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

 

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)

Saturday, 12 April 2014 22:11

Startseite

Advice: The uncomplete Website are inserted im Okt. 2014 from unknowns to destroy my bysiness 

 

 

Welcome to the website of Dr. Ing. Th. Sartoros

 

The justice of a banana republic the European Union was the title of a post, (you can find him in the language, or in the category of "content and consequences of the dispute with the tax office; You find the article in the respectivement language to) written in 1994 on the occasion of the perversion of justice; the judges (Dr. Nieland / Morsbach / Naujocks) of the 11 Senat of financial tribunal (FG) Dusseldorf, they had aided and abetted, so that the process cheating of the tax office (FA) Mettmann into Az 11 K 518/89 - celebrated on 6.6 .1991 – succeeds;in addition was the intervention of the prosecutor Dusseldorf which ordered and received, the FG Acts and has subsequently allowed to vanish them, so that a restitution action fails, and a Petition to the parliament-of NRW, makes today only a small part of the 35-years history.

 

Summarily: the Tax-Office of Mettmann city tried to extort the plaintiff to build the factory in Germany and to realize its patents here, and committed fraud in 7 processes in order to hide the detection errors of about 511 thousand Deutsche Mark (DM). Nevertheless, it has not avoid the defeats in more than 30 FG-processes and was obligated to restitute to the plaintiff the year 2006 a part of the more than 264,500, - DM Plundered for alleged tax evasion (after 27 years!) (see Report "Why Germany must indemnify"in Greek language; You find the Article" Why Germany must pay .. "in more languages under" Miscellaneous ", look there)


But the most inflections of § 339 of the German Criminal Code took place by the civil district tribunal (LG) of Düsseldorf and by the court of appeal (OLG) Düsseldorf (see OLG Düsseldorf, "Klageerzwingungsverfahren", acts of conglomeration with judge gowns since 1999 until the end of 2010; see under "legal,=Rechtliches"; Translations in Greek / Italian / English are in preparation).


The sequel followed first by the judges of 2b Civil Chamber of (LG) the District tribunal Düsseldorf; They had tried twice (March 2000 / July 2008) secretly to eliminate the plaintiff personally as a partially unfit to stand trial (i.e. only for the legally pending by the 2b civil chamber ) and they have pronounced more than illegal 50 sentences , for the purpose to trivialize the crimes of the tax-office of Mettmann city; they rejected the three official liability lawsuits.


The Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll had the Rapporteur Mrs Brueckner-Hoffmann set over a full year (February 2002-April 2003) under pressure, and pretended "all claims of the applicant must be rejected, so that justice is not frittered away" ..
Almost the total of the illegal sentences infringed the § 75 GVG or the § 47 ZPO and was pronounced from illegally formed bodies (for example: Mrs Brückner-Hoffmann/Mrs Strupp-Müller/Mrs Adam, or Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Strupp-Müller/xxx, or Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Dr. Hoffman / Mrs. Dr. Brecht), they reject the applications as unfounded, ie rejected a compensation of the plaintiff for the 27 years of ongoing capital withdrawal and for the related crimes of the tax office of Mettmann city; by also illegally formed bodies of the 18th Senate (Malsch / Haarmann / Mrs. Schröder, or paint Malsch/Mrs. Baan/Weith ) of court of appeal Düsseldorf , the decisions of the district tribunal have been confirmed.


Over the more than 1,000 provided evidences for the crimes of the tax-office of-Mettmann and provided to for the illegality of the LG bodies, the OLG D'dorf (11th Senate and 18th Senate) has always been silent (ie: Omerta = silence like from the mafiosi) .


When the court fees for two terms liability claims were fully paid in installments, the LG camarilla blocked the delivery of the charge to the opponent party (NRW); in the one case, four full years and thus dragged the particular process for four years and in the other process; for almost twi years ; but as an Advocate he asked for one month delay, his application has been rejected.


When the plaintiff rejected the intriguing LG judges Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs Engelkamp-Neeser, because their secret applications in July 2008 directed to the Essen District Court, and the tribunal of Essen city rejected the rejected the secret applications, was a another illegal tinkered body willing to infring the § 75 GVG (Mrs Tigges / Mrs Schmidt / Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann) and keep silent about the EuGVVO Art 1(Brussels I Article 1) and Article 7 of EGBGB applicable rules to the above, for the purpose and relieve the Kolleginen They rejected also the allegation of bias.


In the years 2009/2010 was builded by 11th Division of the  Court of appeal (OLG) Düsseldorf a coup club consisted from the judges Dr. Bünten / Mrs Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Mrs Baan / Müller / Dahm / Mrs Grabensee); it has adopted more than 100 illegal decisions to create a fait accompli against the applicant. 42 decisions of which are dated on 16.2.2010, 18.2.2010, 22.2.2010, and a further 28 decisions are pronounced by three illegally formed groups into infringement of § 122 GVG dated on 30.3.2010 and on 31.3.2010 and the sentences served to the applicant with a limitation period of 14days for contesting them.

