Menu
Offender of German Criminal law
more information
Dr. Ing. Th. Sartoros Patente
Mechanismus DPMA-Nr.: |
|
DPMA-Nr.: |
|
|
Hydrostatisches-selbstsperrendes- differential-planeten-getriebe
 DE 04014241A1 |
Zusatz
|
DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 WIRD ZUM VERKAUF ANGEBOTEN, PREIS: 265.000,-- € + 19% MWSt PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" TO SELL DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt) |
INFOS für die Leser
Der Leser kann sich kaum vorstellen, wie schnell die End-Entscheidung gefällt ist.
Am 9. Sept. 23 hat der OLG-D´dorf-11. Senat seine Entscheidung dem Unterzeichner
zugesandt; am 6. Okt. 23 ging die beiliegende BVerfG-Beschwerde zur Post.
Die Post lieferte in kurzer Zeit (innerhalb der 3 Tage Frist).
Am 2. Nov. 23 hat das hohe Gericht seine Entscheidung getroffen und diese
am 10. Nov. 23 den Empfänger erreicht.
Dagegen: Das Verfahren 2b o 271/01 dauert bis heute und es ist noch nicht beendet.
Vom Inhalt erfährt der Leser, dass über die Kernthemen kein Gericht entschieden hat.
Welche waren die Kernthemen fällt bei der Lektüre des Artikels nicht schwer.
Viel Spaß bei der Lektüre
Dr. Th. Sartoros
Laddringsweg 15
45219 Essen-Kettwig
Oct 6, 2023
Sign: 6/VG/Sa
(Please specify when providing feedback)
Federal Constitutional Court
Castle district 3
PO Box 1771
76006 Karlsruhe
Re: Az new; Constitutional complaint
Complainant: Dr. Theodor Sartoros, address as above
> The applicant is able to stand trial and
the internal legal process has been exhausted
> The BVerfG is competent
> The constitutional complaint is admissible and justified
Subject of the dispute: violations of Article 101 of the Basic Law (statutory judge), as well as
Violations of Art. 103 GG (violation of the right to be heard)
Violations of bias requests
The constitutional complaint is directed against the following decisions
Decision of the last instance, 11th Senate:
OLG-Düsseldorf, decision v. September 4, 2023, Az I-11 W 71/22
(LG Az 2b o 137/21) signed Müller/Mrs Selzner/Mrs Stylianidis,
due to violation of the applicant's rights under Article 101 of the Basic Law
and from Art. 103 GG, in conjunction with Art. 3 GG
due to the involvement (and arbitrariness) of the Müller,
received 9.9.23
Decision of the last instance, 11th Senate:
OLG-Düsseldorf, decision v. August 14, 2023, Az I-11 W 71/22
(LG Az 2b o 137/21) signed Müller/Mrs Selzner/Mrs Stylianidis
due to violation of the applicant's rights under Article 101 of the Basic Law
and from Art. 103 GG, in conjunction with Art. 3 GG
due to the involvement of the Müller.
Decision of the 1st instance: LG-Düsseldorf, decision v. February 22, 2022, Az 2b o 137/21)
signed Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs Riemann/Mrs Kohler (intern)
due to violation of the applicant's rights under Article 101 of the Basic Law
and from Art. 103 GG, in conjunction with Art. 3 GG
due to the participation of Mrs Dr. Hoffmann
It is requested to establish:
a1) The OLG D'dorf decision v. September 4, 2023 (signed Müller/Mrs Selzner/Mrs Stylianidis,
Az I -11 W 71/22 (LG-Az 2b o 137/21) delivered on September 9, 2023,
violates the complainant's rights under Articles 101/103 of the Basic Law,
(in conjunction with Art. 3 GG Arbitrariness).
a2) The OLG D'dorf decision v. August 14, 2023 (signed Müller/Mrs Selzner/Mrs Stylianidis),
Az I -11 W 71/22 (LG-Az 2b o 137/21)
violates the complainant's procedural rights under the Basic Law,
in conjunction with Article 3 (arbitrariness).
b1) The LG D'dorf decision v. February 22, 2022, Az 2b o 137/21 signed Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs
Riemann/Mrs Kohler, violates the complainant's rights under Art. 101 and Art. 103 (in
conjunction with Art. 3 GG) of the Basic Law, as well as the procedural rights of the applicant
based on the composition of the LG committee and participation of Mrs Dr. Hoffmann
c) the state of North Rhine-Westphalia only paid the applicant his necessary expenses for the
constitutional complaint procedure to be reimbursed.
A. Description of the legal violations by Mrs Fuhr and the OLG/LG judges:
The subject of the present constitutional complaint is the violations of Art. 101 GG and Art. 103 GG
committed by 3 people in the D'dorf judiciary
>A1. on the part of Mrs Fuhr of the 18th OLG D'dorf Senate from October 18, 2017
until the end of 2019,
> A2. from the chairman of the OLG-D'dorf-11. Senate, K. G. Müller in 2023
with previous charges from 2010, i.e. legal violations in several OLG-D'dorf decisions,
>A3. As well as from Dr. Hoffmann, chairwoman of the 2b civil chamber of the LG-D'dorf in 2022,
with a previous record of more than 25 violations of the law (perversion of the law)
in the years early 2009 to early 2012 and in 2021
Regarding A1.) Mrs FUHR worked for the 2b Civil Chamber of the LG-D'dorf in 2000.
On January 6th, 2000, Mrs Fuhr's letter regarding Az 2b o 118/99 was sent to the applicant with
only one Ask; "Which RA will represent the plaintiff if PKH is granted"
That was just the foreshadowing of the planning.
On November 28, 2000 signed the "evidence decision" for Az 2b o 118 /99, with which the
D'dorf Medical Association should label the local ASt as partially (!?) incapable of taking legal action.
The above-mentioned Az 2b o 118/99 was linked and merged with the Az 2b o 271/01 due to the
decision of the then chairwoman Mrs Tannert.
(see official statement from Mrs Tannert dated May 18, 2001 on Az 2b o 118/99)
Afterwards (2001/2002) Mrs Fuhr was promoted to OLG judge.
In August 2016, an appeal was filed against the LG final judgment on Az 2b o 271/01 from
May 2016.Mrs Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Gundlach/Frank, (OLG Az 18 U 69/16).
At the beginning of 2017, Mrs Fuhr joined the 18th Civil Senate, where the ASt's appeal
had to be decided. See evidence attached.
From that point on (beginning of 2017) until her removal from the 18th Senate, Mrs FUHR
participated in 14 appeal proceedings of the local ASt, directly or indirectly relating to case
number 2b o 271/01 or 18 U 69/16.
The legal violations committed by Mrs Fuhr on January 12, 2017 (rejection of the exclusion
request against Mrs Glaeser, decision signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Kirschner) and on August
30, 2017 (rejection of the PKH for the appeal by OLG Ref. 18 U 69/16, decision signed Mrs Stein/
Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) are excluded here because they are integrated into another constitutional
complaint.
So from October 18, 2017 to the end of 2019, Mrs Fuhr took part in decision-making bodies of
the 18th Senate a total of 12 times, although she was not allowed to do so according to Section
41 No. 6 ZPO.
This was also sharply criticized in the appeal letter of September 22, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 of
the RA D.Z., from the first page of the written statement, and also in the NCB's reasons of March
18, 2018 in BGH Az III ZR 332/17.
However, the complaints and the evidence provided of Mrs Fuhr's bias or the violation of Art.
