in the declaration of its sentence. It has enacted a Coup d’etat, or more precisely, has declared that if politicians violate the Constitution, they are immune from a crime. The only recourse, according to the Court, is that the crimes cease after it makes a decision, but what is obtained by the crime before its decision is legitimately obtained.
Thus the decision of the court has opened the door to tyranny. It has proclaimed that politicians can abuse the rights of the Citizens and violate the Constitution with impunity. It has declared this, because, in saying that there is no remedy to past injustices, it has given permission for all injustice and declared that the politicians who do such things are immune.
The sentence of the Constitutional Court of the Italian Republic in 2014 demonstrates that there is no constitutional order in Italy. The Constitution was never observed for 71 years, and even the form in which it exists today is unconstitutional, being changed by illegitimate parliaments over the course of 7 decades.
Thus to speak to day of the necessity to proceed in a constitutional manner is simply absurd, unless it means returning to the status quo of 1957 and calling new elections.
And for this reason, I think that Giuseppe Conte, who is a lawyer, knows that his unconstitutional decrees were no great crime and would never result in any penalty to himself or his government. He knows that there is no constitution, and that the Italian People have been deceived for 7 decades. So what is wrong with open tyranny?
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION
It might be argued that on account of Article 136, the Court had the right to sanitize the effects of past illegitimate laws and elections. But that Article says only that the norms of the laws which are declared unconstitutional cease to have effect the day after the sentence is handed down. It saying nothing about the power of the court to make just what took place before its sentence. What the Article means only regards future application of the law. Thus from the silence of Article 136 one cannot infer that the Court has the authority to make just what was unjust. Nor is there anything in the Constitution which grants such authority to the State.
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 1 OF THE CONSTITUTION
It might be argued that the sovereignty of the people, being limited to its expression in the Constitution, makes recourse to any appeal to notions of right or justice from sources outside the constitution illegitimate. To this, I say, that to interpret this article in such a restrictive manner violates the principles of jurisprudence, which hold that restrictive norms must be have the lest effect possible, that is, interpreted in the sense which violates the rights of others in the least way. Thus, this article must simply be understood to affirm that the Constitution is the exercise of the sovereignty of the people when observed. And thus, when it is not observed, not only does Article 1 not impede the action of the people to seek justice, it guarantees it and grants it its absolute fundament in their right to a constitutional order.
REPLY TO OBJECTIONS RAISED FROM ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION
It might be argued that since no recourse is possible to judgements of the Constitutional Court, no one can dispute its decision in 2014 and thus it is beyond the right of anyone to object to it. To this, I say, that not only does the decision of the court invalidate the principle that the justice of the effects flows from the justice of the cause, it also invalidates the Court’s own claim to hand down an unquestionable sentence, because the Court itself has declared that the very powers which constituted it were illegitimately elected and appointed. Thus no appeal to Article 137 can reasonably be made, because it refers to a Court which is constituted constitutionally and not to a Court which itself admits was composed in an unconstitutional manner.
2014Antonio PappalardobeingConstitutional lawCorte ConstituzionaleeffectsItaliajusticelawfullegallegitimatemetaphysicsright
Generale Pappalardo: Don’t pay any Corona Control Fines!
May 6, 2020 From Rome Editor	Leave a comment
Here is a summary in English of General Pappalardo’s discourse:
Gilet Arancioni is the first and only political movement which wants to wipe the slate clean. No compromises. No dialogue. Conte and his government needs to go.
In the Italian Republic every individual citizen, including the police and military, are personally responsible for observing the Constitution of the Republic.
Hence, every policeman who signs a citation against a citizen for violating the unconstitutional decrees of Conte has committed a criminal violation of the constitutional rights of the citizen so penalized.
President Materella did nothing against Conte for more than 2 weeks. What was he doing? Sleeping in Bed?
Three judges of the Constitutional Court said what Conte was doing was criminal, in arrogating to himself the right to pass laws.
Do not pay the fines!
Leone parla con Pappalardo sulla riforma necessaria della politica italiana
Video May 4, 2020 From Rome Editor 1 Comment
General Papalardo has accepted the presidency of the political movement, called, Gilet Arancioni (Orange Vests), a movement created in Italy in imitation of the French anti-government movement, which was opposed to taxes and the destruction of the rights of the lower and middle classes.
In this interview, of April 26, 2020, he listed at great length the problems of Italian politics, manipulated on the one side by Marxists who serve globalists the a false Right, which admire tyrants (Mussolini & Hitler).
A summary of his commentary are as follows:
We will imitate what was done in 1943, when after the fall of the Fascist government of Italy, at the request of the King of Italy, a national committee was formed to restore constitutional order.
