The Italian Republic LEGALLY NOT EXIST
Note: In this article 2006 I demonstrated the illegality-nullity of the Monarchy-Republic referendum of 1946, and I was the first to show these historical and legal facts of the Italian Republic with legal documents. Some authors have used this material without citing the source, to the detriment of copyright, and this is demonstrated by the fact that this study was filed with the Court of Venice in a proceeding of 2006. In this website also . the documentary evidence of what was stated, but for a more organic and complete discussion you can buy my text “The Republic unborn” (cLICK) also on Amazon.
That's why the “Italian republic” LEGALLY THERE **
Loris Palmerini 2006 (C) – always quote the author – copyright 2006 Loris Palmerini – all rights reserved
At the time of the referendum monarchy / republic of 1946 were legally the territory of the Italian State also lands of Istria with Koper and Pola etc., Dalmatia with Split and Zadar, and the Adriatic Islands.
These lands were “Italian” according to the Treaty of Rapallo 1920
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trattato_di_Rapallo_(1920)
therefore, albeit occupied Titina, were lands they had the right to vote in the referendum monarchy / republic of 1946, a right that had citizens “Italian” there residents : they had the right to vote, which, however, they have not been able to exercise in an unjustified manner. They WERE NOT MADE OF COLLEGES I EXPECTED FROM DECRETO.Purtroppo, not only the right holders present there could not vote, but even those hundreds of thousands of them who fled the genocide Titino and came to Italy.
E’ vero, the chaos was so, there was a civil war, and in fact even Corfu and the Dodecanese were Italian lands by virtue of a claim and inheritance of the Kingdom of Italy from the Venetian Republic, Another thing to ever demonstrated , so never mind the lack of voting in those land and in any case this would strengthen my argument.
Let's go back to the territories of Istria, Dalmatian islands: they were ceded by the newly “Italian republic” only with the Treaty of Paris 1947
This shows that at the time of the vote 1946 they were territories “Italian”.
then, how could that have given up those territories “republic” that they had never been rated ?
And especially, a referendum concerning the community is valid where only a part of the territory concerned or a part of the community votes ?
therefore, who legally represents the Italian Republic ? And the territory 1946 ? Those who were of Italian 1946 (and that was even after!) ?
Unfortunately we have to remember that in addition to those areas of the Venetian Levant I said, also Trieste, Bolzano and Friuli ALL could not vote in the referendum.
So of those entitled MILLIONS TO BE VOTED could not vote in the Referendum 1946, although Italians voting, and this is because whoever organized the referendum was wrong or was carrying out a coup d'etat.
In fact it is known that the Italians of Istria and Dalmatia were mostly of monarchical orientation, and if they voted he would certainly have won the Monarchy.
For more, the referendum is tainted by various irregularities, for example, the sudden appearance on the night of the ballot by 2 million votes pro republic, precisely what waste that did win the republic for 12.717.923 votes to 10.719.284 Ratings for the monarchy .
But considering that more than 2 million eligible voters could not vote, the standard deviation of 2 millions of official results is not enough to give certainty that the referendum result would have been the same if they had voted.
In practice, the referendum is void because millions of votes were missing and therefore the legitimacy of the Italian republic as a subject deriving from the referendum is lacking.
I repeat, the millions of Istrian, Dalmatians and the islands of the Adriatic who did not vote, in addition to Bolzano, Friuli etc., ensure that the result of the Referendum of 1946 it does not necessarily express the majority will of those who had the right to vote.
I am not a monarchist, but RESPECT THE WILL’ POPULAR and I demand that a State respects the law.
Therefore I must say that the Referendum 1946 E’ VOID because it was not valid to express the popular will of the Italian people.
The RESULT of the REFERENDUM 1946 it is null because:
– it is not the certain expression of the majority of those entitled to vote
– probably he would have won the monarchy, even if this is not certain either
– the modalities of the transfer of power are obscure and stained by threats to the ruling house by important politicians
Consequently, LEGALLY THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC DOES NOT EXIST.
A speaker of “too late” you must say : a republic that arises from the denial of the right to vote can be democratic and legal ?
The Italian Republic is a FALSE, it is illegitimate, it is legally NON-EXISTENT, and human rights demand truth and the revision of the institutions through referendums territory by territory self-managed by citizens, also that of Istria and Dalmatia.
For the same reasons, transfers of territory subscribed by the Republicans came to power after the referendum, and their successors, NOT APPLY for representative defect: how can an untitled squatter cede the property of others?