101 GG and Art. 103 GG were ignored by the OLG D'dorf judges.
The responsibility/liability of the chairwoman of the OLG-D'dorf 18th Senate, Mrs Stein,
is beyond doubt.
The details of the proceedings in which Mrs Fuhr was involved are:
1. Az 18 U 69/16 Decision by January 12, 2017 (Stein/Fuhr/Kirschner, Mrs Glaeser's bias rejected)
2. Az 18 U 69/16, decision of August 30, 2017 (Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser, PKH for appeal rejected)
(NB: The latters crossed out above are excluded here)
3. Az 18 W 46/17, OLG decision of. January 9, 2019 signed Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser, (LG-2b o 271/01,.
LG decision 12.9.17 and 5.10.17 repealed, back to LG
4.Az 18 W 82/18: OLG decision of. January 9, 2019 signed Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser (LG 2b o 258/14 re.
Perversion of justice (RB) by Mrs Baan
5th Az: OLG decision. September 16, 2019 (LG 2b o 233/18 regarding recourse lawsuit against RA N.L.
regarding NGA) signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser;
Az 18 W 26/19 OLG decision v. October 22, 2019 signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser,
6. Az 18 W 82/19: OLG decision. February 19, 2019
7. Az 18 W 89/18: OLG decision. February 19, 2019
8. Az 18 W 5/17: OLG decision. Apr 19, 2018, May 28, 2018,
9. Az 18 W 46/17: OLG decision. February 19, 2019, May 14, 2019
10.Az 18 W 42/16: OLG decision. Apr 19, 2018
11. Az 18 W 54/16: OLG decision. February 19, 2019, March 8, 2019
12. Az 18 W 73/15: OLG decision. January 9, 2019, April 19, 2018
13. Az 18 W 61/15: OLG decision. February 19, 2019
14. Az 18 W 7/15: OLG decision. Apr 19, 2018
Regarding A1) Mrs Fuhr in the above-mentioned OLG decisions of the 18th Senate
In the applicant's opinion, Mrs Fuhr had to make a self-declaration of bias in accordance with
Section 48 ZPO before entering the 18th Senate and thus show that she did not want to commit
any process fraud; But she filled herself as a very important person (VIP).
Even after the discovery of the process fraud on August 30, 2017 (rejection of the PKH for the
appeal to Az 18 U 69/16) and despite the criminal complaint against the OLG panel, she (Fuhr)
remained with the 18th Senate and continued to file against the OLG complainant -Resolutions
signed.
All of the above-mentioned references are from Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser decided that all
of them concern PKH procedures, but the decision on costs was contradictory.For Example:
only valid according to § 97 ZPO for lawsuits, or after 1700, or after KV 1812, or after OLG-11th
Senate, or no decision on costs is made at all.
Striking in the above-mentioned resolutions, decided after Mrs Fuhr's claim of August 30, 2017 on
Az 18 U 69/16, that the engineer + inventor's claims for damages (= SEA) due to the crimes of FA-
Mettmann in the years 1979-2006 as would have expired on June 30, 2000, so that the resolutions
do not say a word about the illegality of the LG committees. (Violation of the legal judge)
Even if the Higher Regional Court (Mrs Stein + Co) decides on the rejection of the LG decisions
(signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co), it does not write a word about the Chamber of Representatives,
which has to decide on the exclusion request. This is not a coincidence but a tactic.
The care of the OLG committee (Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser) lies with the LG triumvirate (Mrs Tigges/Mrs
Schmidt/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann), which issued a total of 14 illegal resolutions (against § 75 GVG, etc.)
on March 23/24, 2009, and even praises the triumvirate's conscious/intentional process fraud,
which abuses the legally protected title of "LG judge"; The complainant wrote everything in his
timely complaints but the responsible people? LG/OLG committees have overlooked
(Violation of the right to be heard)
The OLG is responsible for the local jurisdiction of the LG-D'dorf in the case of the recourse lawsuit
against RA Lasaroff, but does Stockschlaeder-Nöll give auxiliary instructions on how to formulate
the LG decision so that it has a chance of success.
How is the citizen supposed to believe such a justice system? which claims to have only decided
according to law and order? (see official statements from the LG judges, e.g. v. Strupp-Müller
or the OLG judge Mrs Fuhr.
In order to prove the lies of the OLG judges, here are some excerpts from the decision of August 30,
2017 and comparisons with the text in the judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16
Are Mrs Stein, Mrs Fuhr, Mrs Glaeser “unbiased” here?
It is striking that the OLG decision on August 30, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 determined that the SEA of
engineer + inventor were deemed to be time-barred on June 30, 2000. This is not an application of
the law error.
The well-known process fraudsters on OLG Az 18 U 69/16 (LG Az 2b o 271/01)
(Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) sat as “innocent” and “unbiased” judges
on August 30, 2017 in the decision-making committee.
The following applies to Mrs Glaeser
The application for bias dated August 19, 2016 against Mrs Glaeser was based, among other things,
on the fact that she (Mrs Glaeser) had participated in Mr. Volker Malsch's fraud case on September
3, 2015 under No. 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14); she was the one who invented and applied the mani-
pulation of the legal text (6 month extension of § 209 BGB old version); she signed the decision on
Az 18 W 1/13 (as well as the decision on 18 W 44/14) and thus violated the applicant's rights.
At that time she delivered the legal text supplement to § 209 BGB a.F. (with the 6 month extension
etc.)and determined as of "July 31, 2006" the alleged statute of limitations of the engineer + inventor's
claims for damages (= SEA) due to the crimes of the Mettmann tax office in the years 1979-2006.
The same reason was provided (together with Mrs Fuhr) for the alleged statute of limitations of the SEA,
but as having occurred on "June 30, 2000" in the decision of August 30, 2017 (= see PKH rejection for
the appeal 18 U 68/16), and in the judgment of October 18, 2017 to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01)
The contradictions that Mrs Glaeser signed in the dates (once "July 31, 2006" and a second time on
"June 30, 2000" of the alleged statute of limitations) made her a biased judge;
Their contribution to the above-mentioned legal frauds is unmistakably linked to those of Mrs Stein
and Mrs Fuhr and earlier to Malsch and Anger, which is why they are described in separate chapters.
> Can the OLG judges Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner be the legal judge?
The process fraud for OLG-D'dorf Az 18 U 69/16 (on order of the 2b chamber of the LG-D'dorf)
After the LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs Brecht/Feldmann) on July 7th, 2014 "statute of limitations" of
the engineer + inventor's claims for damages (= SEA) due to the crimes of FA-Mettmann/D'dorf in the
period 1979- In 2006, ordered the OLG judges (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) of the 18th Senate on 18 U 69/16
serious litigation fraud, and determine for the fourth time a new and unfounded date (June 30, 2000) for
the alleged statute of limitations for claims for damages.
The process fraud was discovered in the summer of 2019 and led, among other things, to more than 45
declaratory judgment actions.
Mrs Stein has rejected an official statement with reference to the GVP!!
On September 20, 2022, the committee (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Barbian) asserted on Az 18 W 74/19
that the decision was allowed to be made with reference to the GVP and that those rejected due to bias
or as a "person non grate" were a fraud in the process Women (Stein/Glaeser), would not be visible.
The court frauds presented and proven by the OLG women (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) are suppressed in
the above-mentioned decision on September 20, 2022; Suppressing the facts reveals the process cheat
mentality.