 

This gave the occasion for complaint / Klageerzwingungsverfahren / Petition to the NRW state parliament and other public liability actions against the Judges which bended the EU law and German law. The seated at the 11th and 18th Senate of the OLG D'dorf shyster also have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court (BGH) never approved.


The Supreme Court (BGH) has rejected with three different arguments the non-admission of the inquiries (NZB) and the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has not ruled on the issues identified in the constitutional complaints gaps in the legislation regarding PKH process.


the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg / France did not consider the applications submitted for decision worthy.

 

       

On 28. Mai 2014 the Kamarilla of 2b Zivilchamber of district court of Düsseldorf (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Brecht/Mrs. Freitag) found the glorious idea, after 13 years of occupation with the claims for compensation of legal proceedings Nr. 2b o 271/01, that the claims included in lawsuit (Nr. 2b o 271/01) were barred by limitation, according the Codex Civil, new edition (valid since 1.1.2002) and on 7. July 2014 wrote and sent an instruction to the Judges of Court of Appeal Düsseldorf (18.Senate) and ordered for a correspondent result i.e. to reject the claims because allegedly barred by limitation. 

 

The Judges of court of Appeal (Mr. Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Mr. Anger) executed the received instruction and with a sentence of 3. Sept. 2015 rejected the complain again the rejection of Jurisdictional Aid for the legal proceedings Nr 2b o 271/01, based on a monster transaction contrary to the sense of BGB (= german codex civil) and with many violations of law (see also "court of appeal Düsseldorf" (on german language) the article "the last violations of law of Mr. Volker Malsch..." etc). The sentence of 3.9.2015 (Malsch & Co) was disputed on 22.9.2015 within the stipulated period.

 

Two (2) Weeks after the reproach Mr. Malsch was removed to pension, although he had not completed 63 years, but others have to work until the 67 year of age, for the pension. Mrs. Stein received the position of chairwoman of 18. Senate and follows the hard line of her predecessor (Mr. Malsch). The lawsuit Nr 2b o 271/01 was on Apr. 2016 not finished, by the tribunal of first instance Düsseldorf.

 

The censure of 22. Sept. 2015 against the decision (Mr. Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr. Anger) dated 03. Sept. 2015 is on the part of Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr. Anger (due to the pressure from the top, hurry, and with a lot of bla-bla and) without taking reference to the large number of arguments for the approval of the complaint, rejected on 5. Apr. 2016th (See Court of Appeal Düsseldorf (=OLG), Decision dated 05. Apr. 2016, Az 18 W 1/13 on German language)

The reason for the hasty and shameful OLG decision of 05. Apr. 2016 (Mrs. Stein & Co) was the upcoming hearing on 13. Apr. 2016 at regional tribunal of Düsseldorf (LG) 2b civil chamber and there would the files be present.

On April 13, 2016 the located oral proceedings at the regional tribunal of Düsseldorf 2b civil chamber take place (Judges: Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach /Mr. Frank, last only = judge on probation), on 10 May 2016 the Demand for legal Aid was rejected, and at the May 11, 2016 the action Az 2b o 271/01 was dismissed by judgment for alleged not validity of claims (based on the decision of 03. Sept. 2015 of 18. Senate of court of Appeal Düsseldorf).

At the hearing April 13, 2016 declared Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll that the supplementary application from 12.7.2012 / 14.12.2012 / 23.08.2013 about the useless expenses for Patents- and inventive activity and for the factory delivered in GR, losses caused by the crimes of taxation office of Mettmann, was not served to the defendant country (NRW) because the applicant did not can pay the additional court fees.

 

In the response / question of the applicant, why the court had not sent an invoice with payment request, and that the applicant should cover court fees in instalments paid as (to 2006) for the claims for the main proceedings, was not followed by expression of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll .

The real reason for not Invitation to pay the court fees for the supplementary application could only be the real idea that she intended to avoid the limitation of interruption; because the demand for payment send by the court the statute of limitations interrupts (after a decision of Higher civil court of Germany, BGH); Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll wanted avoid (since 2001) that, so they had had to submit any bill to pay the court fees in all the years (2001-2010). And then she's angry because she called schemer and requested to give the gown to the judicial back.

The above judge committee (under the chairwoman Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll which was excluded, for prejudice) has with judgment of 11.05.2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 fully identified with the remarks of right inflections committed on the part of OLG Düsseldorf (18th Senate, signed by Mr. Malsch/ Mrs. Glaeser/ Mr. Anger) in the decisions from 03.09.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14, leaving the own representations in the decision of 2b civil chamber dated 28. May. 2014 and 07.07.2014 concerning the validity of claims under § 204 civil code (BGB new edition, Law valid since 1.1.2002) fall.

