Dr.-Ing. Th. SARTOROS

The reader finds in this Article new Names of Judges involved in the process fraud

against the plaintif and author 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen-Kettwig

December 25, 2019

In advance by fax: 0211-87565-1260

District court Düsseldorf

Judge Mrs. Gundlach

personally

Werdener Str. 1

40227 Dusseldorf

Abbreviations used

LG-D´dorf = regional court of Düsseldorf, OLG = court of appeal of Düsseldorf; e.g.= for example

Mettmann = Name of city near of Düsseldorf; StGB = German Penal Code; i.d.S. = in the sense;

ZPO = Civil Procedure Code; FA = Tax office; PKH= demand for financial judicial aid;

Az = Number of File or process; BGB a.F. = Civil Code of old Revision valid until 31.12.2001

Here: Accusation for process fraud on Az 2b o 271/01 on May 11, 2016 and

           Display on the signer's website that you are entitled as a criminal

Mrs. Gundlach,

Your signature at the end of the new LG resolutions of 20 Nov. 2019 on Az 2b o 118/99 and

Az 2b o 77/08 she revealed to the undersigned your return to the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D´dorf.

The undersigned had described you and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll as "murderer" after the hearing

on April 13, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01. Learned nothing from it?

Criminalists tell that the criminal (killer) after the murder (crime) committed,

returns a little later to find that he hadn't forgotten anything at the crime scene.

What did you forget about the 2b civil chamber?

The handling of Az 2b o 271/01 was like the theatrical hearing on April 13, 2016, i.e.

you wrote the final judgment, and thus became the accomplice of the new attempted murder.

The final judgment 2b o 271/01 of May 11, 2016 shines through the rejection of all claims for damages

by the plaintiff due to the alleged "limitation", as described in the OLG decision of September 3, 2015 

on Az 18 W 1/13, i.e. that the  claims on "July 31, 2006" were allegedly "time-barred".

With regard to the following appeal, you have therefore prompted or obliged the OLG judges

to carry out further procedural fraud. They and you are also used as a chain link by two people.

The satisfaction of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and the ruler of the judiciary was obvious.

In the final judgment of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01, you concealed hundreds of evidence

of the crimes of the officials of FA-Mettmann in the years 1979-2006.

You also have on the above LG final judgment of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01, the crimes of the previous

2b chamber occupations (Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr /Mr Schumacher/ Ms. Stöve/ Ms. Wolks-Falter /

Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /  Fr Brückner-Hoffmann /Mr. Galle / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Ms. Köstner-Plümpe

/ Ms. Hoffmann / Ms. Brecht /  Ms. Freitag etc.) also completely silent.

You have took over about 8.5 months after committed and Proven the process fraud in decision from 3.9.2015

of the 18th Senate OLG-D´dorf on Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01) signed Mr. Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser /Mr. Anger,

the criminal offenses and thus have been fully incorporated into the LG final judgment of May 11, 2016;

you assumed unconditionally the above committed frauds from 3 September 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, even

though you knew that the above mentioned fraud of OLG committee was proven 8.5 months ago and the

perpetrator Malsch, known as "Receleur" (= French word, i.e. fence), was therefore relieved of his post

about September 20, 2015 and retired.

Your (and of LG body) identification on page 5 (last paragraph) of the LG final judgment of 11.5.2016 Az

2b o 271/01,with the crimes (including manipulations of the legal texts BGB a.F. etc) of the OLG body

of 3.9. 2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, and in connection with the new LG decisions of 20.11.2019 (in particular with

Az 2b o 77/08, which Az belongs together with Az 2b o 271/01 in terms of content, and there several crimes

by LG judges are committed, about which you also kept silent) brings you the title of CRIMINAL.

On May 30, 2016 you  undersigned a "voluntary self-rejection because of bias according to

• § 48 ZPO" to Az 2b o 271/01, and then leave the 2b chamber.

A return to the 2b civil chamber of the Düsseldorf Regional Court was neither expedient nor necessary.

This open letter will also appear on the signatory's website shortly

                                                     (www.sartoros-dr-ing.de)

My recommendation: Mrs. Gundlach, return the judge's gown to the judiciary

                                          and disappear from the plaintiff's horizon;

                                                 You are i.S.d. § 339 StGB a criminal.

Dr. Th. Sartoros

The Google-translation is in some paragraphs ligthly changed

The following Article is delivered (on German) to the Judge Mr. Galle and the present 

translation is made with GoogleTranslate Programm; Only 3% are from author changed. 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen-Kettwig

December 26, 2019

In advance by fax: 0211-87565-1260

District court Düsseldorf

Judge Mr. Galle

personally

Werdener Str. 1

40227 Dusseldorf

Abbreviations used

LG-D´dorf = regional court of Düsseldorf, OLG = court of appeal of Düsseldorf; FG = Financial Tribunal;

Az = Number of File or Process; StGB = German Penal Code; GVG = Tribunal Constitution Law;

GG = Constitution of Germany; ZPO = Civil Procedure Code; GVP = Business Distribution plan;

e.g.= for example; PKH= demand for financial judicial aid; NAB = Non remedial decision

BGH= supreme political Tribunal of Germany; FA = Tax office;

Here: Accusation for trial fraud on Az 2b o 271/01 on May 11, 2005, on September 18, 2007

           and on August 9, 2007, as well as abuse of the young judge Fr. Weitzel in 2010

             Evidence of further crimes, and display on the signer's website,

                                    that you are titled as a criminal

Mr. Galle,

Your signature appears for the first time in the LG decision of May 11, 2005 on Az 2b o 271/01 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll

/ Fr. Drees / Galle) regarding an official liability suit for the crimes of FA-Mettmann, and more recently on Aug 15, 2019

on Az 2b o 138/19 (PKH of 8.8.2019 for an action for annulment against the decisions of 16.3.2011 due to the bias

of the judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Dr. Hoffmann; PKH-rejected; decision 15.8.2019 signed

Stockschlaeder-Nöll/ Renner/ Galle etc).

Between 2005 and 2019 you signed several resolutions of the 2b civil chamber (e.g. 2b o 77/08, 2b o 203/09,

2b o 177/10, ......, 2b o 138/19) although you are not a member of 2b civil chamber, and applications for partiality

against you failed due to the stated fact.

What was striking about the resolutions you signed was either criminal offenses (i.e. process fraud)

in the sense of § 339 StGB; or baiting instructions by means of non-remedial decisions (= NAB)

the OLG judges (of the 11th senate or 18th senate) so that they do not give the plaintiff (= As) a right and

to refuse the immediate complaint without specific reference to the reported offenses of the rejected judges

or to reject the fee; or inexperienced girls (= judges on trial) pushed from their chamber to the 2b civil chamber

to be the third Power to strengthen the staff (and, of course, to use as a scapegoat).

It is characteristic of all LG / OLG decisions that wherever the plaintiff points to violations of applicable law (law),

these are not commented on in the LG / OLG decisions and swept under the carpet.

In the following text only two cases or two Az (2b o 271/01 and 2b o 77/08) or legal remedies in two different Az

are described, which also prove how the laws from the inside i.e. be undermined by judges.

Other cases could follow.

With the decision of May 11, 2005 on Az 2b o 271/01 of the competent LG committee, where you were involved,

Mrs. Strupp-Müller allegedly is relieved of the charge of bias. I am supposed to write, because you knew or

you should have known, that the 2b chamber was not responsible for deciding on a partiality application

by a chamber member.

In addition, Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll was excluded from all decisions pursuant to § 47 ZPO due to an application

for partiality that had been pending since December 18, 2002.

According to GVP, another chamber with the presiding judge was responsible for applications for bias.

Your participation in the crucial body was not covered by the GVP of the year; insofar as your participation

also resulted in violations of the ZPO and Art. 101 GG.

So striking in the above case is that you knowingly or intentionally helped a legal fraud (or violations

of the applicable laws) that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on May 11, 2005 to Az 2b o 271/01.

In this respect, Ms. Strupp-Müller on Az 2b o 271/01 on May 11, 2005 was not legally exonerated.

On June 9, 2005, Stockschlaeder-Nöll quickly gathered an illegally formed and willing decision-making body

(Mrs. Drees / Galle / Wedel) and sent the complaint against the LG decision May 11, 2010 to the OLG; both

the order of the LG wishes ("The decision of the Chamber is upheld for the right reasons !! of its enactment"),

as well as the silent legal violations (because of the lack of competence of the LG committees) and postponement

foreign subjects (such as § 14 No. 3 GKG direct proposals) submitted to the OLG.

The illegality was that Ms. Drees belonged to the 2b chamber, but Wedel and you did not.

In addition, Ms. Drees was not a presiding judge, but crept into the crucial body as a simple

chamber member and listened to the instructions of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

However, the law stipulates that the immediate complaint must be reviewed by the full and competent chamber.

On June 9, 2005, however, no full chamber, nor a competent chamber,

was active. Again violations by you against GVP, ZPO and Art. 101 GG.

Of course, the OLG followed the instructions of the LG in NAB and avoided deciding on the hidden topics.

What is striking here is that an illegally formed OLG body has decided !!

(OLG decision on Az 18 W 23/05, signed Haarmann / Behring / Mrs. Anderegg, March 20, 2006, 2b o 271/01)

Why you use the above process of Az 2b o 271/01 (dated May 11, 2005 and June 9, 2005) only became clear

and unequivocal on August 9, 2007 and September 18, 2007.

The illegal LG-committee Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle on August 9, 2007 (after

2 years snail's pace) the PKH applied for on Sept. 9, 2005 for Az 2b o 271/01 was rejected according

 to instructions from Stockschlaeder-Nöll. (supposedly no prospect of success !!)

The above LG-staff was again illegally formed.

Mrs. Strupp-Müller should not have participated on August 9, 2007; she was excluded from all decisions

because on May 11, 2005 (see above) she was not legally exonerated, and neither was

from the OLG !!). You knew that, and still participated, i.e. the PKH requested was rejected.

The next trial fraud will be committed on September 18, 2007 with the illegally formed LG committee

Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle (according to Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll)

On September 18, 2007 the above unlawful LG-committee dismissed the "delivery of the suit" for allegedly

not paying the court fees in full; Although you (Mr. Galle) and both judges Fr. Strupp-Müller 

and Engelkamp-Neeser knew from the files that the court fees had been paid in full (which was finally on

December 15th, 2010, September 3rd, 2015, May 11th, 2016 and on 18.10.2017 confirmed by

LG / OLG) you gladly participated in the fraud.

The consequences were a "blockage of 4 years' service" and further "financial disadvantages" for the plaintiff.

The LG cost officer, Habich, also made a significant contribution to the success of the process fraud on

September 18, 2007.

In this procedure (2b o 271/01) you always acted in consultation with Stockschlaeder-Nöll i.e. you jumped i

n every time Stockschlaeder-Nöll needed you and you were informed about the criminal plans of

Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll; So you took part voluntarily, although your participation was not covered by

the GVP or ZPO. The laws are therefore undermined from the inside.

Process Az 2b o 77/08

According to the latest statement by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, the files of Az 2b o 77/08 (declaratory action

for 275 illegal tax assessments by FA-Mettmann for the period 1979-1992) have disappeared or been sent to

FG-D'dorf and destroyed there, but according to the signatory and correspondence with FG, the files are with

the LG-Düsseldorf.

The process 2b o 77/08 can be reconstructed well on the basis of the resolutions stored in the LG computers,

but Stockschlaeder-Nöll tries with lies and with the help of other LG/OLG judges (Mr. Galle, Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser,

Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe, Mrs. Vaupel, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Malsch, and more recently, Mr. Schilling, of the financial

court-Düsseldorf) to enforce the lie.

Your claim that the LG was not responsible for reviewing the tax assessments, has been invalidated according 

on the plaintiff's reference to the publication of the BGH judge Stuttmann in NJW 2003, H. 20, p. 1432;

"Second chance with the civil judge; the review of existing administrative sentences",

Case 2b o 77/08 is clear evidence of the arbitrariness of the accused Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

your help, Mr. Galle, on the fraud.

You have signed several resolutions to, Mr. Galle, on Az 2b o 77/08, even though your chamber was

not appointed by the GVP as the replacement chamber responsible. The research is still ongoing.

Maybe the above Reason for and explains why Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll does not release files 2b o 77/08

for inspection.

The fear concerns the woman that several legal violations and procedural fraud committed by the

LG judges could now be uncovered by the investigative plaintiff, with serious consequences for the initiator

and those involved

Summarily:

Mr. Galle, your offenses will be punished with imprisonment over 1 year to 5 years by § 339 StGB.

For knowingly and intentionally contributing to criminal plans (no matter by whom they spun)

you must also be responsible.

