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”!

Krahgate Revisited
The following is reposted on this blog. It was posted by 'Veritas' on Ignis Ardens


 
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6517
Re-reading recently the initial posting of William of Norwich, I came to realise that it was a positive gold mine of information. But, like gold mines, it was necessary to do a lot more digging so as to find the true nuggets of value present. Therefore, this posting may be quite long, but I hope that it will be fruitful and that it will serve the cause of truth.

The first thing that I would recommend to those who are disturbed or worried about the facts surrounding Krahgate is to take a look around the Emba-Global website in order to discover precisely what this Business School is all about. You may access it at www.emba-global.com

Here is how the sales pitch of this company starts:

“The EMBA-Global programme brings together an elite international network of business
professionals. Through the world-renowned faculty and unique global curriculum they have
exclusive access to the most illuminating ideas, ground-breaking research and innovative
international business practices. Whether students choose EMBA-Global Americas and
Europe or EMBA-Global Asia, together they will help create the future of global business.”
There is nothing unusual here folks, but take away with you that it is all about “going global.”

Under the section “Global Network” this idea is reinforced in this way:

“EMBA-Global students typically operate at an international level, working from different offices around the world, or managing teams in different locations. They represent an array of functions, sectors and nationalities. However, they share a keenness to challenge common perspectives and think on a global scale.”

Take away with you the idea that all those participating in this course are thinking globally and want to act globally.

Under the same section read this:

“On completing EMBA-Global, you become a life-long member of an exceptional, international alumni network totalling more than 75,500. Right from day one of the programme, you have access to this unparalleled pool of knowledge, business experience and networking opportunities.”

Take away with you the idea that this is no mere business school, but one that has as its intention to create a global managerial elite that will stay in touch with one another in the various businesses that their students embrace.

Under the section “Programme Details” read:

“Core courses are taught in a residential study block format that means you study over several consecutive days per month - alternating between London and New York.”

Take away with you the idea that you can drop in and see your friends fundraising for Tel Aviv University. Convenience itself – killing two birds (perhaps even Palestinians who are not “friends” of Tel Aviv University) with one stone!

From the same section read this:

“EMBA-Global has one intake each May and runs for 20 months.”

In the section on “Admission Requirements” please note:

“The calibre and diversity of EMBA-Global students is one of the key strengths that differentiates the programme from the world's other executive MBAs. The admissions process ensures that you will be studying alongside the brightest and the best.”

Take away with you the idea that this is the place to be for globalist wannabees.

In the same section, note some of the other requirements:

“a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.”

“transnational responsibilities or evidence that you are working towards these.”

“a worldwide perspective, with international exposure and aspirations, and an interest in building global networks.”

Go to the section on “Fees” and read:

The fees for the May 2011 intake of the EMBA-Global Americas and Europe programme are $144,156* (the equivalent of roughly £93,000 or €110,000.)

Fees include:

• Tuition
• Course materials, including most textbooks
• Accommodation for all teaching blocks through the first three terms
• Accommodation for the required International Seminar or Assignment.**

The first * indicates that fees may change at any time. The second ** indicates “One International Assignment or Seminar is included in the tuition fee. You may take one additional Seminar or Assignment, provided seats are available. If you choose to undertake an additional International Assignment or Seminar, there is a fee of US$4,000. Airfare for all study blocks and International Seminars and Assignments is the responsibility of the student.”

Needless to say, additional seminars and assignments are “encouraged” in order to boost your “networking experience.” But take away with you this idea: that the fees are extortionate for a five term, twenty month course. However it should be noted that if you, or the company that you work for, has the money to undergo this training you are clearly one of “the brightest and the best.”

Go and look at the section, Emba-Global Class of 2012, and look at the list of companies who have people registered on this course, which we are told leads to “friendships for life built through this intense transformational experience” - Citigroup, Maersk, MTV, Ericsson, HSBC Bank, Morgan Stanley, BNP Paribas, Goodyear, Cisco, Google, Microsoft, Nomura Holdings, CBS, Deutsche Bank, Hoffman La Roche, World Bank BASF, Merrill Lynch, Barclays Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, Credit Suisse.

