ELEISON  COMMENTS  CCVI  (June 25, 2011) :  CHOOSING  LAWYERS
 
These "Comments" do not usually tell of things personal, but on the eve of their writer's Appeal being heard in Germany (July 4), an UNTRUTH is circulating which needs to be set straight, amongst other things to allay unwarranted anxieties. The untruth is that I wish my defence against the German State's accusation of "racial incitement" to be based on the truth or falsehood of what actually happened in the most controversial episode of recent German history.
 
In fact from the moment I knew that I might be accused in Germany of "racial incitement" for remarks made in English to Swedish journalists in November of 2008, I also knew that if I repeated the remarks in front of a German law-court, I risked being immediately thrown into jail. Such is the present state of German law. However, I would rather not be decorated with chains, if I can help it.
 
So from the beginning I heeded the advice to defend myself on the basis that my remarks were self-evidently in no way intended for a German audience, and thus the German law did not apply to my situation. This much is clear from the last minute of the famous video-clip available on YouTube, which is the last several minutes of the one-hour interview with the Swedes. Moreover, immediately after those remarks, but off camera, I went up to the Swedes and earnestly asked them to be "discreet" in the use they would make of the last part of the interview. This much they would have to admit if they were to testify, but they cannot be forced to come to Germany, so they decline to do so.
 
As for my changing lawyers four times, the Society's Superior General originally entrusted my defence to the Society's lawyer, Maximilian Krah, who chose to engage Matthias Lossmann, a member of the, alas, anti-Catholic Green Party. He was conscientious but perhaps not too enthusiastic about the case. Through friends, I discovered a lawyer enthusiastic and highly successful in defending such delicate cases, Wolfram Nahrath, but Lossmann was unwilling to work with him. Seeking only the best legal counsel available to me in my quandary, I switched from Lossmann to Nahrath.
 
However, when the Superior General was informed by aides of Nahrath's political position, he ordered me to find someone else again, believing in good faith no doubt that any public association between the SSPX and "an extreme rightist" would be detrimental. He approved of the elderly and honourable Dr. Norbert Wingerter, a conservative Novus Ordo Catholic, but it appears that it could be Wingerter who is unwittingly the source of the untruth now in circulation. I do not know why, but he seems to be under the mistaken impression that I wanted to go, in front of the court, into the truth or untruth of that episode in German history. Fortunately the Superior General had already approved of yet another lawyer, who now understands correctly how I wish to be defended.
 
Dear readers, if you think that the interests of God are in any way at stake (not everybody thinks so), do say a prayer between now and July 4 for my latest lawyer who has been for several months working hard on the case, but who is liable to come under fierce pressure from anti-Catholic interests and their powerful servants.                                                      
                                                              Kyrie eleison.

From December 2010
http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/timeframes-and-motivations.html

Timeframes and Motivations

Timeframes and Motivations
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6445

Since William of Norwich went public with his posting last Sunday, there has been huge interest in the thread that it generated. Most noticeable has been the volume of new information added, some of it disputed by a handful of posters, but much of it has been accepted as incontrovertible.

Over the last few days I have been looking back at the various comments and postings, and I believe there is something not quite right about the time frame. If I am right about this, it will have a huge impact on current conclusions.
We know for sure that on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Matthias Lossmann contacted the German press agency, Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), and told them that he would be standing down from the defence of Bishop Williamson in favour of another, and that "the name would soon be made public. 'You will then see why I no longer feel called for.'"

This statement by Lossman should be mulled over. Why did he feel the need to go to a press agency and say that he was no longer involved in the Williamson case? It is hard to believe that somebody involved with the ultra-politically correct Green Party would have been the object of hatred from members of the public or the gentlemen of press, and all the more so in that he made it clear at the April 2010 court case that he had nothing at all in common with Williamson’s views. In fact his comportment during the case demonstrated plainly that he was working against Williamson’s interest. We conclude that he was “baiting a media hook” for the “controversy” that was planned to erupt. He could have said nothing about the matter, and answer any questions in the event that they arose spontaneously. He didn’t, and this speaks volumes about his motivation, not just at that point in the affair, but from the outset.
We also know that on Thursday, November 18, 2010 Williamson’s new choice of lawyer, Nahrath, sent a communication to the new judge, Eisvogel, via her personal office fax. In it, he outlined the fact that he was now under instructions from Williamson and that he wished to request a postponement of the trial in order to get up to speed on the substance of the case.

