• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Harrit sues paper for defamation

Josarhus said:
It starts at 9:30 CET

The funny thing is that the next case starts at 10:00, same courtroom, same judges, so Harrit will have a maximum of 15 minutes, probably shorter.
Click to expand...

I might have known the NWO would step in and ruin his presentation ;)
 
Spanx said:
I might have known the NWO would step in and ruin his presentation ;)
Click to expand...

We have just heard that Niels Harrit's appeal has collapsed completely.

















Oops, the ISF has foreknowledge!? Complicity! :eek:
 
Josarhus said:
It starts at 9:30 CET

The funny thing is that the next case starts at 10:00, same courtroom, same judges, so Harrit will have a maximum of 15 minutes, probably shorter.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? It says a verdict is being delivered without court appearances.

Then again, it's a fairly recent addition, so perhaps someone finally got through to Harrit that the video, the science experiment, and god knows what other circus acts he had dreamt up, won't be of any use for him in court...
 
KDLarsen said:
Are you sure about that? It says a verdict is being delivered without court appearances.

Then again, it's a fairly recent addition, so perhaps someone finally got through to Harrit that the video, the science experiment, and god knows what other circus acts he had dreamt up, won't be of any use for him in court...
Click to expand...

Perhaps he didn't include the video / experiment within the exchange of statements.
 
KDLarsen said:
Are you sure about that? It says a verdict is being delivered without court appearances.

Then again, it's a fairly recent addition, so perhaps someone finally got through to Harrit that the video, the science experiment, and god knows what other circus acts he had dreamt up, won't be of any use for him in court...
Click to expand...

Two of the judges from Harrits case, in the same chamber, are involved in the other case at 10:00.

Perhaps Harrits case is going to be a series of court appearances, and not just tomorrow.
 
By the way: Harrit's wife, Pernille Grumme, so far has nothing to say on Facebook about Niels' heroic fight against the windmills of the Danish courts. Her priorities must lie elsewhere. For example, on February 20, she shared this anti-semitic dreck by Kevin Barrett on Iran's PressTV:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02/17/398032/911-attacks-was-Zionist-coup-detat
Barrett said:
“So basically Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were set-up to take the blame for 9/11 to create a blackmail situation where the Zionists who seized power in the United States with their coup d'etat on September 11, 2001 could then use all of the resources of the US government and military to support Israeli expansionism and genocide in Palestine and to launch a permanent war on Islam on behalf of Israel,”
Click to expand...
What a tosse!
 
I looked at Grumme's FB page... It's pretty scary how she sees the world. She is definitely an antisemitic paranoid "crazy". She's pretty open about her views... And although these may not be her husband's views... I would imagine he's not far apart it at all. That's not good.

I wonder of all those people who think Neils is the next best thing to sliced bread are aware of all this and if they would change their views? Guilt by association? I wouldn't be comfortable having these two on my team.
 
I have so far not heard or read anything by Harrit that would indicate he is an anti-semite himself, and my Danish debunking contacts who know him better (having personally met etc.) don't think he is.

But CTs are boiling hot at the Grumme/Harrit household, with Pernille being solidly into chem trails, too. If my girl friend were an anti-semite, I'd have problem with that...
 
Today's schedule at the Eastern High Court is listed here:
http://www.domstol.dk/oestrelandsret/retslister/Documents/TO120315.HTM
(Google Translation)

The Harrit entry is titled "Main Negotiation". Harrit has no advocate, the other party (journalist Søren K. Villemoes and Weekendavisen's chief editor Anne Knudsen) are represented by Attorney S. Juul. Country Judges: Lone Dahl Frandsen, Sanne Kolmos and Morten Ruben Brage, who are also scheduled at 10 am for a different case (a "Sentencing without a hearing").

Procedings are described as "Civil appeal proceedings between private parties. Person Question".


It looks to me as if today both sides have under 15 minutes each to state their case, and a decision will be delivered on some other day.