For the time being it is recommended to you:

                          Mr. Galle, get off the plaintiff's horizon;

                                                You are a process fraud.

The present open letter also appears on my website (www.sartoros-dr-ing.de)

Dr. Th. Sartoros

This ist the second part of the Article regarding LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 145/19 about the process Frauds of Judges

(Mrs Stein/Mrs, Fuhr/Mrs/Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner) of Court of Appeal Düsseldorf on the proceedings Az 18 U 69/16 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Laddringsweg 15

45219 Essen

2. Sept. 2019

Advance by fax: 0211 87 565 1260

Regional Court Düsseldorf

2b Civil Chamber

Werdenerstr.1

40327 Dusseldorf

       for abbreviations (PKH,OLG,LG,FA,FG,BGB a.F., v.A.w.,GA, o.g.,RA,AG etc) look at the End of Part 1

             Named page-Nr. and Line-Nr. refers to the original German Text of the judgment (look there)

Part 2.

Concern: Az 2b o 145/19: PKH of 19.8.2019 for official liability action against NRW, represented by

              the Minister of Justice and this represented by the Attorney General Düsseldorf, because

              of Deflections of the judges of OLG-18. Civil Senate Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser

              on 30.8.2017 (PKH refusal), as well as the OLG judges of the 18th Senate Mrs. Stein/Mrs.

             Glaeser /Mrs. Kirschner on 27.9.2017 (Higher Regional Court hearing) and on 18.10.2017

              Az 18 U 69/16 (Judgment with dismissal and costs of 2b o 271/01 and of 18 U 69/16

              to the detriment of the plaintiff), as well as because of the right-infractions of Mrs.

               Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach on 11 May 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01

Reference: OLG resolution 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, signed Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Anger and contesting

                 : LG judgments of 11. May 2016 and of 16.3.2011 on Az 2b o 271/01 and challenges

                 : Self-disclosure of bias according to § 48 ZPO of 30.5.2016 by

                              Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach

                 : Appeal of 18.8.2016 and written statement 22.9.2017 to OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

               : PKH application dated 19.8.2016 for OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 with a request for bias against

                        Mrs. Glaeser and against Mr. Anger; Official opinions

                        and comments of the plaintiff

            : Competency application of 1.2.2017 against Mrs. Fuhr, official statement of 11.4.2017

                       and comments of the applicant dated 5. May 2017 on OLG Az 18 W 25/16

             : PKH refusal dated Aug. 30, 2017 by Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser and contesting

              : OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner

              : LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 and equipment and LG Az 2b o 77/08

               : FG-Düsseldorf judgments / decisions; Evidence of illegality of the tax assessments of the FA

        :        Reminder from 22 Aug. 2019 i.a. to send an Az here

Here: SUPPLEMENT TO THE PKH EXPLANATORY STATEMENT dated Aug. 19, 2019 with

        : Explanations to the 2 versions of the OLG judgment Az 18 U 69/16 v. 18.10.17, Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser

           : Display of spelling errors in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017 and

            Correction of spelling errors in the pleading brief of 19.8.2019 (not yet Az !!)

        : Explanations such as the process fraud of the accused women Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner

           has begun, and how this can be proved in various decisions of the accused leaves,

           namely:

          Distortion of the facts, as well as the legal consequences of PKH application 5.2.2001, and then

          with distortion of the legal consequences of the statute of limitations of the PKH notice on 20.2.2001,

          and suppression of the legal consequences of the statute of limitations of the RA letter

          dated 17.7.2003 on the unconditional lawsuit filed on 5.2.2001.

         The inadmissible actions continued with suppression (= not application) of 3-year

         limitation period after completion of the FG proceedings against the FA-Mettmann, and

         avoiding comments on the legal consequences of the statute of limitations of the connection

        in March 2001 and the separation in November 2001 of proceedings 2b o 118/99 and 2b

         o 271/01, as well keeping silence about the decision of the magistrate court-Essen from

         2.1.2002 (refusal of the support) as a "special circumstance" to support the limitation period.

        The accused ignored the legal consequences of the statute of limitations of the final recognition

        the legal capacity of the plaintiff on 23.1.2003,

        and concealed the illegality of the LG bodies on 4.4.2003, and on 17.1.2008;

       they "covered" the unlawful composition and lack of competence of the LG Board

        (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Drees / Mrs. Galle) on 11.5.2005 about a biased objection against

        To decide Strupp-Mueller;

      >> In PALANDT-BGB n.F. Edition 2009, § 199 concerning regular prescription

            in the official liability, in No. 34, page 215, is that

           "according to § 839 I 2 BGB the statute of limitations can start only if the injured person

           knows that the Official acted deliberately. "(Underlined by the plaintiff)

            So only the FG process Az 4 K 3384/01 delivered the proof as presented above.

            Therefore, the LG based twice on this date (31.12.2006) the beginning of the limitation

             period but the accused refuse the mentioned Fact (page 23, line 6 counted from above).

        The accused suppressed the trial frauds of the judges Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-

         Neeser / Galle on 9.8.2007 and on 18.9.2007 and of the cost official of 29. Aug. 2007;

      The accused refused the application of §§ of the Civil Code old version (=BGB a.F.), and

      purposefully rejected the legal consequences according to BGB a.F. the payments made

      by the FA in 1999-2001 to recognize as statute-barred / inhibiting, and also

      repeated in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 the on 3.9.2015 committed

      Deflections of Judge Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger to Az 18 W 1/13

      (Extension of the legal texts, for example, § 209 BGB a.F. with 6 months they as "in favour of

       plaintiff "served the extension), and some more, specified in the following pages.

    The files of the proceedings 2b o 271/01, 2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01 and 2b o 77/08 must be

                    consulted and the defendant (NRW) bears the costs of the proceedings here.

                        If the court needs further clarification, please let us know.

Sirs and Madames,

The OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 has two versions A and B, which are characterized

by different number of printed pages: version A has one page less than version B.

The page difference is obviously due to the fact that the 2 versions are printed from 2 different printers and

with different font size.

The version A, which was transmitted as a Telecopy to Mr. RA Zurmühlen, in Essen, 20.10.2017,

carries at the top date and shipping time and is numbered from 1 to 32.

The pages of which have been forwarded to the signer begin with page 3 of the Telecopy, without anything

being missed. Obviously the missing 2 pages were as accompanying letter.

Version A also has a "TEXT numbering" which starts with the number 1 and ends with number 30

of the last page. In his statement 19.8.2019 the claimant referred to the "text numbering"

version A, and specified in PKH 19.8.19 if version B is used instead.

18. In the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 the following spelling errors are discovered

      (Correction requests)

1. In page 6 (version A, with text numbering) line 16, from above: is written

    "after application"

    However, neither an application by the appellant nor by the RA of the Defendant country given.

    The official records show that the deferment ordered from 2b chamber because the files

    (2b o 271/01 etc) are located at the Higher Regional Court (OLG). It is requested to correct this.

2. In page 7, paragraph 3, line 7 counted from below, is a date "28.11.2012" for the issue of a

     LG Decision.

    The issue of the intended LG decision did not take place on 28.11. 2012 (GA 1374), but at

   "26.11.2012" (GA Bl. 1373 and GA Bl. 1376) instead. It is asked for correction.

3. In page 14, first line, there is a date "5.2.2011" which should apply to the application;

    This is an obvious typographical error because the application is dated 5.2.2001.

     It is requested for correction.

4. In page 14, point 1, first line, is a date "11.07.2016" that the decree of the LG final judgement

     should apply; The final judgment bears the date 11.05.2016; this is a

     obvious typo, because the final judgment is dated May 11, 2016.

     It is requested for correction.

5. In page 21, line 15 from above, there is an Az "2b o 278/01" which is unknown to the plaintiff:

     meant can only be 2b o 268/01. It is asked for correction.

In the PKH application of 19.8.2019 (not an Az !!), the following three spelling errors have been

discovered:

  in the heading page 5, wrong is: CHICKEN STEEL; right: hencoop

  In page 7, para. 6; wrong is 4. Oct. 2015; right: 4th Sept. 2015

  in the attachment page 16: wrong is the date 30.10.2010 (attachment no. 29); correct is 30.10.2000

1. ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE BGB a.F. ( = Code civil old version)

    Recognition of the application of BGB a.F. (= Civil Code old version) by LG and OLG

     in the decisions and judgments

    The plaintiff had in all his pleadings the application of the Civil Code old version presented.

     That BGB a.F. in the case of Az 2b o 271/01 applies, give LG and OLG in different

    Decisions and judgments in different places. Only a few cases are mentioned below:

        It is first on the "text numbering" of the pages of OLG Telekopy from 20.10.2017

         ruling of 18.10.2017, referred to Az 18 U 69/16.

1. page 7, para. 3, lines 8 to 6 (of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017) counted from below:

        Here the BGB a.F. only indirectly (i.e. in the LG decision 26.11.2012 not expressly

        mentioned; in the LG decision of 28.5.2014, as well as in the OLG decision of

         3.9.2015 the application of the BGB a.F. is unequivocally confirmed.

2. page 22, line 17, counted from below (the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017):

        In lines 17 to 11 it is acknowledged that according to BGB a.F. the lis pendens of the FG lawsuits

        against the tax assessments of the FA Mettmann, the limitation period (after BGB a.F. § 209)

         have interrupted.

3. page 23, para. 2, lines 10 to 12 counted from above (of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017):

       "The only factor which is relevant is the finding of the illegality of the statements of assessment

          and these were only the subject of the financial court proceedings up to and including 1999.

4. page 23, lines 12 to 4 counted from below in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017 Az 18 U 69/16;

         In lines 12 to 4 it is acknowledged that "according to BGB a.F. the unlawfulness of the

         tax assessments were fixed by the end of 1999.

         The 3-year statute of limitations therefore began again to run, after a legally binding conclusion

         (see § 211 BGB a.F.) of these tax assessments relating to the 80s Procedure before the FG-

         Düsseldorf "

    N.B. The above mentioned Confirmation of the application of the Civil Code old version (concerning

           the illegality of the tax and that the 3-year limitation period began to run after expiry of the FG

            proceedings started), the reader finds almost identical in the Higher Regional Court decision

            from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13. Afterwards comes however in both cases "the vacuum" (OLG-

           decision 3.9.2015 and OLG judgment 18.10.17) i.e. that the 3-year limitation period is not

            included in the to declare claims as "barred". See below.

5. Page 24, lines 1 to 5 counted from the top (of the OLG judgment dated 18.10.2017), (concerning

       subsidy loss):

       Here is only indirectly the application of the BGB a.F. with reference to the previous page 23

       indicated and there (page 23) to apply the developed process fraud, i.e. after recognition

       the application of the BGB a.F., no application of the §§ of the BGB a.F. performed;

       Thus, the process fraud concerning subsidy loss is also completed in page 24 (i.Sc. page 23).

6. page 24, paragraph 2, line 1-2 of paragraph 2.

       An interruption of the statute of limitations of the recognized BGB a.F. is in the opinion

       of the OLG-Panel of 18.10.2017, did not occur (see contradictions, below)

7. page 24, Abs. 3, line 6-2 of the Abs. Counted from below

       The requirements of the Civil Code a.F. § 209 were not available at submission of the PKH

         application 5.2.2001.

8. Page 25, para. 1, lines 6 to 9 counted from the top (of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017):

      "According to the cut-off date rule of Art. 229 § 6 para. 1, sentence 2 EGBGB, the period of

         limitation applies until 31.12.2001 the old law continues, and after that the new law ".

9. page 25, Abs. 3, lines 13 to 8 counted from below (the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017) ::

        "It applies ..... for the length of the relevant limitation period as before with the

         Legal force of the last financial court decision from the year 1999 again

           Limitation period commencing in accordance with § 852 BGB a.F.

           So starting from 01.07.2000 ... "

10. page 26, Abs. 1, lines 3 to 6 counted from above (the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017) ::

        "In the present case, however, there is the peculiarity that the PKH application is already

         announced to the defendant country due to the order of the LG 20.2.2001 also before

       1.1.2002;     than "follows the vacuum "

        Here the OLG judges regret the act of publication of the PKH application to the defendant

       country, complained from the former occupation of the LG-2b Chamber, and tried to conceal

       the application of the Civil Code a.F., and also to deny the legal consequences (limitation

       caused by the announcement) of the PKH application dated 5.2.2001. (see below)

5. EVIDENCE OF THE NEGATIVE ACTION of 5.2.2001

                   Unconditional claim of 5.2.2001 (after RA confirmation of 17.7.2003) and

                                      the legal consequences of the statute of limitations

In the facts, page 3, P. 2, to page 4, lines 1 to 13, the lawsuit of 5.2.2001 has been interpreted according

to the PKH content of 5.2.2001, i.e. that only one PKH application was submitted on 5.2.2001.

