Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Appeal (Read 59278 times)

Ethelred · « **Reply #165 on:** August 05, 2011, 03:23:13 AM »

Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.

So what did Krah say again in his testimony in the court, on 4 July 2011 of the "Bishop Williamson Appeal" ? You already quoted it via translation of the two reporting German newspapers. Please see my quotation on 2 August 2011 here in the thread for it.

Elizabeth wrote in another thread about Krah:

Quote from: Elizabeth

I think someone should put the stuff up here, with proof of its source.

I wouldn't know how to go looking for robots--but I see bullying and we need to protect our friends.

Since Hollingsworth already summed up the testimony "stuff" nicely in another place, and we got proof of its source, let's quote him:

Quote from: Hollingsworth on 4 August 2011

I reiterate, avoiding all the verbal clutter, some of the most precious little testimonial gems which Krah displayed to the press for public consumption. Mind you, these were not private, in house, remarks. They were meant to be read and 'appreciated' by any or all of the planets 6 billion inhabitants:

He declared shamelessly about his own bishop that “the idea (in +W's mind) that something positive could happen, is in general alien” ;

described his bishop as a “colourful bird”

He stated glibly, even arrogantly, that his Episcopal superior was
Quote
without any special function or prominent position in the Society (reportedly)

and that "for reasons of mercy" had not been thrown out of the Society

He described his Bishop as an eccentric, one who has a “persistent problem with recognizing reality”

He portrayed him as a false prophetic nut who with “monotonous regularity assumes the end of the world every two years”

I will do my part to keep those kinds of utterances before the eyes of forum members and all other who happen upon the site.

Thank you, Hollingsworth.

JPaul · « **Reply #166 on:** August 05, 2011, 08:13:55 AM »

Ethelred,

Quote

Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.

It is irritating that things are constantly having to be re-explained, clarified, or repaired, due to so many various naysayers, who seem to constantly attack the sources and parse the content so as to distract from the meaning and import.

Facts in evidence that need no clarification and are indisputable:

1) Mr. Krah testified on more than one occasion, the latest being the current appeal.

2) His testimony on both occasions was very negative

3)His most recent testimony was negative, damaging, insuting, and amounts to public detraction.

4) Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.

Based upon these simple facts and Mr. Krah's questionable affiliations with the enemies of the Faith, there is certainly justification for serious concern and more intensive scrutiny of these and other related matters.

And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated? If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie? Please correct me if this is not so.

John Grace · « **Reply #167 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:12:57 AM »

Quote from: Nemmersdorf

To clear the confusion created by Henry V on Ignis Ardens:

1) Lady Renouf had confirmed on the 2 August 2011 that Maximilian Krah was present at the appeal 4 July 2011 :

“I can confirm as an eyewitness at both court hearings in Regensburg that Max Krah attended and gave his testimony verbally to the judge in Regensburg Courtroom on both occasions (16 April 2010 and 4 July 2011).”

2) Dr. Krah stated wrongly that he was called by the Defence as a witness in his letter to Clare.

There is now a correction to be made to the above point 2). The following correction is not according to Dr. Krah, but rather according to Prof. Dr. Weiler:

Bishop Williamson’s lawyer, Prof. Dr. Weiler has been contacted and was asked whether the Defence had called Dr. Krah to give testimony.

Prof. Dr Weiler stated that he did not call Dr. Krah, as it was not necessary, but that it was the judge who had called Dr. Krah.

He also said that witnesses are always appointed as such by the court, the Defence cannot have their “own” witnesses, they can only ask for them. If such a witness appears, he/she is witness of the court.

This should settle the matter once and for all.

Thanks for postiing this, Nemmersdorf

John Grace · « **Reply #168 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:19:21 AM »

Quote

And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated? If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie? Please correct me if this is not so.

It would be a lie as Maximilian Krah has the full backing of Bishop Fellay.My understanding is that Maximilian Krah is still the lawyer for Menzingen. Has it ever been established as to why Fr Laisney went public in relation to 'Krahgate'? His name had never been mentioned in the material first posted by 'Willliam of Norwich' on Angel Queen last year. Fr Laisney's input raised more questions than answers.

s2srea · « **Reply #169 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:21:13 AM »

My curiosity is, what do we do now that we've exposed this Krah? 'Can' we even do anything, apart from what's being done. Obviously this guy is no good.