Jakob GUTKNECHT - Bitter Pill
© Official site for the takeover of the economy financed by royalties FERRAYE - 2021
In his 42 pages book, Gerhard ULRICH is throwing light on the regime of the hidden oligarchy – Freemasonry and associated Service clubs (Rotary, Lions Club, Kiwanis etc.)  - which is ruling the actual judiciary system and the political power. The citizen who has gone through the mill of the packed judiciary machine feels instinctively to be victim of a conspiracy. However, he is unable to prove it, because the system is cultivating carefully the non-transparency. If such a person is searching help from the politicians, one gets rid of him with the dogmatic pretext of the separation of powers. Dogmas have always served for enslaving peoples The author of this book is observing the judicial dysfunctioning since 16 years, noting systematically the results in his data base, which became voluminous by the time going by. Contrary to other critics of the regime, he has been so far prudently avoided to attack the Freemasonry. He was aware to possess objectively speaking a modest knowledge of what is going on in our court halls. However, perseverance and ongoing work is putting him today in a position to join the views of Marc-Etienne BURDET. Analysing the case of the Vaudois Farmer Jakob GUTKNECHT, it is demonstrated how an innocent was ruined for favouring his Freemason neighbour to collect 2 mio CHF of insurance allowances., and how this hidden oligarchy is manipulating the Swiss people having established a system of censorship of an unprecedented magnitude and sophistication on this world for stifling corruption affairs to the benefit of the illuminated. Irony: the Swiss ignore blissfully to be censored, and the informed journalists keep quiet of fear to lose their jobs. Judiciary victims: you lose your time, wanting to administer the proof to your executioners to be legally right. Prove to the public opinion that your unworthy detractor Magistrates are not legitimated to assume their functions ! We are launching a APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE : LET’s PUT AN END TO THIS TYRANNY !
Masonic plot with the complicity of the State, at the service of "Brother" Claude BUDRY The   book   of   Gerhard   ULRICH   makes   it   possible   to   open   the   eyes   of   the   Public concerning   the   disastrous   effects   caused   by   the   hidden   oligarchy   which   is   tyrannizing us.   The    Freemasonry    does    not    hesitate    to    destroy    human    destinies    for    making benefit   their   illuminated   members.   They   are   enslaving   the   whole   society,   favouring corruption,   much   wider   spread   than   you   imagine,   having   established   a   censorship   of an   amplitude   and   sophistication   unequalled   in   the   world,   unknown   by   the   naive   Swiss population.   The   actual   judiciary   system   is   totally   degenerated   and   still   supported   by our elected political representatives, manipulated in turn by the hidden power. C ontent De nonciation   of   the   Inspector   of   the   criminal   police   VD   Daniel   KOLLY   and his partners in crime for abuse of authority as an organized gang Th e fire at Nonfoux VD on August 31, 2002 Th e  inconsistencies of the judiciary file 1.  The bullshit presented by KOLLY 2.  The cheatings of KOLLY become procedural truths Th e partners in crime of KOLLY Th e ascendancy of the Freemasonry in general and in the present case in particular 1.  My contacts with the Freemasons 2. The turnaround: the analysis of the scandalous affaire     of Jakob   3.  Omertà helvetica 4.  The conspiracy of the politicians Th e heinous crime covered by the Freemasons Ho w to cope with the hidden powers I. Denunciation of the Inspector of the criminal police VD Daniel KOLLY and his partners in crime for abuse of authority as an organised gang In    his    letter    of    2    November    2016    to    the   Attorney    General     of Canton   Vaud   Eric   COTTIER,   Gerhard   ULRICH   denounced   the inspector    of    the    criminal    police    VD    Daniel    KOLLY,    for    his complicity   in   favor   of   the   Freemason   Claude   BUDRY,   who   led   to the scam and the ruin of Jakob GUTKNECHT. The   dossier   below   will   enable   the   lector   to   convince   himselve   of   a vicious     crime     organized     by     State     officials,     including     two commanders    of    the    Canton    Vaud    police,     not    only    to    the detriment   of   Victim   Jakob   GUTKNECHT,   but   also   to   the   detriment of   public   assets.   