10. In your letter you comment: “Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry.” My dear Father Laisney, this one sentence alone leads to several questions and which, at the same time, raises questions about your actual knowledge and intimacy with the whole affair. Let me explain. Mr Krah’s involvement with the CDU was NOT limited to seeking a donation for the convent of St. Marienthal. If you went to the link given by “William of Norwich” concerning Mr Krah and his actual relations with the CDU, you would see that according to the “Journal of the Dresdener Union” (the July/August 2005 number) Mr Krah was elected the Pressesprecher, Press Officer, for Dresden’s CDU governing committee in June 2005 with 81.66% of the branch’s membership. Moreover, the May 2006 number of the same “Journal” reveals that he had by then become a member of the editorial board of the “Journal.” Mr Krah’s involvement with politics does not concern me greatly beyond the fact that the CDU is neither Christian in any sense worthy of the name, nor is it democratic in any profound sense. But it is clearly anti-Catholic when it wishes to be, as the occasion when Angela Merkel publicly rebuked the Pope about the so-called “rehabilitation” of Mgr Williamson demonstrates – a public scandal about which the SSPX has said little or nothing, made all the more worrying given the cant of the CDU about the “benefits” of the separation of Church and State. I would invite you to check these details for yourself, but since “William of Norwich” posted the CDU/Krah link it has mysteriously disappeared from the internet. However, one brave Catholic soul had the foresight to save the two files about the CDU cited, and they will be posted to”The Complete Krahgate File” in the near future so that you and others may see the facts for yourself.

11. There is, however, one surprising thing in your sentence. You make reference to the Kloster St. Marienthal and say that Krah’s only involvement in the CDU was to seek donations for it. Let us leave aside the fact that the St. Marienthal Convent, the oldest women’s Cistercian monastery in Germany, is a conciliar structure and seems to be more a place for hosting conferences on “Justice, Peace, Ecology” and the rest of the conciliar agenda, than a place full of nuns working out their salvation in prayer and sacrifice; let us leave aside also the fact that one wonders why a person who claims to be a traditional Catholic would seek to raise money for a conciliar structure when undoubtedly there are better claims to be made for SSPX structures in Germany; let us leave aside as well that the Convent in question is less than a hour’s drive from Krah’s home, is incredibly beautiful, a glory to the faith, clearly worth a financial fortune if put on the market, and is run by a “Board of Trustees,” the composition of which I have not been able to identify as yet, and come to one crucial question. At NO POINT in “The Complete Krahgate File” or anywhere else on Ignis Ardens was ANY REFERENCE MADE TO THIS CONVENT AND KRAH MAKING AN APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR IT! The convent is not mentioned in either of the two CDU files that were available online until they disappeared. So your statement is a piece of information that none of us were aware of, and we would invite you to let us know how you came across this information? It may be of little importance, but given that Mr Krah appears to have many fingers in many pies, one can never be sure that that is so.

nor the finance crisis is the business of the SSPX.

I'm pretty much turned off at how he took up for the Jews over his own fellow Bishop.

You stated you haven't met Mr Krah so are you not relying on first hand information either or have you met Mr Krah?

Have you read the following, NewMan.It was posted by 'William of Norwich' on Angel Queen forum last November (2010)

http://krahgatefile.blogspot.com/2010/12/maximilian-krah-and-menzingen-cause-for.html

Quote

Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6405

Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?


The Timeline -

January 2009
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.

January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”

But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.

It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.

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

January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.

The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”

In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?

The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.

As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.

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

Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.

In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”

Link: EMBA-Global
http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf

Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”

The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.



The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?



Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?





What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.



In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.



ENTER KRAH



Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?



Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “h0Ɩ0cαųst denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.

Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:

Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006.
http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D



He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.



Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.



Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “h0Ɩ0cαųst” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.



It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nαzιs,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “nαzι” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nαzι,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.



Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jєωιѕн. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.

Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction

The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jєωιѕн. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.



However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.



Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed





1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.

2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.


3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.

4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a тαℓмυdic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.




All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.



This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.


Your Excellency,

1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jєωιѕн when he was taken into your confidence?

2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?

3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?

4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?

5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?

6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?

7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?

8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?

9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?



10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?



11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?





There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction




POST SCRIPT



For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.

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”?

The following was originally posted on the IA forum by 'White Rose Rebel' on Feb 3 2011, 05:46 PM I'm in agreement with White Rose Rebel that we must get answers for the good of souls.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6755&hl=
Quote:
Dear Friends of the Krahgate Team,

I am following since the start the Krahgate threads on Ignis. Krah is a name which is known in Austria, but it is not a loved name. I am wanting to write since your ask for information, but I did not have many informations to give you. Now I see that Credo posts something about the Jaidhofer Foundation, and I see now that I can give more informations.

First, though, I give one piece of news that William of Norwich is not seeing (but thanks Gott William for the news you give!). If you go here and click

http://www.theresienstiftung.de/ueber-uns/...nsstruktur.html

you see that Krah is not only with the Dello Sarto and the Foundation but also with the St Therese school at Schonenberg in Germany. Click to make much large the image and look at the box ‘stiftungsvorstand’ which is meaning “the management” for the school. Why do the school need Krah on its comittee? Is nobody else possible to help the sisters and the students but the Zionist agent?

Credo is saying in its post that he received the informations about founding of the Foundation. It is true. Jaidhofer Foundation is begun on 14 January, 2009: just before founding of the Dello Sarto on 19 January, 2009. The timeing is good, yes? And the informations – two urls – of Credo contact is true. But this informations is not the all. It is important that the informations is made understood in English so everybody who wants Krah away from SSPX knows what the Foundation is really. I do not know all about it but I can say more than the Credo anonimous post.

First the Credo post is talk about Böerse Express. Go and click here for meaning of the word ‘borse’ in the google translate

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t?...ed=0CBYQrgYwAA#

noun

1. exchange
2. stock exchange
3. market
4. stock market
5. purse
6. board
7. change

This means what? It means that “Böerse Express” is about business, stock markets, investiments and things of like order. It is not to do with charitys and small groups for organise their affaires.
Second, click here and read from list
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...N%26prmd%3Divns

Five names from bottom is the name -
W
Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus (321626f) Jaidhof Foundation St. Joseph and Marcellus (321626f)
1010 Wien, Plankengasse 7

There is tree things in this which is informations. One is that “Jaidhofer Privatstiftung” is not in Jaidhof where is national HQ of SSPX in Austria, but in Wien (Vienna) – and very nice zone in Vienna! Why is the Foundation not have its adress in Jaidhof which are only less than one hour from Wien? Two, please read the list of other foundations or companies. What are we seeing? Companies like K & F Beteiligungs Gmbh – this Gmbh is meaning “limited liability company”
(I find in dictionary on line http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/051305.asp)

which means real business, not small business which cuts hairs of the poodle dogs or sells sweets to the kids. We are also seeing consultancy firms, hotels, child care chain business, companies working in the carbon and steel, property management, engineering and other things. I think that religious foundation of SSPX looks strange in this list. Tree, what means the nummer (321626f)? Is it a register number specific for SSPX foundation? Or does ‘f’ mean kind of business involved in? And what means ‘W’ at beginning of Jaidhofer Privatstiftung – is it what tells the natur of the business? I am not knowing this but maybee others can say what is meaning.

Now go here and click and see “boerse express” in English – this much important for English people because it tells much I think about heart of Krahgate matter:

http://www.boerse-express.com/express/express-01102009e.pdf

Page 1 – “Banks: Capital increases to pay off the State” – news from the Goldman Sachs!

Page 2 – “Cash Calls and their Profiteers” – more about the Goldman Sachs and NOT hostile!

Page 2 – “Tailwinds of Nabucco” – story of the oil pipline that wants steal oil from asian countrys and organised by neocons and their wars.

Every page is about business but only the BIG business not small!

But for Catholics of SSPX page 6 is key to mystery. Markus Fichtinger told how Austrian finance is really international and he tells “There isn’t an Austrian equivalent to these print newspapers (he talks here about “Financial Times” at London and “Wall St Journal”), but the English version of boerse express closes this gap electronically.”

The he encourage this digitale finance paper “so that an ever increasing number of international investors receive valuable and in depth informations about Austria’s companies.”

I ask now this questions: what means it that Jaidhofer Foundation (J.F.) is appearing in finance paper aimed at the international investor for Austria? Is J.F. wanting the international investers? If it is yes, why? If it is no, why is J.F. in boerse express? Is it mistake? If it is not the mistake, is the J.F. wanting sell shares in it and is her shares only for Catholics or for all the persons including the international investers like the Goldman Sachs?

I am sorry for my not so good English but I am hoping you see that these informations are important and have strong meanings. This Krahgate problem seems to me very dangerful to SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre inspiration. We must get the answers for the souls salvation