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)

Vorword

Every reader schall be puzzled by this article;

How can a court announce a decision without specifically addressing the facts presented or

without considering the justified allegations?

Unfortunately, the law (ZPO) requires you to write to the regional court first, even if the judges

of  the higher courts (e.g. OLG) commit liability claims due to legal violations or even obvious

crimes (fraudulent proceedings).

This results in inferiority complexes among the LG judges (who usually also use girls (= judges

on probation). They fear that the convicted (OLG) judges will then in the future reverse all of

their decisions; for this reason do not venture against the indicated Criminal action.

Then announce a joint ruling without reference to the facts, without naming the offenders.

Of course, the costs must be borne by the citizen.

                                                                                                                                                

Article   

                                                                                                                                                 Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                                 Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                                 45219 Essen-Kettwig

                                                                                                                                                 May 17, 2021

Essen District Court

1 o civil chamber

Zweigert str. 52

45130 Essen

          

Re: Az 1 o 383/20; PKH v. 9. Dec. 2020 for a future official liability suit against NRW because of the

           Perversion of the law according to § 339 StPO of the OLG-Hamm judges Ms. Lange/Dr. Mölling/

           /Dr. Tamm for Az III- 5 Ws 579/19.

 

Bez .: OLG-Hamm decision of January 30th, 2020 on Az III 5 Ws 579/19 signed Ms. Lange/Mölling/

         /Tamm about "enforcement proceedings (= KEV)" against LG Essen judges (Mr. Koß/Ms. Weber)

        : Application of July 30, 2020 to repeal the OLG-Hamm decision of January 30, 2020 because

           the accused LG-Essen judges did not comply with the law on the part of the Attorney General

           of Germany,  (The accused were represented only by Public Prosecutor-Hamm!)

        : OLG-Hamm decision v. 8/11/2020 signed only Dr. Mölling / Dr. Tamm (without signature

           of Ms. Lange)

        : My letter from 9.9.2020; Forward the decision on August 11th, 2020 after Ms. Lange,

             after her vacation

        : My 2nd reminder from October 10th, 2020, the resolution August 11th, 2020 with the signature

            of Ms. Lange to be forwarded here

        : LG-Essen Decision Apr. 27, 2021 (Rejection of the application for emergency lawyer, signed

                Schalla / Ms. S-D / Ostgathe, received on May 6th. 2021

        : LG-Essen Decision. 27 Apr. 2021 (Rejection of PKH application. signed by Schalla/ Ms. S.-D./

             /Ostgathe, received on May 6, 2021

        : LG-Essen, cover letter 29.4.21 with annex the statement of the General Attorney-Hamm of

              22.4.21, received on May 7, 2021

       : Immediate complaint from May 14th, 2021 against the LG-Essen decision of April 27th, 2021  

        (rejection of the application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE for the future public liability suit)

         signed Schalla / Fr. Schmitz-Dörnenburg (judge on probation)/Ostgathe; the decision is

        unrealistic, or it is based on a legal mistake; What has been written is not taken into account

       (violation of Art. 103 GG); insofar unlawful; the contested decision is overturned.

 

Here: immediate complaint against the LG-Essen decision of April 27, 2021 (rejection of the application

          on PKH for the future public liability suit) signed Schalla / Fr. Schmitz-Dörnenburg (judge on

          probation) /Ostgathe; the decision completely ignored the subject of the complaint, or is based

         on several Legal errors. What was written to justify the PKH application has not been taken into

         account (Violation of Art. 103 GG); insofar unlawful, the attacked decision is revoked.

 

SgDuH,

 

the ASt is not sure whether he has to "congratulate" the author of the decision or express his "condolences"

because he has made it to the last point of the decision under appeal (after a trainee = judge on probation)

to have slipped. A deputy of the chairman on the 3rd place !!!

 

The author has obviously lost the thread (and maybe that's why he reached the last point!) and is referring

to the putsch-like resolution on Az 1 o 207/20 from the last working day of December 30, 2020, of the year 2020,

i.e. putsch, against the ZPO / GVG / GVP, as well as against the rightful chairman and against the ASt.