We will go to Rome on May 31, 2020, with a copy of the constitution and a criminal complaint against the government, the accusation will be Criminal Conspiracy to kill the Italian people.
It is not only imprudent but insane to ask the man who destroyed your home to come back inside the home to put it back in order.
The government of Giuseppe Conte has no right to govern.
There is no more democracy in Italy. It must be restored.
My own father fought with the partisans against the Germans.
I have served my nation without stain for 42 years.
Those who call me an anarchist are insane and want nothing to do with caring for the people, only with exploiting them.
The government has terrorized the people to control them. This is pure cruelty.
We will have a public manifestation regardless of whether the government approve it or not.
The Carabinieri will escort the people to change the government, not oppose them.
The first act will to criminally accuse the government to the Constitutional Court.
We will establish a provisional government with a president elected by the presidents of the regions of Italy.
We will follow the laws with extreme rigor.
The enemies of the people are not the police, but the government of Giuseppe Conte.
Several political movements have joined the cause I promote.
There is no real pandemic.
We can no longer play games with insane criminals like Conte.
We cannot negotiate, we must remove them from power.
Antonio PappalardoLeonardo LeonePolitica
Generale Pappalardo: Discorso del 3 Maggio
May 4, 2020 From Rome Editor	Leave a comment
General Pappalardo returns to Italian soil
May 3, 2020 From Rome Editor	1 Comment
The General says that he has returned because his nation has need of him. His peaceful return disproves the claims that he would be arrested. He demands that the Carabinieri and police not be cruel, not to punish citizens with illegitimate penalties, judged such by 3 judges of the Italian Supreme Court. He reminds the police that the one who signs the charge against a citizen becomes guilty of a constitutional crime against the citizen who is cited. Asserts that the government is terrorizing the people with unproven medical claims, just as was done with the Avian flu and Swine flu.
Generale Antonio Pappalardo, 1 Maggio
May 1, 2020 From Rome Editor	Leave a comment
Brigadier General Antonio Pappalardo in this public talk continues his call for an Orange Revolution in May. Here is a summary of his talk.
After explaining to all that only legitimate laws should be respected, and reproving those police who enforce that which are not legitimate laws, he remarks that the Community Party has over decades infiltrated the Catholic Church to open way to promote Catto-Communism (Catholic-Communism) which was used to create the new parties which now rule Europe and Italy.
He calls for an abolition of the ruling coalition in Italian Parliament who serve only themselves. Calls the 5 Star Movement merely a trick of the Marxists to take over the state.
He then condemns the worship of Gaia and Nature as the end product of this false Catto-Catholicism, which is esoteric (satanic) and dogmatic in its religious pretensions.
Then he affirms that the Globalists have the same objective of Adolf Hitler: to change the thought of the masses so that the elites can rule the world.
He then claims that Giuseppe Conte has a secret agreement with forces in the Church to establish in Italy a new religion which will unite with the new one world religion. He implies that the closure of the Churches by Conte has this long term objective of changing religions. He says that the new Prophet of this religion is from the Southern Hemisphere (he implies Bergoglio).
He concludes by saying that Italian Citizens have every right to protest in the streets and piazzas, because the path of the present government is clearly to establish a permanent dictatorship, calling on Italians to take action in May.
He says there were protests at Naples on April 25, and at Rome, Triest and Palermo today, May first. He calls for a new Constitution to prevent the crimes committed against the present one.
He sums up by reminding citizens not to resort to violence and promises victory through a non-violent means, and legal actions. Asking that Italians protest with copies of the Constitution in hand and the Italian Tri-Color Flag. Claiming that his proposed action will definitively change the course of Italian history.
Italy is ripe for an Orange Revolution
April 30, 2020 From Rome Editor	10 Comments
Italy is ripe for an Orange Revolution. I make his assessment on a panoply of facts which are showing themselves in every sector of daily life.
The widespread discontent to the Corona Control imposed by Giuseppe Conte’s Left-wing government has burst into open anger and rage since the announcement of his Phase 2 Corona Controls which will destroy the small business class of Italy and prevent Italians from returning to the daily life and activities of normal existence, in some cases, for an indefinite period: wearing of masks, mandatory vaccines, use of apps to track citizens, prohibition of travel to home towns for the holidays, end of public schooling.
Their patience is gone and there seems nothing to stop, now, the tides moving in the direction of open political revolution.
Here are some observations I have made which argue toward this:
First, the Italian police forces, both the Carabinieri and the State Police, no longer long display any eagerness to enforce the decrees against movement or gatherings. Members of the Carabinieri are openly expressing themselves as against the Corona Controls and the Government. When they hear a citizen shares these views they are even more friendly, not antagonistic. To my knowledge, this attitude is widespread also in the Italian Military.
