He explains his Patents and his Processes against Judges of court of
appeal and 
against Judges of district court – of Düsseldorf - Germany

Dr.-Ing. Th. SARTOROS

Dr. Ing. Th. Sartoros Patente

DE102010015501B4

Mechanismus
von
Antikythera

DPMA-Nr.:
pdf.symbol
102010015501.2

DE000002448469C2 2Regelbare-Doppelwirkende-
Radialflügelzellen-
Pumpe

DPMA-Nr.:
pdf.symbol
P 24 48 469.3

DE 4010764 A1Regelbares-dreiwellen-hygrostatisches- differential-planeten-getriebe
pdf.symbol
DE 4010764A1

 

DE 4014241 A1
Hydrostatisches-selbstsperrendes- differential-planeten-getriebe
pdf.symbol
DE 04014241A1

 

DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501

WIRD ZUM VERKAUF ANGEBOTEN, PREIS: 265.000,-- € + 19% MWSt

PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" TO SELL DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501

PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt)

Kommentar über die BGH Entscheidung zur NZB Az III ZR 332/17 v. 24.5.2018

BGH (Supreme Federal Court of Justice)

DECISION of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17

concerning the NZB of 19.3.2018

against OLG-Düsseldorf Judgment 18.10.2017

Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01

 

The BGH-III Senate has its own jurisdiction ignored when passing the resolution

to III ZR 332/17 of 24 May 2018 ( about Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf Az 18 U 69/16,

LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) :

 

 Here are only two BGH decisions mentioned, the BGH III civil Senate (Mr. Herrmann /Mr. Seiters /Mr. Reiter /Mrs Liebert / Mrs Böttcher) on May 24, 2018 ignored, at the adoption of the decision on Az III ZR 332/17 (regarding the (NZB=) non-admission complaint against OLG-Düsseldorf decision Az 18 U 69/16 from 18.10.2018 , LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01), thus proving that it is prepared to take political decisions (and able to implement the received order) if the legal cases bring legal action for liability claims for damages amounting to millions (in €).

 

 The first decision of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) is several times repeated, both, as well as in the LG-Düsseldorf (Az 2b o 271/01) process and OLG-Düsseldorf (18 U 69/16) as well as in the non-admission complaint of 19 March 2018 to BGH AZ III ZR 332/17, and has the following (shortened) content:

  

"As long as the harmful interference lasts, the limitation period cannot begin"

 

It is repeatedly recounted and evidence has been provided that the (mentally ill) bank seizure on part of FA-Mettmann for alleged tax evasion of the suitors, since 1986 or since 1989 still persist, and despite the repeated reminiscences of the complaint and the repeal requests of 3 heads of the FA-Mettmann from 1988 and 1989 bank seizures are still not repealed.

 

 The damaging procedure is still going on, and according to BGH case law, the limitation period can not begin.

Nevertheless, the OLG-Dusseldorf has found to Az 18 U 69/16, that the claims for damages and the claim for damages are time-barred.

 

Even the claim for damages, which would become statute-barred only after 30 years, is now barred after OLG judgment 18 U 69/16 of 18.10.2017. JUSTICE ???

 

The BGH-III civil-Senate (composition as above) has not responded to the arguments presented in the NZB, therefore the BGH decision of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17 is published here below.

The second verdict of the BGH is:

  

"A procedure is completed when all applications are granted".

 

It has been repeatedly stated in the LG / OLG cases (application Az 2b o 271/01 and appeal Az 18 U 69/16) that several applications (inter alia applications for annulment of LG and OLG decisionsapplications for bias against LG / OLG judges and GVPService applications for the reduced action extension 2b o 271/01 etc) are not granted.

  

In the view of the applicant (based on the BGH decision mentioned above), case 2b o 271/01, with appeal 18 U 69/16, has not yet ended.

 

The supreme Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in the contested decision of 24.5.2018 Az III ZR 332/17 was silent about this and did not write a syllable about both the requested legal aid (= PKH) and the non-admission complaint (= NZB).

OMERTÀ knows about the mafia?

 

The plaintiff remembers the saying of an old (former) Chancellor:

 

"what is it that bothers me of yesterday's chatter"

 

  So the decisions of the BGH are gossip of yesterday?