 

The reason given for the PKH rejection for the present Az 1 o 383/20 is on this side as an attempt,

designed to justify the existence or the legal force of the unlawful decision of 30.12.2020 to Az

1 o 207/20 of the "would like to play chairman".

The contested decision of April 27, 2021 has a total of 2 paragraphs and a total of 14 lines.

  

The fact that the contested decision does not have 4 lines in the first paragraph, page 2, with regard

to the subject of the action, can be proven by the violation of the right to be heard, coupled with the

arbitrariness of the decision-maker, which justifies the immediate complaint.

 

The decision thus roughly ignores the specific content of the future official liability suit because of the

perversion of the OLG-Hamm judges Ms. Lange / Mölling / Tamm; The decision is arbitrary.

For example, the reader does not find a response to the plaintiff's indications that the OLG-Hamm

committee Ms. Lange / Mölling / Tamm was not locally responsible, or why the OLG-Hamm

committee, has not clarified the mentioned question of legal representation of the accused

LG-Essen - Judge (Koß / Fr. Weber).

 

The accused OLG-Hamm committee knowingly and deliberately kept silent that the Attorney

General of Germany had to represent and that the OLG-Judges of the state capital was responsible.

What did the decision maker decide if he didn't see something fundamental?

 

Is the (maybe) nocturnal ? ecstasy  ("intoxication"),  of the decision maker not to interpret the facts?  ;

He uses 2 times in 5 lines of the first paragraph, page 2, of the decision from April 27, 2021.

the terms of the "alleged" or "alleged infraction of the law" of the OLG-Hamm judge Ms. Lange /

Mölling / Tamm (which he does not mention !!),

 

He calls the above questions / information from the ASt "alleged" perversions of the law, and

thus believes that he has credibly justified the PKH rejection.

 

In the second paragraph of page 2, of the resolution challenged here, it appears again the

term of "alleged legal infractions" and then it crowns the committed legal violation against the

applicable ZPO / GVG / GVP as well as against the lawful chairman with the reference to the

decision of December 30, 2020 on Az 1 o 207/20, where he also presents Az 1 o 207/20  twice

 in 6 lines.

 

Also note:

more than 1/2 of the space of the second paragraph is wasted to justify the illegal decision on

Az 1 o 207/20 !

It is to be admired that the "impulse" of the decision-maker "to play chairman" has not yet been

discovered by the employer and has not yet been honoured;

 

or the other way around:

 

 that's why, she enjoys the last rank in Case law, of the decision maker.

 

The fact that similar arbitrary decisions are being announced by some senates of the OLG-Hamm

should occupy the NRW Minister of Justice.

The NRW judiciary has a specific problem and not the local ASt.

 

With regard to the other 2 co-signatories of the contested decision April 27, 2021 (PKH rejection),

the immediate complaint is justified as follows;

 

it is requested in advance and again to set aside the contested decision;

The immediate complaint of May 14, 2014 to Az 1 o 383/20 is also valid as a supplement and

as a reminder; the decision maker there consciously and deliberately bases his result on a

false assumption and regards the application for an emergency lawyer as being for the PKH procedure !!

to be posed.

 

There the wrong assumption and here the arbitrariness paired with an infringement of Art. 103 GG.

It's not a coincidence. In both cases, the "incorrigible" is in the third position.

 

The complaint which is also dealt here and reasoned, during the processing of the procedure

Az 1 o 383/20, the annexed Statement of Public Prosecutor-Hamm that was not served.

 

The ASt had to find out about the procedural law and then comment on what the State Attorney General Hamm

thinks and writes about the allegations made against the OLG Hamm committee (Ms. Lange / Mölling / Tamm).

 

Due to the delay, the ASt did not have the opportunity to find out  what the Attorney General Hamm wrote on

the subject. In this respect, the rush of the decision maker to reject the PKH applied for is also illegal

or suspicious

The procrastination (or delayed response from the Attorney General-Hamm?) also played a role in this regard,

in the sense of spurring the rush of the decision-maker.