The comparison between resolution dated August 30, 2017 signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser and
judgment October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner, is made here
below to prove that both the applicant's right to be heard under Article 103 of the Basic Law and Article
101 of the Basic Law (statutory judge) are violated.
In advance:
Mrs Stein had recognized that Mrs Fuhr's promotion to OLG judge was a reward for her Participation
(of Mrs Fuhr) in the issuance of the evidence order of November 28, 2000 was related to Az 2b o 118/99.
She (Stein) absolutely needed Mrs Fuhr for the planned fraudulent process.
With the approval of Mrs Stein, Mrs Fuhr committed a fundamental violation of the law, both with regard
to the resolution of January 12, 2017 (and later resolutions), because she was not allowed to participate
as an excluded person according to Section 41 No. 6 ZPO, but was seated due to Mrs Stein's endorsement
she in the decision-making committee on January 12, 2017. (See also NZB dated March 18, 2018 from
Attorney Schultz-Schott on BGH Az III ZR 332/17)
Mrs Fuhr also committed an additional and intentional elementary violation of the law Decision on
August 30, 2017 on OLG Az 18 U 69/16 through manipulation/change regarding the alleged statute
of limitations of the engineer and inventor's claim for damages or suppression of the proven legal
situation (see special chapters, comparisons of the PKH and judgment texts, etc.).
The committed process fraud in OLG Az 18 U 69/16 gives the crime particular weight,
the participation of Mrs Stein and Mrs Glaeser in the decision of. August 30, 2017,
as well as on the part of the OLG judges (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Glomb at Az 18 W 47/22,
LG 2b o 76/20), as well as from Mr. Malsch and Mrs Glaeser in the resolution on 18 W 1/13,
from 3.9.15.
> First concept of the conspirators Mrs Stein / Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner, the damage
The engineer + inventor's claims for compensation under No. 2b o 271/01 must be declared time-
barred on June 30, 2000
The court fraud was committed in the judgment of October 18, 2017 by the Higher Regional Court
panel Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner were discovered and reported to the monopolists
(D'dorf public prosecutor's office) with a criminal complaint (and a large amount of evidence)
on September 19, 2019, but a result (about the criminal complaint) has not yet been announced.
The GenStAnw-D'dorf has been informed about the abduction.
The underlying constitutional complaint is, among other things, about proof of process fraud in
relation to Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01) in the OLG judgment, issued on October 18, 2017) signed
Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner, and to compare the texts Judgment of. 10/18/17 and PKH v.
August 30, 2017
The aim here is to show which and when, preparation for the process fraud began, what
is wrong or reversed in the judgment, and what legal consequences the process fraud had.
After that should be shown what the passivity of the public prosecutor's office in D'dorf cost
the complainant. Finally, go beyond what the BVerfG has determined
-------------------------------------------------- ------
In advance:
Due to the artificial increase in the amount in dispute to €1,973,319.93, these are also too much
paid court fees in the amount of €1,182.00 (with court fees paid in full 22,200.00 €) devoured.
The plaintiff bore the fees of the plaintiff's attorneys (for the OLG and also for NZB at the BGH).
Because of the costs of the NRW RAe at the 1st and 2nd instance, the NRW Ministry of Finance
(fully informed about the OLG process fraud) tried in his own name!! to execute.
The aim of the ZwV was to prevent the court fraud of the OLG women (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner).
to be legally legalized. The Ministry of Finance speculated that the statute of limitations would
expire Claims for damages from the engineer + inventor.
For this purpose, the FA-Essen-Süd also rejected the cancellation of the fees from NRW
to carry out the commissioned RAe (Minnerop + Fastnacht) for the first and second instances;
On the contrary, the FA-Essen-Süd charged interest (which is constantly growing!) for process
fraud.
The OLG women (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) reached a cost decision from the OLG-D'dorf
(Part of the general plan)
------------------------------------------------
The first act of Mrs Stein of the 18th Senate in preparation for the process fraud was to reject the
plaintiff's request for exclusion dated August 19, 2016 on Ref. 18 U 69/16 against Mrs Glaeser
(as unfounded). (Part of the general plan)
The application for bias against Mrs Glaeser was based, among other things, on the fact that she
(Mrs Glaeser) took part in Mr. V. Malsch's fraud case on September 3, 2015 under No. 18 W 1/13
(and 18 W 44/14); she was the one who carried out the manipulation of the legal text (6 months
extension
of § 209 BGB a.F.) invented and applied. (See appendix, resolution 18 W 1/13)
So Mrs Glaeser was useful because of her conspiracy experience and her knowledge of the files.
For this purpose, she (Stein) ensured that Mrs Fuhr joined the 18th Senate at the beginning of 2017;
she (Stein) needed Mrs Fuhr because of the knowledge of the files from the first years of the
proceedings Az 2b o 118/99 and Az 2b o 271/01; Both women (Stein/Fuhr) speculated that the
plaintiff had forgotten everything or lost the files after almost 17 years.
On January 12, 2017, the decision was made on Ref. 18 U 69/16 signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs
Kirschner and the application for bias against Glaeser were rejected as unfounded. The decision
came largely from the pen of Mrs Fuhr. Many passages can be found in the judgment of October
18, 2017, and the (PKH decision of August 30, 2017) was not included in the court files (= GA).
The complaint raised also did not succeed in causing the above-mentioned women (Stein/Fuhr)
to change their legal position.
The removal from law and order is clear in the decision of January 12, 2017 by Mrs Stein/Mrs
Fuhr/Mrs Kirschner; She (Stein) was allowed to choose her reinforcements to carry out the process
fraud.
This was followed by an application for bias against Mrs Fuhr on July 19, 2017 by Mrs Stein/Unger/
Mrs Kirschner on Az 18 W 25/16 was also rejected as unfounded; The arbitrariness of the committee
is clear.
However, Mrs Fuhr confirmed in her official statement that she was active in the first instance. In this
respect, she (Fuhr) was excluded from the decision of January 12, 2017 by law (Section 41, No. 6, ZPO).
Nevertheless, she INTENTIONALLY participated.
The damaging arbitrariness also put in motion (Fuhr) on August 30, 2017 to reject the requested PKH
for the appeal No. 18 U 69/16 with decision signed Mrs Stein / Mrs Fuhr / Mrs Glaeser on the grounds
that the Claims for damages (= SEA) would allegedly be “time-barred” and unfounded.
> Comments on the PKH decision. 8/30/17 signed Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser to Az 18 U 69/16
(Removal from law and order)
On August 30, 2017, the unlawful OLG committee Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glasses (i.e. with 3
female offenders !!) the PKH application dated August 19, 2016 for the appeal Az 18 U 69/16
(LG Az 2b o 271/01) rejected as unfounded. The claims for damages would be alleged
expired on June 30, 2000. (see attached). So for the fourth time a different date for the alleged
SEA named “statute of limitations”; (first from the LG (S-N/Brecht/Jürging) the date "December 31,
2009", then from the LG (S-N/Brecht/Freitag) on "June 30, 2010", then from OLG (Malsch/
/Mrs Glaeser/Anger) on July 31, 2006 and now (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner) on "June 30, 2000)".