One final point before we cut to the chase.

Under “admission requirements,” it says:

“Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR.”

I regret that the run-up to the point has been lengthy, but the background is vital in understanding the portrait being painted. We are, naturally, coming to understand the background of Mr. Krah as a member of the Emba-Global Class of 2012.

In the Class of 2012 mug shots that you can access online, you will see that a standard format has been used: the student’s name, the student’s nationality, the student’s professional position, and then the company worked for. This is where things become interesting for avid students of Krahgate.

Max gives his name and nationality and profession, the latter being “lawyer.” The obvious company that ought to appear here is the legal firm of which he is a partner:

Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte http://www.dasoertliche.de/?id=10700323337...&arkey=14612000

Surprisingly it is not. Well then, ought it not to be Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that company?

Link: Dello Sarto AG

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db

It ought to be, but it is not. He lists as his employer the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, the private Austrian Foundation, founded in 2006 by the SSPX. Why this choice? There must be a reason, but there cannot be many. Could it be that his legal business is not doing well, or could it be that alongside Citigroup, Microsoft and Credit Suisse, it looks rather puny, specially for someone who clearly wants to be among “the brightest and the best”? Whatever the reason, why not Dello Sarto given that he is listed as the Manager of that newly minted entity? Perhaps it too does not cut the ice? Why? Perhaps we need to scroll up a page or two to remind ourselves of something – that one of the entry requirements is “a successful career trajectory with progressive experience over a number of years, managing people, projects, budgets or other resources.” Clearly, for poor Max to get into the circle of “the brightest and the best” he had to demonstrate that he had wide experience and was used to handling “budgets” [meaning serious money] and it is plain that his peers at Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and the rest have that experience in aces.

Go back to Emba-Global Class of 2012 and read the profiles of any selection of the students, and you should be struck by one thing: that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung looks totally out of place if it is just a small business legal structure to aid the growth of the SSPX. When Max sat down to fill out his online application form, he would have been forced to choose the business structure that presented him to his potential Emba-Global colleagues in the best possible light.

One thing is for sure. Given that the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung is listed as his employer it means per his application - “Employer support for the time you will be out of the office is required to apply to the programme. You must provide a signed letter from an authorised person within your company stating that they agree to allow you the required time away from the office to complete the programme. The authorised person may be your department head, president, CEO or head of HR” – THAT SOMEONE AT THE HEAD OF THIS SPPX FOUNDATION AUTHORISED KRAH’S ADMISSION TO THE PROGRAMME.

This undeniable fact – because like so much else that has been brought to light is in the public domain – leads to a number of questions:

1. Who in authority signed this letter?

2. Why was he given this letter?

3. What possible benefit could the SSPX hope to gain by enrolling this Zionist agent on a massively expensive course designed for recruitment to a global managerial elite in thrall to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and its worship of Mammon?

4. Did Krah pay for this course out of his own pocket or did the Foundation pay?

5.If he did, is the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung paying for his time when he is not working for them?

But the big question is this: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHY DID KRAH BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD LOOK GOOD ON HIS APPLICATION TO EMBA-GLOBAL? THIS IS THE SIX MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: WHAT IS THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG, AND WHAT WAS THERE ABOUT IT THAT CONVINCED THE EMBA-GLOBAL CROWD THAT MAX WAS ONE OF THEIR KIND? ANSWER THAT QUESTION, AND WE MAY BE CLOSE TO ANSWERING WHY A ZIONIST HAS SO MUCH CONTROL OF THE SSPX’S FINANCES AND WHY THE SPIRIT OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY AND OBVIOUSLY PUSHED ASIDE IN FAVOUR OF AN INDULT-LIKE “TRADITIONALISM”

POSTSCRIPT

Credo posted the following recently on the Krahgate File from an anonymous source, but one that can be substantiated by a Google search:

Posted: Dec 9 2010, 04:51 PM
Dello Sarto AG

Timeline of Dello Sarto AG
Incorporation Date: 17-12-08
Company Start Date: 19-1-09
Board Members:
See: http://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/u/p/v/dello_sa...3.033.031-9.htm