 

The ASt does not ask the question of who is responsible for the procrastination; that would have to be done

by the higher authority (as part of its duty).

 

Here, reference is only made to the illegal and arbitrary shortening of the GG rights, with which the complaint

is justified.

   

 In summary

 

The LG-Essen is written to the LG decision April 27, 2021 signed Schalla / Fr. Schmitz-Dörnenburg

(judge on probation) / Ostgathe (via PKH refusal) to review Az 1 o 383/20 and if it is found to be illegal,

as described above, to revoke it. He no longer has a right to exist.

 

With best regards

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Abbreviations used:

ASt = Applicant

Az = File Number of Court

GG = Basic Law of Germany

GVG = Constitutional Code of the Courts

LG = regional court

OLG = Court of Appeal  

PKH = official demand for Economic Aid

StGB = Penal code of Germany

ZPO = Zivil proceeding Code

Last modified on Thursday, 17 June 2021 12:13

Preface: why this article, now translated on English, appears on the website.

Who would like to be shown as an "important judge",

also dare a coup against the rightful chairman.

In this article the reader learns how he is treated by the local author

without to name him.

The action concerns the regional court of city Essen (=LG-Essen Az 1 o 383/20)

with background (III 5 Ws 579/19 of)  the Higher Regional Court (OLG)

of the city Hamm.

                                                                                                                                                                                  Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                                 Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                                 45219 Essen-Kettwig

                                                                                                                                                 May 14, 2021

In advance by fax: 0201-803-2141

Essen District Court

Zweigert str. 52

45130 Essen

         

Ref: Az 1 o 383/20; PKH dated 9. Dec. 2020 for a future official liability suit against NRW because of

      the Perversion of rights according to § 339 StPO of the OLG Hamm judges Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling

       / Dr. Tamm for Az III- 5 Ws 579/19.

Relative to .: OLG-Hamm decision of January 30th, 2020 on Az III 5 Ws 579/19 signed Ms. Lange /

          Mölling / Tamm on enforcement penal proceedings (= KEV) against LG Essen judges (Mr. Koß /

          Ms. Weber)

        : Application of July 30, 2020 to repeal the OLG Hamm decision of January 30, 2020 because

           the accused LG Essen judges did not comply with the law on the part of the Attorney General

            were represented

        : OLG-Hamm decision v. 8/11/2020 signed only Dr. Mölling / Dr. Tamm (without Ms. Lange's

           signature)

        : My letter from 9.9.2020; Forward the decision on August 11th, 2020 after Ms. Lange,

             after your vacation

        : My 2nd reminder from October 10th, 2020, the resolution August 11th, 2020 with the

            signature of Mrs. Lange to be forwarded here

        : LG-Essen Decision Apr. 27, 2021 (Rejection of the application for emergency lawyer signed

            Schalla /Ms. S-D / Ostgathe received on May 6th. 2021

        : LG-Essen Decision Apr. 27, 2021 (Rejection of PKH application signed by Schalla/Ms. S.-D./

                Ostgathe, received on May 6, 2021

        : LG-Essen cover letter 29.4.21 with annex the statement of the General public attorney-Hamm

              of 22.4.21 received on May 7, 21

 

Here: immediate complaint against the LG-Essen decision of April 27, 2021 (rejection of the

         application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE for the future public liability suit) signed Schalla /

         Mrs. Schmitz-Dörnenburg (only Judge ) / Ostgathe; the decision is unrealistic or based on a

         legal error; The Written text is not taken into account (violation of Art. 103 GG); insofar

         unlawful, the attacked decision is repealed.

 

Ladies and Sirs,

An immediate complaint is hereby made against the above-mentioned decision, signed Schalla /

Ms Schmitz-Dörnernburg (judge without qualification for die regional court) / Ostgathe, dated

April 27, 2021 to Az 1 o 383/20 (rejection of the application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE);

It is requested that the resolution be revoked; the complaint is justified as follows:

 

The plaintiff is neither a lawyer nor a advocate; as a normal citizen he has submitted a memorandum

for a future one Public liability lawsuit, because of the judges' perversions, Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling /

Dr. Tamm, OLG-Hamm, and sent the draft complaint with the motions (of the future lawsuit).