We know too that Stefan Winters from Der Spiegel rang Nahrath within half an hour, and were already aware of his status as Williamson’s lawyer. How did they come across this information? Did the judge or a court official leak this material to these journalists? Possibly, but unlikely, given that even Eisvogel’s secretary did not know that Nahrath had sent the fax. If the judge had done so, she would have risked exposure and would undoubtedly have suffered legal sanction for professional misconduct. If it were a court official, he or she would have risked their jobs. It might be argued that there could have been a political motivation. It is possible, of course. But in the absence of even a semblance of information bearing on this, we have to dismiss it from our minds.


We know that Lossman knew who the new lawyer would be. We know this because he decided to stand down from the defence as a consequence of being unwilling or unable to work with Nahrath. Therefore, we have two possibilities. Either Lossmann contacted Der Spiegel himself, or he gave the information to that known associate of Der Spiegel, Maximilian Krah. The first option is improbable for the good reason that he could have contacted Der Spiegel from the beginning and blown the story wide open himself. The second is very likely, and we have an historical precedent in this matter.

A BRIEF DIGRESSION
Cast your minds back to the period preceding the Bishop’s trial which was set for April 16, 2010. On March 4, 2010, Williamson received a communication from Fr. Thouvenot in which he was informed, at the request of Bishop Fellay, to desist from a number of things. One of these was that he was “receiving a formal order forbidding him to appear before the court of Ratisbonne, and to leave it to his lawyers [Lossman and Krah] to stabilise the situation to your advantage, and to that of the SSPX of which you are a member.”


Why this order from Fellay? Was it a product of fear, or was it motivated by something else? Given that Lossmann was a dead loss as a lawyer, and did nothing to address the actual applicability of the law being brought against Williamson, and given that Krah was, as WoN pointed out, positively injurious to Williamson’s interests, it might be conjectured, reasonably I believe (particularly in the light of subsequent events), that Fellay wanted his chosen lawyers to have a freehand in the court, unhampered by any possible objections from Williamson. If Williamson had been present in the court, it is highly unlikely that he would have tolerated the antics of Krah and Lossmann and, given his ability to speak German, would have countered their mendacious and irrelevant nonsense. He might even have dismissed them on the spot and taken his defence upon himself. This is speculation, for we cannot know the mind of Fellay, unless he tells us what was his motivation, nor can we know what Williamson might potentially have said or done.

However, what follows is not conjecture. Just a couple of days before the trial itself a Der Spiegel journalist from Berlin rang Lossmann. The conversation went like this: “Is Mgr. Williamson going to attend the trial?” “No.” “Why not?” “Orders from his Superior.” “A written order?” “Yes.” “Can I see the text?” “No.”
Shortly after this exchange, Lossman receives a call from Krah: “Do you have the letter from Menzingen?” “Yes.” “Will you copy it to me?” The answer is in the affirmative, and Lossmann sends it on. About two hours later the same journalist rings Lossman and informs him that he now had a copy of Fellay’s order.
The chances, therefore, that Lossmann did not repeat this unprofessional conduct a second time and give information concerning Williamson and Nahrath to Krah are very slim. That Der Spiegel knew within 30 minutes of Nahrath’s appointment makes the Lossmann-Krah connection almost a moral certitude.

