THE 80 MILLION WAS FROM A EUROPEAN ROTHCHILD.

Matthew,
Here is my latest installment.  Like the previous ones, it supplies evidence that people's not knowing what they're talking about sometimes doesn't stop them from talking about it.  This is not a good idea, especially when judgments about made about people based on this modus operandi.

Klas:  Any idea who donated the 1,000 plus acres of land for the seminary in VA and how much that land would have sold for on the open market?

Dr. Krah says in his interview with Siscoe that money from the foundation of which he was a trustee was used in purchasing the property.  Since I'm pretty sure it all had one owner (something the land records would confirm), I don't think there was any donation; just a purchase of the whole parcel with funds from the foundation and other donors.

Incredulous: I'll try to dig the lady's name. I heard she is now estranged from the SSPX.
        
The woman you refer to is Linda Fortin, who conceived and sold the Society on the idea of having the seminary where it is.  The Fortins and her husband own a nursing home in Virginia.  Two of their eight children are Society priests.  I doubt that the Fortins could have been major contributors to the seminary.  Mrs. Fortin was very active in connection with the construction.  At some point it was determined that changes needed to be made.  This caused Mrs. Fortin to break with the project -- and with the SSPX.  She now goes to the FSSP.

Incredulous: The corporate docuмents for the seminary project were made public.   Fr. Asher knows all the details since he is the treasurer.

What the corporate docuмents would tell you is the name of the entity that owns the property, the name of its owner (which is sure to be another legal entity controlled by the U.S. District), and the actions taken by its board of directors.  Only the docuмents creating these entities are matters of public record, and in some scenarios nothing would be of public record.  The Society is not about to make any non-public docuмentation available to anyone outside the Society except banks and the like; and I'm morally certain that there's nothing in them that's going to be of any interest to the Resistance.  Directors' resolutions just don't talk about their being controlled by the Jews or selling out to Rome.

Incredulous: I would suspect he knows Max Krah, since Krah admitted some of the 80 million Euros were going to the seminary.

Yes, he might well know Krah.  On the other hand, he might just have cashed the check, thanking God and praying for Dr. Krah's intentions..  Admitted?  How has the trustee of a charitable organization created to make charitable contributions "admitted" something when he says that the organization has made a charitable contribution,  

John McFarland

Matthew,

Klas says:

Mr. McFarland refers to the Siscoe interview of Dr. Krah in trying to shed light on the land transaction, but even with this interview Mr. McFarland (is he a lawyer?) does not give us a definitive answer as to the nature of the land transaction.  The key passage of the interview as it relates to the seminary is this: "The foundation is supporting the SSPX and using the money which was donated by this family. As an example, it is supporting the new Seminary project in Virginia."  That statement, in and of itself, nor anything else in the interview gives us any sort of clear and definitive look at to whether or not the 1,000 plus acres of land for the seminary was by way of sale or by way of donation.

I reply:

Klas,

I am a (so far) retired lawyer, Yale Law School '77, who spent just shy of forty years in practice.

Why do you think it matters whether the property was bought by the foundation and donated to the SSPX, or the money was donated to the SSPX to buy the property?  Either way, the Society got it without paying for it.  It was a donation either way.

However, the donation scenario is completely implausible.  I doubt that the foundation's buying property in the U.S. is permitted by its formation papers or statutory law in the country of its formation.  Charitable foundations are meant to put the donated money in conservative investments and give out the earnings.  Anything else gets trustees crosswise with the law.  They're not in the real estate business even in their own countries, and I can't imagine non-U.S. trustees getting involved in U.S. real estate matters even it were legal for them to do so.  If they did it, the first thing they would have to do would be to hire American lawyers and real estate pros.  It just makes no sense. 

Furthermore, if the hypothesis is that the Society has been bribed to sell out to modernist Rome, the bribing could have been done either by donating the money or by buying and donating the property.     


I looked on the internet at the Buckingham County website and found properties amounting to about 350 acres that are owned by stas, inc., the corporation that runs the seminary.  That's likely the farm, but I've found nothing to pin that down.  I also found an article in The Farmville Gazette, the newspaper of a town not far from the seminary, about the 2011 groundbreaking for the seminary.  Among other things, it said: "Situated on over 1,000 acres off Route 659, Ranson Road, the site for the seminary includes a large tract formerly owned by MeadWestvaco, as well as an adjacent farm with a residence."  