A contradiction enclosed in the RA letter of 17.7.2003, that he has made on 5.2.2001 a PKH application

and an unconditional lawsuit, is only counted from the bottom in the facts, page 12, line 4-3 (i.e.

only 2 lines). But a unconditional lawsuit of 5.2.2001 not a word in above mentioned Facts.

In the rejection of the appeal (18.10.2017, judgment Az 18 U 69/16) is otherwise the above

mentioned Letter of 17.7.2003 of the RA on unconditional lawsuit silent and no word about the legal

consequences written, although in the appeal dated 18. Aug. 2016 is reported in several pages of it;

         (e.g., page 21, paragraph 2, page 26, point C 12.2, page 29, page C.14, page 29, page C15.1, etc.)

         and in the written statement of 22 Sept. 2017 is mentioned several times

         For example: page 3, para. 5; Page 7, para. 2; Page 8, para. 1; Page 9, paragraphs 1 and 5;

         Page 16, paragraph 1; Page 17, para. 1;

The proof that above mentioned (= o.g.) (RA =) advocate letter dated 17.7.2003 to Az 2b o 271/01

has reached the court, delivers the RA letter dated the same date (17.7.2003) to OLG-Az 18 W 22/03

with entry stamp of OLG-Düsseldorf 18.7.2003 and processing note by Mrs. Znider, dated 23.7.2003;

"the last line, will send the letter from 17.7.2003 to Az 2b o 271/01

  (as attachment) confirmed ".

It is not excluded that above mentioned RA letter dated 17.7.2003 to Az 2b o 271/01 later

"not findable" is; because the conjecture might apply, copy of the letter is 17.7.2003

Az 2b o 271/01 had been forwarded from the applicant's file as Exhibit No 27 to the PKH

application of 19.08.2019. It bears the entrance stamp of the LG-Düsseldorf dated: July 17, 2003

It is also not excluded that the o.g. RA letter dated 17.7.2003 to Az 2b o 271/01 also contained

 in the GA of Az 2b o 118/99 or 2b o 268/01 because a copy has also been sent there.

The official records (=GA) of the procedure 2b o 118/99 the plaintiff on 14 Aug. 2019 requested

to see, but so far, the LG-Düsseldorf (2b chamber) has not reported back.

A reminder to Az 2b o 118/99 to accelerate access to files has been in the meantime

but so far without success.

If the Higher Regional Court (=OLG) receives the report of the 17.7.2003 of the RA on the 5.2.2001

 unconditional lawsuit, the legal consequences according to BGB a.F. would be very simple:

On 5.2.2001 the statute of limitations is interrupted due to the unconditional lawsuit

(from 5.2.2001) (BGH 70, 236, also a PKH application inhibits the statute of limitations,

see Baumbach § 117 ZPO RNr. 5, also identical in Zöller, ZPO, edition 32, § 117, RNr 4b);

insofar the §§ of the BGB a.F. be applied.

In PALANDT-BGB n.F. Edition. 2009, § 199 concerning the regular prescription, the reader finds:

In the official liability, in No. 34, page 215, the following

>> "after § 839 I 2 BGB the statute of limitations can start only if the injured person knows 

       that the Official deliberately acted ".

      (BGH 121, 65 to 71, see also BGH, III ZR 76/92, note 36, item 4.a, judgment 24.2.1994)

In short: the proof of the intent of the official is still a prerequisite for the official liability

So the FG process Az 4 K 3384/01 delivered only the Proof, that the LG based the statute of

limitations twice on this date (31.12.2006), but Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs. Kirschner

(from page 22, lines 11 to 9 counted from below, and page 23, line 4 counted from above)

deliberately denies.

The mentioned OLG-negation of the legal situation (start of statute of limitation) after BGB a.F.,

in connection with the contradictions regarding 6 months and remaining time 18 months

let the crime of the OLG-Panel make vulnerable.

This means that the statement of the plaintiff is 100% correct and accurate, as well as the requests

upon delivery service of the claim, approval of the PKH application, and punishment of the defendant

country NRW to compensate the damage, were justified.

Prosecutor's Office, have you still reservations ?

"The effect of the inhibition is according to § 205 BGB a.F. of such kind that the

period during which   the limitation is inhibited, the statute of limitation is not included "

    (is in the appeal of 18.8.2016, page 50, presented).

Consequently, the period between the beginning of January 2000 (adopted by the OLG Committee

Mrs Stein / Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner, as the date on which the statute of limitations begins to

recommence) until the initiation of the action on 5.2.2001 not included in the limitation period.

The clear legal situation is ignored by the trio.

The above OLG-Board Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner repeats the process fraud (= repression),

that the period from 1.1.2000 until the filing of the claim on 5.2.2001 does not count towards the statute of limitation)

committed first in the resolution on Az 18 W 1/13 of 3.9.2015 of the former Higher Regional Court Malsch /

Mrs. Glaeser/Anger), or repeats the same Trial fraud also committed on 30 Aug. 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16

(there on page 6 of the Higher Regional Court decision of 30.8.2017 signed Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser)

for the promotion of INJUSTICE.

The continuity of the offense of 3.9.2015 and 30.8.2017 also in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017

thus in all above mentioned OLG decisions, guarantees the presence of Mrs. Glaeser.

In addition, the interruption effect of a FG procedure ends (after BGH) only one month

after delivery of the FG judgment, i.e. with expiry of the deadline for the appeal or for the

non-admission appeal. Then the full limitation period of three years begins to run again.

However, the OLG body (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) insists on the process fraud

committed first on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, decision signed Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger that

6 months after delivery of the FG judgments (which served 6 months as "in favour of the plaintiff" !!)

the "limitation period"  ended "

See page 23, last line of the OLG judgment 18.10.2017, Az 18 U 69/16.

Thus, the OLG Panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) continues the process fraud

from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 (that is, Mrs. Glaeser) without interruption. The objective is:

to relieve Mrs. Glaeser, and thus the whole triumvirate in the dirt of the right-bow

secondly § 339 (Penal law =) StGB slips inside.

The OLG committee (with the offender Mrs. Glaeser) obviously wants to enforce the statute of limitations

at any case, ignore all facts relevant to the decision, establish a fictitious "remaining time of 18 months"

which is written at various places in the OLG judgment of 18.10.18

(e.g., page 25, line 5 counted from below) and undermine the laws from within;

The public prosecutor Düsseldorf again shows no interest to intervene or proceed against the offenders

in OLG Judge toga.

                                                            Question to the prosecutor:

will INJUSTICE continue as a perpetual? or is it better to strengthen the people's trust in the judiciary,

and the accused Judges bring to the "Judge COURT" as a defendant?

1. The compound and the separation of the 2 actions Az 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01, the secret

       Application for the initiation of a supervision procedure, the order of evidence of 28.11.2000

       and the legal consequences according to BGB a.F. on the statute of limitations of the associated

       proceedings

It is not disputed (see "official opinion of the Chairwoman Judge Mrs. Tannert of 18 May 2001 ")

that in March 2001 she compounded the two procedures (from 21.6.1999 and 5.2.2001)

without resolution, and on 29.11.2001 the separation of procedures 2b o 118/99 and

2b o 271/01 executed on the part of another chamber board.

The above Facts finds the reader of the judgment 18.10.2017, OLG Az 18 U 69/16 in the area of ​​the facts

(i.e. only 3 lines!) On page 4, lines 10 to 13 counted from above.

Conspicuous in reading the OLG ruling that in pages 11, 12, 13 and partially in page 14, where

the OLG Panel on 18.10.17 widely reported on the content of the RA letter of 22.9.2017,

the connection of the 2 procedures and the separation on 29.11.2001 find no mention.

In the OLG justification of the rejection of the appeal (from page 16 to page 30), the reader finds

no line and no word about the connection and later separation of the two procedures and also no comment

on the legal consequences of the connection to the interruption according to BGB a.F.

In the appeal dated 18. Aug. 2016, however, the legal consequences of the combination of the two proceedings

and BGH decisions were repeatedly pointed out; e.g. Page 6, 29-31 etc.

By the inadmissible request (March 2000) Mrs. Tannert at the Magistrate Court-Essen to initiate a support

procedure for the plaintiff and 2 weeks later (31.3.2000) the appointment of a supervisor

with a reservation of consent for the plaintiff for the 2b Chamber pending official liability proceedings, had an impact

on the statute of limitations, that means that the statute of limitations was interrupted, with the particularity that

(because of the combining of the two proceedings) the statute of limitation covered both cases (2b o 118/99

and 2b o 271/01).LG / OLG / BGH have kept silent about this and skipped the topic.

The interruption of the statute of limitations according to § 206 BGB a.F. lasted until the final decision

on the legal capacity of the plaintiff (was in the appeal, page 31, see there)

"Thus, the limitation period of the processes to 2b O 118/99 and 2b O 271/01 from application until  

the decision on the process capability was interrupted (§ 206 Abs.1 BGB a.F.)."

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) was therefore obliged to tackle this issue and the legal consequences

described above for the interruption of the limitation period, until a final decision on the process capability

according to BGB a.F. to refute. The Higher Regional Court avoided the topic and kept silent about it and wrote only

praiseless for the arguments in the appeal.

Subsequently, and in connection with the ongoing process fraud of the 6 months extension of § 209 BGB a.F.,

(also in the OLG ruling of 18.10.2017 continued !!!) everything results in a clear light.

If the Higher Regional Court (OLG) consider the BGB a.F. Statute of limitation until January 2003 (time

the final clarification of the applicant's ability to process, see appeal) because of the connection of the

2 proceedings, then it had to admit nolens-volens to that the claim for damages of the plaintiff is

not statute-barred, approve the claim filed on 5.2.2001, and abolish the default judgment (VU) of 16.3.2011,

as well as the final judgment of 11. May 2016.

This contradicted the received instruction (rejection of damages per block)

the OLG committee always followed with the offender Mrs. Glaeser. The offense is thus proved.

1. The application of March 2000 for care, and the rejection of 2 January 2002 by AG-Essen,

    Legal consequences on the statute of limitations and then on the limitation period

After the acknowledged fact that BGB a.F. for Az 2b o 271/01 for the period until 31.12.2001,

and in connection with the secret application of the 2b chamber at the AG-Essen, to a care with

reservation of consent, gets the magistrate court-Essen decision of 2.1.2002 a special weighting,

which relates to interruption of the statute of limitations.

According to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) for the whole time from March 2001 to the end

of December 2001, the statute of limitations according to BGB a.F. interrupted.

 (See, inter alia, page 23, last line of the judgment 18.10.2017, Az 18 U 69/16)

Consequently, if one accepts that, under Article 229 (6) (3) of the EGBG, new circumstances

of inhibition from 1 January 2002 (see text of Art. 229, § 6, No. 3, below):

3.

If, after 31 December 2002, a circumstance arises which, according to the German Civil Code (BGB)

in the version in force before 1 January 2002, is deemed not to have occurred or to have occurred

   before 1 January 2002, then The German Civil Code (BGB) in the version in force before 1 January

   2002 must also be applied in this respect. "

is the resolution of 2.1.2002 of magistrate court-Essen, whereby the care has been rejected,

a "circumstance" of the for the continuous application of the BGB a.F. speaks.

However, the OLG Panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) did not approve the application

of the o.g. rule of the o.g. Art. 229 § 6 no. 3 EGBGB, in page 25, par. 2, no.

The Higher Regional Court (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) also joined Az 18 U 69/16 on 30.8.2017

rejected the application of Art. 229 § 6 No. 3 (page 8, para. 1);

The question is legitimate:

Is that in support of this view, the mentioned BGH decision wrong?

 (see page 19 of the appeal, which is written off here:

        "According to (BGH, Federal Supreme Court) decision, ZEV 2006, 263,

         the interruption entering by action before the deadline (1 January 2002)

          after old Right, last until the End of the proceedings and leads to the new

           beginning of the statute of limitations. "(underlined by the plaintiff)

Furthermore, the OLG Panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) contested

the occurrence of the limitation period based on the unconditional claim of 5.2.2001,

and thus the validity of Art. 229 § 6 no. 3 EGBGB, and which recognized § 212, § 215

as applicable.