But the former decisions !! of 2b civil chamber not cancelled, therefore, inter alia, the Reopening of the process 2b o 271/01 requested. Also about the request: no connection under this number i.e. no decision.

(About the contradictions in the decisions of 2b civil chamber of regional tribunal (LG) and of court of Appeal (OLG) in the grounds of the alleged validity of claims regarding the legal action for public liability claims Nr. 2b o 271/01, times after civil code new Edition (BGB n.F.), sometimes with manipulated legal texts of the code civil old edition (BGB a.F., valid until 31.12.2001), signed by (Mr. Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr Anger), see also mentioned Article, to find in Landgericht Düsseldorf or in Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf on German language)


The fear of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to justify a decision or their fear of responsibility is evident;

Not a single decision she has designed and written since 1.1.2002 until 11. May. 2016 itself;

All the decisions transmitted to trainee or "inexperienced young girls-judges" of which she has worn out more than 16

By a decision (like as a blind guide) dated 30. Mai. 2016 ordered Stockschlaeder-Nöll to the 18th Senate of court of appeal i.e. to the chairwoman Mrs. Stein & Co, the final version of the Senate decision, regarding the immediate complaint/appeal dated 24.05.2016 against the rejection of 10/05/2016, of the 6.4.16 applied legal aid for the proceedings Az 2b o 271/01. Results on the immediate complaint/appeal, OLG Az 18 W 25/16, still open.

The process 2b o 271/01 is therefore in May 2016 (after 15.5 years, after 31 judges of 2b civil chamber and of court of appeal (LG / OLG) had tried justly with right inflections to derail this, the applicant twice as partially (!?) Process Unable to disable, the applicant a times (disguised as a car accident) to murder, now temporarily ended in the first instance. (Open is still the result on an immediate complaint/appeal against the rejection of requested legal Aid), The second instance by the court of appeal therefore proceeds.

"Evil tongues say that the early retirement of Mr. Volker Malsch (earlier chairman of 18. Senate of court of appeal Düsseldorf until Sept. 2015), was a gift from the employer (i.e. the defendant Land NRW), for the last right inflections of Mr. Malsch to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44 / 14 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), so the condemnation of the country will be delayed, or the chance of legal action for public liability claims Nr. 2b o 271/01 be destroyed ".


The applicant is waiting for a denial.

Similar corruption phenomena are also in the case of Mrs. FREITAG detectable.

see also Landgericht Düsseldorf, article about Mrs. Freitag (on German language)

The "surprise" came on 30 May. 2016 by the Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

She recognized herself, to the new legal action for public liability claims with demand of legal aid (PKH) dated 16. May. 2016, LG-Az 2b o 76/16
as biased, because of the indicated violation of the law ( crime dated 18. Sept. 2007 to Az 2b o 271/01). On the 30th of May. 2016 she had the self-denunciation availed, and therefore on 16. June 2016, the decision to Az 2b o 76/16 signed by Mrs. Jungclaus / Mrs. Harsta /Mr. Witte issued and ascertain that;

"it has been found that Fr. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is barred for process 2b o 76/16".

(See Landgericht Dusseldorf, Az 2b o 76/16, decision of 16. June. 2016 on German language,

The ascertainment of bias on the part of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is already translated. look there

15 years Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll had denied her bias and all requests of the applicant for her exclusion, has rejected as unfounded, with the help of inexperienced young judges (as Mrs. Schuster, Mrs. Brueckner-Hoffmann, Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser, Mrs. Kaiser, Mrs Hoffmann, Mrs Brecht, etc).

 

The new "surprise" on the part of Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll in the decision of 18. August 2016 on Az 2b o 137/16, signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Wink, is as follows:

 

She claims that she is not self-biased and rejects an exclusion request of 02. Aug. 2016 to above mentioned Az 2b o 137/16 as inadmissible. In addition she rejects, the requested PKH for claims for indemnity of psychical pains, with the argument of allegedly limitation;

 

In order to reach her unacceptable goal (alleged perplexity!), she abuses §§ 199 (1), 823 BGB n.F. (n.F. = new Edition). And suppresses the applicability of § 839 (1) BGB n.F., She uses § 199 (2) of the German Civil Code (BGB), following  the model of the judicial appeals in the decision of 3. September 2015 to OLG Az 18 W 1/13, of the former chairman of the 18th Senate OLG-Düsseldorf, Mr. Volker Malsch, (entitled RECELEUR = FENCE) (§ 823 BGB a.F. regulates claims for unauthorized acts and is not applicable in the cases of breaches of official duties by officials)

 

The reader finds the LG decision of August 18, 2016 and the immediate appeal filed against it with explanations on §§ 823, 839, 199 BGB, after clicking the term "Landgericht Düsseldorf" and then the Az 2b o 137/16 (written on German language)

 

In addition to this, the reader finds under "Landsgericht Düsseldorf" (in German language to) the included order (= non-remedy decision = instructions for blinds) dated 31.8.2016 signed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co, transmitted to OLG-11. Senate, Az 11 W 45/16 and the complainant's comment.