It   has   to   be   known   that   the   ECA   in   the   Canton   of   Vaud   is   a   public institution ! Complicity   extended   to   the   highest   levels   of   the   judicial   hierarchy, from   the   District   Court   to   the   European   Court   of   Justice,   through the Cantonal Court of Vaud and the Swiss Federal Court. The   gravity   of   the   situation   is   even   more   astonishing   when   one   sees   that   senior officials   no   longer   have   any   scruples   to   betray   their   duty   of   function   when   their personal    interests    are    at    stake...    For    proof    the    files    Roland    Max    SCHNEIDER ,      FedPol , Claude BUDRY. II. The fire at Nonfoux VD on August 31, 2002 On   Saturday, August   31,   2002   the   Farmer   Jakob   GUTKNECHT   (born   in   1946)   alerted the   number   118   (service   for   urgency   phone   calls)   at   11.40   a.m.   because   of   the   fire which   shall   destroy   subsequently   his   farm   including   two   flats,   and   the   adjacent   real estate    property    of    Claude    BUDRY    (born    in    1936,    engineer    in    civil    engineering), located   at   the   hamlet   Nonfoux   on   the   territory   of   the   commune   of   Essertines-sur- Yverdon VD ( 2002-08-31rapport_police.pdf ). Interrogated   the   day   after   the   sinister,   Jakob   GUTKNECHT   reported   to   have   been
Gerhard ULRICH
During all the duration the fire, the atmosphere was quiet, since the smoke rose  vertically as we see on the fotos on the right
Jakob GUTKNECHT Victim of a vicious crime, He was convicted to cover abuses of authority by public servants involved in organized crime With the guarantee of the State
Claude Budry
The inconsistencies of the judiciary file On August   18,   2003   the   investigating   «Judge»   of   the   North   of   Vaud   Christian   BUFFAT   (actually   Prosecutor   at   the central   Prosecutors’   Office   in   Renens   VD)   condemned   conditionally   Jakob   GUTKNECHT   to   20   days   in   prison   for having    caused    fire    by    negligence.    He    was    accused    to    have    harvested    badly    dried    hay    and    that    by    this negligence,   he   would   have   caused   the   auto-ignition   following   fermentation.   Since   the   concerned   contested,   he was   transferred   to   the   court   of   Eric   ECKERT ,   who   confirmed   that   condemnation   by   his   judgment   of   March   5, 2004.    Beyond    the    fees    of    justice,    GUTKNECHT    suffered    enormous    material    damages    which    ruined    him financially,   because   the   ECA   (Etablissement   cantonal   d’assurance   Incendie   et   éléments   naturels)   delayed   his compensation and diminished drastically the insurance allowance. The    injured,    aware    of    his    innocence,    was    blamed    by    ECKERT    for    his    insolence    to    state    that    the    police investigation had been completely botched up. On   page   10   in   initio   of   the   judgment   of   ECKERT   you   can   read:   «   (Le   foin)   de   2002   avait   été   bottelé   les   29   mai,   14 et   15   juin.   Quant   au   regain,   il   avait   été   bottelé   le   27   juillet,   voir   le   28   ou   le   29   ».   (The   hay   of   2002   has   been   baled on   May   29,   June   14   and   15.   What   is   concerning   the   second   crop   hay,   is   was   baled   on   July   27,   or   perhaps   28   or 29.) ( 2004-03-05 jugement Eckert ). Issued   from   a   Farmer   family,   and   having   had   an   agricultural   education,   this   paragraph   appealed   me   instantly, since   the   risk   of   fermentation   of   hay   is   high   during   2   to   3   weeks   after   harvesting   only.   In   the   present   case,   the second   crop   hay   had   been   baled   5   weeks   prior   to   the   fire.   