In his 42 pages book, Gerhard ULRICH isthrowing light on theregime of the hidden oligarchy – Freemasonry and associated Service clubs (Rotary, Lions Club, Kiwanis etc.) - whichis 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 peoplesThe 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 ourcourt 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 systemof censorship of an unprecedented magnitudeand 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 fearto 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 aAPPEAL TO THE PEOPLE :LET’s PUT AN END TOTHIS TYRANNY !
Masonic plot with the complicityof the State, at the service of "Brother" Claude BUDRYThe 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.ContentDenonciation of the Inspector of the criminal police VD Daniel KOLLY and his partners in crime for abuse of authority as an organized gangThe fire at Nonfoux VD on August 31, 2002The inconsistencies of the judiciary file1. The bullshit presented by KOLLY2. The cheatings of KOLLY become procedural truthsThe partners in crime of KOLLYThe ascendancy of the Freemasonry in general and in thepresent case in particular1. My contacts with the Freemasons2. The turnaround: the analysis of the scandalous affaire of Jakob 3. Omertà helvetica4. The conspiracy of the politiciansThe heinous crime covered by the FreemasonsHow to cope with the hidden powersI.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 Generalof 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, 2002On 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).
During all the duration the fire, the atmosphere was quiet, since the smoke rose vertically as we see on the fotoson the right
Jakob GUTKNECHTVictim of a vicious crime,He was convicted to cover abuses of authority by public servants involved in organized crime With the guaranteeof the State
III.The inconsistencies of the judiciary fileOn 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 hay1. 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 AEBYand Frédéric LAVOUÉare 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 4of 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), (Frenchtranslation 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 partiallyWRONG […]. » (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 combustiondue 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 Rightsas 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 KOLLYThe 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: « Jakob 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 MARVILLEwith 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 ECKERTis 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, KOLLYdisposed 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, HACKand 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 GeneralBéatrice 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 thoseinterventions.On the national level the federal « Judges » Hans MATHYS,Laura JACQUEMOUD-ROSSARIand 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 VUČINIĆdelivered a standard text module, violating as usual their obligation to motivate their decisions. 2013-09-23CEDH.pdfFor 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.
Interrogated the day after the sinister, Jakob GUTKNECHT reported to have been 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 1.30 p.m.(2002-09-05rapportFlueckiger.pdf).
Click to enlarge
New construction offered to BUDRY by the cantonal fire insurance (ECA)
The burning property of Claude BUDRY – apartment and barn, seen from the East. Only the farming facilities and the shelters were destroyed. The apartment was saved.
To the left the burning barn of BUDRY – to right Jakob GUTKNECHT’s farm
The firefighters in action in front of the farm of Jakob GUTKNECHT, view from the West