 

Under "OLG-Düsseldorf" the reader will find the OLG decision of 20.10.2016 on Az 11 W 45/16 (LG 2b o 137/16) signed by Mr. Thole / Ms. Engels /Mr. Böcker,  the hearing and the new decision of 21.11.2016 on the hearing.

 

The oddity of the sentence on OLG-Az 11 W 45/16 (LG Az 2b o 137/16) is that for the erroneous OLG resolutions (based on GKG!), with erroneous cost assessments in "PKH procedures", where the costs of the complaint proceedings saddled to the plaintiff (Although the PKH rules take precedence over GKG and no cost decisions (including judicial dismissal) are prescribed); But the OLG judges of the 11th Senate refuse to correct or cancel them and remain silent about the legal errors committed.

 

The introduction of the erroneous cost assessments in "PKH procedures" had been made by the outdated former chairman of the 11th Senate (Dr. Bünten), and his successors stubbornly adhere to the arbitrary decision of the "superman".

 

The above reproach, confirms a letter (but no decision !!) of the Judge Mrs Engels of 11th senate by the Court of Appeal) addressed  to the applicant, dated 8.12.2016 to Az 11 W 45/16 (LG-Az 2b o 137/16) with reference  to the "reply of 3. Dec. 2016 ", in which the judge claims that the decisions dated 20.10.2016 and of 21.11.2016 are (allegedly) undisputable and the attacks against the cost estimation are impossible.

 

In support of her assertion, Ms Engels refers to the incorrect Section 99 ZPO = of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, as is known, applies only to legal proceedings with obligated representation from a Advocate, but does not apply to PKH applications such as Az 2b o 137/16 where Advocate is not necessary.

 

The  above Letter of 8.12.2016 of the judge Mrs. Engels is published under the heading "OLG-Düsseldorf" under the OLG-Az 11 W 45/16 (LG-Az 2b o 137/16).

 

Below of her letter, appears, the applicant's reply to Ms. Engels, with a repetition of the application for "abolition of the incorrect OLG resolutions".

 

The contradictions in the two OLG decisions of the 11th Senate of 20.10.2016 and of 21.11.2016 are enormous (as the reader himself can establish) and justify the allegation that the OLG judges by "enforcement of the blind instruction (Non-remedy) ordered by the LG, in addition deliberately erroneous (elevated!) Cost decisions in official liability proceedings, with the costs of the plaintiff of the officials, in order to increase the income of their employers (NRW) on the one hand and justify their own salaries on the other.

 

The employer (NRW) does not interfere with the unlawful costs of the OLG judges of the 11th Senate;

He even rejoices when the "condemned" pays the wrong cost assessment.

 

The citizen is also deprived of the right to complain (as with any goods business) and the machinery is still well fed.

 

The reader will be informed about the success of the BVerfG complaint.

 

On the main proceedings with OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), there was suddenly also a surprise, which also shows how loose the money plundered by the plaintiff sits in the coffers of the defendant NRW. The RA Fassnacht commissioned for approx. 14.5 T-€, issued a total of 8.5 lines of rejoinder on 25.11.2016. So for each line cash the RA about 1.705, - €.

 

 (And if the NRW loses the process 18 U 69/16, the cost of the applicant's RA must also bear,

Or all costs incurred by the 1st and 2nd instance and the reimbursed court fees).

 

The reader can found under the heading "OLG-Düsseldorf, page 2, the published rejoinder dated 25.11.2016 of Advocate Fassnacht, to the appeal of 18. Aug. 2016 OLG Az 18 U 69/16 and the short comment of plaintiff.

 

 

To learn more, click the appropriate search terms to (below or next door) or the national flag shown for German / Greek / Italian / English/French
More Articles are translated, look there!


Advice for the Visitors of Website:
E-mail messages or requests, write please only in one of the above shown 5 european languages. Only these shall be processed and answered.

 

(Note: Asiatic Languages or East-Europe languages cannot be translated)

 

 

 

Patent PLAKAT mit vielen Infos (DE)

 

 

 

 

 

please use the new Email-Address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501
IS GEEIGNET ALS FUNKTIONIERENDES MODEL FÜR MUSEUMSAUSSTELLUNGEN

PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 IS SUITABLE

AS OPERATING MODEL-DEVICE FOR SHOWS IN MUSEUMS

Fabrikbildsmal