The BGH judgment of 7 March 2007 Az VIII ZR 218/06 confirmed in the opinion of

the plaintiff the Application of the Civil Code old version. The BGH judgment is printed here:

Federal Court of Justice judgment VIII ZR 218/06; EGBGB Art. 229 § 6, para. 1 sentence 3

"An interruption of the statute of limitation, which occurred before the entry into force of the Law

of Obligations Modernization on 1 Jan. 2002, continues with the entry into force of the Law of

Obligations modernization as per § 229 § 6 Abs. 2 EGBGB as inhibition of the statute of limitations,

if it Expiry of December 31, 2001 according to the applicable version of the German Civil Code

in accordance with Article 229 § 6 (1) sentence 3 EGBGB in the version applicable before 1 January 2002.

The cumbersome expression of the judgment has led to some negative comments which are

excluded here. In the present case the interruption of the limitation period was due to the

initiation the examination of the applicant's ability to process (requested by Mrs. Tannert)

and by the order of the decision of 28.11.2000 signed Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr / Schumacher

(i.e. before 31.12.2001).

The decisions about it are only announced on January 2, 2002 and January 23, 2003, respectively

a "circumstance" which according to the German Civil Code was applied before 1.1.2002.

(See vocation page 21, 29-34 etc)

                  The objective of the OLG Panel is evident in the following pages:

The destruction of claims for damages by means of the alleged limitation from 30.6.2000.

By trivializing the process fraud (with the 6 months extension of the legal text § 209 BGB a.F.) which the Panel

(Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) serves as "in favour of the plaintiff" (see judgment 18.10.2017,

Az 18 U 69/16, page 23, line 4, counted from below), shows that on 2.1.2002

a "circumstance" occurred that BGB a.F. that is, until the end of the method 2b o 271/01 (and 2b o 118/99).

About it is repeatedly written in the first instance and in the appeal of 18.8.2016, page 19 ff, but the LG always

avoided the hot porridge.

The OLG denies the continuous application of the Civil Code old version (BGB a.F.) with note

(page 25, paragraph 2) that Art. 229 § 6, p. 3, only the interruption or non-interruption of the according to

§§ 212, 215 BGB a.F. affect. The restriction (only), which makes the OLG-Panel,

but you will not find in the literature. See BGH judgment Az VIII ZR 218/06 (reprinted above).

18. The cap in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017 the illegal formation of the deciding LG bodies

    as well as the theatrical homage of the BVerfG (GG) Case law on Art. 101 u. Art. 103 GG

The suspicious thick cloud of incense to the jurisprudence of the constitutional court (= BVerfG) regarding legal judge

(article 101 GG) in page 19, under point 1, and about hearing rights (article 103 GG) page 20,21 under point 2,

in connection with the contradictions in the same judgment of 18/10/2017, are so "shrill and outlandish", and the

capping of the unlawful LG bodies so provocative that here must be reported:

While only in page 22, line 20 counted from the top, page 23 last line, and in page 25, paragraph 3,

of the judgment 18.10.2017 the interruption of the statute of limitations is openly confirmed, tried the OLG body

in all other pages (with a thick smoke from the censer to the jurisprudence of the constitutional court (BVerfG)

in several pages on legal judge and on hearing) to convince the reader that no interruption of the statute of limitations

would have occurred. (See in this case statement in Higher Regional Court judgment 18.10.17, PKH application

of 5.2.2001, page 24, point a) on loss of subsidy, page 25, paragraph 1, line 12; on pension entitlement page 29,

line 12; on compensation for pain , Page 28, point 5).

So the incense serves to conceal the illegality of the deciding LG bodies and at the same time

as an invitation to the BGH judges to globally exonerate the whole thing

                                              The goal is obvious:

Negation of the duty of indemnification of the employer (NRW) for the crimes of the FA Mettmann

Only a few cases are mentioned below (presented in first instance and then in the appeal), and the arbitrariness

of Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll and the LG/OLG offenders (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner) reveal: further cases

reserved after receiving the reply of the legal representative.

1. On April 4, 2003, an LG panel (and controlled by Stockschlaeder-Nöll) will decide illegally

    on the first PKH-5.2.2001 (Mrs. Brückner-Hoffmann/Mrs. Strupp-Müller/Mrs. Adam)

   The violations of § 75 GVG and Art. 101 GG are ignored, thus also Art. 103 GG violated.

   The Higher Regional Court (Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner) "covers in page 4, point 3,

   of the judgment 18.10.2017 the illegality of the panel "and passes the decision-relevant

   Fact; in page 19 and page 20 of the OLG judgment 18.10.17 follows the theatrical homage

   of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG).

    Almost superfluous to mention that the 18th Senate in its decision of 23.7.2004

    Az 18 W 22/03 on the illegality of the LG body is silent.

   But if the illegality of the LG Panel would be considered, then the 18th Senate had

    the immediate objection to sustain and the case to send back to LG for a new ruling with

   compliant composition to the law. The interruption of the statute of limitations would have

   much lasted longer and the plaintiff benefited from the illegality of the decision with the help

   of attack of a processable advocate and enforce its (Federal constitution = GG) secured rights.

2. In page 27 of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 is three times the LG decision of 11. May 2005

     cited and supported on this basis, some LG failures will be attributed to the plaintiff.

     Both the illegality of the composition (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Drees/Mrs. Galle)

     as well as the distribution plan of duty (= GVP) lack of competence of the 2b Chamber to decide

     on some points (Request of bias against Strupp-Müller etc), the Higher Regional Court

     (Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner) remain silent.

     The Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll was rejected on 18.12.2002 as biased and should not Sign

     resolutions; (the motion for bias is again submitted by a illegal body

     Köstner-Plümpe / Mrs. Vaupel / Mrs. Schmidt a from Stockschlaeder-Nöll organised

     and controlled committee) against Art. 101 GG, on 17 Jan. 2008 (After almost 6 years !!!)

     decided and the procedure with bias ended only with OLG decision in the year 2009

    Even if the application contained a point that was not provided by a advocate,

    the unlawful LG body should not issue a decision, but transfer to those responsible

   chamber, accordingly to the distribution of duty under Judges (= GVP).

   Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, however, hastily cancelled the official liability claims

    to have off the table; she achieved the opposite.

       Further presentation and further proofs reserved.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Th. Sartoros

P.S.

It is recommended to the accused "to return the toga to the judiciary";

                                                       they do not deserve him anymore.

This article Part 1 bring to light and explains how is executed the collusion of the judges

(Mrs Stein, Mrs. Fuhr, Mrs. Glaeser, Mrs. Kirschner) of court of Appeal of Düsseldorf/Germany

in the proceedings OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01) for purpose to "declare" the claims

of compensation of the greek eng. + inventor for the damage caused bei the functionaries

of collectorship of Mettmann, as "time barred".   Later follows a second part. 

  Dr. Th. Sartoros

 Laddringsweg 15

 45 219 ESSEN-Kettwig 

19. Aug 2019

Advance by fax: 0211 875 65 12 60

Regional Court Düsseldorf

2b Civil Chamber

Werdenerstr.1

40327 Dusseldorf

for abbreviations (PKH,OLG,LG,FA,FG,BGB a.F., v.A.w.,GA, o.g.,RA,AG etc) look at the End of this article

             Named page-Nr. and Line-Nr. refers to the original German Text of the judgment (look there)

Re: Az 2b o 145/19: PKH for official liability action against NRW, represented by the Minister of Justice

              and this represented by the Attorney General Düsseldorf, because of the right-infringement

              the judges of OLG-18. Civil Senate Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser on 30.8.2017

             (PKH refusal), as well as the OLG judges of the 18th senate Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs.

             Kirschner on 27.9.2017 (Higher Regional Court of appeal hearing) and 18.10.2017 on Az

             18 U 69/16 (Judgment with application and costs at 2b o 271/01 and at 18 U 69/16, Loads

             of the plaintiff), as well as because of the right-inflections of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

             Mrs. Gundlach on 11 May 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01

Reference: OLG resolution from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13, signed Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Anger and 

                     contesting      

             : LG judgments of 11 May 2016 and of 16.3.2011 on Az 2b o 271/01 and challenges

             : Self-disclosure of bias according to § 48 ZPO of 30.5.2016 by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                          and Mrs. Gundlach

           : Appointment of 18.8.2016 and written statement 22.9.2017 to OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

           : PKH application dated 19.8.2016 for OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 with a request for bias against

                            Mrs. Glaeser and against Mr. Anger; Official opinions

                            and comments of the plaintiff

           : Application for bias against Mrs. Fuhr, official statement

                            and comments of the plaintiff

           : PKH refusal from Aug. 30, 2017 by Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser and contesting

           : OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein/Mrs. Glaeser/Mrs. Kirschner

           : LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 118/99 and equipment and LG Az 2b o 77/08

           : FG-Düsseldorf judgments / decisions; Evidence of illegality of the tax assessments of the FA

Introductory

The above mentioned OLG judges have the legal status regarding the legal consequences of the filed in the

80 years complaints to the FG-Düsseldorf (to determine the illegality of the tax assessments of the FA-Mettmann,

and to achieve the statutory tax assessment), acknowledged, but the laws regarding the 3-year limitation period

(according to BGB a.F.) neither in OLG decision 30.8.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) nor in the

judgment 18.10.2017 (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) used. The non-application of the applicable

law-standards (of BGB a.F.) was deliberate.

Thus, it came to the conclusion that the compensation claims of the Greek engineer + inventor to Az 2b o 271/01

on subsidy bonus, etc. on 30.6.2000 would be time-barred.

The violation of the right to listen also led to the alleged limitation of the statutory pension and the requested

compensation, for the crimes of FA-Mettmann / Düsseldorf in the years 1979-1999.

The suit has a chance of success and is not willful.

Brief summary of the facts (first period 5.2.2001 to 20.9.2010)

(Details / evidences are inter alia in the LG-Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 271/01 and 2b o 77/08, as well as

in OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16 and in BGH-Az III ZR 332 / 17 are included; reference is made to

avoid redundancy); if desired (because of the scope) missing evidence can be provided.

The previous legal dispute Sartoros ./. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (NRW) Az 2b O 271/01, because

of the crimes of the FA-Mettmann against the Greek engineer + inventor Dr. Th. Sartoros in the years

1979-2000 (see in the appendix No. 30 + 31 letter from 11.1.2000 and from 29.2.2000) went through

all 3 instances (LG / OLG-Düsseldorf, BGH), and due from policy statements the claim for damages of

the plaintiff, by official misconduct and illegal allegations of the deciding panels, rejected and the PKH

requests, (with fake news on the part of the LG judges and with suppression of the valid legal situation),

were rejected.

The procedure 2b o 271/01 was the second official liability (Az 2b o 118/99) based on BGB a.F .;

The OLG referred only to the judgment 5 K 8916/91 on the FG-13th senate passed on 29.9.1999

and on 24.11.1999 -judges of the FG-5th senate in favour of the plaintiff,

"explained the claims for damages as already barred on 30.6.2000".

(Judgment 18/10/2017, page 23, last line; in the previous lines the OLG Panel acknowledged that

the FG actions were directed against the illegality of the FA tax assessments !!).

After the limitation period reached by the FG lawsuits, the limitation period of 3 years after BGB a.F.

began to run; The 3-year statute of limitations is set out in OLG Decision from 30.8.2017 and

in the OLG judgment 18.10.17 systematically suppressed. Thus, the alleged limitation of claims.

   The procedure 2b o 271/01 was characterized in the 17,5 years duration and after 6 postponed

                   appointments v.A.w., by the following illegal acts of the LG / OLG judges:

1. Twice (March 2000 and July-September 2008) have the LG judges (Mrs. Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr) and

    (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser) tried by means of secret applications on

   (guardianship of) magistrate court-Essen to dismiss the plaintiff as partially (!?) unfit for trial;

    both times are the secret applications of the conspirators on the part of magistrate court-Essen

   (on 2.1.2002 and on 24.3.2009) rejected. Tannert is dismissed, but Stockschlaeder-Nöll has remained.

    The magistrate court-Essen decision of 2 January 2002 was suppressed by the OLG body on August

   30, 2017, thus the alleged "statute of limitations" of the claims and Rejection of the requested PKH

   achieved.

2. On 28.11.2000 is a "decision of proof" of the 2b Civil Chamber (signed Mrs.Tannert / Mrs. Fuhr /

   Mr. Schumacher) - the Düsseldorf 2b Chamber ordered the Physicians to stamp the plaintiff as a

     partial (!) unable for trial.