IS SOMEONE LYING?
We know that at roughly 9.00pm Swiss time, on Saturday, November 20, 2010, the SSPX General House posted on its website a statement issued by Fr. Thouvenot, at the explicit request of Fellay. It said in part that “The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay, learned from the press that Mgr. Williamson had revoked, just 10 days prior to his trial, the lawyer charged with his defence.” The statement concluded, as we all now know, by the assertion that if Williamson did not relieve himself of his “so-called neo-nαzι lawyer” Fellay would expel him from the SSPX.
Less well known is the fact that Fr. Thouvenot issued a further statement, at the instruction of Fellay, concerning Williamson on Sunday, November 21, 2010 early in the afternoon. It was sent by e-mail to the bishops and district superiors of the SSPX and was headed “Clarifications on the Press Statement of the General House,” and which had as its express aim to “explain” in greater precision the statement of November 20, 2010.

In its second paragraph, it stated: “Mgr. Williamson wished to engage a second lawyer who was politically well-known (“the only neo-nαzι lawyer in Germany not yet in prison,”** it is said). . . .The administrative court of Ratisbonne knew about the revocation of the first lawyer [Lossmann] on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 and the identity of his substitute began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
[**Who exactly said this? Why the implication that all so-called “neo-nαzι” lawyers should be in prison? Why not Marxist ones, liberal ones and Zionist ones as well?]
How do I know about this second and lesser known statement? Because it was copied to me by a German-speaking clerical friend.


We know the following courtesy of Hollingsworth posted on page 3:
“I [Williamson] employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, “Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine” (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).”

The time frame as outlined here is confirmed by the second and lesser known statement. It states in paragraph 4: “Mgr. Williamson made it known to Mgr. Fellay on Friday, November 19, 2010 in the early afternoon his desire to abandon the trial” and this for the good of the SSPX.


What needs to be made clear here is that Fr. Angles arrived in England on Friday morning, November 19, 2010 and breakfasted with the bishop. But Angles received his order to go to London to reason with Williamson very late Thursday evening, when Fellay was in Rome, at Albano for two days talking to priests of the Italian district. The mandate for Angles was to persuade Williamson to dump Nahrath as his lawyer and thus avoid expulsion. BUT THERE IS THE PROBLEM. For it means that Fellay knew about Nahrath on Thursday, November 18 – that is to say, he knew about Nahrath the same day that Nahrath wrote to Judge Eisvogel, the same day that Der Spiegel knew about Nahrath. Furthermore, the statement of November 20, 2010 says quite plainly: ““The Superior General, Mgr. Bernard Fellay learned from the press.” HERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM.

Go to the following link and you will see the results of a search for “Nahrath and Williamson” in a news search.
http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf...oring=n&start=0
This search shows that there are 55 hits (as of 9.00pm GMT, December 4, 2010): the first coming on page 6 and the most recent on page 1. The story first appeared, based on a DPA (German Press Agency) release, on Saturday, November 20, 2010 in the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz. It was closely followed by Il Giornalettismo, a little-known online Italian paper, and then by Der Spiegel.

A search of Der Spiegel online, in both German and English, corroborates the news search above for its first mention of the Nahrath connection to Williamson appeared on Saturday, November 20, 2010. Put more clearly: nothing appeared in Der Spiegel or any other paper about Nahrath-Williamson before Saturday, November 20, 2010. Yet we know that Fellay spoke to Angles about this matter late on Thursday, November 18, 2010, inviting him to go to London; while the lesser known statement said that news about the Nahrath-Williamson connection “began to seep out on Friday morning, November 19, 2010.”
HOW DID BISHOP FELLAY LEARN FROM THE PRESS ABOUT NAHRATH-WILLIAMSON ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010, WHEN NOTHING WAS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS UNTIL TWO DAYS LATER?
There are only a couple of options:
1. Fellay had a premonition or “a hunch” about it.
2. He received some kind of grace from the Heavens about the matter.
3. He was informed by someone in the know by phone, fax, or e-mail of the details.
Option 3 is my preferred response, because it is the only viable option. Who are the candidates for informing Fellay? They are three in number: Der Spiegel, Matthias Lossman or Maximilian Krah. Where would you put your money?
Der Spiegel is unlikely at that stage because in the article of Saturday, November 20, 2010, Fr. Thouvenot is quoted. That means that in all probability, he was telephoned by Der Spiegel on the day before, Friday, November 19, 2010 as part of the final preparations for going live. Lossman is even less likely. He could have gone direct to Fellay on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, but he went either to Der Spiegel or Krah. Besides, given his politics, Lossman has no weight within the SSPX. That leaves our old buddy, Krah.