Each time using “process fraud” to deceive the plaintiff. (Part of the general plan)
Mrs Fuhr, who was excluded by law (§ 41 No. 6 ZPO), decisively determined the wording of the
rejection of the PKH application for the appeal in the OLG decision on August 30, 2017, which was
later incorporated verbatim into the OLG judgment of October 18. In 2017, they were taken over to
Az 18 U 69/16. (See below: Comparison of the OLG decision of August 30, 2017, pages 5-7, with the
OLG judgment of October 18, 2017, page 23 ff, version with 29 pages; there the reader will find the
sentence served with the 6 Months extension of the legal force of § 209 BGB a.F. which was made in
FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF!!). The trio's PROCESS FRAUD was therefore clear.
Mrs Glaeser provided, among other things, the parachute for the manipulation/supplement/change
of the legal text, e.g. § 209 BGB old version with the alleged extension of the legal effect by 6 months
after delivery of the FG judgment, which she had also signed for Az 18 W 1/13 in decision 3.9.15,
and much more (part of the general plan)
Mrs Stein created the heavy clouds of incense for the BVerfG's jurisprudence, to distract the plaintiff
from the process fraud, and (enthusiastically) several times served up the PROCESS FRAUD as having
been done "IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF", and much more. (Part of the general plan)
The head of the judicial staff ensured that first Mrs Stein (September 2015) and then Mrs Fuhr
(beginning of 2017) accepted the place in the 18th Civil Senate. (Mrs Glaeser had already joined in
March 2015 and despite the process fraud on September 3, 2015, remained with the 18th Civil Senate
on Az 18 W 1/13 in order to bring experience in process fraud against the plaintiff). Mrs Kirschner
came from the representative chamber and was responsible for the theoretical/theatrical exoneration
of the other women (Glaeser/Fuhr) from the allegations of bias. (Part of the general plan)
What is written above also shows that Mrs Stein with the other like-minded criminals had only one
thing in mind; That the process fraud becomes inconspicuous and offers as little or no attack surface
as possible for later revisions. Mrs Stein also worked against the plaintiff in 2023 with delivery on
the same day (March 17, 2023) of 9 negative decisions on immediate complaints and then on the
same day (April 13, 2023), eight (8) negative decisions on the hearing complaints raised). What lies
behind it is clear to the complainant. Hopefully the BVerfG too.
> Comparison of some excerpts from the OLG decision. August 30, 2017 signed Mrs Stein/Mr. Fuhr/
Mrs Glaeser and of the OLG-D'dorf judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed
Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner
“The plaintiff was already made aware of the alleged inadmissibility of the applications in the Senate’s
PKH decision of August 30, 2017.” (Text from OLG judgment October 18, 2017, on Az 18 U 69/16,
page 17, point 3, version 29 p.)
C1. On page 6, paragraph 2, lines 1-2, of the above-mentioned PKH decision August 30, 2017, explains
the committee (Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser) the validity and applicability of the old version of the BGB
(German Civil Code § 211), that "according to legally binding, at the conclusion of the
proceedings at the FG, the 3-year limitation period began to run again.
The reader will also find the same sentence in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 on
Az 18 U 69/16 (Page 22, line 17 ff, judgment version 29 pages) of the committee (S/G/K =
Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner),
The committee (S/F/G) commits the multiple process fraud in the last 3.5 lines of the 2nd
Paragraph in conjunction with lines 1-2 of the 2nd paragraph; There (decision 8/30/17,
page 6, last Lines, paragraph 2) says the following (part of the general plan)
"The Senate has already made previous decisions in favour of the plaintiff for this period
until it becomes legally binding, six months are assumed, so that the legal proceedings before
the interruption of the statute of limitations triggered by the tax court ended on "June 30,
2000" at the latest.
The reader will also find the above-mentioned sentence identical in the OLG judgment of
October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Page 22, line 25 ff, judgment version 29 pages).
From the above lines it follows that (underlinings are of the applicant's);
a) an interruption of the statute of limitations has occurred due to the FG proceedings, and
b) according to lines 1-2 of paragraph 2, the 3-year limitation period has started to run again.
c) The 18th Senate also committed the fraud proven here in “earlier resolutions”.
d) which they trivialize as being in favour of the plaintiff
e) the legal force (of the interruption of the statute of limitations) six (6) months after delivery of
the FG judgment takes time.
Under the above-mentioned "point c" ("in previous decisions"), Mrs Glaeser's process fraud is
referenced under number 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) signed on September 3, 2015. Malsch / Mrs
Glaeser / Anger, meant in the next Lines (also in the lawsuit/PKH of February 17, 2017, also against
Mrs Glaeser) are analyzed/commented on
The word play with the terms "statute of limitations", "limitation period", "interruption of the
statute of limitations" the criminal (Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) about the mix-up and then
the wrong thing
The result of the alleged “statute of limitations of claims” is also stated in the judgment of
October 18, 2017 identical to Az 18 U 69/16 (page 22). The criminals were already there
Aug. 2017 agreed for the process fraud. (Removal from law and order, part of the general plan)
It should therefore be briefly noted that:
“The FG proceedings have interrupted the statute of limitations (primary legal protection) and
this Interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG proceedings (i.e. due to primary legal
protection) ended one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last?!) FG judgment ".
Well, based on the data from the OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017 on page 6, paragraph 2,
the (supposedly!!) last FG judgment was made on November 24th, 1999 (which was also
in the OLG judgment of 10/18/2017 are included!!), it follows that:
Assuming that the FG judgment was delivered at the beginning of January 2000, it took (due to
the primary legal protection) the triggered interruption of the primary limitation period until the
beginning February 2000 (legal deadline of one month for a challenge to the BFH!!).
After that, i.e. from the beginning of February 2000, the statutory limitation period is 3 years
(according to the BGB) for the filing of the official liability action has begun, (as OLG decision
8/30/17, page 6, in line 1, paragraph 2, confirmed and judgment 10/18/17, page 22)
The end of this statutory limitation period according to the BGB would be 3 years later, i.e.
occurred in February 2003.
Mrs Stein has discussed the perversions of the law with the OLG committees (Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser,
decision August 30, 2017) as well as (Stein/Glaeser/Kirschner, judgment October 18, 2017)
approved and the above-mentioned persons of the OLG committees claim that the interruption of
the (BGB "statute of limitations" ended on "June 30, 2000", without specify that the interruption
of the limitation period ended due to the primary legal protection and then the 3-year limitation
period began to run.
The crime is therefore completed and the crime is also revealed on page 6, paragraph 3, point a).
(PKH decision 8/30/17) where it states that the limitation period is 3 years according to BGB a.F.
- 211 on "June 30, 2000 occurred on July 31, 2006 at the latest".
The reader will also find the above-mentioned sentence identical in the OLG judgment of October
18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Page 22, last lines, and page 23, first 2 lines, version 29 pages) of
(S/G/K)
That neither on “June 30, 2000” nor on “July 31, 2006” did the 3-year (BGB) statute of limitations
(which expired in February) started in 2000) ended on June 30, 2000, is only the result of what was
planned/executed Mrs Stein's trial fraud with like-minded women. (See details)
The present constitutional complaint is therefore justified and admissible.
The committee members in OLG judge gowns (Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) and Mrs Stein
/Mrs Glaeser / Mrs Kirschner) deliberately avoided writing that the 3-year statute of limitations
the deadline according to the BGB began in February 2000. (Part of the general plan)
The reader will also find the same oppression in the OLG ruling of October 18, 2017 (S/G/K).
By suppressing and using the word "interruption of the statute of limitations" (from the
primary legal protection!!), the committees misled the reader and thus gave the wrong result
achieved i.e. that the 3-year (BGB) limitation period expires on June 30, 2000 or at the latest (!?).
would have expired on July 31, 2006. The addition (July 31, 2006) comes from Mrs Glaeser.
In addition, the committee (Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) both in the resolution "August 30,
2017" and The committee (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner) also agreed with the entire OLG
judgment of October 18, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 does not explain how the date "July 31, 2006" that fell
with a parachute comes about.
The 3rd paragraph, page 6, of the resolution of August 30, 2017 is concluded with the enigmatic date
"July 31, 2006" which proves the arbitrariness of the committee and the process fraud/general plan,
with which the committee in any case tried to enforce the absurd “statute of limitations”.
The reader can also find the same mysterious date “July 31, 2006” in the judgment October 18,
2017 (page 23)
According to the German Criminal Code, this is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years.
That justifies the present one Constitutional complaint against Frauen Stein & Co (Mrs Fuhr/Mrs
Glaeser/Mrs Kirchner).
The date "July 31, 2006" that fell with the parachute will later be used by the committee for others
false conclusions and "THE FRAUD IS SERVED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF".
The ladies are obviously above the law and can have any legal monthly period lengthen or shorten.
. The distortion of the facts occurred on page 7 (PKH decision August 30, 2017) and in the judgment
October 18, 2017 page 23, version 29 pages) serves the above-mentioned aim, i.e. the statute of
limitations for damages to enforce claims and to “cap” FA Mettmann’s crimes
Signed in the entire OLG decision of "August 30, 2017" Az 18 U 69/16 (Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr / Mrs
Glaeser)as well as in the judgment of October 18, 2017 by the trio (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs
Kirschner) there is no word anywhere written about the frequent complaint/reminder that the
bank seizures of 1986-1989 have not yet been repealed today, although three department heads of
the FA-Mettmann had applied for an annulment twice. (Subject of LG-Az 2b o 70/21)
The head of the swamp (M. Eigendoof) was against it.
“As long as the damage lasts, the statute of limitations cannot start.”
the BGH decided (which still applies today).
N.B.
> The damage according to the OLG ruling of October 18, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 is: €1,973,319.93,
> The damage, according to the LG final judgment of May 11, 2016 Az 2b o 271/01, amounts to:
€1,886,665.96
> The damage according to the lawsuit/PKH Az 2b o 145/19 summarizes 6 positions
and amounts to: €1,978,287.73 + interest
In addition, the RAe's fees for LG/OLG/BGH, the pension and the factory are also included
to count on the WZM and the compensation for pain and suffering.
If the OLG-D'dorf committees with the offenders (Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser) and
(Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner) reported the above-mentioned facts in the facts,
then the requested PKH would have been approved and on October 18, 2017 in the judgment on
18 U 69/16 must agree to compensation. The compensation, however, contradicted the plan, the
damage-Claims for compensation must be declared time-barred.
The OLG committee Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser recognizes in page 5, last paragraph, of the PKH
decision from August 30, 2017, that "the lawsuits at the FG-D'dorf concerned the tax assessments that
were contrary to official duties" and therefore recognizes that the lawsuits at the FG were directed
against the illegality of the tax assessments without restriction, and mentions BGH III ZR 62/84
judgment of July 11, 1985.
Also on page 5 it is acknowledged that the 3-year limitation period was interrupted due to the pending
nature of the FG lawsuits, and on page 6, second paragraph, it is confirmed that "the limitation period
according to § 211 BGB old version began to run again".
So: interruption of the statute of limitations and BGB a.F.
Here, the OLG committee Stein/Fuhr/Glaeser once again committed the process fraud of the 6 month
extension/supplement to the legal text of the legal force of the FG judgments, but this time as granted
"IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF"; The women mentioned above are supposedly above the law and can
grant a "supplement to the law in favour of the plaintiff" in order to trivialize the process fraud. (Part
of the general plan)
In the same paragraph, the OLG panel came to the conclusion that the interruption of the statute
of limitations ended on "June 30, 2000". The subsequent 3 year limitation period is completely
suppressed.
This resulted in the desired result and the “process fraud” was committed by suppressing the
recognized legal situation regarding the new statute of limitations.
The OLG panel committed an additional and intentional departure from the law and order in its
decision on August 30, 2017 at the end of page 8 and the first 1.5 lines on page 9.
There it is reported that "the suspension of the PKH application in accordance with Section 214
Paragraph 2 of the New German Civil Code (BGB) ended at the latest at the end of 2005 and the
remaining limitation period of 18 months then expired on July 31, 2006."
The contradiction is striking: BGB new version instead of BGB old version.
The end of July 31, 2006 only occurs 7 months after the end of 2005 and not 18 months later.
So the recognized 18 months of the remaining statute of limitations (after the 6 months
Extension of the legal force of the FG judgments) ends on June 30, 2007 and not in 2006.
The process fraud of the OLG panel also consists in the fact that a few lines higher, the deadline
is set before. 3 years after BGB a.F. confirmed.
In addition, the above-mentioned argumentation of the illegal Higher Regional Court panel shows
that the LG should not have blocked the lawsuit dated February 5, 2001 for 4 years (see note
HABICH) or should have served the lawsuit on February 5, 2001 because the court fees were paid
in full and thus the final interruption of the statute of limitations (according to the Federal Court
of Justice) takes place.
On page 26, line 17 of the OLG ruling of October 18, 2017, the above-mentioned line of the OLG
decision of August 30, 2017 has been specifically changed and instead of "End of 2005" as it
was in the decision of August 30, 2017, it is now written "End of January 2005". Someone
recognized the contradiction and specifically changed it
And should the change still apply?
The sentence of the LG committees and the OLG committee that "after the 6 months of legal
force of the FG judgments, the 3-year limitation period began" was accepted by both, the OLG
committee Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser in the OLG decision of August 30, 2017 (PKH rejection,
see appendix) as well as the OLG panel Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner in the judgment
of October 18, 2017 (see attachment) completely suppressed.
See page 6, end of the second paragraph, resolution 8/30/17 Az 18 U 69/16.
The oppression on the part of Mrs Stein/Mrs Fuhr/Mrs Glaeser clearly indicates intent to harm
the plaintiff. (Distance from law and order, part of the general plan)
Due to the participation of Mrs Fuhr and Mrs Glaeser, among others, the applicant did not have
a legal judge on August 30, 2017.
A particularly stubbornly concealed piece of evidence by the LG/OLG judges about the legal
Contradiction of the FA-Mettmann's tax assessments affects the "debt-free certificate
dated June 11, 1999" (see appendix).
The illegal tax assessments that had been attacked up to that point and which were supposedly
in the treasury the debts that were registered were suddenly deleted like with a magician's wand
on June 11, 1999.
The cancellation of the debt was the result of the change in tax assessments illegally were
recognized by the FA-Mettmann.
On page 4 of the OLG decision v. July 19, 2017, with which the OLG committee Mrs Stein/Unger/
Mrs Kirschner recognized the application for bias against the criminal Mrs Fuhr as unfounded
Mrs Fuhr's crime was only mentioned indirectly (but § 41, No. 6, ZPO suppressed, with the
following sentence:
"In addition, the criminal accusation of perverting the course of justice allegedly does not arise
from the "mere participation in an unlawful decision on the ordering of the partial review of
the plaintiff's legal capacity".