The   hypothesis   of   auto-ignition   was   thus   purely academic. As   all   wrong   condemnations,   this   investigation   has   been   a   real   disaster.   The   inspector   in   charge   of   it,   Daniel KOLLY has investigated nothing, ignoring stubbornly the declarations of Jakob GUTKNECHT. KOLLY   wrote   2   reports   –   one   on   April   1st   2003    ( 2003-04-01   Rapport   Kolly )   of   4   pages,   and   another   one   dated June 24, 2003 ( 2003-06-24 Rapport Kolly )  with another skinny 4 pages. The   «   investigators   »   renounced   to   ask   for   the   help   of   experts   in   this   matter.   They   have   just   dispatched   samples of   hay   for   scientific   analysis   to   the   criminal   police   of   the   city   of   Zurich.   We   shall   come   back   on   the   issue   later   on. However,   today,   we   dispose   among   others   of   two   serious   expertises,   the   one   of   Pierre   AEBY   of   the   Institut agricole   de   l’Etat   de   Fribourg   ( 2005-06-28   Aeby )    and   that   one   of   the   Laboratories   LAVOUÉ   F   ( 2010-10-19 Expertise Lavoue ). The    alert    reader    will    compare    the    reports    of    KOLLY    with    these    two    expertises,    compiled    by    competent professionals.   He   will   understand   immediately,   that   the   inspector   of   the   criminal   police   VD   is   a   charlatan   with respect to fires, and certainly in those cases concerning sinisters provoked by fermentation of hay 1.  The bullshit presented by KOLLY One has to start with his omissions, which became lies by omission: -   These reports mentioned nowhere the dates, when the hay had been baled/harvested. -   KOLLY dissimulated in his reports as far as he could the exact dates when he had proceeded with the     sampling of hay, sent for analysis to the scientific service of the Police of the City of Zurich. Details see     below. -   He passed under silence the existence of the sketches describing the facilities, specifying among     others where precisely was stocked the hay and the straw for example.     ( 2002-09-01 Esquisse Gutknecht Jean-Christophe ) -   He mentioned nowhere that no inhabitant of the hamlet had reported to have smelled any odours     of fermentation – a phenomenon which the neighbours could not have missed -   Ignoring the indications of Jakob GUTKNECHT that the fire had started in the aeration channel on     the floor above the cow house, KOLLY omitted do have that emplacement examined. We will     come back on that point. -   Witnesses spoke of very black smoke at the outburst of the fire, which is supposing an ignition     by a hydrocarbon, and to have heard an explosion  ( 2002-09-01 PV Budry ) ; KOLLY did     carefully avoid to retain these observations in his reports -  Nowhere the «investigators» did retain the witnessing of Amandine BÉGUELIN (today’s family name    PRADERVAND), aged 15 years old at that time, who was just behind the barn of GUTKNECHT (to the    East), when the fire broke out. She had signed a photograph showing the real estates of    GUTKNECHT / BUDRY before the fire, indicating with an arrow, where the fire had started: in the    aeration channel of the cow house. She had as well confirmed that the first smoke had been very black.    This document has vanished from the court file. Details see below. Furthermore    he    has    formulated    in    his    two    reports    the    lie    according    to    which    «    The    witnessing    of    Mr. GUTKNECHT   permits   to   situate   the   origin   of   the   sinister   in   the   barn   of   his   farm,   be   it   on   the   upper   floor   of   the farm   facilities   » .      This   is   half   of   the   truth:    GUTKNECHT   did   confirm   consistently   to   have   seen   the   first   flames in the aeration channel on the floor above the cow house, that is to say on the ground floor. ( 2002-09-01 PV Gutknecht ) Other trickeries of KOLLY in his first report : «   The   progression   of   the   flames,   the   wind   direction   during   the   time   of   the   burning   and   the   witnessing   of   the firefighters   did   direct   our   investigations   to   the   western   part   of   the   barn,   without   being   in   a   position   to   locate   the origin of the sinister more precisely.» He repeated that lie in his second report. This   is   WRONG .   