The article integrates with documentary evidence (cLICK)
Loris Palmerini
President of the Court of the Venetian People
PS 16-04-2006
I have already heard a famous usurper say that the concept of sovereignty today is not that of the postwar period. And why ? E’ possibly changed the international law ? But I must say that the poor fellow has already proved in the past that he does not know the laws or that he is a criminal, almost he was going to make a constitutional overthrow of only a few years ago.
LilianFields30
5 November 2010 @ 21:57
I will recommend not to wait until you earn enough cash to buy different goods! You should just get the business loans or student loan and feel fine
loris
25 May 2007 @ 02:02
> One of the sources
integrated as they should with documents
> The historical and most recently, the reasoning
> Starting from the beginning, the fonta she used for research is undoubtedly one of the least reliable. as everybody knows, wikipedia
Everybody knows that Wikipedia is not the Bible, only a starting point to be verified.
> Its interpretation, can esere was made by a person who knows nothing of jurisprudence
Or perhaps from one that you know much
> She makes mention of belonging to the Italian Republic of Istria and Dalmatia territories until 1947
dove ? Me if there was even a republic
> The inaccuracy is that the assignment of territories took place de facto (i don't know if you are familiar with the term)
You're wrong, was a military invasion then sealed by the treaty of Paris
> This is automatically taken place with the arrest of Mussolini and the task of forming the new government entrusted badoglio.
And retaliation titine me I have invented with the sinkholes ?
> if you are unfamiliar with international law, here are a couple of data that will be useful in the future: international law is based on customs and habits,
Look, you should study The Hague and the right to self-determination. If it were as you say, Algeria would be French, Israel would not exist etc. etc..
> And the sale of the fact of a territory occurs when a head of state does not recognize what has been done previously and precisely in fact it abandons the territories.
What that Istria and Dalmatia has never happened, I did Illegal Republic after the referendum never completed
> Inter alia, the alleged "occupation" of which you speak was agreed at Yalta.
No, has been agreed with the ZTL zone A and B, not the Titian occupation
> from the point of view of reasoning, his error lies in the fact that he assumes that the â € œnominal legalityâ € ?? of a state is also valid with regard to its external relations.
It means that those who make the coup is legitimized ? This is true as long as someone does not object.
> A state has been considered that if other states recognize it.
Mistake, there are states that are in the process of being recognized but already exist
Rather, there is always a state before being recognized
> For example: Taiwan is not recognized by China, so for china taiwan is not a state; taiwan, However, it is recognized by Belgium and other states (including Italy), This makes Taiwan a state in all respects.
Look that the belonging to Italy of those lands in 1946, at the time of the referendum, It was not something discussed, so much so that they were sold only in 1947, so much so that the Zara and Venetia voting board was foreseen.
It was the republic to give up the territories and not let them vote.
> If we want to move the comments in a more strictly philosophical and theoretical profile, take when this body is: Italy is a republic (Latin RES PUBLICA – what publication). It derives from the republic democracy (Government of the) as they are the people who govern through their elected representatives.
The elections are rigged in Italy, Proof of this is the presence of many non-eligible in parliament. Even the referendum 1946 It was marked by violence.
> in Italy there is democracy, that is, the will of the majority prevails over the minority
Unlike, parties with 1% govern and affect the majority.
> From that, it follows that even assuming that the entire population of South Tyrol and Friuli Venezia Giulia in 1946 I did not vote, the referendum is still valid. Now I'll explain why: the right to vote is a civic duty, not an absolute duty, this means that a person can also decide not to vote.
Are you saying that the exiles of Istria, the infoibati and the dead did not vote ?
I do not know if they continue to respond.
And then you look at who is the Right to vote who have not been able to exercise.
> Among other things, There are two types of referendum, peer and only one of them is required quorum, the referendum on the republic was not as consultative referendum.
BUT THOSE WERE UNABLE TO VOTE !!! ! But where climbs ?
> This means that, as said before, the referendum as implemented, It is valid in every feature.
But beware that the decree required the vote in Zadar and Dalmatia and Venetia. Where it was implemented ?
> Then if you want to want to touch the subject of the alleged electoral fraud (in the sense that two entire regions did not vote)
This is not the fact that invalidates referendum
> To talk sensibly about what they say you have to bring the evidence base and not a speech of this magnitude on mere conjecture or on mere suppositions.
On this I agree: lack of evidence although now are coming testimonies.
> Conclusion we must say that, regardless of their political affiliation wing, consistency is all about!
I believe that truth changes opinion and honesty must prevail over the lie of consistency.
> Other thing to say is that bolazano certainly did not want the monarchy, because the siego.
Scusi, but they could not decide them without her explain ? Now we do but make the election when someone “explains” the result before or instead of elections ?