I read that anyone can order a paper copy of court decisions, and also of material submitted before hearings, but it costs DKK 175 / US$ 25
 
Last edited:
A brief blurb on the days events in court, courtesy of the English-language version of the University of Copenhagen student newspaper:
http://universitypost.dk/article/courtroom-drama-911-crackpot-libel-case

The zinger of the day goes to Willemoes:
Here Niels Harrit, brought in extra evidence in the form of a Søren K. Villemoes own Facebook page subsequent to the trial in the lower court. Here Søren K. Villemoes wrote that he regretted attacking "an outcast", meaning Niels Harrit.
...
"Why an outcast," prodded Niels Harrit

"To be honest? Because I had pity on you," Søren K. Villemoes retorted.
Click to expand...

Edit: There's quite the truther infested (and therefore quite amusing) discussion taking place on Søren K. Williemoes Facebook profile. It's all in Danish though: https://www.facebook.com/skvillemoes/posts/10153676105877571?pnref=story
 
Last edited:
Josef Hanji Niels presented the collapse of WTC7 within the first 10 minutes, one of the judges seemed a little choked I dont think he had seen it before. As Niels say, this was actually his biggest achievement of the day, to get the judges to watch WTC7.

Niels did a great job, he could have become a great lawyer if he had wanted that, no doubt about that. He did very well in the start, and he seemed to be on top most of the way.

The biggest disappointment was Per Hedegård, he was very weak, and ended up saying things about physics, no one really understood. Niels asked him specific physics questions, and even there he he was weak in his answers. When the accused lawyer questioned him, he ended up supporting the article mentioned in city court, where he had said that Niels was a fruitcake (translated).

But Jan Utzon was great, representing AE, he said he was sure that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, and that he supported his statement from city court.

Niels was fantastic during his procedure, he kept coming back to the fact, that if Søren Willemoes should be found not guilty, he should have a factual basis - and he had none. In city court he said he had head the NH lecture, but could not remember where. This time he said he did see it in 2013 (actually he claimed to see a lecture from June 2013, and this he could not remember two moths later in city court, but 1.5 years later - I hope they could see he was lying). Niels asked how much of the lecture he watched, and he said 5 minutes. Willemoes had no factual basis what so ever.

The verdict will be made public in 4 weeks, on the 9th of April, the date of the German occupation of Denmark in 1940 (a date most Danes know about).
Click to expand...

By all accounts things went well for Harrit ;)

Not so sure he could have been a great lawyer ?
 
I need someone familiar with Danish law to explain something to me. Is this hearing to decide if Harrit is indeed crazy (or his views are) or if Søren Willemoes remarks were slander (in a way that hurt Harrits reputation)?

If Harrit is presenting his views of 9/11 this would indicate the former. He seems to be asking the court to rule on his views.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I need someone familiar with Danish law to explain something to me. Is this hearing to decide if Harrit is indeed crazy (or his views are) or if Søren Willemoes remarks were slander (in a way that hurt Harrits reputation)?

If Harrit is presenting his views of 9/11 this would indicate the former. He seems to be asking the court to rule on his views.
Click to expand...
The latter.

But for some reason, Harrit seems to think that if he can convince the judges that he is right, it must also rule that Willemoes' remarks were libelous.
 
KDLarsen said:
The latter.

But for some reason, Harrit seems to think that if he can convince the judges that he is right, it must also rule that Willemoes' remarks were libelous.
Click to expand...
Doesn't Harrit have to show that Willemoes comment hurt his standings/reputation more than proving his views are correct? I'm not wrong in thinking Harrit has got his defense arse backward?
 
DGM said:
Doesn't Harrit have to show that Willemoes comment hurt his standings/reputation more than proving his views are correct? I'm not wrong in thinking Harrit has got his defense arse backward?
Click to expand...
That is indeed what he should be doing. Alternatively (I think), he should have focused his efforts on showing how the county court erred in its application of the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom