Sale Agreement Motor Vehicle

timeline view

Veritas1961
4th December 2010

Timeline of events and motivations of the actors
: Krah and Menzingen

The last Saturday of William of Norwich on this subject on the Internet Asked Article has had repercussions and led to a number of new information has come to light. Some of them were in one or other Internet entry is challenged, but a significant proportion was generally accepted as irrefutable.

In the last few days I have looked at the various internet articles and comments again and am in the process come to the conclusion that the timing of events raises nagging questions. Should I be correct in this assessment, this raises serious conclusions.

undisputed is this: On Wednesday the 17th November 2010 was Matt Loßmann with the German Press Agency (DPA) was contacted and let them know he leave his position as defender of Bishop Williamson's another lawyer, whose name "Will be announced soon ... You will then see why my services are no longer needed. "

Loßmanns This statement can be a wonder. Why he thought it necessary to turn to a press agency and this share, he should do in future with the Williamson case anything more? That a member of the political super correct Green Party of the ire of the public or the gentlemen of the press has drawn up, not like you to believe it, the more so when Loßmannn during the trial from April 2010 to her ears from Williamson's views distances had. In fact, let his behavior during the process no doubt about the fact that he worked against the interests of his client. We conclude that he has leaked to the media with his message to the DPA the ball, so that once again a "controversy" could conjure up. He would say nothing and are content to simply can answer any questions off the cuff. But just that he did not - which speaks volumes about his motivation, not only at this late date, but from the beginning of the "Williamson affair" at.

is also undisputed that Williamson's new attorney, tungsten Nahrath, on Thursday the 18th November, a Communication to the new judge Birgit Kingfisher sent, namely via their personal Office Fax. In his message he stated that he was acting now on behalf of Williamson and request a postponement of the process, could be so quickly decided in principle on the issues under discussion.

Finally, it is clear that Stefan was winter of "Der Spiegel" already within half an hour by telephone with Nahrath the name, because he already knew that Williamson had chosen this as its new attorney. Who had it leaked this information? About the judge or other judicial officer? Both would be possible in principle, but rather unlikely, because not even know kingfisher secretary that Nahrath had sent this fax. If the leak started from the judge, they would have their exposure immediately and undoubtedly also risks sanctions for unethical professional conduct. If the culprit was a judicial officer, this would have put his job on the line. It may be argued, it could have played a political motivation. Again, this would be possible, but there is not a shred of evidence for it exists, we can probably rule out this option with a clear conscience.

We know that Loßmann in on the identity of the new Advocate image was. The reason that he resigned as defense consisted in the fact that he was unable or unwilling to cooperate with Nahrath. Thus there are two possibilities: either has Loßmannn even with the "mirror" set the name, or he has forwarded the information to Maximilian Krah, known as informers of the Hamburg news magazine. The first variant seems to incredible, because it would have been easy for Loßmannn, contact the "mirror" themselves and the matter hereby make public. Thus, everything points to the second variant, the more so, when there is a historical precedent.

A brief

Let us return for a moment, for the first trial of the bishop, the 16th to April 2010 had been arranged. On 4 March 2010 Williamson received a message from Father Thouvenot, who made his name in all sorts of Bishop Fellays conditions. Among other things, he gave him "a formal prohibition to appear before the court of Regensburg," and the statement that he would leave it to his lawyers (and Loßmann Krah), "the situation in your favor, and to those of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. to control to which you belong. "

Why Fellay had issued this command? The latter was based on naked fear, or had other reasons for the bishop? If one bears in mind that pretty much was the most unsuitable Loßmannn lawyer, which one would be able to think, and he pointed with no word on the fragile legal foundation of the case against Williamson, and considering further that Krah, as William of Norwich proves his intrigues against his client is targeted, (especially in light of the following events) I am convinced that close to the conclusion that Fellay would give the lawyers of his choice, free hand so that they could act without regard to any objections Williamson. Had the latter been present at the trial, so He had the machinations Krah and Loßmannns hardly tolerated, as it is the German language is powerful, he would have protested against their mendacious and absurd allegations. Also if he had even fired on the spot and taken over his own defense. This is admittedly a speculation, because firstly we can not read Bishop Fellays thoughts and know his motives, as long as he himself tells us, and secondly we do not know what Williams might have said or done.

No speculation, however, is this: A few days before trial called a mirror-journalist Loßmann. The conversation went something like this: "If Bishop Williamson appear at the trial in person? "" No. "" Why not? "Command from his superior." "A written order?" "Yes." "May I see the text?" "No." Soon after

This word Abtausch receives a call from Loßmann Krah. "Do you have the letter from Menzingen" Yes ", please can you make a copy for me," answers this question and Loßmann Krah sends the requested copy. About two hours later, the same level reporter calls once more on to Loßmann and shares with it, now he has a copy of Fellays command.