 

So it was not an application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE for the legal aid requested. Especially

since the § 78b ZPO used on this side clearly refers to an action before the LG, where the Lawyer

is required. The emergency advocate would only have acted in the legal proceedings after the court

had assessed the chances of success of the legal action and, in the positive case, would appoint

an emergency attorney for the legal penal proceedings. At the regional court (= LG) there is an

advocate obligation.

 

The ordinary citizen is defined in regional court proceedings by the law (ZPO) as not capable of postulating.

 

However, the LG-Essen committee assumed a false assumption that the application for an

EMERGENCY Advocate had been made for the PKH procedure, and rejected the emergency attorney

for the PKH procedure. This is the body's legal error.

 

The wrong LG-assumption contradicts the meaning of this side-related § 78b ZPO and automatically

leads to the wrong result, i.e. the rejection of the emergency lawyer for the PKH procedure.

Therefore, the result is unrealistic and violating the law and the decision must be overturned.

 

In the opinion of the applicant (= ASt), the rejection of the application for an emergency lawyer

for the PKH procedure would also be unlawful if the court had taken into account and based on

§ 121 No. 2, No. 5 ZPO.

 

A reinterpretation of § 78b ZPO in § 121 ZPO would be possible, taking into account the

differences between the 2nd  named §§, after asking the ASt. The LG-Essen committee

did not ask the ASt and rejected the complaint / PKH in suspicious haste.

Section 121 (2) ZPO concerns a procedure without compulsory RA, if representation by an RA

appears necessary, and the opponent is represented by an RA.

 

The representative of the accused judges of the OLG-Hamm, was the General public Attorney-Hamm,

(even housed in the same building !!).

The accused judges Ms. Lange / Dr. Mölling / Dr. Tamm of the OLG-Hamm and their judicial

representation, the General Public Prosecutor-Hamm, are qualitatively more than the approved

Advocates.

 

The term RA presupposes: Law studies with exams and professional approval and the GenStAnw-

( = General Public Prosecutor-Hamm) fulfills the requirements.

Especially since the Member of General Public Prosecutor-Hamm, Ms Reelsen, which is handling

the matter, has also met the above requirements.

 

The proportionality of the qualifications and the judicial means was not guaranteed (a normal

citizen against JURA-studied / qualified state employees).

 

In this respect, § 121 (2) ZPO in conjunction with § 121 (5) ZPO could / should have been applied

by the LG-Essen committee (after consultation with the ASt).

 

The conversion would have been the basis and could / should have been applied after

reinterpretation by the committee of the written § 78b ZPO in § 121 (2), (5) ZPO (after the court

advised the ASt).

 

Finally, the court's reference to Section 121 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) in page 2

of the decision allows the above procedure.

 

The result of the LG Essen committee is not convincing for another reason, namely because of

the violation of the procedural rights of the ASt / plaintiff, with which the complaint is also justified.

 

The challenged decision of April 27, 2021 was already written and announced by the LG-Essen

committee before the statement of the Attorney General-Hamm was received by the LG-Essen

on April 27, 2021. The ASt did not receive a statement from the legal representative of the

accused during the PKH proceedings. Decision of 27.4.21 violates procedural rights.

 

The plaintiff had the undisputed procedural right to read and comment on the statement by

GenStAnw-Hamm before the LG decision was announced on April 27, 2021. (see lawsuit / PKH

dated December 9, 2020). After that, the committee could / should have made a decision;

The reinstatement in the previous status due to the premature drafting / promulgation of

the resolution 27.4.2021 is possible

 

Summary:

Both the incorrect legal acceptance of the rejecting LG-Essen decision of April 27, 2021,

as well as the violation of the procedural rights of the ASt, justify the request for (review of

the decision or) the annulment of the decision as unlawful.

The court will be contacted to announce a legally compliant decision.

 

With best regards

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Today 136 | Yesterday 163 | Week 982 | Month 3473 | All 97393