There   was   no   wind   during   the   burning   on August   31,   2002.   Evidence:   the   photographs   taken   by the   reporter   of   the   Newspaper   24   Heures   of   Yverdon   -   at   all   stages   of   the   fire   the   smoke   ascended   vertically   into the   sky.   See   above   pictures.   Of   course,   KOLLY   did   not   specify   the   names   of   those   firefighters   who   shall   have spoken of this imagined wind. It   goes   without   saying   that   KOLLY   did   not   take   into   consideration   another   cause   for   the   outburst   of   fire   than   that one of the fermentation of hay. According   to   KOLLY   «   The   auto-ignition   by   fermentation   needs   a   time   span   going   approximately   from   3   weeks   to 3 months, because temperature is rising very slowly ». This   is   still   WRONG .   The   experts   Pierre   AEBY    and   Frédéric   LAVOUÉ    are   attesting   that   the   risk   of   auto   ignition is   just   theory   after   6   weeks   of   stocking   of   hay,   and   that   the   dates   of   having   brought   the   hay   into   the   barn   did exclude   in   the   present   case   to   be   the   origin   of   this   fire.   When   the   fermentation   of   hay   is   causing   a   burning,   the increase of temperature happens quite quickly (question of days, not of months). According   to   KOLLY,   «   Under   the   pressure   of   the   emanating   gazes   of   fermentation   on   the   one   side   and   their combustion   while   they   get   ignited   on   the   other   side,   chimneys   had   been   formed   from   the   initial   ignition   centre   up to the open air  ». LAVOUÉ   explains   the   formation   of   those   chimneys   by   the   progression   of   fire   in   the   empty   spaces   between   the round hay bales, where the fire was stirred in presence of oxygen. KOLLY   omits   to   specify   in   his   reports   the   precise   date   of   the   collecting   of   the   samples   of   hay,   exploited subsequently   for   analysis.   The   expert   LAVOUÉ,   disposing   of   all   essential   documents   did   not   understand   whether the   sampling   had   been   carried   out   3   or   4   days   after   the   fire.    But   indirectly   KOLLY   had   reported   himself   to   have proceeded   with   the   sampling   with   4   days   of   delay   after   the   burning,   since   hi   is   quoting   GUTKNECHT   on   page   4   of   his   second   report,   who   had   indicated   that   delay   to   be   exactly   4   days.   KOLLY   did   not   contest   to   have   realized the sampling with 4 days of delay, but he did minimise the impact. ( 2003-06-24 Rapport Kolly ) . Still KOLLY in his report of April 1st, 2003: « The conditioning of hay in big cylindrical bales of more than 500 kg is relatively recent ».  These bales are weighing in reality about 250 kg. At   the   end   of   his   first   report,   KOLLY   discusses   on   half   a   page   the   analysis   carried   out   by   Dr.   BRÜSCHWEILER. One   understands   immediately   that   he   does   not   have   a   clue   of   this   matter.   He   is   concluding   with   temerity:   «   The results indicate that a spontaneous heating had occurred in various zones of the fodder » . In his second report, KOLLY added the following untruths : «…   The   outside   of   the   round   bale   is   forming   a   water   and   air   proof   layer.   Because   of   this   fact,   the   hay   which contains   a   high   degree   of   moisture   at   the   time   of   baling   cannot   dry   out,   even   if   the   bales   are   left   several   days   in the open air  ». «   […]   This   compression   is   rendering   the   bales   water   and   air   proof.   Therefore,   if   the   hay   is   wet   in   the   centre   of   the bale, it will remain wet, even when leaving the bale several weeks outside ». He   is   dismissed   by   the   agronomist   AEBY:   «   The   round   bales   have   been   left   in   the   field,   laying   on   their   rounded part,   which   permits   the   centre   to   dry   out,   and   not   to   heat   up.    