So all the indications are that Loßmann his professional obligations in turn hurt and leaked information about Williamson and Krah Nahrath added. That the "mirror" within half an hour from Nahrath appointment learned the last doubt of the complicity of Loßmann Krah and wane with the magazine.

Lie anyone here?

We know that the General House of the Brotherhood of St. Pius X priests on Saturday 20th November 2010 approximately at 9:00 Swiss time clock at the behest of Father Thouvenot Fellays a statement on its website stationed, which said among other things: "The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has learned from the press that Bishop Williamson those charged with his defense attorney ten days has released before his trial." Ended the statement, as we all know by now, with the threat, if Williamson not by his "neo-Nazi lawyer reportedly" divisive, Fellay would exclude him from the Fraternity.

Less is generally known that Father Thouvenat - has released a second statement to Williamson - again, at the direction Fellays. He did this Sunday 21st November in the early afternoon. The text was the Bishops and District Superior of the Fraternity St. Pius X. via e-mail, he was entitled: "Clarification to Press Release of the General House" and aimed to "explain" the day before the declaration made more accurate.

was in the second section of this text it, "Bishop Williamson wanted a second lawyer to hire, who is politically well-known (" the only neo-Nazi lawyer in Germany who is not in jail .*) ... The Court of Regensburg was Wednesday the 17 . November 2010 on the dismissal of the first lawyer [Loßmann] be informed, and the identity of his successor began last week on the 19th November 2010 to leak out. "

[* Who exactly said this? And as the allusion to the fact that all are so-called "neo-Nazi" Lawyers behind bars? Why can not the Marxist, liberal and Zionist?]

That I know all about this second, far less well known statement, I owe a German-speaking spiritual friend who has sent me. Thanks Hollingsworth, we know the following, derived from Bishop Williamson text:

"I [Williamson] was represented by Nahrath. F. Bishop sent Father Angles to tell me [on Friday afternoon], that he me out of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. would exclude if I Nahrath not drop. It seems to me, my appeal process can take place only if I have either approved by Menzingen lawyer who defended me, or have a lawyer who defended me seriously, but not of Menzingen is approved. In my case, Father has emailed A. [Clock on Friday some 13] to Bishop F., but no thanks to an appeal before the German courts, and I've added ironically, it would be nice if Menzingen would pay the penalty. Bishop F. e-mailed back soon, "Deo Gratias. No problem with the payment of repentance "(Friday, 15 clock GMT, ie Greenwich Mean Time).

The redrawn here time frame within which the events have played, is confirmed by the second, less well-known statement. In gate 4 it states, "Bishop Williamson Bishop Fellay was Friday 19 November 2010 in the early afternoon also advised that he does not wish to continue the process "- in the interest of the Fraternity well understood.

Here it is to point out that Father Angles Friday morning 19 November in England arrived and ate breakfast with the bishop. The order to go to London to negotiate with Williamson, but he had only received late Thursday evening, then, was Fellay in Rome, where he led for two days in Albano talks with priests of the Italian district. Angles Williamson should persuade Nahrath to give the marching orders, and thereby forestall his expulsion from the Fraternity. Just here, however, the problem . This would mean that Fellay already Thursday the 18th November knew that Williams had decided to Nahrath - the same day ie on which his letter to Judge Nahrath Kingfisher sent and the "mirror" got wind of Nahrath appointment. In the statement of 20 November, it is clear: "The Superior General, Bishop Fellay, has made the press has ... "Here we encounter a second problem .

who clicks on the following Internet link will see what results the search engine Google.com under "Nahrath and Williamson" light promotes:

http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&cf cf = all & ned = & hl = en & en_ie nolr = 1 & q = & williamson Nahrath + = all & scoring = n & start = 0

On 4 December 2010 (9 clock GMT) there was this 55 results, the first of which figured on page 6 and the last one on page 1. According to a report in German Press Agency was the story first Saturday 20th November in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published. Shortly thereafter, she was a little-known Italian online newspaper called Il Giornalettismo and then from the "mirror" projects did.

A search reveals that "Der Spiegel" in its German and his English Internet version the first time Saturday 20th reported November on the relations between Nahrath and Williamson. In other words, before this date, neither the Hamburg news magazine, nor any reported another press organization that the Bishop had chosen Nahrath to his lawyer. On the other hand, we know with certainty that Fellay Thursday 18. Angles on the evening of November spoken to this matter and the latter sent as an emissary to London, and according to the second declaration of the Fraternity began Nahrath identity "Friday morning the 19th November to leak out. "

How Bishop Fellay Thursday the 18th November learned from the press of the relations between Nahrath and Williamson, where until two days later appeared the first Üresseberichte on this subject?

