"Mistakes of expert witnesses disturb law and order considerably"
(Prof. Dr. med. Peter W. Gaidzik of the University of Witten /
Herdecke, 05th Aug. 2014)
The focus here is on the case of Thomas
Schüller, "professor of canon law at the Institute of Canon Law at
the University of Münster", i.e. a representative of the group
of the so-called. "Second Vatican Council" (V2). A representative of
the Catholic church has filed a lawsuit against Schüller for his
false expert report in the criminal case at District Court Dorsten,
reference number 7 Ls-29 Js 74/08-43/11.
A detailed commentary on Schüller's report with over 15,000 words
was released six weeks ago (23th June 2014) on several websites and
remained unobjected.
Whatever one may think concerning the topic (religion, Catholic
church, sedevacantism, Father Lingen etc.): It is an undeniable fact
that Schüller's report is filled with absurd misstatements. So
everyone without exception who wants justice, he may be a declared
atheist and even a declared V2 believer, must condemn this report
completely.
The Justice of the FRG is known for permanent blatant perversion of
justice. Search queries such as "false reports", "justice victims",
"justice scandals", "lawbreaker mafia" etc. lead to a huge amount of
documents. On one hand, a judge may just be driven purely by his
desire to do injustice. That means whatever you may do: In this
case, the judge breaks the law deliberately and purposefully, thus
justice has absolutely no chance. Proof is of no importance, quite
the contrary: absurd fantasies are declared as "evidence", real
evidence, however, is ignored / suppressed / destroyed. And whoever
can prove this perversion of justice is simply criminalized as
"offender" and thus eliminated. This may be the normal situation.
On the other hand, it remains theoretically possible that the judge
simply lacks the interest to do justice, e.g. because of laziness,
incompetence etc. In that case, the judge would be more or less
indifferent towards the truth. He possibly would even be carried
away to do justice, if he is not deterred / overwhelmed by the
necessary amount of time and intelligence. In such a case, of
course, it is important to get the foot in the door using a very
concise and pointed application. Thus with a lot of painstaking
work, the following text was created. For more detailed information
see the [German] detailed commentary and many other publications.
I.
The plaintiff, born in 1967, is a Father, i.e. a validly ordained
priest, since 1996.
In 1986, he passed the high school exam in a "convent school" (Haus
Overbach, Jülich) of the group of the so-called "Second Vatican
Council" (V2) with a grade average of 1.6 [best possible: 1.0; worst
poss. (pass) 4.0; absolutely worst poss. (w/o pass): 6.0]. His
advanced courses in German and English testify his abilities to
understand texts. His courses in "Catholic religious education"
testify his knowledge of religion. His courses in mathematics and
philosophy testify his abilities in logical reasoning.
Proof:
High school diploma, annex 1
After military service (airman third class) he became a "priest
candidate" for the V2-diocese of Essen and studied "Catholic
theology for the priesthood" in Bochum. Finally he was "priest
candidate" in the V2-diocese of Chur, where he received the
"ministry of lector" in a public V2-rite (preliminary step to
V2-"ordination").
Proof: Lector certificate, annex 2
After 13 semesters (5 of them only teacher training) in 1995, he
received the "diploma in Catholic theology" with the degree "very
good".
Proof: Diploma, annex 3
On 19th Sept. 1995 the applicant formally left the V2 group, and on
02.03.1996 he was ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church.
Proof:
Confirmation of the V2-withdrawal by the local city office of
Dorsten 12/2001 Ordination certificate, annex 4
II.
The defendant is a representative of the group of the Second Vatican
Council (V2), with which the plaintiff is in dispute. According to
the research by the plaintiff, that group operates unlawfully as the
Catholic Church. Numerous websites offer information about the
regarding contradictions between the Catholic church and the V2
group. The plaintiff himself has started a website already in 1997:
"Dialogue for the church", www.kirchenlehre.com. Another well-known
website is the English publication "Novus Ordo Watch",
www.novusordowatch.org.
Proof:
Printouts of both websites from 28th July 2014, annex 5
In the above mentioned criminal trial the defendant was engaged by
the court to answer the question whether the plaintiff has
"effectively been consecrated by an appointed and qualified cleric
so that he must be recognized as a priest even by the Catholic
institutional church." That is: Whether the V2 group must recognize
that the plaintiff has received a valid ordination or not. Since the
plaintiff already - v.s. the local city office of Dorsten - had
declared his withdrawal from the V2-group at the district court
Dorsten itself and since he always insists to be no member of the V2
group, it is not the question whether the plaintiff is a "recognised
V2-priest" or a - according to the V2 group - "allowed" priest resp.
an employed priest of the V2 group. This is supported by the fact
that the plaintiff in the Internet (v.s.) clearly distances himself
from the V2 group and explains that he does not belong to it.
Proof:
Legal opinion, annex 6
Therefore, the defendant was only obliged to validate the various
documents regarding the consecrator (to the applicant) Father Georg
Schmitz which were published by the plaintiff on the Internet and
which remained unobjected for years. cf.
www.kirchenlehre.com/schmitz.htm
Proof:
Article "Diocese Freiburg" against Bishop
Schmitz, annex 7
In addition, the defendant had to consider the document
V2-"Archdiocese of Freiburg" from 19th Sept. 1985 which is part of
the court documents. This documents clearly confirms that the
priestly and episcopal ordination of Father Georg Schmitz is
recognized as valid. Father Schmitz is recognized by the V2-group
and thus the "official Catholic Church" as a validly consecrated
bishop. Thus, the question of the district court from Dorsten is
definitely answered: The plaintiff must be recognized as a priest
even by the "official Catholic Church".