The Meadwestvaco property is identified by the County Planning Commission in the minutes of its first meeting on the property in 2009 as Tax Map Section 64, Parcel 23, and that it was then still owned by Meadwestvaco.  But I can't find the Tax Map or any other reference to the Meadwestvaco property or its ownership history.

The copies of the deeds or other information in the Buckingham County paper land records no doubt show who owned the property when it was sold/transferred, and what entity it was sold/transferred to, which would also settle whether it was the property was purchased or received as a donation. If Meadwestvaco and the farm owner were the sellers, the Society was the buyer.  If someone else bought the property from Meadwestvaco and the farm owner, then the recorded transfer of the property to the Society was a donation.

But since I can't make any sense out of the idea that the property was bought by the foundation and donated to the SSPX, nor why it would make any difference if that in fact was done, I'm not about to go nearly four hundred miles down to Buckingham County unless somebody can make the case that it's worth the effort.  As shown above, I myself can't.  I think you're jumping at shadows. 

In caritate,
John McFarland

Incredulous says and I reply::

Since Mr. McFarland has demonstrated that he's very capable of researching real-estate transaction records online, then please answer my previous question:

"Please find out the name of the "front" holding company that the SSPX is using to control Fr. Gruner's former assets, Catholic Family News and the Fatima Center?  "

I don't even know what legal entity or entities own(s) CFN and the Center, and there is nothing in the public records that would identify them.

It is possible that the CFN states who its owner is. At least some newspapers and many more do this.   But I don't have a subscription to CFN, and the CFN website doesn't have the paper itself online.  Furthermore, even if does show CFN's owner(s), there is nothing in the public records that would enable me or anyone else to find out what person(s) or entit(ies) own the entit(ies) that own(s) CFN. 

In all honesty Mr. McFarland, you're an ally of the SSPX propaganda machine... aren't you? 

No, I am not.  I'm an SSPX faithful who has shown that you have neither understanding of nor evidence for the things you say.  Your response is to backstop your unsupported charges with additional unsupported charges. 

You could probably text Fr. Wegner about Fr. Gruner's assets, but of course the German fox won't tell you.

I'm not going to do any such thing.  They'e your unsupported speculations, not mine, so you're the logical candidate to speak with Foxy Fr. Juergen.  But keep in mind that when he declines to tell you anything, it will prove nothing but that you still have no evidence for your speculations.

We noticed in Max Krah's Ignis ardens post from 2012, that he referred to you by name and admired your coinage of the term "Judaie-phobia". 

Judaeophobia.  It is certainly not my coinage, but it's a good term for the mindset of people who are irrational in how they size up the Jews.

In this grand battle against the enemies of Jesus Christ and our Holy religion, we Resistance members, realize you've been judaized.

I have a pretty good amateur knowledge of the h0Ɩ0cαųst revisionist positions.  I don't know for sure whether or not the gas chambers narrative is true.  But if my life depended on giving the objectively correct answer, my answer would be no.  The further issue of whether substantial numbers of Jews were killed out in the field by the Germans and their allies just for being Jews is a tougher question to answer, and my knowledge base is pretty limited, but I'm nowhere near accepting that it happened.  Among other things I've noticed that h0Ɩ0cαųst supporters have started pushing the shot just for being Jews narrative as the numbers of those they estimate to have been gassed keeps going down.  As regards the role of Jews in things here and now, I'm pretty much on board with the critical position of a number of the contributors to http://www.unz.com. 

So unfortunately for Fr. Wegner, you're credibility is basically at "end-game" on this forum.

I never had any credibilty chez Cathinfo, since I was a vile SSPX faithful and hence mentally and morally defective -- sorta like what the nαzιs used to say about the Jews.  But Matthew has been good enough to give me a hearing, and we'll see how credibility plays out going forward.  It think he should let me back on directly, but I don't propose to look a gift horse in mouth.

In caritate,
John McFarland