This is what the OLG panel said in its decision of July 19, 2017, on page 4. (see there)
Some passages from the OLG judgment October 18, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 to prove process fraud
the OLG judges Mrs Stein/Mr. Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner
In advance:
On September 25, 2000, the applicant received the PKH approval from the FG-D'dorf for Az 4 S 93/96
for Az 4 K 1446/96 and on page 12 of the letter dated September 22, 2017 from the RA (DZ) Az 18 U 69/16
it is reported that on October 13, 2000 an attorney was assigned to Az 4 S 93/96 for the lawsuit 4 K 2269/96
by the FG (see evidence); therefore, no statute of limitations could have occurred on June 30, 2000. T
he fraud is more than obvious.
On December 15, 2006, during the billing processes at FG-D'dorf Az 4 K 3384/01 and 4 K 1492/03,
the parties (Bf and FA) agreed on a "settlement" and the FA-Mettmann still reimbursed
80 thousand euros.
------------------------------------------------
In the judgment of October 18, 2017, the illegal Higher Regional Court panel (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/
Mrs Kirschner) suppressed the sentence of the previous composition of the 18th Senate regarding
the determination of the illegality of the tax assessments, i.e. regarding the illegality The tax assessment
in the previous OLG decision on Az 18 W 1/13 dated September 3, 2015 contained the following on page 6,
paragraph 3, lines 6 to 9:
“This meant that the illegality....as well as possible damage...were established.”
The suppression of the above sentence by Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner intentionally harmed the
plaintiff. (Part of the general plan)
When the lawsuit was filed on February 5, 2001, the statute of limitations according to § 209 BGB old
version was interrupted, writes the OLG panel (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner) and thus recognizes
that the case must be assessed according to the old version of the BGB.
But in the old version of the BGB, the elapsed time from the FG judgments becoming legally binding until
the filing of the official liability action 2b o 271/01 on February 5, 2001 is not taken into account due to the
interruption of the statute of limitations (Section 217 of the old version of the BGB). The OLG committee
Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner completely suppressed the stated legal situation according to the
old version of the German Civil Code (BGB) in order to commit a criminal offense. (Part of the general
plan) The suppression is proof of Mrs Glaeser's involvement and the process fraud committed.
With the judgment of October 18, 2017, all procedural costs (1st and 2nd instance) are imposed on the
plaintiff.
The Federal Court of Justice referred to Az III ZR 332/17 about all legal distortions and violations of the
law LG judges on Az 2b o 271/01 and the OLG judges on Az 18 U 69/16 remained silent
The fees for the lawyers of both parties in the second instance only amount to approx.
25,723 * 2= €51.6 thousand
Overall, the plaintiff suffered damages consisting of the costs of the 1st and 2nd instance proceedings,
as well as the rejected claims for damages, including pension, factory with WZM and compensation for
pain and suffering.
-------------------------------------------------- --
The efforts of the unlawful OLG panel reduced the subsidy loss with 4.5 lines in Page 24 of the OLG
judgment of October 18, 2017, as on June 30, 2000 or "at the latest on July 31, 2006" to be declared
"out of date" are so sparse that they are immediately noticeable; (Caution: 2 versions of the verdict)
In comparison to the lecture of more than 1 full page (pp. 22-23) dedicated to the other topics
(tortious acts of "unauthorized acts" etc.) the OLG lecture appears with 4.5 lines about loss of subsidies
as sand in the eyes of readers.
In the entire OLG ruling on October 18, 2017, there was no specific statute of limitations that could
convince every reader. Especially since under statute of limitations the claims expire either on
"June 30, 2000" or on "July 31, 2006"; There is no “latest” within 6 years of the first named statute
of limitations. This is arbitrary and evidence of process fraud. (Part of the general plan)
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------
The rejection of the appeal also supports what has been said here; So the BGH judges are forced to
reject the NZB with 4.5 lines (so that the line is correct). (See III ZR 332/17)
The OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 is based on the suppression of evidence of the illegality
of the tax assessments and on the non-application of the recognized standards of the old version
of the German Civil Code (BGB).
This is ultimately process fraud. (Removal from law and order)
-------------------------------------------------- ---
The pension claims are stated in the LG judgment of May 11, 2016. Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Mrs
Gundlach/Frank page 6, point 2, with reference to the OLG statements (i.e. as in the OLG decision
of September 3, 2015 Ref 18 W 1/13 signed Malsch/Glaeser, page 8) with an alleged lack of need
for legal protection or rejected due to alleged statute of limitations. And the whole thing with 3
lines in the decision v. September 3, 2015!!!
The evidence/arguments provided in the appeal on August 18, 2016 (pages 58 - 59) were not taken
into account by the illegal OLG panel (Mrs Stein/Mrs Glaeser/Mrs Kirschner) and the LG justification
in the OLG judgment on October 18th. 2017 on pages 28-29 stated/repeated that the pension claiMrs
would be "barred" on July 31, 2006.
However, since no statute of limitations on July 31, 2006 has been properly proven (i.e. with the
application of the applicable norms of the BGB old version and that the FG lawsuits were directed
against the illegality of the FA tax assessments), the claim to payment of the statutory pension
remains according to the calculation the pension consultant Ketteler-Jansen. (Admissibility of the
constitutional complaint)
N.B. The applicant has been living with a pension below the subsistence level since 2006.
With the RA's statements, among others, in the written statement on July 12, 2012 (pages 117, 118)
and in the appeal statement on August 18, 2016 (pages 59, 60, 64-67), the LG's incorrect allegations
have been refuted, but the old mush is back on page 28 OLG ruling from October 18, 2017 appeared;
with 7 lines and a reference in Section II C3 and C4 of the judgment of October 18, 2017 declared the
claims for pain and suffering as “time-barred”.
The fact that the LG/OLG committees specifically looked for reasons to be able to claim that the
FG lawsuits were not directed against the illegality of the tax assessments is (according to the
statement of the FG judges, FG judgments, FG resolutions, Tipke-Kruse AO etc) are often proven
in the present written statement. In this respect, the statute of limitations for compensation for
pain and suffering has not expired.
The medical reports from K.-H. Lutz from 2011 and 2013 confirm the traumatic cases and the cases
that have not been processed for years.
The fact that the bank seizures have not been lifted to this day (!!), despite the requests for the bank
to be lifted 3 department heads of the FA-Mettmann (see 2b o 70/21) and despite the plaintiff's
repeated reminders/requests, has also been suppressed.
The compensation for pain and suffering was rejected because of the alleged statute of limitations
for the bank seizures that had not been lifted!! However, the claim for compensation still exists.
(Admissibility of the BVerfG complaint)
To A3)
In the meantime, i.e. at the beginning of 2021, the serial offender (Dr. Hoffmann) was promoted to
chairwoman of the 2b chamber; It was rejected due to bias due to the 14 illegal resolutions that
it had passed with the triumvirate (Mrs TIgges/Mrs Schmidt/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann) on March 23/24,
2009 (violations of § 75 GVG, etc.);
In addition, on March 24, 2009, she simulated the role of a single judge for Ref. 2b o 29/08, although
she did not meet the legal requirements at that time - as a probationary judge); In this AHK, due to
the crimes that caused damage to the plaintiff, has also been a member since May/June 2021 2b
Kammer, Mrs Gassan (= today Marquardt). the member been rejected
She (Mrs Gassan) was on behalf of the OLG-18. Senate as a process fraudster on OLG-Az 18 W 50/20,
p. 4, in the decision of 7/7/21, exposed. (See evidence attached)
The LG decision v. July 16, 2020 on Az 2b o 76/20 of the alleged single judge (Mrs Gassan) was repealed
and sent back to the LG-D'dorf by the OLG.