> Monarchy door where an assolutizzatrice, you will know that this means that the king would never have allowed the South Tyrolean territories to annex to Austria.
But what he says, monarchies have taken and ceded territories to plunder.
> I remind you that already in 1946 the Habsburg Empire no longer existed, by that I mean that it seems rather that I may wonder why a territory whose ethnic composition is dominated by German component, and has strong autonomist tendencies might want to keep a form of the state where the monarchy
But what does this have to do with the fact that they did not vote : THE REFERENDUM’ IN no !
>(I remind you that during the Fascist period, the monarchy still -vigeva- It was implemented a real mass deportation of families from central Italy and southern Europe in order to "more Italian" This tends German province.
Of course I know, how the Venetians were deported from their land around Italy
> How can, in your opinion, an area that has suffered this form of wanting the state that has legitimized the actions of which the first?).
Who are you to decide that they were not entitled to vote ?
> From what I see on she is a sympathizer of the Northern League,
He sees evil , very.
> To put pressure on a hypothetical instance of North Independence,
I speak of Venetie, not north.
> Course this argument is very weak, if not entirely plucked out. When it comes to fraud, It wants the facts, documents and evidence to show that when you say is true and not a fantastic balzana.
Now he decrees, but he wanted disgraced forcing me to publish this comment not even after I had sent them to him.
> Conclude with two last notes: 1-the next time you want to write something like, before at least you documents with reliable sources to 100% (certainly is not the encyclopedia wikipedia treccani);2-as she can not give pleasure, It is an Italian citizen because he lives in this territory, if you do not go emigrate to the north, but I warn, the southerners in the world are we Italians.
I conclude by saying that hundreds of people have given me reason.
The responder
22 May 2007 @ 21:48
one last thing, international law has really changed since 1946 to date, also consult all the texts he wants, will see with his eyes that in 60 years it has evolved, and several.
The responder
22 May 2007 @ 21:42
good evening,
by chance I came across your site and I couldn't help but read what you wrote about the alleged invalidity of the status of the Italian Republic. let me say that what I find puzzles me (to use a term “light”) under various points of view: one of the sources, the historical and most recently, the reasoning. starting from the beginning, the fonta she used for research is undoubtedly one of the least reliable. as everybody knows, wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, This means that anyone can write anything, even that the goats fly since there is no possibility of a real confrontation. even if the document could be the original, its interpretation, can esere was made by a person who knows nothing of jurisprudence. passing the historic figure, you mention the belonging to the Italian Republic of the territories of Istria and Dalmatia up to 1947, the inaccuracy lies in the fact that the sale of the territories took place de facto (i don't know if you are familiar with the term), this happened automatically with the arrest of Mussolini and the task of forming the new government entrusted to badoglio. if you are unfamiliar with international law, here are a couple of data that will be useful in the future: international law is based on customs and habits, and the sale of the fact of a territory occurs when a head of state does not recognize what has been done previously and precisely in fact abandons the territories. among other things, the alleged “occupation” you mention had been agreed at Yalta. under the profile of the argument his mistake is that it assumes that the “non-internal legality” a state is also valid in relation to its external relations. It is not so: a state has been considered that if other states recognize it. for example: Taiwan is not recognized by China, so for china taiwan is not a state; taiwan, However, it is recognized by Belgium and other states (including Italy), This makes Taiwan a state in all respects. if we want to move the comments in a more strictly philosophical and theoretical profile, take when this body is: Italy is a republic (Latin RES PUBLICA – what publication). It derives from the republic democracy (Government of the) as they are the people who govern through their elected representatives. in Italy democracy is in force, that is, the will of the majority prevails over the minority, from this it follows that even assuming that the entire population of south tyrol and friuli venezia giulia in 1946 I did not vote, the referendum is still valid. Now I'll explain why: the right to vote is a civic duty, not an absolute duty, this means that a person can also decide not to vote. among other things, There are two types of referendum, peer and only one of them is required quorum, the referendum on the republic was not as consultative referendum. this means that, as said before, the referendum as implemented, It is valid in every feature. if you want to touch on the subject of alleged electoral fraud (in the sense that two entire regions did not vote) to talk sensibly about what they say you have to bring the evidence base and not a speech of this magnitude on mere conjecture or on mere suppositions. concluding it must be said that regardless of their political affiliation wing, consistency is all about! other thing to say is that bolazano certainly did not want the monarchy, because the siego. the monarchy carries within itself an absolutizing instance, you will know that this means that the king would never have allowed the South Tyrolean territories to be annexed to Austria. I remind you that already in 1946 the Habsburg Empire no longer existed, by that I mean that it seems rather that I may wonder why a territory whose ethnic composition is dominated by German component, and has strong autonomist tendencies might want to keep a form of the state where the monarchy (I remind you that during the Fascist period, the monarchy still -vigeva- a real mass deportation of families from central and southern Italy was carried out in order to “Italianize” This tends German province. how can, in your opinion, an area that has suffered this form of wanting the state that has legitimized the actions of which the first?). from what I see on she is a sympathizer of the Northern League, to put pressure on a hypothetical instance of North Independence, certainly this argument is very weak, if not entirely plucked out. When it comes to fraud, It wants the facts, documents and evidence to show that when you say is true and not a fantastic balzana. I conclude with two last notes: 1-the next time you want to write something like, before at least you documents with reliable sources to 100% (certainly wikipedia is not the Treccani encyclopedia);2-as she can not give pleasure, It is an Italian citizen because he lives in this territory, if you do not go emigrate to the north, but I warn, the southerners in the world are we Italians.