Proof:
Letter dated 19th Sept. 1985
Press release "Documents as a source
of evidence in the public process", openpr.de, 23th July 2014,
annex 8
Instead of answering the question posed by the Court regarding the
validity of the consecration truthfully, the defendant uttered a
false statement against better knowledge. In particular he deals
with the question whether the applicant is a member of the V2-group
or not. This, although neither the plaintiff has claimed such
membership nor the district court has asked for it, since the court
(see above) itself testified the V2-withdrawal of the plaintiff. It
seems as if the defendant takes the report as an opportunity to
settle a score with the plaintiff who is a declared adversary of the
V2-group. The defendant asserts e.g.:
a.
The plaintiff would have to have "proof of required five-year study
period. Concerning this matter, nothing is to be seen. Consequently,
it must be assumed that the defendant has not done the studies."
It is wrong that regarding the study period nothing is to be seen.
The defendant did not ask the applicant about his studies. The
applicant has pointed numerous times (e.g. on the above mentioned
site "Dialogue for the Church", in numerous press releases, etc.) to
his V2-diploma from Chur. Even a simple inquiry in Chur already
would have confirmed the correctness of the frequent reference to
the diploma. The defendant has not even tried to clarify whether the
applicant has completed the corresponding studies and has denied
this without dispute. By this false assertion the plaintiff is shown
as someone who wrongfully asserts competence of an education that he
never received. Between the lines he is designated as a charlatan.
b.
The applicant had also "reduced the deposit of faith (depositum
fidei) by the teachings of the II Vatican. Thus, the defendant is a
heretic."
This defamation is one of the worst accusations in the church, cf.
A. Koch, Moral Theology, Freiburg (2) 1907, 302: "As stubborn
rebellion against the teaching authority appointed by God, formal
heresy is one of the most serious and pernicious sins, because it
destroys the foundation of the work of salvation." Whoever utters
the accusation of heresy, he must state very, very good reasons.
First, the defendant who was provided by the court with a clear
mandate states not a single evidence of heresy uttered by the
applicant. In addition, the defendant as a canonist must know
exactly that V2 did not proclaim any dogmas. The deposit of faith
has been increased by V2 in no way whatsoever. This makes it
impossible that the rejection of V2-specific statements can be
called heresy.
Proof:
E.g. Karl Rahner, "Small Council Compendium"
Introductions to V2-texts Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium
Theologisches, December 2005, columns 785 and 786: The later "Pope
Benedict XVI". expressly declared: "There is no new dogma by the
Council, at any point", annex 9
In summary:
Instead of dealing with the question asked for the report, the
defendant labeled the plaintiff as
- heretic,
- criminal in the Church,
- the plaintiff is alleged to have no theological diploma.
III.
The damage of the plaintiff caused by the report is substantial and
persists.
1. The plaintiff is defamed in the report as a heretic. Since the
defendant refers this to the non-membership in the V2-group, he thus
defames all other Catholics. The label as heretic is above all else
based especially on the loyalty of the applicant to the Catholic
faith.
2.
The criticism of the plaintiff against the V2-group resulted in
massive fightback. The V2-group (i.e. the group in which the
plaintiff for years learned as a pupil and a student, the group
which gave him good and very good grades and which even after
graduation has thanked him heartily for his work at the seminary)
tried to curb the criticism of the plaintiff by the statement of
mental illness.
The district court Dorsten stated in this context that
- it is not possible to ascertain a manifest mental illness of the
plaintiff
- the statements of the plaintiff cannot be assigned e.g. to a
paranoid mental disorder
- the plaintiff is impaired neither in his legal capacity nor in his
process capability.
Proof: Resolution of district court Dorsten, 27th
Jan. 2005, annex 10
3.
With proper peer review of the plaintiff, the district court would
have decided the acquittal. Due to the false report the proceeding
was only terminated. This fatal result is only and exclusively due
to the fact that the district court followed the opinion of the
defendant. Due to this approval the plaintiff must now expect that -
based on this report - he may be sentenced consistently. Cf. the
local newspaper "Recklinghäuser Zeitung":
"When giving the reasons for the judgement, Judge Timm said that the
defendant was unable to distinguish between religious and legal
questions and declared: This does not mean that you may use the
title Roman-catholic priest. This can still be prohibited to you by
the Catholic Church."
Proof:
Article "Lawsuit against false priest ends with settlement",
recklinghaueser-zeitung.de, 27th Sept. 2012
Press release "Corrections to the Dorsten
newspaper", openpr.de, 28th Sept. 2012, annex 11
The negative impact on the plaintiff is therefore still highly
present. The danger of repetition in its most intense expression of
a persistent state therefore must also be assumed. The legitimate
interest in legal action must be assumed, as the rehabilitation of
the applicant can only be achieved by the withdrawal of the report.
Therefore only the removal of the interference has to be achieved -
and not a mere satisfaction. The plaintiff is significantly hindered
in the practice of his duties as a Catholic priest. This practice is
protected by the Basic Law, and that not only according to the
professional freedom but also according to the religious freedom.
Due to the repression against the plaintiff, also the faithful who
are entrusted to him are inevitably impaired in their practice of
religion.
The falsehood of the central statement (i.e. that the plaintiff is
not recognized as priest by the V2 group and that he may be called a
heretic and criminal in the church) is identifiable on the basis of
the above mentioned statements and attachments.
In addition, by the raised allegations in the report, a violation of
personal rights which is liable for damages seems to be possible.
The defendant has not communicated a mere opinion or allegation of
fact, but has deliberately uttered untrue facts. Balancing the
competing interests of personal rights and freedom of opinion, the
report must be considered as illegal.
Proof: Article "Federal Constitutional Court confirmed: Heresies in
theological seminary", annex 12 [www.una-voce.de]
The defendant was asked by the signatory unsuccessfully to revoke /
to cease.
Proof:
Letter, 24th April 2014, annex 13