Bernard Fellay
Emeric Baudot
Niklaus Pfluger
Maximilian Krah

Company Auditors:
19-1-09 to 8-6-10 Grant Thornton auditing AG
8-6-10 till present: Fidartis Revisions AG
Interesting facts about Fidartis Revisions AG:
One of the company’s signature authority is a Mr. Peter Josef Müller
Some interesting facts regarding Mr. Peter Josef Müller :-
Director of Company: Laetitia AG since 29-5-09
Administration board signatory of Laetitia AG: Maximilian Krah (individual signatory)

Peter Josef Müller replaced Peter Hochstrasser on the Board of Fidartis Revisions AG on the 9-7-10 with him having Joint Signatory Authority. Furthermore, Dello Sarto AG appointed Fidartis Revisions AG as auditors the month previous.

Whoever the anonymous source was, I thank you for your diligence in getting to the root of what is becoming more and more of an enigma. For the record, I would like to draw the attention of readers to the following small, but significant, points.

1. Both Muller and Krah joined the Board of Laetitia AG on May 29, 2009, and both have individual signatory rights. In fact the company was actually registered commercially on that very day.

2. The address of Laetitia AG is given as c/o Bader Law Firm, Grafenauweg 6, 6304, Zug/Train, Switzerland. “Zug” is the German for the town, “Train” the French name. A number of other firms, not associated with the SSPX, also operate from this address, and which give the Bader Law Firm as their point of reference. It would appear, therefore, that this address is little more than a brass plate on a postal box. Why not just list the law firm’s address in Zurich, specially given that any mail to Zug/Train is going to be redirected anyway?

3. Interestingly, the address of Dello Sarto, of which Krah is the named Manager, is exactly the same as that of Laetitia AG. Moreover, when you click on “Contact” for Dello Sarto or for Laetitia AG at http://www.moneyhouse.ch you find that there is no telephone number, fax number, email address or website listed.

4. In other words, Laetitia was commercially registered as a company in Switzerland just ten days before Fidartis Revisions AG took over as auditors of Dello Sarto AG, and Muller joined the board of Fidartis just one month later. A lot of legal/commercial work in such a short time.

If you wish to check out most of the details on companies given here, go to http://www.moneyhouse.ch

and type whatever it is you need to confirm.

5.A Google search for “Bader Law Firm, Switzerland” brings up nothing obvious, but google “BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)” and you will find it at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909.

Here is the content of the page. Please read it through to the end in order to grasp that the company associated with the SSPX-affiliate Dello Sarto is one more of those who are dedicated “to global interests and networks.”
BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich)
• Address
Muhlebachstrasse 32
PO Box 769
Zurich CH 8024
• Country
Switzerland
• Phone
41 44 266 20 66
• Fax
41 44 266 20 70
• Email
info@b-legal.ch
• Website
www.b-legal.ch
• Offices
Zug, Zurich
• Languages
English, French, German, Hebrew, Italian

Work Areas

Administrative & Public Law, Administrative Law, Antitrust, Arbitration & Litigation, Banking, Banking & Finance, Bankruptcy, Capital Markets, Civil Law, Commercial Law, Company & Commercial, Competition, Construction, Contract, Corporate & Commercial, Corporate Law, Corporate/Commercial, Data Protection, E-commerce, Employment, Energy, Environmental Law, Estate Planning, Estate Planning & Administration, Finance, Health Care, Information & Communication Technology, Information Technology, Inheritance Law, Insolvency, Insurance, Insurance & Reinsurance, Intellectual Property, International Private Law, Liability, Litigation, Mergers & Acquisitions, Penal Litigation, Private Client, Public Law, Tax, Technology Law, Telecommunications, Transaction Law

Firm Description

BADERTSCHER is a nationally and internationally reputed Swiss law firm.
Our attorneys are members of the Zurich and the Swiss Bar Association as well as of various international law associations.

Most of them have an American or English post graduate degree and/or working experience abroad.
Our offices are located downtown Zurich.

