Author Topic: Krah chose Williamsons lawyer  (Read 20454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Telesphorus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12714
  • Reputation: +7/-12
  • Gender: Male
Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
« on: November 28, 2010, 08:08:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

    Quote
    Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
    The Timeline -
    January 2009
    A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
    January 20, 2009
    Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
    But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
    It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
    Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte


    http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000
    January 19, 2009
    One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
    The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
    “Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”


    In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
    The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
    As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.


    Link: Dello Sarto AG
    http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
    Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
    In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
    Link: EMBA-Global
    http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf
    Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
    “Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
    The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.


    The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
    Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?


    What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.


    In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.


    ENTER KRAH
    Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?


    Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.


    Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
    Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
    http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D
    He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
    Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
    Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.


    It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.


    Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.


    Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
    http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction
    The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


    However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
    Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
    1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
    2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
    3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
    4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
    All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.


    This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.


    Your Excellency,
    1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?


    2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?


    3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?


    4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?


    5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?


    6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?


    7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?


    8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?


    9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?


    10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?


    11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
    There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction


    POST SCRIPT
    For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #1 on: November 28, 2010, 08:13:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.


    (is William of Norwitch being facetious?)

    http://thoughtactioneire.blogspot.com/2010/11/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

    If this story is true and this is the same Krah then Bishop Fellay could very well be under sinister influence.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #2 on: November 28, 2010, 08:38:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Found these quotes on Clare's site regarding "EtCumSpirit220" and Angel Queen. They are right on.

    Quote
    Angelqueen moderator (and resident pompous coward), Et Cum Spirit 220, has already redacted the post and locked the thread over there.


    Quote
    I find it very strange that whenever anything gets posted on AQ that has any real importance, any real substance, or any real consequence about things that go on in the world, it inevitably gets closed down or immediately erased. Either that or a thread gets completely diverted and destroyed with the irrelevant posting of stupid cartoons, jokey pictures and comments encouraging such nonsense. That seems to be about the level of Angelqueen. Utterly pathetic. No wonder Catholics are losing this war.


    Thread on the topic is here:

    http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405&hl=

    Who knows if the charges are true or not, but AQ gives yet another example of why they are completely worthless as a site where Trads can have a free discussion. The only Trad site I know of is still Cath Info.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #3 on: November 28, 2010, 08:46:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Clare kept the thread open.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #4 on: November 28, 2010, 08:48:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Don't know much about IA, but Clare is already better than the AQ mods. Of course that's not saying much.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #5 on: November 28, 2010, 08:55:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • John DeLallo has some good posts..

    Quote
    Catholicam,

    You are right when you say the SSPX is not the Church and can fail.

    I have been with the Society for around thirty-two years now. During this time I heard countless times how the Society was becoming liberal, modernist, extreme and who knows how many other things.

    I heard (when I was in the Seminary) that the Archbishop was selling us out. I also heard that he had been a liberal before the Council and still had some liberal tendencies.

    I heard (when I was in the Seminary) how the Society was going to accept the Novus Ordo any time now.

    I heard the Archbishop was lacking sound theology by laity and priests alike.

    I heard (when I was in the Seminary) the complaint over and over again that the Archbishop needed to consecrate Bishops immediately (1978).

    I heard that the Archbishop was guilty of compromise by dialoging with Rome.

    I heard (by some priests of the Society) that the Archbishop privately believed that there was no Pope and would only publicly acknowledge the Pope to keep the support of the people.

    I heard (by a priest of the Society) the Archbishop was guilty of heresy concerning Baptism of Desire.

    I heard it all.

    Now, when I look at those who were making these accusations I see that they, almost without exception, have gone off the deep end.

    No, the Society is not the Church, and yes, the Society can fall away. But, before I listen to anyone claiming impending doom, an abdication, a betrayal, an unfaithfulness to Archbishop Lefebvre, a lack of theological or doctrinal clarity, etc., etc., I only have to look at the Society’s past. I know that this is only my opinion, but I have not seen any deviation from the mission of the Society as understood by Archbishop Lefebvre by the current Superiors of the Society.

    There have been problems in the Society to be sure (there have always been problems that needed to be addressed and (eventually) corrected), but never the predicted calamitous results from those problems.

    QUOTE
    They are only a group within the Church who are likeminded with us.


    You are mistaken here; The Society is much more than a likeminded group. They are a legitimately erected religious Society of priests. The Archbishop created the Society for the continuation of the priesthood and the preservation of the Faith.

    Now, if you believe as I do, that God chose the Archbishop to defend the Faith and to restore and continue the priesthood by the establishment of the Society, then we should become more interested in praying for the Superiors in their efforts to continue the Archbishop’s work. We should not be constantly trying to find “evidence” to support our opinion of how the Society is failing based upon our “own” understanding of what the Society’s mission is and how the Society is supposed to be fulfilling that mission.



    Quote

    The conference was recorded. It is for sale from the Immaculata Bookstore here in St. Mary’s for around $15.00 + tax, shipping, handling. It is a two disc set on the relations between Rome and the Society – disc 1, Bishop Williamson (the media storm) and a sermon on temptation – disc 2.