loris
18 April 2007 @ 01:50
The text was republished by (partial list)
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2007/04/38626.shtml
http://www.ilpiave.it/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4072
http://blog.libero.it/lavocedimegarid/2560523.html
http://blog.buongiornovenezia.com/2007/04/15/the-italian-republic-does-not-exist/
http://hilldamon.spaces.live.com/blog/cns%20BAAB697AFAC1742E%201140.entry
http://www.collettivamente.com/articolo/452555.html
http://capoverde.altervista.org/allegati/interventi/repubblica.htm
http://innovariblog.splinder.com/
http://venexie.org/open/modules.php?name=AvantGo&op=ReadStory&sid=8304
http://obala.net/pogovori/messages/index.php?scope=agora&agora=21.241388
http://www.legnostorto.com/index.php?option=com_joomlaboard&Itemid=30&func=view&id=308169&catid=3
https://barcelona.indymedia.org/philly/servlet/OpenMir?do=opensession&sessiontype=translation&to_content=38626
http://groups.google.it/group/it-alt.politica.lega-nord/msg/c715084d82f03b01
http://arengario.net/piaz2007/piaz070414.html
http://www.webspacefindit.com/riflettorir2/viewart.php?dove=riflettori143
http://obala.net/pogovori/messages/index.php?scope=agora&agora=21.241213
http://groups.google.cd/group/it-alt.politica.lega-nord/browse_thread/thread/131c66bb74ed873c/c715084d82f03b01?lnk=raot
http://groups.google.fr/group/free.it.politica/browse_thread/thread/5fdf0292cfd45b8f/c8fbdf6e9097dea2
http://del.icio.us/monarchico/italia
http://www.goldenweb.it/newsgroup/article.php?l=it&id=334799&group_dir=it&grouplist=it.politica&group=it.politica.pds&server=news.readfreenews.net
http://groups.google.fr/group/free.it.politica/msg/a66810f8bfc88cfd
http://free.it.publichat.it/article.php?id=15136&group=free.it.politica
http://domeus.it/message/iframe_text.jsp;jsessionid=FBDF6B3EFC159F96B10E43781D815D93;dom09?mid=32441437
http://groups.google.at/group/free.it.politica?lnk=rgr
http://www.nnseek.com/e/free.it.politica/2007_16.html
http://www.voceditalia.it/index.asp?T=mi&R=pol&ART=9816
He wrote
Milano, 24 mag. – "The Italian Republic there is no legally, It is a mere fact without legality , and it is a non-debatable fact certainly based on the bylaws ". It supports a so-called "Court of the Venetian people", which is fighting for the independence of the Venetian Republic. The spokesman Loris Palmerini, He states that "The Viceregal Decree of the referendum calling for the state form provided that they were to vote in all Italian regions, and among the various colleges there was one for Dalmatia earth with Zara, but also Istria was included among the lands of Venetiaâ € ??. Palmerini said that "since the territories of Venetia were occupied by the Allies, Tito etc. , He became a decree constituencies were temporarily suspended, but with the clear indication that they had to vote for the following newly restored order ".
According to the Venetian people Tibunale (claiming the "legal representative of the people of Venezia Giulia") between the territories that they could not vote there were Bolzano, Udine (with Pordenone), Venezia Giulia with Istria, Zara and Dalmatia. Because after only 9 months, the Italian Republic gave Istria and Dalmatia to Yugoslavia, and he never did vote Bolzano, Udine, Pordenone and Trieste, the Venetian separatists say the referendum 1946 it is not valid, and they deny its legal validity. After the case of the Principality of Seborga, here is another challenge of belonging to the Italian Republic. With all due respect to Bossi and his Parliament padano.