     The above "decision of proof" is on 29.11.2001 on the part of another Chamber occupation

     cancelled/revoked on the basis of the Greek ZPO (Code of civil procedure)/ BGB; (code civile)

     In this respect Mrs. Fuhr was excluded by law accordingly § 41 No. 6 and in no other Decision

     should  participate. In addition, the acts of the 2b Chamber caused:

     > the refusal of an Az for the action of 5.2.2001 (later 2b o 271/01), as well as the application to the

    > AG-ESSEN the initiation of a supervision procedure, and the release of the "Proof of able to stand

     trial of 28.11.2000 ", and finally a compound of the Az 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 and thus

    (according to BGB a.F.) contributed to the suspension of the statute of limitations of both

     procedures. The LG / OLG bodies have concealed this in order, to come to a conclusion, that the

     damage Claims for compensation of the Greek Ing. + Inventor "barred" would be.

3. On 5.2.2001, is accordingly to written confirmation of the 17.7.2003 of the advocate, an

    "unconditional complaint" filed with PKH (see Appendix 27); The PKH application was published

     on 20.2.2001 to the defendant; The LG has ignored these facts, and the OLG claims (page 24,

     Point a, judgment 18.10.2017) that  only a PKH application would be submitted.

  This deliberate untruth led to the non-application of the applicable laws of the Civil Code a.F. and

   on the alleged limitation of claims for damages of the engineer + inventor.

4. Chalenges on grounds of bias of 21.4.2001 (application against Tannert) and of 16.12.2008

   (against Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Engelkamp-Neeser) are twice by unlawful LG bodies (violations

   of § 75 GVG, against Art. 101 GG, as well as against ECtHR case law) as unfounded rejected;

    The complaints against it are from OLG-11. Senate (Dr. Bünten & Co) as unfounded rejected,

    i.e. the OLG-11. Senate always the legal violations of the LG judges "capped" and the costs

    have been absorbed by the plaintiff. The costs still burden the plaintiff today ".

5. On November 12, 2002, the legal representative of the defendant state of North Rhine-Westphalia

   (NRW) confirmed at a "hearing" of the Parties that the bank account seizures 1986-1989 on the

     part of the FA Mettmann causally for the miscarriage success of the plaintiff's business. The word

   "causality" always avoided by LG / OLG

    The statement has never been considered by LG / OLG or BGH.    Intentional suppression.

6. Request of bias of 18.12.2002 against Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is only on 17 Jan. 2008 (nach

     almost 6 years!) on the part of an unlicensed compiled by Stockschlaeder-Nöll LG Panel

     (Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe / Mrs. Vaupel / Mrs. Schmidt) rejected as unfounded; (violations

    against § 75 GVG and against Art. 101 GG); the OLG-11th senate (Bünten & Co Az 11 W 26/08)

   has the Unlawfulness of the LG Panel on 30.6.2008 "capped". The 18th Senate has the illegality

    of the LG panel "overlooked and skipped". Köstner-Plümpe is OLG judge shortly after.

7. PKH applications and requests for service to the defendant under Az 2b o 271/01 are i.a. on

    4.4.2003, 20.11.2003,3.1.2005, 11.5.2005, 20.3.2006, 5.4.2006, 9.8.2007, 18.9.2007, 17.1.2008,

    10.7.2008, etc. on the part of illegally formed LG / OLG bodies (i.e. violations of § 75 GVG and

   Art. 101 GG) as unfounded rejected.

    The OLG-18th Senate (Malsch / Mrs. Baan & Co) has always "capped" the illegality of the

    LG bodies (e.g. 23.7.2004, 4.7.2007, 10.7.2008 or 3.9.2015 etc)

    By suppression of facts relevant to the decision are the applicable laws not applied.

8. The value in dispute of Az 2b o 271/01 was set at € 1,838,180.46 on 21.4.2006.

    The corresponding court fees were therefore 21,021.77 € as the cost officer noted it

    in GA Bl. 413. By instalment payments from Aug. 2004 (without request of the court

    cash register !!) the court fees until December 2006 were completely paid.

    The OLG-claims in the judgment 18.10.2017, page 27, that the plaintiff would have remained

   endlessly idle.

    By negation of the 2 facts (instalment payment from Aug. 2004, and no request of the court)

    the Panel concluded that this puts pressure on the plaintiff and the full Payment of court fees

   could not bring the limitation period.

9. On 9 August 2007, the PKH application was filed by the unlawful LG body Mrs. Strupp-Müller /

   Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle declined on the grounds that the cost official (Habich) would

   have found that the court fees are not fully paid. (see GA sheet 499, and Annex No. 24)

   The process fraud organized by Stockschlaeder-Nöll, of the o.g. 4 public servants, is always

   secretive.    Mrs. Strupp-Müller was promoted in mid-2008 as LG Chairwoman.

10. On 18 September 2007, by order of Mrs. Strupp-Müller / Mrs.Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle, the action

     application of Case 2b o 271/01 rejected; Reason: the claimant allegedly did not have the complete

     Court fees paid. Open still 9.454.69 €. But the full payment of court fees confirmed :

     the LG on 15.12.2010, the OLG on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 and the LG in the closing

     Judgment of 11.5.2016. Thus confirmed, that Stockschlaeder-Nöll has organized and

     supervised the Process frauds of 9.8.2007 and 18.9.2007 !!! (Annex No. 22)

     The LG decisions with the process frauds have not been cancelled despite the application.

11. On 16 April 2008, the plaintiff survives a murder attempt on the A5 motorway, south of

         Karlsruhe;

          How could the killer know, that the plaintiff would travel with a foreign car that day?

12. On 16.2.2010 begins the dispute of the plaintiff with the 7 OLG judges of PUTSCH- Club

      of the 11th Senate (Dr. Bünten / Mrs. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Mrs. Baan / K.-G. Müller /

     Mrs. Grabensee /Dahm) because of the process fraud with 99 resolutions, and the lawsuit

      enforcement against the above named judges as well as because of right infractions against

      Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Malsch /Mrs. Tannert etc, lasts, after also reached the 2^nd Penal Division

     of the BGH, until about mid-2012; the coup club will disassembled; its members "transferred".

     Everyone is silent about the delay in the proceedings.

13.The claim 2b o 271/01 of 5.2.2001 with the amended motions of 13.8.2004 is in Sept. 2010

     (without decision!) delivered to the defendant. The filing of the claim resulted in limitation of

     since filing 5.2.2001. That was a thorn in the eyes of the LG / OLG conspirators.

    The carry-over of 4 years is the fault of the LG and this is on 15.12.2010 on the part of the legal

    committee formed unfairly Mrs. Keiser / Mrs. Moosbrucker / Schwarz (with the participation of

   Mrs. Keiser!) been accepted. The Higher Regional Court of appeal states in its judgment of 18.10.17

   that neither the full payment of the Court fees on Dec. 15, 2006 nor the lawsuit filed in Sept. 2010

   an interruption of the statute of limitations have reached, because the claims for damages

   would have been time-barred already on 30.6.2000

   Facts (second section from 21.9.2010) with legal aspects about the default judgment

14. On 21.9.2010 Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Hoffmann rejected because of bias;

       They had organized / supervised the blockade of lawsuits for almost 4 full years.

   The judges who were rejected on 21.09.2010 (see attachment no 20) Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

   Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann have the default judgment (VU) on 16.3.2011 announced and signed

   (see Annex 17), although they are not allowed under § 47 ZPO, because of simultaneity

     application, only ended with OLG resolution on Az 11 W 12/11 on June 7, 2011 (see Annex 16)

  In addition, at the hearing on 16. March 2011, only the claimant was present in person,

 insofar the party was not properly represented (see protocol in the annex and ZPO § 579 No. 4)

  That, the LG committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Keiser on 16.March 2011

  was formed unlawfully, were the above mentioned Women well informed after receiving the

plaintiff's letter from  9th March. 2011 (see Annex No. 18), which expressed "legal doubts".

   The default judgment ( = VU) 16.März 2011 (with its implicit cost decision) was against the

    Plaintiff enforceable. (see Annex 17, page 2)

   The LG judgment of 16 March. 2011 is therefore unlawful and must cancelled because of the

   subsequent legal consequences.

   The application for annulment was filed both in the appeal of 18.8.2016 (pp. 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 69, (s.

   Annex) as well as in the brief of 22.9.2017 to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 (pp 3, 4, 5 see attachment),

   but the Higher Regional Court of appeal (and later the BGH on 24.5.2018 and 26.7.2018 to Az

   III ZR 332/17)    have been silent about it that is mans that no decision is made about it.

  On 13 April 2016 (after 6 times !!! Deferment v.A.w. of the Date of hearing) was the next oral

  Negotiation to the Az 2b o 271/01 instead.

The LG panel was once again unlawfully formed, so was Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach,

as well both participate in the final judgment of May 11, 2016 (see Annex 9); the body has the first and

unlawful LG judgment of 16.3.2011 maintained and the costs of the proceedings inflicted to the plaintiff.

The LG Panel should have seen that Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll was not allowed to participate in the oral

proceedings and the judgment on 11/05/2016 and on 16 March 2011 or that the unlawful judgment of

16 March 2011 should not be upheld. This applies regardless of whether the plaintiff

on 13 Apr. 2016 was represented with advocate and negotiated before the rejected .

The suppression of the fact by LG (and then by the OLG and BGH) was deliberate.

 Battle in the henhouse to find a rationale reason for the alleged limitation the claims for

     compensation of damages according to BGB a.F. or according to BGB n.F.

15. The LG Panel Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Jürging/Mrs. Brecht has in the resolution of 26 Nov. 2012

     made some statements about alleged "statute of limitations of claims for compensation of

     damages" and found that they would be time-barred on "31.12.2009" (according to BGB a.F.);

   the word "BGB a.F." was in the decision of 26.11.2012, (see Annex No. 15), avoided and derived

   only analogously.

The o.g. LG-Board accepted indirectly, that in the case of the Greek engineer + inventor BGB a.F. is applicable,

and that the FG actions have interrupted the limitation period (primary legal protection!); The Panel also indirectly

acknowledges that FG claim Az 4 K 3384/91 must be taken into account with the "COURT SETTLEMENT"

concluded on 15/12/2006 and also the reimbursement of € 80,000 in the limitation period;

the panel writes that the statute of limitation (of 3 years on 1.1.2007 began, and thus) ended on 31.12.2009,

so before the service delivery, as the statute of limitations would have already occurred.

The objective is clear; Statute of limitations before the delivery is served (i.e. before Sept. 2010)

      Mrs. Brecht also claims that "the application under § 287 ZPO [*] for the estimation of

      a Minimum damage would be inadmissible; the whole ZPO does not look like that ".

This nonsensical assertion of Mrs. Brecht on § 287 ZPO takes over (in page 5) the Higher Regional Court

of appeal (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Anger) on 3.9.2015 without commenting on it.

In 2003, Mrs. Brecht was promoted to OLG Judge for the legal references in the decisions concerning

the local claimant and for her fake news written in 3 rulings until 2015.

The o.g. Result has the weak in matter "statute of limitations" Stockschlaeder-Nöll (and the driver

the judiciary) is unsatisfied, therefore from the bar of justice the freshly set Mrs. Freitag is sent to

the 2b civil chamber "as reinforcement"; Mrs. Jürging had to vacate.

16. The new LG-body Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Brecht/Mrs. Freitag (after internal divergence)

      about the duration of primary legal protection secondly BGB a.F. or BGB n.F. etc.) a new one

      Decision on 28.5.2014 issued, and thereby the alleged limitation as on 15.6.2010

       occurred. (see attachment no. 14)

      The earlier decision of 26.11.2012 Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Jürging/Mrs. Brecht becomes

       referred to, and with this trick it has not been picked up

     In the o.g. Decision of 28.5.2014 becomes for the first time the "court settlement before the FG

      am 15.12.2006 "expressly mentions that this belongs to the primary legal protection, but

     with reference to "analogous to § 204 BGB n.F." the inhibition lasted (6 months) to 15.6.2007.

      After that, the 3-year limitation period ended on 15.6.2010.

      in page 3 of the o.g. Mrs. Brecht repeats her previous fake news.

      Mrs. Freitag is promoted to chair of a LG Chamber a few months later !!.

    Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll sends her wishes to the OLG 18th Senate and orders on 7.7.2014

    with the guidance for the blind (= non-remedy-decision) the result of the OLG on the raised

    Complaint against the PKH-rejecting LG decision of 28.5.2014:

       "The Chamber insists on the statute of limitations and the asserted claims are time-barred"

         (see attachment no. 13)

Insofar the o.g. Women (Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Mrs. Jürging, Mrs. Brecht and Mrs. Freitag) are

offenders accordingly German Penal Law (= StGB), because the standards of the BGB a.F. deliberately

concealed and did not apply. This charge also applies to the OLG judges who are named below.

In spring 2015 Mrs. Glaeser will be transferred to the 18th Senate and appointed as rapporteur.

At the end of Aug. 2015, the plaintiff protests a few days before the entrance to the LG building in

Düsseldorf with a huge billboard and accuses several LG judges of blocking the claim 2b o 271/01.