This timeframe means that Fellay had knowledge of the Nahrath question before the time that he claimed knowledge. It means that he had made a deal with Williamson on Friday, November 19, 2010 which put the whole matter to sleep, theoretically speaking. It means that the statement of the SSPX on November 20, 2010 was a stitch up, and the idea that it was to forestall a “huge press campaign” is palpable nonsense, because Fellay, knowing what we now know about the timeframe, could have told Der Spiegel that Nahrath was already out the picture on Friday afternoon when they telephoned for a quote on Friday, November 19, 2010. That Fellay did not mention the “deal” struck with Williamson on Friday speaks for itself. That he decided to go ahead with the condemnation and threat of expulsion on November 20, 2010 on the headquarters' website also speaks for itself. Yet more sickening is the constant reference to the fragile SSPX situation in Germany that has been regularly invoked since the Swedish television set-up. The clarification of Fellay-Thouvenot on Sunday, November 21, 2010 sent to the District Superiors uses this hoary “excuse” again. It says: “The situation in Germany is still tense, and where this new event will have the effect of a bomb and directly menace our apostolate, without mentioning our image, that is to say our reputation.” We have been hearing this since early 2009. What schools, priories or various other structures have been closed down by the German authorities? What priests, monks, sisters or others have been interviewed, questioned and charged with anything? According to my knowledge: none in any class. It is all fear-mongering aimed at marginalizing Williamson in the effort to cosy up to modernist Rome. If anybody wishes to dispute this point, please supply concrete examples - and by that I don’t mean statements by SSPX priests in Germany or elsewhere, but concrete actions by the German State.

One more nugget for readers to chew on. “The Clarification” posted on Sunday, November 21, 2010 justified putting up the condemnation on November 20 at Fellay’s insistence. Although the Fellay-Williamson “deal” had been struck on Friday, November 19, 2010, Fellay went ahead with the condemnation on the 20th because, although Williamson had dropped the lawyer, Nahrath, says, Fellay, Williamson had not informed the German court of his new decision. This is sophistry at its worst. We all know, now, that Angles informed Fellay of Williamson’s decision at 1.00pm GMT on Friday, November 19, 2010. The reply from Fellay came at 3.00pm GMT – that is to say, at 4.00pm in Switzerland and Germany. I have no personal experience of the habits of German bureaucrats, but my experience elsewhere is that Friday afternoon is the worst time to find, and seek the assistance of, any kind of bureaucrat who is looking forward to his “weekend of freedom” from his daily drudgery. Wasn’t Monday soon enough for Williamson to act? Well, no. Why not? Because of “the imminent and threatening press campaign.” Well, why didn’t Fellay tell them, personally or through Thouvenot, that Nahrath was already out of the picture? Ah, you never thought of that line? Perhaps Fellay could have telephoned Krah, since he has widespread contacts and could have found the perfect bureaucrat to solve both Williamson’s and Fellay’s problem on the Friday? Oh! Fellay never thought of that.
A further posting will come in a few days relating to Krah and Der Spiegel, my work and travel permitting (Somebody tell Maximilian to bookmark this blog!). In the meantime, I leave you with this thought.

In the second and lesser-known statement of Fr. Thouvenot to the Bishops and District Superiors, it states in the penultimate paragraph: “We have high hopes that Mgr. Williamson will not commit an irreparable act by allowing himself to be used by political constituencies which make use of our holy religion for ends which are foreign to it.”

Of course, all priests and bishops should avoid being used for unacceptable and disreputable politics, and it should apply, therefore, as equally to the Zionist Lobby now working on the SSPX through Krah and his half-hidden clique as it must to the neo-nαzιs. The big difference being, however, that the latter is a barely existent sect that sells sensationalist newspapers for secularists, whilst the latter is a world-dominating force. SO: let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no”!