There are only three possible explanations: first

Fellay had an instinctive foreboding.
second Fellay was in this case to a heavenly message given.
third Fellay was one Initiated via phone, fax or e-mail information.

is clear to me that explanation number three must apply, she is the only logical. Who could have Fellay into the picture? There are three candidates: "The Mirror", Matt Krah Loßmann or Maximilian. Who was it from the three?

The "mirror" of elimination in our opinion, because he signed on its Article 20 November Father Thouvenot cited as the source, which means a high probability of making the latter the day before, 19, has been contacted by the magazine's telephone. Seems even more unlikely in that Fellay has received the information from Loßmann. This would are Wednesday 17 November can apply directly to Fellay, chose as a partner, however, either the "mirror" or Krah. In addition, the Society had given its political orientation Loßmann hardly paid any confidence. Therefore comes as a villain in the game solely our old friend Krah in question.

The redrawn in the previous time frame means that Fellay has answered his own statements, not only learned from the press about the appointment Nahrath the defender Bishop Williamson. It also means that he was Friday 19 November an agreement with Williamson completed, at least in theory drew the line under the matter. Furthermore, it means that the declaration of the Priestly Fraternity of 20 November was deliberately misleading and that the idea that their goal consisted in the prevention of a "huge press campaign" is plain nonsense because Fellay the "mirror" people on Friday evening when she called him, had to leave that Nahrath already his post had resigned as a defender Williamson. Fellay that nothing about the earlier lost on that day made appointment with Williamson, speaks for itself, as well as the fact that he ruled out his threat, the latter from the Brotherhood, even on 20 November on their website repeated. Even more repulsive are the since Williamson's interview with Swedish television constantly repeated references to the alleged threatening situation of the Society in Germany. In its second, Sunday 21 November statement issued attacked Fellay and Thouvenot again on this flimsy trick

"The situation in Germany is still tense, and there is this new incident, a bomb strike, and threaten our apostolate directly, not to mention our profile, that is our reputation .

Such things we have heard time and again since 2009. You tell us but with your beautiful, which led by the Priestly Fraternity of schools, priories or other institutions of the German authorities have been closed! How many priests, monks, nuns and other affiliated persons of the Brotherhood have received a summons, are questioned or prosecuted for any crimes? To my knowledge not one! The whole thing is nothing more than scaremongering, which has the purpose to isolate Williamson and to curry favor with the Modernists in Rome. Who at this point do not agree with me let me disabuse them - not by repeating mere allegations by German or other members of the Fraternity, but by describing specific persecution of the German state against the latter.

still further information to the reader: Sunday 21 November 2010 stationed "The Clarification" an Internet article in which the day before she was sentenced to Fellays request Williamson justified. Although these two men their agreement already Friday the 19th November had taken a day after Williamson Fellay threatened again with the exclusion, despite the fact that the latter had already separated from his lawyer Nahrath. Fellay justified this step by saying that Williamson had not the German court informed of his decision. This is sophistry of the worst kind.

We repeat: Friday 19 November informed Angles Fellay clock by 13 GMT on Williamson's decision. The answer was Fellay GMT by 15 clock. In Switzerland and Germany, it was four clock in the afternoon. Personally I have never had to do with the German bureaucracy, but my experience elsewhere tells me that a Friday afternoon is the worst possible time, a bureaucrat who thinks only of the upcoming weekend, to ask for any more. It not really enough when Williamson, the German court on Monday over its decision to put into the picture? Obviously not. Why not? Because of the "imminent press campaign". Why, pray tell, Fellay has the press not be personal - or by Thouvenot - Informed that Nahraht had already received the marching orders? Fellay would the doctor can also call Krah, since the latter has wide-ranging contacts and therefore had the right man to Williamson and Fellays problem on Friday to rid the world? But no, this idea is already Fellay not even come!

If leave my work and my travel me the necessary time to it, I'll put in a few days ago another article on the Internet, in which concerns Krah and the "mirror". I close here by pointing to a passage from the second, lesser-known Father Thouvenot message to the bishops and district superiors. In penultimate section we read there:

"We sincerely hope that Bishop Williamson will not commit irreparable act by permitting, to be used by political groups who abuse our sacred religion for purposes that are foreign."

Of course, all priests and bishops should keep as far as possible to let the clamp of unacceptable and objectionable political goals, but the problem exists for the Zionist lobby, which now by Krah and his clique of men behind the Fraternity of St. Pius X. acts as the neo-Nazis. The big difference between the two groups is that it is the latter a tiny sect in the former and a global power.

Therefore: Let your speech be yes yes, no, no!



Original: "Time Frames and motivation, and Krah Menzingen"