Thereupon, the head of the judicial staff brought in the reinforcement of the 2b chamber around
May 2022 Mrs Gundlach, who committed serious court fraud on May 11, 2016 in the final judgment
on case number 2b o 271/01. According to information, Mrs Gundlach was also rejected due to bias.
The exclusion requests were ignored and the contested LG decisions were signed by those excluded.
The 14 illegal LG resolutions of the Triumvirate (Mrs TIgges/Mrs Schmidt/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann)
caused not only further delay in the main proceedings, but also a conspiracy with 99 OLG decisions,
thought up by the then chairman Bünten, and as helpers another 6 OLG judges (Mr. Jungclaus/
Wermeckes/Mr. Baan/ K. G. Müller/ Mrs Grabensee/ Dahm) which were organized into 3 groups.
At that time, Müller signed 37 resolutions.
The requested PKH and emergency attorney from the AHK from September 7th, 2021 were received
by the judge on February 22nd, 2022 (Mr. Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs Riemann/Mrs Kohler) rejected; the
negative LG decision ended up in the 11th Senate; Approximately 10 illegal LG decisions "without
operative part" were accumulated there, and the OLG reporter's hoses burst because of the " empty
formulas" (sentence included in decision 11 W 51/21). Thus, the LG judges have shown that they
were immature for the judicial profession and deserve the title of hodgepodge (omnium gathering)
on this side.
At the end of December 2021, Thole gave ILILLEGAL HELP to the LG judges in the i.d.S. explained
what they had to write in a decision so that the dismissal had a chance of success and on June 22
it was transferred.
To A2.)
From October 2022, Mr. Müller, who was one of the 6 “heroes” from Bünten (Mrs Jungclaus/ Wermeckes/
Mrs Baan/Müller/Mrs Grabensee/Dahm), will take over as chairman of the 11th Senate, which was
unsuccessful with 99 resolutions , had tried to eliminate the plaintiff.
At that time, Müller had signed 37 resolutions. Furthermore, Müller, as Chairman of the 11th Senate,
APPROVED THE ILLEGAL AID of his predecessor (Thole), as stated in the present complaint, and was
therefore rejected (because of the 37 criminal offenses and because of preliminary referral).
Nevertheless, as a rejected person, he signs the resolutions of September 4, 2023 on Az 11 W 71/22
(LG 2b o 137 /21) and of August 14, 2023 on Az 11 W 71/22 and does not provide a legally binding official
statement; thus refused his official duties, even though he knew that he was involved in a conspiracy
against the plaintiff in 2010. He accused the applicant of abusing the requests for bias. The applicant
had no legal judge on September 4, 2023 for Az 11 W 71/22 (LG 2b o 137/21) and on August 14, 23 for
Az 11 W 71/22 (LG Az 2b o 137/21).
The content includes the exclusion requests against Müller from the 11th Senate,
as well as against Mrs Dr. Hoffmann and Mrs Gassan (see below)
Thole!! and K. G. Müller ??, legal judge of the OLG-D'dorf, 11th Senate ?
At the 11th Senate: The immediate complaint of September 8, 2021 against the LG decision. 8/19/21
signed Mrs Riemann/Mrs Gassan/Mrs Hanspach, received the OLG-Az: 11 W 43/21
(LG 2b o 75/21) and on December 27th, 21 decided by Thole/Klein Reesink/Stylianidis,
but was sent back to the LG due to the missing operative part, namely
without repealing the illegal LG decision. (See evidence).
In the meantime, around 10 LG-unlawful resolutions had passed the 11th Senate without
Tenorations were collected, which were then sent back to LG-D'dorf.
At the end of December 2021, Thole (chairman of the 11th Senate until the end of June
2022 was) gives ILILLEGAL HELP to the LG judges.
The number of files sent back from the OLG-11. Senate to the LG-D'dorf to supplement the resolutions
with the "missing tenor" that were not repealed are as follows:
1. OLG-Az:11 W 50/21, Thole/K-R/Stylianidis (LG 2b o 34/21, decision 18.8.21 signed
Riemann/Gassan/Hanspach)
2nd OLG-Az: 11 W 40/21, Thole/Wolff/K-R, (LG 2b o 8/21, decision 19.5.22 signed
Riemann/Gassan/Freyman(Praktik.)
3rd OLG-Az: 11 W 43/21, Thole/Wolff/Stylian., (LG 2b o 75/21, decision 7.7.21 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan)
4. OLG-Az: 11 W 44/21, Thole/Wolff/K-R (LG-Az 2b o 28/21, decision 19.5.22 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan)
5. OLG-Az: 11 W 45/21, Thole/Wolff/Stylian. (LG 2b o 23/21), decision 7.7.21 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan
6. OLG-Az: 11 W 46/21, Thole/Wolff/K-R (LG 2b o 76/21, decision 12/20/21 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan)
7. OLG-Az: 11 W 49/21, Thole/Wolff/K-R (LG-Az 2b o 76/20, decision 6.1.22 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan)
8th OLG-Az: 11 W 51/21, Thole/Wolff/Stylian.(LG-Az 2b o 77/21, decision 9/27/21 signed
Gassan/H-P/Hanspach;
9. OLG-Az: 11 W 52/21, Thole/Wolff/Stylian. (LG 2b o 78/21, decision 9/24/21 signed
Riemann/Gassan/Hanspach)
10. OLG-Az: 11 W 11/22, Thole/Wolff/Stylian. (LG 2b o 73/21, decision 7.1.22 signed
Hoffmann/Riemann/Gassan).
11. The LG-Az 2b o 102/21 with its "tenor supplement v. 12.1.22", signed
MrsHoffmann/Mrs Gassan to be added!
(OLG-Az I-11 W 19/22) signed Thole & Co
12. The LG-Az 2b o 34/21 with its "Tenor supplement v. 7.1.22", signed
Mrs Riemann/Mrs Gassan/Mrs H-P to be added!
signed Thole & Co (see OLG-Az I-11 W 20/22)
13. The LG-Az 2b o 45/21 with its "tenor addition from May 30, 2022" should also be here, signed.
Mrs Hoffmann/Mrs Riemann/Mrs Gassan to be added!
signed Thole & Co
(see OLG-Az I-11 W 44/22) More than 62% bear the name of Mrs Dr. Hoffmann
Why not lifted??
Thole (who has been transferred since the end of June 2022) declared it, in a resolution, as
an "EXCEPTION";
The “exception” contained extraneous considerations and the general plan.
But 13 times "EXCEPTIONS" are not covered by any law, and certainly not by the general plan.
That was proof of the "general plan", i.e. proof of other people's considerations
The LG judges will change/supplement the illegal LG decisions from January 6, 2022, whereas
the plaintiff had to file a new immediate complaint. To create confusion due to the turn of the
year only the OLG-Az changed. The LG-Az remains the same.
The new OLG decision. which v. Müller & Co decided, the plaintiff had to make a new one
raise a hearing complaint. Endless costs.
During the month of January 2023, the applicant received a total of 9 immediate rejections
Complaints from the 11th Senate signed Müller & Co with the same stereotypical text, received.