At the end of Aug. 2015, the plaintiff experiences an attack by the intelligence services that destroy

the PC and printer software. The plaintiff writes by hand the hearings against the OLG ruling from 03/09/15

On 2. Sept. 2015, the plaintiff protests outside the entrance to the OLG building and accuses two

OLG Judge (Malsch / Mrs. Baan) as a blocker and as a criminal offender.

Uninvolved and frightened OLG judges press on pace, so that the protest outside of entrance of the OLG

no finds successor.

17. With date 2.9.2015 the Receleur (French word= fence) (Malsch) rejects as inadmissible an

      application for bias against him and on 3.9.2015 issued a decision on Az 18 W 1/13 which is

     subsequently commented:

   The FENCE (Volker Malsch) with Mrs. Glaeser and Mr. Anger have in the signal word "analog

• § 204 BGB n.F. "in the LG resolution dated 28.5.2014 and from the order of 7.7.2014 understood,

   that it is absolutely essential that the claims must be rejected, with argumentations made by a

   mixture of the Civil Code old Version (= BGB a.F.) and the civil code new release (= BGB n.F.)

The result of (Malsch / Mrs. Glaeser / Mr. Anger) was the manipulation/amendment/fitting of the legal

texts of the BGB a.F. (eg § 209 with the 6 months) with the result that  the claim for compensation of the

damages of the plaintiff would have been time-barred on 30 July 2006, i.e.

before full payment in Dec. 2006 of the court fees for 2b o 271/01. (see Annex No. 12)

The receleur had recognized that as long as the argument of full payment of the court fees in

December 2006 holds, an alleged limitation of the claims thereafter is not enforceable.

However, he has confirmed that until Dec. 2006 the court fees are complete were paid (page 8, passage 3)

and in this respect the 2 frauds from Mrs. Strupp-Mueller /Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser / Mr.Galle /

Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from 9 Aug. 2007 and from 18 Sept. 2007 and the cost official

HABICH from 29 Aug. 2007 unequivocally confirmed. (see Appendix Nos. 22 and 24)

It is then argued in the OLG decision 18 W 1/13 that the delivery service was rejected by LG because

of incomplete payment of court fees, and the statute of limitations (after naming another absurd date or

after extension by 6 months), mid-2000!  accordingly on 31.7.2006 would have occurred.

The 6 months extension attempts with reference to § 203 a.F. to be invalidated analogously in page 7,

2 passage.

In page 6, passage 3, of the resolution 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13, the OLG-Panel (Malsch/Glaeser/Anger)

confirms that "the FG-actions were directed against the tax assessments, and the passed FG-judgments

proved that the tax assessments were unlawful and that a possible damage was fixed".

The FG process 4 K 3384/03 plays no role for the RECELEUR (= Fence) with regard to statute-barring

interruption, and in page 6 of the OLG resolution from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 takes over what also in

the LG decision 28.5.2014 (Mrs. Stockschlaedeer-Nöll/Mrs. Jürging/Mrs. Brecht) regarding "analogous

to § 204 BGB n.F." stood.

For this purpose, the OLG-Panel (Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Anger) develops a confused theory about

species 229 § 6 EGBGB to bridge the splits between BGB a.F. and BGB n.F. (§ 204 BGB n.F.).

After notification of perversion of Justice on 22.9.2015, the receleur is sent into the pension,

Mr. Anger removed from the 18th Senate at the end of the year and the Mrs. Glaeser remained

at the 18th Senate to carry on the continuation of the right-infringement.

           Now with the crimes of the OLG Panel reveal the actual goals and efforts

           of the LG / OLG judges i.e. to declare the claims for damages as time-barred.

With all three o.g. Resolutions (LG-26.11.2012, LG-28.5.2014 and OLG-3.9.2015), the illegal bodies

have tried to prove that the service delivery in September 2010, no interruption of the statute of limitations

had reached from the filing 5.2.2001, because - so the body's- the statute of limitations

had already occurred earlier, on 31.12.2009 or 30.6.2010 or 31.7.2006.

On Sept. 14, 2015, the advocate St. Minnerop (legal representative of the defendant state of

North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) at the LG-Düsseldorf) thanked the 2b chamber for the 9/9/2015 received

notice (so only 7 days after the protests of the plaintiff before the OLG-Entrance); It has been researched,

but a reference of the 2b Chamber to RA Minnerop is not included in the court records!!.

(see attachment no. 11) What content? had the LG Note ?, unclear. So "PIZZA CONNECTION".

The o.g. RA, by letter of 14. Sept 2015, recommends that the 2b Chamber "pass the decision" i.e.

a "gangster-style fast termination of 2b o 271/01"; (see Annex 11)

On 4. Sept. 2015 renewed request of the RA St. Minnerop for the action 2b o 271/01

"make a quick decision" to bring about. "Alla Gangster Art".

18. i.S.d. The RA recommendation will hold the next hearing on 13 April 2016

      the unlawful LG committee Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Mrs. Frank

On 11 May 2016, the LG decision on Az 2b o 271/01 was issued, maintaining the unlawful default

judgment of 16 March 2011 and dismissing the action for alleged limitation of claims on 30.7.2006.

The costs of the proceedings are imposed by the applicant. (see Annex No. 9)

The LG Panel accepted on May 11, 2016, that for the action 2b o 271/01 the BGB a.F. is

applicable, but the Panel negates the application of the rules / standards of the Civil Code a.F.

In the o.g. OLG resolution 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 writes the committee (Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Anger)

et al in page 7, line 4, that after the (alleged extension of 6 months that the interruption of the statute of

limitations lasted until mid-2000), "then the three-year limitation period began to run".

The LG committee with Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach has with final verdict on May

11, 2016, the claims of the plaintiff for damages for the lost investment bonus, pension, useless expenses

and compensation for suffering due to the crimes of the tax office Mettmann in the Years 1977-2006 for alleged

"statute of limitations" on 31.7.2006, i.e. by "assumption in the full extent of the remarks of 3.9.2015 of the

OLG in the resolution Az 18 W 1/13

"Thus, Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach are offenders accordingly penal law (= StGB)

The amount in dispute on the basis of the newly formulated applications is 11 May 2016:

€ 1,886,665.96

In this case, the LG Panel (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach) damaged the plaintiff for

the claims asked for damages i.H.v. € 1,886,665.96, plus the costs of the first instance of the proceedings

2b o 271/01 i.H.v. 21,021.72 € for court fees, as well as for the fees of the Advocates of both parties i.e.

€ 21.43 * 2 = approx. € 43.0 thousand, plus annuity and interest since lis pendens (accordingly to tables,

the RA fee amounts to € 21.43 thousant)

The judges Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach, who were accused of mistrial, gave on the

30th of May. 2016 a self-disclosure of partiality under § 48 ZPO, temporally valid unrestricted for Az 2b o 271/01.

(see Annex 8).

The self-disclosure of bias is misinterpreted by OLG (page 20 of the judgment 18.10.17), and was not taken

into consideration by the BGH. The consideration of Self-disclosure of bias by BGH would have i.a. repealing

the LG judgments of 16 March 2011 and of 11. Mai.2016, as well as to the deletion of the cost decision, led.

The multiple collusion of the OLG judges Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner

19. The appeal to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 against the unlawful judgment of 11.5.2016 is on 18.8.2016

       been submitted on time. On 19 Aug. 2016, the plaintiff filed a PKH application for the 2e instance

       supplemented with a motion of bias against Mrs. Glaeser, who on September 6, 2016, has a official

       Opinion submitted and commented by the plaintiff on September 26, 2016 (see Annex No. 6 + 7)

The motion for bias of 19.8.2016 against Mrs. Glaeser is decided 12.1.2017 on the part of the law-abiding

committee of the 18th Senate Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Kirschner, with the participation of the offender

Mrs. Fuhr (i.e. a criminal (Mrs. Fuhr, who had signed the "proof" against the plaintiff

on 28.11.2000) relieves another offender (Mrs. Glaeser) and Mrs. Fuhr expects the same in the

raised refusal request i.e. that Mrs. Glaeser relieves Mrs. Fuhr), and rejected as unfounded (see attachment);

the OLG decision is challenged on 1.2.2017;

In the decision dated 12.1.2017, the OLG Panel has raised the objections raised (that Mrs. Fuhr

after § 41 No. 6 was excluded by law as well as) because of the offense against (EGMR =

European court of Human Rights) case law (ECtHR No. 42095/98 Daktaras % LTU).

The issue of dispute over the jurisdiction of the 11th Senate of Higher Regional Court to decide in refusal

cases is always circumvented and the blanket arguments of the offenders (Mrs. Fuhr/Mrs. Glaeser)

contradict the EGMR jurisprudence.

The unlawful Higher Regional Court of 18 Senate always talks about (page 17 of the judgment 18.10.2017)

that the composition of the 18th Senate corresponds to the GVP, but avoided to settle the dispute about

"the jurisdiction of the 11th Senate and the lack of responsibility of the 18th Senate on applications

for refusal " and have never argued with a decision/judgment of the BGH.

So the Higher Regional Court shifts the question to another topic and denies the requested evidence.

20. The subsequent motion of bias against the offender Mrs. Fuhr is on the part of the adverse

       and incompetent OLG-Panel of the 18th Senate Mrs. Stein / Unger / Mrs. Kirschner am

       19.7.2017 rejected as unfounded.

     In page 3 of the contested OLG decision, the subject is simply diverted to the

          "not participation of Mrs. Fuhr in the district court ruling 11.5.2016, or the resolution of

                                  2b Chamber of 10.5.2016 pointed out ";

     In addition, "the alleged criminal law allegation of legal inflection allegedly result not from

                                 the mere participation in an unlawful decision, ordering the

                                  examination of the plaintiff's partial business capacity ".

                   Thus, the OLG committee in the resolution of 19.7.2017, in page 4. (see Annex No. 3)

     The objections of the plaintiff from 5.5.2017 to OLG Az 18 W 25/16 and on 31 July. 2017 too

     Az 18 U 69/16 have been left unconsidered. This is at the expense of Mrs. Fuhr.

21. On 30 Aug. 2017, the illegal OLG body Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser (i.e. with 2

      Offenders !!) the PKH application of 19 Aug. 2016 for the appointment Az 18 U 69/16 (LG

     Az 2b o 271/01) was rejected as unfounded. The claims for compensation of damages were

     allegedly on 30.6.2000 barred. (see Annex No. 2).

     So for the fourth time another date for the alleged "Statute of limitations" named

     (first 31.12.2009, then 30.6.2010, then 31.7.2006 and now on 30.6.2000).

The Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser recognizes

in page 5,

last paragraph, of the resolution of 30.8.2017 that "the lawsuits at the FG-Düsseldorf concerned the tax

offenses contrary to official duty"

Thus, it recognizes that the appeals to the FG were directed against the illegality of the tax assessments without

restriction, and designates BGH III ZR 62/84 Judgment v. 07/11/1985.

Also in page 5 acknowledges that by the lis pendens of the FG-lawsuits the 3-year limitation period was

interrupted, and confirmed in page 6, second paragraph, that "the statute of limitations after

• § 211 BGB a.F. again began to run".

In this case commits again the process fraud of 6 months extension/supplement of the legal texts

of the legal force of the FG judgments, but this time as "granted in favour of the plaintiff";

the o.g. Women are said to be above the law and can by themselves grant a "supplement to the laws

in  favour of the plaintiff" to play down the process fraud.

In the same paragraph, the OLG Panel concludes that the interruption of the limitation period ended on 30.6.2000.

The subsequent 3 j. Limitation period is completely suppressed.

This has relieved to come to the desired result, and the process fraud committed by the suppression

of the recognized legal situation regarding re-running the limitation period.

An additional and deliberate error was made by the Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate in its decision

of 30.8.2017, End of page 8 and first 1.5 lines in page 9.

There it is reported that "the suspension of the PKH application pursuant to § 214 (2) BGB n.F. ended

at the latest at the end of 2005 and the remaining limitation period of 18 months then expired on 31.7.2006".

However, the end of July 31, 2006 will only be six months after the end of 2005;

So the recognized 18 months of the remaining limitation period (after the 6 months extension of the legal force

of the FG judgments) ends on 31.6.2007 and not in 2006.

In this respect, it also follows from this reasoning of the unlawful body that the LG should have delivered the action

of 5.2.2001 because the court fees were paid in full and thus reached the final interruption of the statute of limitations.

In page 26, line 17 of the OLG judgment of 18.10.17, the above mentioned Line of Higher Regional Court of

18. Senate decision 30.8.17 changed and instead of "end of 2005" as in the decision 30.8.2017 stood, now written

"end of January 2005". Someone has recognized the contradiction and deliberately changed it.

