Web Site: http://www.aredam.net
Complaint against unknown persons according to the terms of Article 211-1 of the French penal code, for the crime of genocide over the people of Palestine.
1 - Introduction
2 - Text of the charge
3 - Plan of the complaint:
3 - 1- Regarding the qualification of the crime
Why it is fundamental for the common development of mankind to have a world-wide debate over the problem of genocide in general.
This article has been written by Michel DAKAR, a man who is committed to judicial denunciation of the genocide of the Palestinian people by the Zionists. This text introduces a civil action that will be shortly instituted.
Genocide was not invented by mankind; nor has it been limited to one era in history or one region of the world.
It is an act which concerns other animal species, including the apes. The cases of chimpanzees and gorillas have been particularly studied, where one group of apes will totally destroy another in order to seize their territory. Similar behaviors have been observed among wolves and lions.
Genocide by man has occurred in all populations,
all periods and all places.
The populations of the Pacific Islands behaved in the same way towards their fauna and flora. On Easter Island, for example, they eradicated all the big animals and destroyed all the forests, with the final consequence that they annihilated themselves, the end of their history being marked by acts of mass cannibalism between enemy clans.
Man is but a wrinkle in the history of life on Earth. He is neither central nor unique, nor original in his behavior. He is an animal, whose notable trait is a well-developed brain; but although he has a giant brain, he is still led by the same animal instincts as our so-called inferior brethren, the apes and lions, and such.
Destroying other species, or other groups in the
same species, or other forms of life, such as plants, is extremely common
to all forms of life.
To conquer a territory and eradicate its occupants
- peoples or individuals - or subdue one’s neighbors in order to
exploit them and benefit from them, and deprive them of the possibility
of using their lives freely: what is genocide, if not a rapport of domination
between individuals, wielded on a large scale by one group over another
group or over other species, animal or vegetal?
Human history is but the general history of life;
and we are at a turn in human history, at a threshold on which we are
dancing, without deciding to cross.
An action at law is to be instituted with the senior examining magistrate of the Paris Court against the individuals responsible for the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people. The text of the charge is given below.
This action will be supported by pickets of fighters distributing tracts, with due respect of the Law, and provided with explaining posters, who will be posted in front of the Palais de justice and the Préfecture de police in Paris, in an effort to have that action at law considered and not rejected straight off or taxed with an exorbitant sum of money.
It is indeed a matter of common knowledge that
the Zionists who perpetrate the genocide of Palestinian people have supreme
control over the Palais de justice and the Préfecture de police.
Complaint against unknown persons according to the terms of Article
211-1 of the French penal code, for the crime of genocide over the people
3 - 1- Regarding the qualification of the crime of genocide.
3 - 1- Regarding the qualification of the crime of genocide.
‘‘The fact of committing against members of any group, and in execution of a concerted plan aiming to the total or partial destruction of any national, ethnic, racial or religious group or of any group determined by any other arbitrary criteria, anyone of the following acts constitutes a genocide:
A willful attack against their lives;
Any colonization by settlement in an area that is already peopled constitutes in itself an act of genocide. Such was and is the case as regards North America, Australia, New Caledonia, Algeria and Tibet.
The intensive settlement of Jewish people in Palestine, as early as 1922, when Palestine was under British mandate, in a densely populated (600 000 people over an area roughly equivalent to that of Normandy) region in which all the land was already occupied and tilled, constitutes an act of genocide, for the consequence of that settlement was to deprive the original population of its land, when it is a well known fact that possession of the land is a condition that is inherent in the existence of a people.
Such a settlement was a willful attack against the life of the people of Palestine; it was also a serious attack against their physical and psychic integrity; moreover, it subdued them to conditions of existence of such a nature as to entail their total or partial destruction.
The so-called ‘‘Zionist’’ program, the name of which must be retraced to an ideology which conditions Jews to emigrate in Palestine, idealizes genocide.
This is substantiated by the famous quotation of a Zionist ideologue, which sums up the Zionist program: « a people-less land for a land-less people ».
The creation of the national Zionist community called Israel is based on a ‘right’ of genocide.
The worldwide recognition of the State of Israel constitutes a world-wide recognition of this ‘right’ of genocide.
Similarly, this recognition starts a new world order that would be based on the negation of culpableness for any crime, through an inversion of roles between criminals and victims.