    I think you misunderstand Fr. Pfluger. Having attended the conference and then re-listening to it today (my memory needed a good bit of jogging), I can tell you there wasn’t (isn’t) a contradiction. The main theme of Fr. Pfluger's talk was the imprudence of the comments and their consequences.

    There are two points he is making at this point of the conference:
    •   1) There are some who consider the Holocaust the new Sacrifice and Redeemer. Instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jewish People and the Sacrifice is the Holocaust – the first quote you gave.
    •   2) The historical accuracy of numbers, method and intention (Hitler’s) are not the issue. This is not the fight – the additional quotes I provided.

    Concerning these points:
    •   1) If the question put to the Bishop had been something like; “Do you accept the redeemer as the Jewish people and the sacrifice as the Holocaust?” Then the Bishop would have been defending the Faith from an attack on the Faith; the type of attack Fr. Pfluger is referring to. The defense of an attack like this could have been done by re-iterating the Catholic Doctrine of Redemption. The question of the historical accuracy need never have been addressed since, accurate or not, the Jews are not the redeemer nor is the Holocaust the sacrifice.

    •   2) This is not what happened. The Bishop was asked a question concerning his opinion on the historical accuracy of the holocaust. It had nothing to do with a question of the Faith and need not have been answered. Now the Society is being attacked because of a question of historical accuracy and of anti-Semitism rather than a question of Faith.

    I realize that you are of a different opinion. That is your prerogative. But please do imply a compromising or a weakness of Faith on the part of the Superiors because they do not agree with you.

    As for me, I will follow the opinion of the Bishops of the Society over the laity or a few priests.

    It must be remembered that even Bishop Williamson believes the issue to be historical and would never have made the comments had he known the result of them –
    QUOTE
    Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

    On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…„I believe“…„I believe“…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.


    Are you suggesting that you know more than the Bishop (and the Society) on this matter?

    Like I said some place else; If this issue of the Holocaust is of such importance why did the Archbishop never address or acknowledge it?


    john

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-8
    • Gender: Female
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #6 on: November 28, 2010, 09:01:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jewish".


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #7 on: November 28, 2010, 09:07:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Elizabeth
    Tele, to me it seems that Norwitch is saying, "None of these people, Krah included, are hiding the fact that they are Jewish".



    If this article is true, then the Society needs to be reorganized pronto.

    It is almost unbelievable that the Bishop Williamson's lawyer would be chosen by a Jew in charge of running SSPX finances.


    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #8 on: November 28, 2010, 09:10:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tele,

    Nice try over at AQ but I see the resident pompous coward mod even went so far as to erase the relevant posts discussing the matter:

    Quote
    Not sure why, but a number of posts appearing on this thread seemed to be a continuation of a topic that was locked. This thread has been cleared of the posts, and can continue. I ask that folks please respect the decisions of the highly paid and well trained moderators.

    That is all.


    Unbelievable.

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #9 on: November 28, 2010, 09:18:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now that the questions are out there, I think BF or an official Society response should at least address it.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-8
    • Gender: Female
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #10 on: November 28, 2010, 09:30:29 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Well, thank goodness for Clare.  :pray:

    The issue of who would represent Bp. Williamson might be difficult for an American to understand, unless he has been living there?

    Maybe it spells instant ruin for one's family to even discuss certain things there?


    Offline MauricePinay

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 329
    • Reputation: +259/-0
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #11 on: November 28, 2010, 09:43:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How ironic that Bp. Fellay who smeared Bp. Williamson with the "neonazi" epithet, in fact, has racial supremacist associations. But then, that comes with "communion with Rome" which is in communion with the racial supremacist state.

    I also disagree with the author's suggestion that Mr. Krah's Zionist fundraising isn't problematic but I'm nevertheless very grateful for his uncovering this information.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4847
    • Reputation: +2190/-8
    • Gender: Female
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #12 on: November 28, 2010, 10:14:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Maurice, if I understand the author, he does find Mr. Krah's fundraising to be at the very least a question which needs answering.

    Offline MauricePinay

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 329
    • Reputation: +259/-0
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #13 on: November 28, 2010, 10:52:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    "The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included."


    ???

    Offline stevusmagnus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3728
    • Reputation: +824/-0
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Krah chose Williamsons lawyer
    « Reply #14 on: November 29, 2010, 12:10:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: stevusmagnus
    Tele,

    Nice try over at AQ but I see the resident pompous coward mod even went so far as to erase the relevant posts discussing the matter:

    Quote
    Not sure why, but a number of posts appearing on this thread seemed to be a continuation of a topic that was locked. This thread has been cleared of the posts, and can continue. I ask that folks please respect the decisions of the highly paid and well trained moderators.

    That is all.


    Unbelievable.


    Tele,

    A poster said that the mod clearing the comments would create more trouble than it solved.

    So the mod promptly locked that thread as well.

     :laugh1:

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16