The Az were the following:
(Az: 11 W 45/22, 11 W 42/22, 11 W 41/22,
11 W 35/22, 11 W 67/22, 11 W 66/22,
11 W 70/22, 11 W 76/22, 11 W 84/22.
In September 2023, the applicant received a total of 8 resolutions from the OLG-D'dorf 11th
Senate namely on September 2nd, 2023 (1) resolution/on September 6th, 2023 (6) resolution
with IDENTICAL TENOR and rejecting pattern, with the following Az (see evidence):
11 W 76/22 Decision 8/31/23 (LG 2b o 91/22, concerning Mrs S-N/Mrs Brecht/Mrs Jürging,
decision 11/22/12 to Az 2b o 118/99),
11 W 61/22 Decision 8/31/23 (LG 2b o 71/22 regarding Mrs S-N/ Mrs Hoffmann / Mrs -----,
Az 2b o 268/01, Dec. 16.3.11)
11 W 81/22 Decision 8/31/23 (LG 2b o 74/22 regarding Mrs S-N/Mrs Dr. Hoffmann/Mrs Brecht
Az 2b o 198/11, Decision 10/12/11)
11 W 101/22 Decision 8/31/23 (LG 2b o 104/21 regarding Mrs Tigges/Mrs Schmidt/Mrs Dr.
Hoffmann Az 2b o 271/01, resolution March 24, 2009)
11 W 11/23 Dec. 31.8.23 (LG 2b o 70/22 regarding S-N/Mrs Drees/Galle Az 2b o 118/99,
Dec.11/22/12)
11 W 32/23 Decision 8/31/23 (LG 2b o 40/23 regarding Thole (legal assistance, thwarting of office,
in many cases and decisions
11 W 71/22 Decision 4.9.23 (LG 2b o 137/21 regarding Mrs Fuhr, to 18 U 69/16 + further
references, received 7.9.23
With the above-mentioned 7 OLG decisions of the 11th Senate (6 issued on August 31, 2023 and
delivered on September 6, 2023), Müller speculated that the applicant would not be able to complete
and submit 7 constitutional complaints.
In addition, he subsequently approved the LEGAL AID of his predecessor Thole, which was given to
the LG judges, legal aid which was used in 13 LG decisions to avert the failure of the LG judges;
He therefore unfairly gave a party to the proceedings a significant advantage.
The behavior of Müller, who has been working as Thole's successor since the beginning of October
2022, i.e. on the one hand, the identification with the claims of the LG judges (Mrs Hoffmann/Mrs
Gassan), set in the first 1-3 pages of the new LG -Decisions from January 6, 2022, which, due to the
word "hodgepodge" used by the complainant, exaggerate the alleged insults, but conceal the crimes;
on the other hand, the subsequent granting (as here) of LEGAL AID to LG judges (which means:
thwarting of office), as well as the many stereotypical rejections of the immediate complaints and the
hearing complaints, without taking into account the arguments presented by the applicant, give the
reason for him to formally - among other things Preliminary consultation - to be excluded as biased.
In the exclusion request, all 37 OLG decisions dated 2010, where Müller worked, are listed and the
names of the signatories are listed and some of them sent to him; See here below:
May 12, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on Az 11 W 36/09,
signed Dr. Bünten/Müller/Wermeckes
May 12, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on Az 11 W 37/09,
signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller (2b o 268/01)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 39/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller (129/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 41/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Müller/Wermeckes (2b o 143/08)
May 12, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on Az 11 W 42/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller
(2b o 172/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 43/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller (2b o 142/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 44/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller (2b o 145/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 45/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Müller/Wermeckes (2b o 84/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 49/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Müller/Wermeckes (2b o 170/08)
May 12, 2010: OLG decision on Az 11 W 54/09; signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller (2b o 118/99)
May 12, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on Az 11 W 59/09
signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller (2b o 45/09)
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 36/09
signed Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 37/09 signed Jungclaus/Baan/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 39/09 signed Jungclaus/Baan/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 41/09 signed Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 43/09 signed Jungclaus/Baan/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 45/09 signed Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 49/09 signed Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller
March 31, 2010: Higher Regional Court decision on 11 W 59/09 signed Jungclaus/Baan/Müller
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 59/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 54/09 (LG 2b o 118/99) signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 49/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 45/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 44/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 43/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 42/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Baan/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 41/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 39/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 37/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Jungclaus/Müller,
February 22, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 36/09 signed Dr. Bünten/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 59/09 (2b o 45/09) marked Jungclaus/Baan/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 49/09 (2b o 170/08) marked Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 45/09 (2b o 84/08) marked Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 43/09 (2b o 142/08) signed Jungclaus/Baan/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 41/09 (2b o 143/08) marked Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 39/09 (2b o 129/08) marked Jungclaus/Baan/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 37/09 (2b o 268/01) marked Jungclaus/Baan/Müller,
February 18, 2010: OLG decision. to 11 W 36/09 (2b o 271/01) marked Jungclaus/Wermeckes/Müller
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Occasionally:
The new OLG decision of the 11th Senate on Az 11 W 86/22 v. 8/22/23 was delivered on 9/7/2023,
(see constitutional complaint of September 9, 2023, AR 7737/23) (and explained by the rejected Müller),
The plaintiff's costs for proving the OLG error of the 11th Senate are No. 11 W 86/22
thus "DEJECTED" !!!
However, the term “dejected” is used if demands from NRW had previously been raised; But in no OLG
decision are the state's claims raised through cost decisions. The applicant only requested
reimbursement of his costs.
What knocked down Müller? the costs of the applicant?
In the applicant's opinion, the term "knocked down" is intentionally misapplied here.
__________________________________________
All of the above-mentioned cases from the LG or OLG are only related to the three official liability
actions (2b o 271/01, 2b o 268/01 and 2b o 118/99) together, so the concrete reference is given.
(See evidence)
The “HELD =Heroe” Müller has many complaints or objections, or counter-statements from the
plaintiff against his decisions. Rejected as inadmissible in 2010 with several unfounded decisions.
The intentionally incorrect cost decisions (which Müller signed in 2010) had the following
reason/content: (See 11 W 43/09 decision of February 18, 2010, p. 4)
“As stated in the decision of September 23, 2009, the appeal value is based on established case law
of the Senate following the case law of the Federal Court of Justice according to the value of the
main case, regardless of whether it is already pending or not.
This means that there is no chance that the matter will be treated arbitrarily, nor that the applicant
will be disadvantaged. In particular, setting the complaint value at the level complained about does
not constitute a sanction.
So, the main point was the expulsion request against Chairman Müller
of the 11th Senate, for his 37 crimes committed as part of the conspiracy
99 resolutions, spun by the then chairman of the 11th Senate,
Bünten, with his heroes).
Here, in the 11th Senate, the key points were crossed out and ignored for the second
time of the written statement v. 7.9.21, the complaints and the hearing notice from
August 27, 2023 to Ref 11 W 71/22; The external considerations became visible.
In the decision 4.9.23 on Az 11 W 71/22 (Müller) "caps" the criminal offenses of Mrs Dr. Hoffmann,
as well as the other LG judges and the legal aid of his predecessor.
On September 6, 2023, Müller also had 6 resolutions dated August 31, 2023 delivered to the complainant
and attacked him with stereotypical/identical content as an insulter; the case law of the BVerfG he
doesn't know insults. The reference numbers of the 6 resolutions dated August 31, 2023 are mentioned
on the previous page.
Whether the Müller can be the legal judge, see separate chapter.