Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Appeal (Read 33511 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.

the smart sheep · « **Reply #20 on:** July 06, 2011, 05:50:51 PM »

Quote from: John Grace

[

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

True, I had a funny feeling inside that he shouldn't show up on the 4th. I am glad he didn't. I'll keep praying. How does one email him or his people?

sheep

clare · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2011, 01:58:12 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

The British District notice about 'Krahgate' was up for several weeks before it was archived so very strange you archived the posts of Ethelred after a couple of hours. You stated the thread was counter-productive. It appears as if Ignis Ardens thinks the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre is counter-productive.

No. as I said, I removed it because of Ethelred's words, not the Archbishop's.

clare · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2011, 02:02:40 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

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.

Of course. I think that happened a few months before closing Krahgate. I think it happened when we opened it in the first place!

Still, it's not a mortal wound, and it would be nice if some people didn't keep shooting Ignis in the foot at regular intervals.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2011, 02:16:12 AM »

Quote from: clare

Of course. I think that happened a few months before closing Krahgate. I think it happened when we opened it in the first place!

People who attend SSPX masses have a right to know what sort of characters Bishop Fellay puts in charge of the legal defense of society bishops. Bishop Fellay seems to think he's above criticism: sorry, but when a group like the SSPX makes the expansive claims that it does about its mission, it needs to be irreproachable, not arrogant.

Ethelred · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2011, 02:20:25 AM »

Quote from: clare

Quote from: John Grace
The SSPX is not cultist but yes she did delete the quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre.

No. I archived the whole post of Ethelred's of which Archbishop Lefebvre's quote was a part. If the post had just been the Archbishop's quote, I would not have removed it. I did a bit of tidying earlier.

What a rank liberal you are. The good Bishop Williamson dedicated two recent ECs to guys like you: EC 185 and EC 186. Scroll down for the English text. Do you actually understand what you post when you're quoting these ECs on your liberal IA forum? I don't think so.

You're not even upright enough to admit that you deleted my three articles practically because they're deleted from the public forum space and you did so silently.
It took you about a day to do so. First you locked the "Bishop Williamson's appeal" thread because IA co-founder Wessex' and my replies disturbed your and Ashmo's liberal and pro Jєωιѕн worldview. The next morning you corrupted my link to the German Krahgate file because you're a Menzingen cheerleader and betray the truth about the Zionist agent Krah and his helpers in Menzingen (like Freemason Churchill's motto: Right or wrong my ~~country~~ Menzingen!). And finally in the afternoon you deleted my three articles because how can a today's traditional catholic dare to repeat in own words what the today's SSPX "fig leaf" named Archbishop Lefebvre told 20 years ago! I suppose you had to discuss the whole procedure with another liberal "tradionalist" like the English version of Krah, Mr Ashmo.

In order to answer John's question:

Quote from: John

Is it possible to view Ethelred's posts and the quote from the Archbishop on Ignis Ardens?

No, it's not. They're not viewable anymore for anybody in the world wide web.
So they have been deleted practically.
Clare's "archive" and her "archiving" are just the liberal wishy-washy "definition" for deleting/removing articles she doesn't like.

Actually I'm happy about it and say thank you, because I learned now finally that IA is a total waste of time. It's a hen party where the really important threads and articles just disturb the nice tee time. World War III and God's second Flood is imminent so let's monkey around all day and deny that the world is in the hands of Satan's lackeys.

Actually I'm amazed about the general liberalization of the so called traditionalists and their forums like IA. This is also happening in other language areas. I see it at our German language SSPX chapels and friends from overseas tell me so, too. Well, we are truly ripe for God's chastisement. It's our only rescue.

Now back to the topic: Bishop Williamson's Appeal and why is there an appeal at all.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** July 07, 2011, 02:29:38 AM »

Quote from: Ethelred

Actually I'm amazed about the general liberalization of the so called traditionalists and their forums like IA. This is also happening in other language areas. I see it at our German language SSPX chapels and friends from overseas tell me so, too.

Yes, these people have found a nice social club, a sense of belonging. Once they were rejected for being too religious, now they're the ones who reject the devout.

clare · « **Reply #26 on:** July 07, 2011, 03:42:33 AM »

This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #27 on:** July 07, 2011, 04:01:22 AM »

Quote from: clare

This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.

The liberal defense of modern music, pants, and last but certainly not least, and SSPX lawyers who toady to Jєωs but insult Catholic bishops - while picking the bishop's lawyer - that is what is ridiculous and abusive.

Daegus · « **Reply #28 on:** July 07, 2011, 06:06:19 AM »

Quote from: clare

This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.

You only have yourself (and others like you) to blame for that. It became ridiculous because some liberals wanted to be apart of the "right" side of the sphere without actually being apart of it. This is why you see neo-Catholics who would love to believe that they're "conservative" (far from it) and neo-Trads who would love to believe that they're "trad" (also far from it).

See, you can't be anything BUT a liberal if you have a liberal way of thinking. Hanging around traditionalists or conservatives won't change the fact that you're a liberal.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #29 on:** July 07, 2011, 09:42:36 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Many thanks for this, Ethelred. Catholics must stand for and by the truth even if it means the sacrifice of our very lives.

:applause:

How many Catholics today really stand for the pure truth! Thanks Ethel for posting these items, and thanks to Catholic Info for allowing them to be posted.
One of Our CMRI priests said to me last week. "When the time of persecution comes, then we will see how many have the courage to remain Catholic".