Ethelred,

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.

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.

J. Paul :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.

This is the point to keep in mind.  We may be tempted to isolate M.K. and treat him as an aggrieved individual seeking redress through the courts.  But it is very difficult to separate his intended actions from Menzingen.  Whatever he does, he does ultimately with the approval of Bp Fellay, one is almost forced to conclude.  I would like to be disabused of that notion.  This is not just about the individual M.K..  This is about the whole SSPX apostolate and its work, from the top down.  

Please allow me to copy Nemmersdorf's latest post from the thread ...
Maximilian Krah Implies Legal Action Against IA, Again
... to this topic, because I think it also clears some misunderstandings which were posted here.

Thanks to Nemmersdorf for the following update:

Comestor has posted an important clarification on Ignis Ardens about Bishop Williamson's appeal:

Comestor on IA
Aug 10 2011, 08:34 PM

As someone who was present at the Regensburg appeal hearing in July, though not at the initial Regensburg hearing last year, it might be helpful for me to summarise the position as I understand it.

When asking whether Kr was a witness for the defence, British and American readers may not fully appreciate the difference between their courts and those in Germany.

The "common law" tradition as used (for example) in Britain and the USA involves an adversarial court procedure. In other words the defence and prosecution counsel engage in courtroom combat, each with their list of witnesses, and cross-examining the other side's witnesses.

The "Napoleonic" or "Roman" law tradition used in many European countries, including Germany, involves an inquisitorial court procedure, whereby witnesses are called and questioned by the judges. The lawyers for the two sides (and sometimes lawyers for other interested parties) are present, but witnesses are called and questioned by the court.

Juries were abolished in Germany in 1924 (and apart from a two year period in Bavaria, 1948-50) have not been restored.

Sometimes the defence might request the court to call a particular witness. In the case of the Regensburg appeal Dr Weiler (unsuccessfully) requested that the court should call the Swedish television journalist. It was not at the defence's request that Kr. was called as a witness.

Therefore it was at best confusing for Kr. to refer in his PM to:
"my witness, which I gave on request of the defence".

The whole point is that at the initial trial he was very much part of the defence team: after that he was not, as he was perceived to be working contrary to Bishop Williamson's interests.

The last few pages of this thread have seen:
i) persistent efforts to cast doubt on whether Kr. even attended the July 2011 appeal, and occasionally flat denials that he did so;
ii) further efforts to cast doubt on press reports or translations of those reports concerning the words Kr. used in his testimony;
iii) an implication that whatever words Kr. used were in some sense part of an agreed defence strategy for Bishop Williamson.

While the defence did not exercise their right to block Kr. from testifying, and in some sense his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson could be seen as potentially mitigating sentence, Kr. was not speaking as part of the Bishop's defence, as has been implied here.

It is unfortunate that this forum has been used several times to cast doubt on the integrity of the press reports (which in this limited instance do not seem to have been untruthful or wrongly translated) and to calumniate Lady Renouf, who travelled to Regensburg for each court hearing as part of her campaign to highlight German law's denial of the European tradition of free, source-critical historical inquiry. As it happens it is only as a result of Lady Renouf's earlier endeavours (in putting together a legal defence for Dr Fredrick Toben) that the German authorities are precluded from simply extending their tyranny to Britain via a European Arrest Warrant, in which case the Bishop could be arrested and extradited from Wimbledon!

While it is no secret that Lady Renouf is not a Catholic, neither is it relevant to this topic. The press correctly reported that Lady Renouf mobilised Toben's successful legal team, who were on standby for Bishop Williamson's arrival at Heathrow in case he had any legal trouble on landing – recalling that Dr Toben was arrested and readied for extradition while merely in transit at that same airport.

It is for this reason that Lady Renouf was first in email contact with Bishop Williamson, and while she is in no sense a "representative" of the Bishop, it is for this reason that some forum members have sought her first hand reports on the trial.

Despite the fact that for whatever reason Kr.'s own account of this topic has been confusing, and at one stage wrongly gave the impression that his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson were a deliberate defence strategy, might it not be helpful to leave this thread open so as to allow him (or a representative) to clarify whether or not he was responsible for the internal forum private message to hollingsworth?

As things have been left, Kr. is portrayed as a monstrous autocrat, which if the PM did not actually come from him, he might not deserve.


http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=375&#last

What about the portrayal of Mr. Krah as a Grima Wormtongue?

Even if Dr. Krah were merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay's designs, I think it will be much easier to attack Krah instead of attacking His Lordship, since  Krah has no aura of ecclesiastical authenticity surrounding him which we need fear damaging.

More important still, if Krah were dismissed, would the policy of the SSPX change?

You would think there would have to be a more discrete representative in the world with the requisite piety and respect for the authority of anointed hands and heads.

No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.

If one judges objectively by the actions, words, and expanding business venture into the realm of mammon, of the present administration as well as its demonstrable expansion of its control of all facets of disclosure and information, your conclusion is both sound and logical. We are not required to know the ultimate destination to know that the road which we travel, is both dangerous and frightening.

No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.

I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.