This complaint is filed against all of the above.
The 24 July 1922 decision of the Society of Nations to authorize spoliation of the inhabitants of Palestine for the benefit of Jewish settlers by creating a ‘‘national home for the Jewish people’’ is therefore null and void, for it is in patent and absolute contradiction with the mandate given in that decision, which stipulated in Article 4: ‘‘… nothing will be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’’
Besides, the 29 November 1947 UN decision of partitioning Palestine, on top of the notorious fact that it had been obtained through shameless corruption, was also in opposition to the UN charter of 26 June 1945, which is based on the notion of the right of peoples to self-determination (Article 1, 2nd comma), as the 1947 decision is in direct and final conflict with this latter principle since the people of Palestine had no voice in the matter.
Since 1947, the UN charter has been based actually on the ‘right' to commit genocide over a people, on the ‘right’ to eradicate other people, and this means that, since 29 November 1947, human rights have actually been based on assassination.
The 1947 UN decision makes the UN charter null and void; thus the United Nations Organization has been a mere façade of right camouflaging non-right ever since.
3 - 2- Regarding the quality to act and validity of the CODEIG
It is inscribed in the CODEIG society’s bylaws that pursuant to Article 2-4 of the French code of penal procedure it has the power to institute any action as regards crimes against humanity. This power takes effect five years after the society’s registration with the Préfecture (31 May 2005 – 31 May 2010).
This society was declared lawful by a judgment of the district Court (1st civil division, on 14 September 2005), then by a decree of the Paris Court of Appeal (1st civil division, on 21 November 2006). This latter decision is final, since the Public Prosecutor did not lodge an appeal with the French supreme court of appeal.
The civil action against CODEIG had been urged by the Paris District Prosecutor upon recommendation of the Préfet de police, in order to obtain that the judges declare that Society unlawful ‘a priori’ (even before it acted) and decree its dissolution. Such a request was tantamount to instituting, through case law, a crime of intention.
In spite of this decision of justice, and although the Administration has had the bank check for the publication costs paid to its order, the Administration is still stopping the publication of the existence of CODEIG in the official gazette.
It is indeed true that the constitution of a society registered with the Préfecture is only effective when that fact has been legally published.
However, the nature of such a publication is not fixed by any statutory text.
Court decisions are decreed in public and are therefore public documents.
Their existence is as uncontestable as a publication in the official gazette, and so is their legal value.
Therefore the constitution of the CODEIG society has been legally
3 - 3- Regarding the obligation to pay a deposit when instituting
a civil action, in anticipation of an eventual civil law fine for instituting
an improper action.
The examining magistrate notes, by order, the filing of the complaint. According to the resources of the party instituting the civil action, the judge sets the amount of deposit that that party must – unless it has obtained jurisdictional assistance – deposit with the clerk of the Court and the period of time within which the deposit must be effected under penalty of the complaint being declared un-receivable. Any party instituting a civil action may be exempted by the judge from such a deposit.
The deposit set pursuant to Article 88 guarantees the payment of any fine that may be ordered pursuant to Article 177-2.
The sum deposited is restituted when no fine has been decreed by the examining magistrate or, in case of appeal by the Public Prosecutor or by the party instituting the civil action, by the examining division of the Court.
This judicial practice is doubly in contradiction with one of the bases of French Law, that of presumption of innocence, which is recognized in Article 9-1 of the French civil code:
- On the one hand by systematically assuming that any party instituting a civil action is guilty, and must pay a fine before any judgment;
- On the other hand by systematically assuming that, if the complaint is recognized as being abusive, the party instituting the civil action will then refuse to pay its fine.
More prosaically, by setting a deposit in an amount that may be prohibitive such a practice is a hidden means to keep away from justice any politically undesirable party instituting a civil action.
This second practice, the exclusion from justice through lack of money, is in contradiction with the French Constitution which affirms the equality of all citizens before the Law (Preamble of the Constitution of 4 October 1958, Article 1).
This complaint aims to re-establish Right at a planet level.
Within this context, the inner consistency of this complaint implies that
such a spirit of compliance with what is right must also be applied to
the problem posed by the practice of remitting a sum of money when filing
a complaint, a practice which is basically in opposition to the principle