The   high   density   is   preventing   that   water   will penetrate   into   the   bale,   how   it   can   be   observed   with   thatched   roofs.   However,   it   is   not   correct,   as   it   is pretended   in   the   police   report   to   think   that   this   kind   of   stocking   prevents   the   evacuation   of   water   ;    if   liquid water   cannot   effectively   leave   nor   penetrate,   this   is   not   the   case   for   water   in   form   of   vapours   who   can   evacuate, particularly,   when   the   bales   are   aerated.   The   heat   releases   by   fermentation   is   even   accelerating   the   evacuation of   that   residual   water.   The   stocking   of   3   weeks   in   the   open   air,   as   practised   by   Mr.   GUTKNECHT   constitutes   thus an   efficient   solution   for   evacuating   a   big   part   of   water   in   excess,    contained   in   the   hay   at   the   time   of   baling. This way to proceed is thus neither a sign of negligence ». KOLLY wrote 1 ½ pages about the principles of hay fermentation, playing wrongly to be an expert in that matter. Four   fighting   the   observation   of   J.   GUTKNECHT,   stating   to   have   seen   the   first   flames   in   the   aeration   channel   in the   cow   house,   KOLLY   is   pretending   that   GUTKNECHT   did   not   see   that   the   upper   parts   of   the   hay   stack   were already   on   burning,   and   he   is   telling   tales   :   «   […]    and   the   flows   of   convection   had   folded   the   flames   into   the   parts where   the   straw   was   stocked   and   where   the   aeration   channel   of   the   cow   house   was   located.   It   is   hence   normal that   Mr.      GUTKNECHT   saw   flames   in   that   channel,   without   realizing   that   the   stocked   hay   in   the   western   part   of the farming facilities where burning first  »... Here, KOLLY did commit several errors of logics : a)  LAVOUÉ counters : « One will retain that Mister GUTKNECHT stated to have been located in a      warehouse behind his property. From that point, the farmer could obviously see a roof panel above the      stocked hay. If the fire had started at that place, the roof would have busted rapidly above it.      Mr GUTKNECHT would have seen the flames developing at that upper part of the barn   […]». b)  KOLLY could neither demonstrate that the fire did start on the upper parts of the barn. His allegation      is thus pure speculation. c)  Above the aeration channel of the cow house, straw has been stocked, not hay. If the speculation      of KOLLY did apply, the fire would have started in the straw, and not in the hay. d)  According to LAVOUÉ, the witnessing of Mr. GUTKNECHT is conflicting with the hypothesis of KOLLY.      « This phenomenon as it is described is impossible in the present case.      […] A extension of fire from top downwards is quite a rare phenomenon, fire is propagating from      bottom towards the top (phenomenon of convexion)  ». KOLLY continues his manoeuvres : He   claims   that   the   late   sampling   of   hay   which   has   been   realized   after   the   watering   by   the   firefighters   did   influence in no way the analysis results. This   is   WRONG    !    BRÜSCHWEILER   specifies   :   «   […]    the   sampling   has   to   be   carried   out   as   soon   as   possible, that is to say within hours following the fire […] » (because of the risk of falsified results), ( French   translation 1982Arch.Kriminol170_106-117, page 114 ) . AEBY   says   in   the   same   context   on   page   3   of   his   expertise   :   «   But   in   the   final   report   (of   KOLLY)   it   is   pretended that    the    delay    of    3    days    between    the    fire    and    the    sampling    would    not    change    the    populations    of    the microorganisms, this is partially   WRONG  […]. » ( 2005-06-28 Aeby ) . LAVOUÉ   makes   the   point   on   page   19   :   «   […]   this   kind   of   analysis   cannot   be   considered   to   be   reliable   in   cases   of investigation   concerning   fires   (Except   cases,   where   a   part   of   the   hay   has   been   totally   or   partially   saved   from   the flames   and   has   not   been   wet   by   extinction   water,   which   is   not   the   case   here),   …   the   use   of   these   analysis   and their interpretation having been made are inappropriate and abusive » . ( 2010-10-19 Expertise Lavoue ) . For   neutralizing   the   argument   of   J.   