BADERTSCHER is committed to the future, dedicated to quality and growth, involved in the rapid and important commercial and legal developments.

We advise in private and public law, focusing on commercial law.

Our clients are Swiss and foreign corporations, private individuals and governmental organizations.

Just like our clients, we are positioned at the forefront of events: one of our strengths is competent advice in new and complex areas of the law.

Specialization and commitment to quality and effective solution-oriented advice enable our attorneys to follow the rapid developments and to support our clients with our expertise in interdisciplinary fields such as restructuring, privatisations and cross-border transactions.

We stand for a continuous professional training of our attorneys, including post graduate programs.

Our attorneys also contribute to the academic and legal policy developments by publishing on a regular basis on the most current legal issues and by participating in national and international associations, experts commissions and seminars.

Part of the global legal marketplace

Close cooperations with leading foreign law firms without being bound to any exclusivity allow us to always offer the best quality legal services to our clients also in complex transactions involving several jurisdictions.

We also maintain well-established contacts with experts in fields other than law.

The languages skills of our attorneys enable us to render our services in English, German, Italian, French and Hebrew.

ONE FINAL OBSERVATION:

It is noteworthy that this firm deals in the international commercial language, Hebrew. More significant, however, is the question: WHO ADVISED THE SSPX TO ENLIST THIS LEGAL FIRM AND WHY? Is it really the case that the preservation of the Society’s patrimony and the raising of money – small sums according to Fr. Laisney’s recent posting – for the expansion of the Society’s work requires such high-powered and expensive lawyers, or is that I have misunderstood something and all these people are giving their time and effort free of charge, or even, “members of our faithful”?

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6720&hl=

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Krahgate Team, for want of a better term, is an informal body that is determined to get answers to the many troubling questions raised by the initial posting of “William of Norwich” on November 28, 2010.


These questions, let it be always remembered, are centred upon Maximilian Krah and his meteoric rise in importance in the internal work of the SSPX in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, most specially in relation to finance, administrative “asset management” and legal matters.
These questions are only tangentially and incidentally related to Mgr. Williamson, and whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him on any subject, is not relevant to the work of the team.


The work of the team is concentrated on why Krah has emerged, what he is involved in, and why he has received patronage at high level. That many reasonable questions, backed by irrefutable evidence in the public domain, have been posed and not responded to only adds to the suspicion that replies have not been forthcoming because the truth would be something less than edifying.


There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.


Many of the team are unknown to one another beyond email contact, contact often being maintained between intermediaries. The team includes both members of the laity and the clergy, and membership remains permanently open. The sole qualification for entry is the supplying of information that is substantiated and verifiable on a host of questions, large and small, that are deemed important in piecing together the picture that has begun to emerge in the Catholic blogosphere in the last two months.
The team is, also, drawn from four continents (at least to this writer’s knowledge) and so draws upon a range of different language capabilities.
We invite, then, any assistance, direct or indirect, indicative or substantive, that will help fill out the information void on the following questions. These questions are not exhaustive, but are only the beginning of the process. If or when new information appears necessary, new requests for assistance will be made in this file.


Information is needed on the evangelical Protestant school that Krah attended in East Germany, a school set up in 1947 in Dresden with the approval of the East German Communist Party; one of the most fanatically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Communist Parties in the European communist world. It is all the more strange that Dresden, which had been almost completely flattened by Allied bombing, should have been chosen for a school since millions of Germans were without shelter, were living in bombed-out ruins and the rebuilding programme was slow to take off. It also should be noted that the building – which survived the bombardment – was handed over to the “evangelical Protestants” although it had previously belonged to the Masonic order.


QUESTION: WHY WOULD COMMUNIST ATHEISTS HAND OVER A VALUABLE SHELTER TO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS?


QUESTION: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO APPROVE THIS SCHOOL? WHO PRESIDED OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL? WHO FINANCED THE SCHOOL? WHERE DID THE PUPILS COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION?