This means that if any political protests breakout, the forces of public order are not likely to intervene to prevent the Citizenry from defending itself.
Second, Italians have begun to defy the controls with indifference. There are daily more and more persons on the street who no longer have fear of the police.
Third, it is now an every day experience that one hears Italians denouncing the Government for acting unconstitutionally. This is a very remarkable development, because Italians by custom never speak about politics in public. To do so is seen as risking social relationships which might be needed in times of want. So when Italians do this, it is a sign that they have lost all hope that the Government wants to help them and are convinced that the Government is not only an enemy, but an intolerable enemy.
Fourth, the Government has alienated about every part of society as much as they possibly can. They still refuse the advances of the Bishop’s conference for religious services for Catholics. They still have refused to give any date for the reopening of barbers, salons and clothing stores. For Italians who take extreme care of their personal experience, the idea of going without new clothes or a haircut for an unspecified period of time is insufferable.
Finally, Merchants and businessmen are showing a determined opposition to the Corona Controls. There have not only been strong push backs from the Industrial sector but also from the national labor unions. Even individual proprietors have begun to turn their lights on their business signs, even in cases where their businesses are not allowed to open. They want everyone to know that they have not surrendered or given up.
Brigadier General Pappalardo’s call for an Orange Revolution at the end of May, therefore, will in my judgement gain growing support as the month passes. He is calling for mass demonstrations in the capitals of each of the Regions on May 30, and on May 31 a massive demonstration at Rome to drive the government from power. Being a former leading commander in the National Police of the Carabinieri, he is garnering a lot of support from precisely those sectors who alone could be used by the government to stop it.
For this reason, I think we are about to see a momentous political change in Italy in the next 6 weeks. An Orange Revolution which can now only be adverted by the capitulation of the government of Giuseppe Conte, either on principles, or in actual effect, that is, resignation and a call for new popular elections for Parliament. Failing that, violence, political or physical, seems now inevitable for Italy.
CREDITS: The Featured Image is of the Orange Revolution in Kiev, Ukraine, on November 22, 2004. It is used here in accord with a Creative Commons Share-Alike 3.0 license, as deascribed, here.
Antonio PappalardoGiuseppe ConteItalyOrange RevolutionPolitical Analysis
Brigadier General Pappalardo: Calls for overthrow of the Italian Government
April 29, 2020 From Rome Editor	4 Comments
Generale Pappalardo, retired Brigadier General of all Italian Carabinieri — the national police which are under the authority of the Ministry of Defense — calls upon his comrades in the Carabinieri to not enforce the unconstitutional decrees and upon the citizens to refuse to pay any fine they get for moving around Italy. Finally, he calls upon all Italy to rise in political protest on May 30 in the piazze of all the cities of Italy. He calls upon the Italian people to bring Conte to court as a criminal.
He asks the citizens to protest with 3 things in hand: the Italian Flag, the Constitution of the Republic, and the Italian Lira (the former currency).
He says that the COVID-19 Pandemic is not a pandemic, but simply a weak influenza epidemic.
He calls upon the citizens to seize the Prime Minister and his government and establish a provisional government as of June 2, 2020, the establishment of a Italian Euro, independent from the EU Monetary System. He asks that the faithful not engage the police and military, but aim only at driving Conte and his government from power.
The former Brigadier General, who has pursued a political career for the last 20 years, is currently in Tunisia, prevented by the Corona Controls to return to Italy, but promises to return for May 30. He, thus, appears to be taking a position similar to General Franco of Spain. This is not the first time he has publicly called for altering the form of government in Italy. The last time he was tried for inciting insurrection, but was acquitted on all counts in the year 2000.
Pappalardo comes from an ancient Sicilian family of nobility. A son of a veteran of the Second World II, who spent time in a German concentration camp. He served in the Italian Carabinieri until 1992, when he was elected to parliament as a MP for Rome for one year. Returning to the Carabinieri, he was promoted to a regional commander and served until 2006, obtaining the grade of Supreme Commander of the Special Forces of the Carabinieri (capo di Stato Maggiore della Divisione Unità Specializzate Carabinieri), which is a sort of Chief of Staff internal to the Carabinieri (see here). In 2006 he retired definitively from the Carabinieri.
FromRome.Info reports the appeal of this Brigadier General for purposes of news.
Antonio PappalardoCarabinieriGiuseppe Conte
2,798,888 hits

References: SENTENZA 
 sentenza 
 sentenza 
 sentenza 
 sentenza 
 Articolo 1
 Articolo 137
 sentenza 
 sentenza 
 sentenza