GUTKNECHT   that   one   sample   had   been   extracted   from   a   zone   where   hay of   the   previous   year   was   stocked,    KOLLY   is   putting   forward   the   speculation ,   «   that   the   round   bale   from   which the   corresponding   sample   was   drawn   was   originating   from   the   zone   to   the   North,   be   it   in   the   upper   part   of   the stack from where it has fallen down to the southern part during the burning »… According   to   KOLLY,   a   fire   due   to   auto-ignition   of   hay   would   produce   «   hot   combustion   gazes   arriving   to   the   free air »  which would produce generally very black smoke… This   is   WRONG    !   Contested   by   LAVOUÉ   (page   14)   :   «   This   colour   (black)   of   the   smoke   may   be   due   to   the combustion   of   hydrocarbon,   to   a   solid   liquefiable   (plastic   material)   or   a   bad   combustion    due   to   lack   of oxygen.   Considered   that   large   volume   of   the   barn,   (…)   this   latter   hypothesis   does   not   seem   plausible   ».   As   a matter of fact, in case of auto-ignition of hay, the smoke is white. ( Lettre Elkhazen AFEP 2009-02-18 ) . 2.  The cheatings of KOLLY become procedural truths KOLLY   continued   to   lead   the   dance   during   the   trial   before   the   tables   of   ECKERT ,   since   he   assumed   the   role   as accuser.   Incredible   but   reality   !   The   findings   of   this   «   sleuth   »   were   taken   over   unchanged   by   this   «   Judge   » crushing mercilessly the defence of the Farmer. Evidently,   ECKERT   did   not   dispose   of   the   expertise   exploited   above,   but   he   had   rejected   precisely   the   request or his victim to mandate an expert in his case   ( 2004-03-05 jugement Eckert, pages 5-7 ) . These   «   procedural   truths    » ,   once   established   at   the   first   instance,   did   pass   through   up   to   the   European   Court of   Human   Rights    as   a   letter   in   the   mail.   It   is   standard   that   the   superior   instances   take   over   the   sayings   of   the first   «Judges»   by      copy/paste,   without   ever   realizing   a   single   plausibility   test   (see   my   book   The   Unmasked «Constitutional State», Editor  Samizdat 2016). IV. The partners in crime of KOLLY The   boss   of   KOLLY   at   that   time   was   the   Commander   of   the   Vaudois   cantonal   Police   Eric   LEHMANN .   LEHMANN did    defend    the    illegal    manoeuvres    of    his    subordinate    without    hesitations,    as    did    his    successor    Jacques ANTENEN ,   as   it   is   proven   by   his   correspondence   with   the   brother   of   Jakob,   Johann   GUTKNECHT.   KOLLY   has been as well strongly supported by his colleague, the IPA FIAUX ( 2003-04-29rapport_Fiaux.pdf ) . Questioned   by   a   journalist, ANTENEN   pretended   that   it   «   would   be   illegal   and   contrary   to   the   code   of   conduct   »   if he   interfered   otherwise   than   by   defending   the   cheatings   of   his   subordinates.   The   Newspaper...   «   Vigousse   of September 12. 2014  » . See also edition of June 22. 2012 « Le Poulet flambé  ». The   investigating   «   Judge   »   Christian   BUFFAT    (today   Prosecutor)   has   violated   his   duties   in   an   inexcusable manner.   One   is   astonished   to   learn   that   the   «   investigation   »   was   attributed   to   him   only   two   days   after   the fire,    be   it   on   Monday,   September   2nd,   2002. That   was   the   Vaudois   olé-olé,   being   as   well   the   characteristics   of   the decision   taken   by   BUFFAT   the   same   day,   according   to   which   «   The   present   investigation   shall   be   carried   out   in the summary form ». One did not care about the details. Already   on   September   4,   2002   the   inspector   FIAUX   did   arrange   the   switching   for   having   the   case   pursued   on   a one   way   road:   «   […]   the   most   likely   hypothesis   is   the   fire   caused   by   the   fermentation.» At   that   time,   no   evidence   whatsoever was pointing in that direction. But   there   was   worse:   BUFFAT   ignored   the   phone   call   of   September   5,   2002:   «   J akob   GUTKNECHT   phoned   to the   Judge   to   let   him   know   his   dissatisfaction   with   regard   to   the   job   performed   by   the   investigators.   