District Court Berlin Order concerning Bishop Ralph Napierski

court docCourt doc translationbischof-ralph-napierski

District Court Berlin
Order
Reference number: 27 0 215/13
07/05/2013
In the case of Ralph Napierski, petitioner,

solicitors:
– Rechtsanwälte BDHSW Rechtsanwälte,
Zimmerstraße 69, 10117 Berlin,

Against

the B.Z. Ullstein GmbH,
represented by the Managing Director
Kurfürstendamm 22, 10874 Berlin,
respondent,
it is ruled by way of injunction – due to the particular urgency without oral hearing – (§§ 935, 940. 91 sec. 1 ZPO; §§ 823, analogue 1004 sec. 1 sentence
2 BGB in conjunction with article 1 sec. 1, 2 As. 1 GG)
1. In order to prevent a fine, to be determined for each case by the court, of up to 250,000.00 EUR, alternatively detention, or detention of
up to six months, the latter to be imposed on the Managing Director, the respondent is prohibited to allege and/or broadcast:
(1)…
(2) “Berliner snuck into group of cardinals”
(3) “The fake bishop is said to have told the gathered his name was Basilius and that he was a member of the Italian Orthodox Church”
(4) “Together with the cardinals he entered the Synod Hall”

EXCERPT
FROM THE COURT ORDER:
(5) “This is where the Swiss Guard noticed the fake dignitary and expelled him from the Vatican grounds”
as seen in the “BZ” from March 5th 2013, p. 1 and 3.
Reasons:
The substantiated actual and legal presentation in the associated petition, as well as in the documents from 18/04/2013 and 02/05/2013 along with attachments, justify the argued injunctive relief to the extent of the tenor of the prohibition.

6 Responses

  1. This man sold me a fake relic for 300 dollars. I would like to know if there is a way to get that money back. Reuben Ortiz rocc@rocc.biz

    Like

  2. The picture of “Bishop” Ralph says it all. Anyone who actually believes this person is sincere needs to seriously examine themselves and their ability to make sensible and rational judgments.

    Like

  3. So you are back. You can’t defend the HofP so try to support anything else you can. Welcome back.

    Like

  4. I read all the comments by Michael Caulfield. He has fully contradicted the picture painted by Michael Garde.
    Why, oh why must M.Garde’s own comments and those of his few puppets always and only invoke insult, mockery,unfair and unbalanced commentary, insinuation of fraud, lies, gossip,and widening defamatory remarks to include innocent family and supporters????
    I f I were Michael Garde….which I thank Almighty God I am not….I would have more than a few fears that all the defamation has spiralled way out of control…..
    It will be interesting who is going to prevail in this conflict!

    Like

  5. They are not forgeries but likely his interpretation of them is not correct.

    Like

  6. If Michael Caulfield has documents stating differently to the above post they must be forgeries. Spot the cult in the making. They are always based on lies.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: