Jakob GUTKNECHT - Bitter Pill
Worldcorruption.info
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
BernLeaks
Gerhard ULRICH
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
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.
New construction offered to
BUDRY by the cantonal fire
insurance (ECA)
Deceased 14.12.2019
![[x]](index_htm_files/close.png "Fermer")