He   states   to   be convinced   that   the   hypothesis   of   the   fermentation   had   to   be   put   aside   […].   He   is   blaming   the   Policemen   to   have neglected   witnesses   stating   that   an   explosion   had   occurred   in   the   farming   facilities,   opposite   the   place   where   the fodder   was   stocked.   The   Judge   takes   note   of   what   is   preceding.   […]   ».   For   which   reason,   this   «Judge»   did commit the fatal mistake not to pursue this lead ? ( 2002-09-02 PV operations ) . Advised   by   the   Director   of   the   Vaudois   Farmer   Union   Promoter,   Daniel   GAY    (a   presumed   Freemason),   Jakob GUTKNECHT   mandated   the   Lawyer   Paul   MARVILLE    with   his   defence.   That   was   making   the   Gardener   to   Bock: The   Freemason   MARVILLE   has   been   during   his   lifetime   the   champion   of   betraying   his   clients,    and   he   did   end his days by « the pill of the Freemasons » . The   «   Judge   »   Eric   ECKERT    is   obviously   the   key   cheater   in   this   affair,   having   closed   knowingly   his   eyes   and having let KOLLY to proceed with his game of manoeuvres. Alas,    the    who    is    who    of    the    Vaudois    Magistrates    did    corroborate    this    perjured    condemnation    of    Jakob GUTKNECHT : By   decision   of   May   12,   2004   the   cantonal   «   Judges   »   Laurent   DE   MESTRAL    (12   negative   references   in   our   data base),   Bernard   ABRECHT    (4   negative   references)   and   François   DE   MONTMOLLIN       (23   negative   references) did confirm the first instance judgment.  ( 2004-05-12 Rejet-recours TC ). On   January   12,   2005,   the   cantonal   court,   chaired   by   the   Venerable   François   JOMINI   (33   negative   references   in our   data   base),   with   the   collaboration   of   the   two   other   cantonal   Judges,   Jean-Luc   COLOMBINI   (7   negative references) and Blaise BATTISTOLO , rejected the first revision request of GUTKNECHT. By   order   of   September   11,   2009,   the   investigating   «   Judge   »   of   the   Broye   and   North   of   Vaud      Christian   BUFFAT   (today   Prosecutor)   did   refuse   to   pursue   a   complaint   lodged   by   J.   GUTKNECHT,   and   was   promptly   supported   by the cantonal « Judges » Jean-François MEYLAN , Joël KRIEGER  and Bertrand SAUTEREL . ( 2009-10-29 Refus Plainte ) . By   decision   of   February   10,   2010   the   cantonal   «   Judges   »   Pierre   HACK    (5   negative   references),   Sylvie GIROUD-WALTHER    (1   negative   reference)   and   Fabienne   BYRDE    (3   negative   references)   rejected   in   a   record deadline   the      revision   request   of   January   29,   2010 .   HACK   and   company   made   a   joke   of   themselves   by pretending   that   the   consulted   experts   by   GUTKNECHT,   Messrs.   LAVOUÉ   and   ELKHAZEN   were   amateurs compared   to   the   inspector   KOLLY,   having   «a   long   experience   and   special   training   in   particular   in   the   matter   of fires»   (page   6,   2002-02-10rejet-revision.pdf).   As   a   matter   of   fact,   KOLLY    disposed   at   that   time   already   of   22 years   of   extensive   cheating   and   playing.    He   had   by   the   way   played   as   well   a   fatal   role   in   the   affair   SÉGALAT (see my book The Unmasked « Constitutional State ». Edition Samizdat, 2016). In   complicity   with   the   leading   cantonal   investigating   Judge,   who   was   then   Jacques   ANTENEN ,   HACK    and company   refused   the   request   of   GUTKNECHT,   asking   the   witness   Amandine   BÉGUELIN   (todays’   family name   PRADERVAND)   to   be   heard   finally.    