And the change should still apply?

The sentence of the LG committees and the Higher Regional Court that "after the 6 months legal force of

the FG judgments, the 3-year limitation period began", has both the OLG Committee Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr

/ Mrs. Glaeser in the Higher Regional Court decision Aug 30, 2017 (PKH refusal, see Annex No. 2) as well as

the Higher Regional Court Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner in the judgment v. 18.10.2017

(see Annex No. 1) completely suppressed.

See page 6, end of second paragraph, resolution 30.8.17 Az 18 U 69/16.

The suppression by Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser clearly points to intent to harm the plaintiff.

The illegality of the tax assessments and the relatives Judgments / statements of the FG judges

According to the FG judges (see attachment 37, concerning the PKH approval decision of 20.9.1996

to FG Az 13 S 26/96, for action 13 K 1229/96, ESt-1987) the FA may initiate various measures due to

the tax assessment.

The taxpayer must first defend himself against the illegality of the tax assessments by means of

a legal action. If the tax assessments are lifted (on the basis of FG judgments) or changed by the

FA on the basis of the objections, then it is obvious that the tax assessments were unlawful.

A FG-filed continuation-declaration action, after changing the tax assessments would bring nothing

more (so the FG-judge) that the tax assessments were unlawful. (the verdict is still valid today)

The contestation of the settlement notices, if they are not recognized by the FG as unlawful

are insignificant for the statute of limitations.

22. In the cases of FG Az 5 K 6688/92, and 13 S 26/96 for FG claim 13 k 1229/96, the court has

       found that the tax assessments were unlawful and recommended that they be amended and

        the FA agreed to adopt new ones. Subsequently on 29.9.1999 the FG judgment.

        In this respect, the FG decisions are of considerable importance.

The applicant has presented a number of FG judgments on Az 2b o 271/01 (see Annex No 28, I-V to the

application of 5.2.2001) whereby the tax assessment of the FA is revoked as illegal and the tax is set to zero;

Thus, it is proved that the actions brought before the FG are unlawful the tax assessments, or tax assessments

due to the alleged tax evasion etc (ESt, VAT, ESt prepayments, VAT prepayments) of the years 1979-1994, or due

to the tax write-off (= AfA) of the machines for the fabric (inventor center) in GR. This is seen also in the legal

action of 13.8.1986 (see copy as attachment no. 41)

23. In the FG letter of 12.11.1999 signed Mr. Stuffer, to Az 13 K 4415, 5562/93 E, 13 K 7487/95 E,

     13 K 4640/97 E are the previous FG judgments of the 5th and 13th. Senate listed,

     according to which the tax assessments were repealed and recommended to the FA by the

   loss carry for ward in connection with the calculation of a negative progression reservation,

   the tax assessments 1989 to 1992 also change with taxation to zero DM.

    The FA has accordingly lifted the illegal tax assessments and part of the plundered

    capital for 1990-1992 reimbursed on 1.6.2001. The repayment of the looted

    Capital in 1989, the FA gave back on 22.3.2000. The injury of the plaintiff is proved,

    and the beginning of the limitation period after the legal force of the year 2000

    FG judgments of the 13th Senate, leaves no interpretation according to BGB n.F. to.

24. A particularly stubbornly concealed by LG / OLG judges evidence of the legal

      Faulty tax assessment of the FA Mettmann concerns the "debt-free certification

      of 11 June 1999 "(see Annex No 34).

    The previously contested unlawful tax assessments, were alleged in the cash of fiscal

   department as debtors on June 11, 1999 and after the certification were disappeared

     The cancellation of debts was the result of the change in taxation as the

     unlawfully recognized by the FA-Mettmann.

Remained only the bank seizures exist despite the applications of 3 subject area manager

(see Appendix No. 40) of the FA-Mettmann to the enforcement office (and to the head of the swamp)

are not repealed until today.

So the tax assessments / notices of FA-Mettmann were illegal,

so had modify the FA and the sacked amounts to reimburse.

All reimbursements (including those in 1999-2000) always broke the statute of limitations, but

the LG / OLG has this § of the BGB a.F. ignored and not at all considered.

This convinced of internalization of the offense i.e.

to declare the claims for compensation of damages at any price as time-barred

The role of the offender Mrs. Glaeser on 27.9.2017 and 18.10.2017

On September 27, 2017 at the Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate hearing sat on the decisive OLG-Panel

(Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) the offender Mrs. Glaeser, although she is not allowed under

§ 41 No. 6 ZPO.

The Mrs. Glaeser was a decisive member of the Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate, which declared on 3.9.2015

the PKH application of July 16, 2012 after 3 years of blockade (caused by receleur (fence) and Mrs. Baan)

"Gangster-like" as barred; The panel where Mrs. Glaeser sat on 3.9.15 manipulated the legal texts (For example,

§ 209 of the Civil Code old release with arbitrary extension of 6 months etc) and after notification of the

right-diffraction, the chairman Judge V. Malsch is sent equal (about 22.9.2015) in the pension, although he was

not even 63 years old.

The offense of the panel burdens the whole OLG-Panel and not a person (Malsch).

The above mentioned unlawful Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs.

Kirschner) dismissed the appeal of 18.8.2016 against LG judgments of 11.5.2016 (and 16.3.2011)

as unfounded / time barred  by judgment of 18.10.2017 .

(see Annex No. 1, judgment of 18.10.2017, page 2)

On page 6 of the OLG-Düsseldorf judgment of 18.10.2017, on the one hand, the frauds of 9. Aug. 2007 and

18. Sep. 2007 and of the Cost Official (Mr. Habich) of 29 Aug. 2007 are completely suppressed, and on the

other hand erroneous dates in the same page (13.8 .2010 !! official Records Sheet 816), are inserted instead

of mentioning the amount in dispute dated April 21, 2006 by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll. (see Annex 26)

In this case, the unlawful OLG body has submitted all FG rulings of the 5th Senate and decisions of FG-4th

Senate or of 12th senate, or of 13th Senate, as well as the folder with the 592 leaves, listing the evidences

of illegal acts and unmentioned the unlawful tax decisions of the FA-Mettmann, to the LG Az 2b o 118/99 

sent on 29.2.2000.

Az 2b o 118/99 was linked to Az 2b o 271/01 by Mrs. Tannert and Mrs. Fuhr without a ruling, and only

separated on 3. Dec. 2001 without a resolution by Stockschlaeder-Nöll;

the participation of Mrs. Fuhr in the "Proof of legal capacity of suing and bean sued" of 28.11.2000

and the delay in the proceedings of 5.2.2001 was also suppressed by the LG / OLG or postponed in the

resolution 19.7.2017

The annulment on 29.11.2001 of the "Proof of Evidence" of 28.11.2000 signed Mrs. Tannert/Mrs. Fuhr /

Mr. Schumacher has also been suppressed in both OLG decisions (19.7.2017 and 18.10.2017).

In page 3 of the OLG judgment 18.10.17 under Point 1 the reader finds only fog-like explanations.

Likewise, the opinion of the FG judges, which found that the unlawfulness of the tax assessments was

expressly unlawful (FG judgment 5 K 8916/91, VAT Advance Payment Order 1986-87, Exhibit No 32),

or that the tax assessments are unlawful, even if the FA subsequently changes this, it does not take

into account; Mrs. Glaeser served the alleged extension of the 6 months as a "gift in favour of the plaintiff !!"

to downplay their trial fraud from 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13

The suppressed facts, relevant to the evidence that the FG actions were directed against the illegality of the FA

actions and the tax assessments of the FA-Mettmann and statute-barring, in association with the alleged limitation

of the claims on 30.6.2000, is the result of the continuation of the process fraud of 3.9.2015 of Mrs. Glaeser.

The FG judgment 5 K 8916/91 would have allegedly the limitation only to "6 months !!" extended, i.e. until 30.6.2000

(page 25 from judgment version of 18.10.17 with 32 pages) and afterwards not by three years to revise the statute

of limitations, as stated by the Higher Regional Court on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 in  Page 7 Line 4 recognized.

Therein lies the right-diffraction of the OLG-Panel (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) for which the

annulment of the OLG ruling 18.10.2017 (and all previous PKH decisions) is requested.

 Illegality of FA tax assessments in LG-Az 2b o 271/01, 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 77/08

The list of unlawful 273 tax assessments, which have been repeatedly amended by the officials of

the FA Mettmann, in the opinion of the FG judges amended as unlawful by the FA, was also the

subject of a declaratory action / PKH of 25 March 2008 with Az 2b o 77/08. (See attachment no. 21).

The applicant first applied to Az 2b o 118/99 (and 2b o 271/01) on 19.2.2003 for the

purpose of establishing the illegality of the tax assessments used for bank seizures;

the 7 page o.g. extensive writing was not included in the official records (= GA); Files "styled".

Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Hoffmann / Mrs. Weitzel claimed in the decision on Az 2b o 118/99 and

2b o 271/01 on 12.7.2010 that "a decision on the illegality of tax exemptions is not subject

to civil jurisdiction", and the claimant replied on 8/7/2008 inter alia to Az 2b o 77/08 with reference to report

by the Supreme Court judge Stuttmann, NJW, 2003, H. 20, p 1432;

"Second chance with the civil judge, the review of final administrative files"

On 12th October 2008, the plaintiff in reference to Az 2b o 77/08 found evidence of illegality of

some FA-Mettmann tax decisions contained in the PKH decision of 20.09.1996 to Az 13 S 70/93 PH

of FG-Düsseldorf, (for main proceedings 13 K 4415/93, ESt-89); these would have to be included in

the files of 2b o 271/01.

The above mentioned Attachments (FG-PKH approval decision of 20.9.1996 etc) were not included in the

official records (GA).

In the advocate document of 28 Aug. 2013, page 12, relating to Az 2b o 271/01, it was requested

to refer to file number 2b o 77/08. The file 2b o 77/08 and the FG evidence are never consulted.

The illegality of the tax assessments could not be found later.

The OLG Panel (Malsch & Co) reiterated on 3/4/2009 on Az 18 W 7/09 (2b o 77/08) and

on January 25, 2012 to OLG-resolution Az 18 W 71/10 (2b o 118/99) signed Malsch/Haarmann/Weith

the above Opinion of LG judges i. "the civil court has no jurisdiction to establish the illegality of the

tax assessments"; Therefore, on 14.12.2009, filed a new PKH application on Az 2b o 271/01 and requested

that the tax assessments underlying bank seizures be declared unlawful. Later (2015),

Mr. Volker Malsch & Co recognized the binding nature of the FG decisions and the illegality of the tax assessments.

Likewise, in the judgment of 18.10.2017 the unlawful OLG body (Mrs. Stein / Mrs.Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner)

suppressed the sentence of the previous sentence of the 18th senate concerning the determination of the illegality

of the tax assessments, i.e. with regard to the illegality of the tax assessments in the previous OLG decision on Az

18 W 1/13 of 3 September 2015, page 6, subsection 3, lines 6 to 9 contained the following:

                    "that was the illegality .... as well as a possible damage ... fixed."

The suppression of the above mentioned Sentence by Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner intentionally

infringed the claimant.

With action brought on 5.2.2001 the limitation was according to § 209 BGB a.F. interrupted, writes that OLG Panel

(Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) and thus acknowledges that the case according to BGB a.F.

must be judged.

But in the BGB a.F. the elapsed time from the legal force of the FG judgments to the impeachment of the

official liability claim 2b o 271/01 on 5.2.2001 due to the interruption of the statute of limitations is out of the

question (§ 217 BGB a.F.). The Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate Fr. Stein / Fr. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner

has the named legal position according to BGB a.F. completely suppressed to commit a crime.

The suppression is evidence of the cooperation of Mrs. Glaeser and the process fraud committed.

By judgment of 18. October 2017, all the costs of the proceedings (instances 1e and 2e) have been imposed

to the plaintiff.

The called BGH keep to Az III ZR 332/17 over all right-deflections and legal offenses

of the LG judges to Az 2b o 271/01, and the OLG judges to Az 18 U 69/16 silent.

The fees for the lawyers of both parties in the second instance amount to approx.

25,723.- * 2 = 51.6 thousand €

Overall, the plaintiff suffered damage resulting from the costs of the proceedings 1e and 2e instance,

as well as from the rejected claims for damages together with pension, and the entire damage must

compensate the employer of named judges

.

