Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Appeal (Read 58587 times)

John Grace · « **Reply #15 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:13:08 PM »

Quote from: the smart sheep

Quote from: John Grace
.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
Quote
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal

What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?

sheep

Quote

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 "discrete" 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.

John Grace · « **Reply #16 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:20:08 PM »

Quote

Ignis-Ardens is basically a Menzingen cheering club and protecting Krah and his SSPX mentor Fr. Pfluger.

I would have to disagree with the claim Ignis Ardens is a cheering club for Menzingen but their moderating staff got it wrong in removing 'The Complete Krah File'. As for the nasty letter Fr Pfluger sent to Bishop Williamson. The majority of faithful were angered by this.Others were not aware such a letter was sent. Bishop Fellay has evaded questions in relation to Krah and other matters.

John Grace · « **Reply #17 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:28:13 PM »

Quote

I am not interested in that British Krahgate denying forum anymore. They're no friends of Bishop Williamson.

Ignis Ardens has shot itself in the foot.There is no doubt about that. I wouldn't regard Ashmolean as being representative of the English faithful and the Bishop has many friends in Britain and Ireland and all over the world.

I would agree though that participating on Ignis Ardens is a waste of time. They shot themselves in the foot removing 'The Complete Krahgate File' and Ashmoleans' ramblings have alienated many away. There is work to be done.

the smart sheep · « **Reply #18 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:41:02 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: the smart sheep
Quote from: John Grace
.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
Quote
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal

What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?

sheep

Quote
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 "discrete" 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.

So, because he has a new lawyer , Bp probably put in for an extension. I do not know why they said skipped?

sheep

John Grace · « **Reply #19 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:42:59 PM »

Quote from: the smart sheep

Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: the smart sheep
Quote from: John Grace
.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15209337,00.html
Quote
A bishop convicted of denying the h0Ɩ0cαųst has skipped the start of his own appeal

What does this mean? You can place a court docuмent into the docket instead of showing up? Is this what he did?

sheep

Quote
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 "discrete" 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.

So, because he has a new lawyer , Bp probably put in for an extension. I do not know why they said skipped?

sheep

A controlled media is hardly going to depict a Catholic Bishop who tells the truth in a favourable light.