QUESTION: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FORMER STUDENTS OF THIS SCHOOL – AT ANY TIME FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE PRESENT DAY - WENT ON TO SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE EAST GERMAN REPUBLIC IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS? ARE ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES NOW AT WORK IN THE REUNITED GERMANY?


In his application to EMBA-GLOBAL, the elitist international business school with structures in London and Columbia University, Maximilian Krah gave written evidence to the business school’s administrative body that he worked for the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung. He listed himself as being “a Board delegate.” This Austrian Foundation has little internet presence, is controlled by the SSPX, but the purpose of its existence is not public knowledge.


QUESTION: WHY DID MR. KRAH GIVE THE FOUNDATION AS HIS EMPLOYER, WHEN IT IS ON PUBLIC RECORD – SEE THE INITIAL POSTING IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE MANAGER OF ANOTHER SSPX-CONTROLLED ENTITY, “DELLO SARTO,” AND IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A LEGAL FIRM IN DRESDEN, AS WELL AS ON THE BOARD OF LAETITIA AG WHOSE ORIGINS AND PURPOSE ARE OPAQUE TO SAY THE LEAST?


QUESTION: DOES MR. KRAH RECEIVE A SALARY OR STIPEND FROM EITHER THE FOUNDATION and/OR “DELLO SARTO”?


QUESTION: HOW CREDIBLE IS IT THAT MR. KRAH, A FAMILY MAN – SEE HIS “REPLY” IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – RUNS A LEGAL BUSINESS IN DRESDEN, “DELLO SARTO” IN SWITZERLAND, THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG IN AUSTRIA, LAETITIA AG IN SWITZERLAND, SPENDS 3 OR 4 DAYS PER MONTH IN LONDON OR NEW YORK IN ROTATION, AND REMAINS AS AN ACTIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DRESDEN BRANCH OF THE GERMAN CDU PARTY?


Our research indicates that there appears to be some kind of connection between “Dello Sarto” and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, although they are based in two different countries and are therefore subject to different legal jurisdictions.


QUESTION: DOES A GERMAN LAWYER HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS PROFESSION IN AUSTRIA AND/OR SWITZERLAND AUTOMATICALLY, OR DOES SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES?


QUESTION: WHAT IS THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG? WHO, BESIDES MR. KRAH, SITS ON THE BOARD? ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY CLERICAL, OR ARE OTHER LAYMEN/WOMEN INVOLVED?


QUESTION: DOES THE DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF AUSTRIA HAVE AN AUTOMATIC POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?


QUESTION: ARE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD, BESIDES MR. KRAH, AUSTRIAN? IF NOT, WHY NOT GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN DISTRICT?


Much play has been made by Fr. Laisney and others – see “A Reply from Fr. Laisney” in the Complete Krahgate File – of the legal competence and assistance of Mr. Krah. It is this alleged competence and assistance which has, we are told, led to him being appointed the primary legal point of reference for the German district of the SSPX. It appears that Mr. Krah qualified as a lawyer in 2001, and yet is in a commanding position within SSPX structures within a five years or so:


QUESTION: IN WHAT FIELD OF LAW DOES MR. KRAH SPECIALISE?


QUESTION: WHAT CASES DID MR. KRAH UNDERTAKE IN THE EARLY DAYS FOR THE SPPX WHICH DREW ATTENTION TO HIS ALLEGED COMPETENCE? WERE THE SAID CASES ONLY IN DRESDEN, OR DID THEY EXTEND TO THE WHOLE OF GERMANY?


CONCLUSION: Help, however minor it might appear, in relation to any question, in whole or in part, will be most welcome. Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church.

There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.

Quote

The next statement by me is non-factual and speculative (which I know is not required, but others may know the means to search this): I wonder if there were any other start-ups of SSPX companies in other Countries, at or around the start-up of Dello Sarto AG in Switzerland, and Jaidhofer Privstiftung in Austria??

Quote

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

And this question/speculation leads to the question of Mr. Krah's possible, and actual, involvement in other such ventures.  There is much more to be known about this man's professional connections and involvements.  The wall of silence has been deployed, and it will be difficult to root out further facts.

John 8:32
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.