Pension

The pension rights are in the LG judgment from 11.5.2016 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Mrs. Gundlach / Mr. Frank

page 6, point 2, with reference to the OLG-statements (i.e., as well as in the Higher Regional Court resolution of

3.9.15 Az 18 W 1/13, page 8) with alleged lack of legal protection need or with alleged limitation period rejected.

And the whole thing with 3 lines in the Higher Regional Court decision of 3.9.2015 !!!

The statements made in the advocate document of 12. July 2012 i.a. Pages 88,91,92,100, 118, 119

as well as in the written statement of 28.8.2013, page 17, from above mentioned LG Panel on 11.5.16 classified

as inconclusive.

The evidence / arguments provided on 18.8.2016 (pages 58-59) have not been taken into account by the OLG body

(Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner) and the LG reasoning in OLG judgment 18.10. 2017 in page 28-29

/ repeated that the pension entitlements on 31.7.2006 would be "barred".

Since, however, no statute of limitations on 31. July 2006 has been proven properly (i.e. with the application of

the applicable standards of the Civil Code and that the FG actions were directed against the illegality of the FA tax

assessments), the claim for payment of the statutory pension pursuantly exist accordingly to the Calculation of

the pension counsellor Ketteler-Jansen.

Subsidy Bonus

The efforts of the illegal Higher Regional Court of 18. Senate the subsidy loss with 4.5 lines in

Page 24 of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017, as of 30.6.2000 or "not later than 31.7.2006"

 Being declared "barred" are so barren that they immediately attract attention;

In comparison to the lecture of more than 1 full page (pp. 22-23) dedicated to the other topics

(tortuous acts of "unauthorized actions" etc) appears the OLG lecture with 4.5 lines about

subsidy loss as sand in the eyes of the readers.

There is no specific statute of limitations in the entire OLG judgment 18.10.17 that could convince

any reader. Especially in the statute of limitations the claims are either barred on 30.6.2000 or on 31.7.2006;

there is no "no later than" 6 years after the first named limitation period. That is arbitrariness and proof

of the process fraud;

The rejection of the appeal also substantiates what has been said here;

Thus, the BGH judges are asked to reject the application for admission (= NZB) with 4.5 lines.

 The OLG ruling 18.10.2017 is based on the suppression of evidence of the illegality of the tax assessments

and on non-application of the recognized standards of the Civil Code old version

( = BGB a.F.). This is ultimately process fraud (i.e. collusion).

Claim for damages sustained on account of pain and suffering

With advocate versions i.a. in pleading 12.7.2012 (page 117, 118) and in the appeal letter 18.8.2016

(page 59, 60, 64-67), the false allegations of the LG are invalidated, but the old porridge is again in page 28

in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 emerged; with 7 lines and a reference in the Section

II C3 and C4 of the judgment 18.10.2017 declared the claims for damages to be "time-barred".

The fact that the LG / OLG panels specifically sought to find reasons to claim, that the FG cases

were not directed against the illegality of the tax assessments, is (after combination with statements

of the FG judge, FG judgments, FG decisions, Tipke-Kruse tax code (= AO) etc) more often in the present

pleadings proved. In this respect, no statute of limitations of compensation has occurred.

That the bank seizures are not cancelled until today (!!), despite the cancellation requests of

3 section heads of the FA-Mettmann (see Appendix Nos. 39 + 40) and despite the repeated

reminder / requests of the plaintiff, has also been suppressed.

The compensation for the alleged limitation of non-repealed bank seizures refused!

The claim for compensation of damages still exists and the claim is justified.

Statute of limitations for the present administrative liability

The 3-year limitation period for bringing an official liability action, commenced after notification on 20.10.2017

of the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, has not expired or will end no earlier than 20.10.2020.

The limitation period of the claims to Az 2b o 271/01 has never occurred.

In this respect, the total amount of the damage complained of, including the interest since the

lis pendens of claim 2b o 271/01, and the costs must be reimbursed.

Intent to damage

The facts already described underline the intent to harm the plaintiff, both by LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

Mrs. Brecht, Mrs. Jürging, Mrs. Freitag, Mrs. Hoffmann, Mrs. Gundlach) and the OLG bodies (Malsch /

Mrs. Glaeser / Anger; Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Mrs. Kirschner; Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser)

If the named LG / OLG committees the regulations of the BGB a.F. and that the FG judgments with zero tax

and annulment of the unlawful tax assessments were in fact FG actions against the illegality of the tax assessments,

(as already described in the resolution of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13), then the PKH applications should have granted

and the claim for compensation of the damages had to be granted.

Especially since most of the evidence was contained in the file and obliged the judges to take it into account when

assessing the case. Failure to consider the evidence has led to the conclusion that the claims would be time-barred.

Damage

The damage (disputed value) amounts to: € 1,973,319.93, according to OLG ruling dated 18.10.2017,

The damage amounts to: € 1,886,665.96 according to LG ruling of May 11, 2016

The damage for the present action / PKH summarizes:

€ 1,779,197.00 for loss of subsidy bonus +

      33.468,96 € because of the pension +

      50.000,0 € because of the compensation +

      43.000,0 € RAe fees 1e instance, +

      51.600,00 € RAe fees 2e instance +

      21,021.77 € court fees

Total: € 1,978,287.73

plus 5% interest over the discount rate since lis pendens or since the due date of the invoices or of

the respective monthly pension

Added to this are the useless expenditures (NGA) whose amount will be soon named.

Applications

The LG judgment of 16. March 2011 on Az 2b o 271/01 is abolished.

The LG final judgment of 11. May 2016, as well as the decision on costs

      of the LG final judgment of 11 May 2016 are abolished.

The OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 is repealed; the appeal is admitted

The defendant is ordered to pay the claimant the sum of € 1,978,287.73 plus 5% interest over the discount rate

since the pending at law of claims 2b o 271/01 for the following item:

197. a) for the subsidy loss € 1,779,197.00 + € 33,468.96 due to the pension + € 50,000.0 due

                the compensation money.

In addition, the defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the following interest:

1. b) for the bills (€ 43,000.0) of the advocates 1e instance, with interest at 5% above the discount

     rate due date of the invoices +

600. c) for the bills (51,600.0 €) of the advocates 2e instance, with interest at 5% above the discount rate

      since due date of the invoices +

21. d) for the court fees (21,021.77 €), with interest 5% over the discount rate since the end of

     December 2006

Further presentation (also regarding the useless expenses and the amount 86.653,97 €) reserved

Annotation

From the rulings of the present action/PKH are excluded all LG / OLG judges, who were previously

tried under criminal prosecution, or were rejected because of bias i.e. with prejudice to Az 2b o 271/01

or 2b o 118/99, or 2b o 268/01).

Kind regards

Dr. Th. Sartoros

Facilities

1. OLG judgment dated 18 Oct. 2017, Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs. Stein /Mrs. Glaeser /Mrs. Kirschner

                               (version 30 pages)

2. OLG decision from Aug 30, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 (PKH), signed Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser
3. OLG-Decision dated 19.7.2017, Az 18 U 69/16, 18 W 25/16 (2b o 271/01) signed Mrs. Stein /Unger/Mrs. Kirschner
4. Brief of the applicant from 9.5.2017, OLG Az 18 W 25/16; Comments about official Opinion,Mrs Fuhr
5. Official statement of the OLG Judge Mrs. Fuhr of 11.4.2017, OLG Az 18 U 69/16
6. Pleading of Plaintiff 26.9.2016, OLG Az 18 U 69/16; Comments about official Opinion Mrs. Glaeser
7. official opinion of Judge Mrs. Glaeser dated 31.8.2016, OLG Az 18 U 69/16, 18 W 25/16
8. Note "self-disclosure of bias" dated 30.5.2016 of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs. Gundlach
9. LG judgment dated 11.5.2016 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Gundlach /Mr. Frank;    

                                                                                                           disputed value 1,886,665.96 €

10. Minutes of the meeting dated 13.4.2016 to Az 2b o 271/01; Judge: Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Gundlach / Mr. Frank  
11. Letter of 14.9.2015 of the RA St. Minnerop; he thanks for pointing out of the 2b chamber
12. OLG-Decision dated 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Malsch/Mrs. Glaeser/Anger

13.No-remedy-decision (= instructions for the blind) v. 7.7.2014 signed Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

                                                                                                                         Mrs. Brecht/Feldmann

14.LG decision dated 28.5.2014, Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Brecht/Mrs. Freitag

15. LG resolution dated 26.11.2012 Az 2b o 271/01 sign. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Jurging/Mrs. Brecht
16. OLG resolution dated 7.6.2011 Az 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01) signed Mrs. Rotzheim/Mrs.Jungclaus

                                                                                                                                    / Wermeckes

17. LG judgment (VU) dated 16.3.2011 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs. Keiser/

                                                                                                                            Mrs. Hoffmann

18. Letter of the applicant dated 9.3.2011 Az 2b o 271/01; "legal doubts for the composition .."
19. LG decision dated 15.12.2010 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Keiser/Mrs. Moosbrucker/Mr. Schwarz
20. Request of bias from 21.9.2010 Az 2b o 271/01 against Mrs.Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Mrs.Hoffmann
21. Listing 25.3.08 of the tax assessment of FA-Mettmann because of Illegality Az 2b o 77/08

22.LG-Resolution 18.9.2007 (process Fraud, collusion), Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Strupp-Müller/

                                                                                                                   Mrs. Engelkamp-Neeser/Galle

23. "REMARK" (collusion), dated Aug. 29, 2007 of the Cost Official (HABICH) to Az 2b o 271/01

24.LG-Resolution 9.8.2007 (collusion), Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Strupp-Müller/Mrs. Engelkamp-

                                                                                                                                         Neeser/ Galle

25. "NOTE" (on court costs) dated July 13th. 2006 of the cost official (HABICH) to Az 2b o 271/01
26. "REMARK" dated 21.4.2006 (over value in dispute) of Stockschlaeder-Nöll (GA 408) Az 2b o 271/01
27. Letter dated 17.7.2003 of RA Plötzgen to 2b Civil-Chamber, UNCONDITIONAL ACTION raised

                                                                                                                                                        on 5.2.2001

28. List of ANNEXES I to V of the "unconditional claim of 5.2.2001"
29. Minutes of the meeting dated 30.10.2010, FG-Az 4K 2269/96; Judge: Alexander
30. Letter dated 29.2.2000, Az 2b o 118/99, DINA4 folder with 592 leaves / Proof of FA actions
31. Letter dated 11.1.2000, Az 2b o 118/99, Law breaks, manipulations, litigation by the FA
32. FG judgment date 24.11.1999, Az 5 K 8916/91 ESt prepayment.1986-87, signed Laier/Pump/Meyer
33. FG Letter dated 12.11.1999, Az 13 K 4415, 5562/93, 13K 7487/95, 13 K 4640/97;

                                                                                                                                     Recommendation to FA

34. FA-Mettmann, Debt-free Certificate dated 11.6.1999 signed Mr. Riemer
35. FG judgment dated 25.11.1998, Az 5 K 6688/92 USt-1980-82, signed Laier / Pump / Meyer
36. FG judgment dated 25.10.1996, Az 5 K 8916/91 Process costs and disputed VAT-prepayments;

                                                                                                             signed by Mr. Saldern /Mr. Wiemer

37. FG-Decision dated 20.9.1996 Az 13 S 26/96 PKH approval. for 13 K 1229/96, ESt-1987, signed

                                                                                                                                         Gramulla/Korte

38. FG-Decision dated 1.7.1996, Az 5 S 82/94 PKH approval. for 5 K 308/90, ESt-1987, signed

                                                                                                                                 Laier/Pump/Meyer

  39. FA-Mettmann: Discussion Note v. 17.10.1989 regarding bank seizures and content of call

                                     Instruction of Mr. Stempel: to lift the seizures

                                     Participants: Sartoros / Stempel / Behrens / Namyslo

40. FA-Mettmann: Application 14.9.1988 of 3 heads of the FA-Mettmann to the

                                  Enforcement Office, "to lift the seizures altogether"

41. FG-Düsseldorf, legal action v. 13.8.1986 against enforcement about unlawful tax assessment

Abbreviations

AG = a Magistrate court

AO = tax code

BGB a.F. = Code Civile old revision

BGB n.F. = Code Civile new revision

BGH = supreme political court of Germany

EGMR = European court of Human Rights = ECtHR (in Strasbourg France)

ESt = incoming tax

FA = tax collectorship

FG = fiscal court,

GA = official records

GVP = distribution of proceedings between the judges

i.a. = inter alia

LG = district court

o.g. = above mentioned

OLG = Higher Regional Court of appeal

PKH = Request for legal aid

RA = advocate

StGB = German Penal Law

USt = VAT

v.A.w.= court decision to postpone a appointment, announcement through official channels

VU = default judgment

ZPO = Code of civil procedure