She   had   been   just   behind   the   barn   of   GUTKNECHT   when   the   fire broke   out   and   she   had   signed   a   photograph   of   the   real   estates   destroyed   by   the   fire   as   they   were   before.   On   that picture,   she   had   indicated   with   an   arrow   the   location,   where   the   fire   had   broken   out.    2008-04-21   Béguelin Amandine .   This   evidence   has   vanished   from   the   court   file,   and   she   could   not   be   called   to   court   for   the   trial   in March   2004,   due   to   a   stage   abroad.   This   witness   could   have   confirmed   as   well   that   the   first   smoke   had   been black.   Evidently,   the   «   Judges   »   ANTENEN   and   HACK   did   obstruct   Justice,   refusing   this   witness   to   be questioned. The   cantonal   «   Judges   »   Pierre-Henri   WINZAP,    Yasmina   BENDANI ,   Philippe   COLELOUGH    (the   latter   two   are entertaining   an   intimate   relation)   efficiently   helped   to   stifle   a   new   revision   request,   by   their   decision   of August   20, 2012 ( 2012-08-20 TC VD rejet demande révision ). Unfortunately,    Jakob    GUTKNECHT    realized    too    late    to    have    dealt    in    the    context    of    this    request    with    the Freemason   Lawyer   Stefan   DISCH   (see   my   book:   The   Unmasked   «   Constitutional   State   »,   Edition   Samizdat, 2016). Finally,   the   correspondence   of   Johann   GUTKNECHT   (brother   of   the   victim)   makes   us   understand   that   the following Vaudois Magistrates are as well partners in this judiciary crime : Eric COTTIER , Vaudois Attorney General Béatrice MÉTRAUX, State Councillor VD  ( 2016-06-17 Guknecht_à Metraux ) Pierre-Yves MAILLARD, President of the State Council  ( 2016-09-17 Guknecht à Maillard ) These two politicians have passively participated by refraining to give any answer to those interventions.   On   the   national   level   the   federal   «   Judges   »      Hans   MATHYS ,    Laura   JACQUEMOUD-ROSSARI    and   Christian DENYS  charged themselves with guilt by the ATF 6B_601/2012 du 29.01.2013 . And   finally,   the Attorney   General   of   the   Confederation ,   Michael   LAUBER ,   tolerated   as   well   this   judiciary   crime   in his role as chief engineer of corruption in this country ( 2016-08-27 Gutknecht Lauber.pdf ) . At   the   European   Court   of   Human   Rights,   the   «   Judge   »   Nebojša   VUČINIĆ    delivered   a   standard   text   module, violating as usual their obligation to motivate their decisions. 2013-09-23CEDH.pdf For   closing   this   chapter,   lets   point   out   that   3   Lawyers   attempted   to   perform   an   honest   job   in   this   case.   These   are Mrs.   Malek   BUFFAT,   Donovan   THÉSAURY   and   Samuel   THÉTAZ   who   had   succeeded   to   «Maître   Magouille» ( Paul   MARVILLE );   BUFFAT,   when   becoming   aware   of   the   influence   of   the   Freemasonry,   declared   to   be   unable   to carry   on.   Donovan   TÉSAURY,   ( 2010-01-29   Requête   révision   Tesaury )    who   had   formulated   a   quit   valid   revision request   was   neutralized:   he   was   offered   a   prebend   as   a   Prosecutor   in   the   North   of   Vaud.    And   THÉTAZ abandoned   exhausted   by   a   burnout   caused   by   this   case.   Two   more   lawyers   renounced   after   having   seriously studied the file, and after consultation with the Lawyers Association of Vaud.
behind   his   house   in   a   warehouse   when   he   suddenly   heard   cracklings.   Intrigued,   he   walked   to   his   barn,   where   he saw   fire   flames   in   the   aeration   channel   of   the   cow   house.   After   having   alerted   the   number   118,   he   saved   his livestock, except two calves who perished in the fire ( 2002-09-01pv_gutknecht.pdf ). Below   are   reproduced   5   photographs   taken   by   the   photographer   of   the   Newspaper   24   Heures   of   Yverdon,   at various stages of the fire. The burning was under control at about 1. 3 0 p.m. ( 2002-09-05rapportFlueckiger.pdf ). III.
Click to enlarge
New construction offered to BUDRY by the cantonal fire insurance (ECA)
Deceased 14.12.2019