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

Dr.-Ing. Th. SARTOROS

 

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

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

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

PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt)

                                                             "THE RED THREAD"

                                                               or

           THE FISH STARTS TO STINK first at the HEAD (LG-Düsseldorf, OLG-Düsseldorf, BGH-Karlsruhe)

 

Abbreviations used

 

AG= a magistrate´s court

ASt = proponent, applicant, petitioner

Az = Number of File

Bl. = sheet of official files

BGH= supreme political Tribunal of Germany

BGB a.F. = Civil Code of old Revision

DM = money of Germany until 31.1.2002

€ = current money of European Union (EU)

EGBGB = Introduction-law of Civil Code

EuGVVO = prescription, regulation of European union (EU)

EGMR = Court of human Rights (at Strasbourg/Fr)

FA= Tax office

FG = Financial Tribunal

FRG = Federal Republic of Germany

GA = Court records, court files

GenStAnw = Office of general Attorney

GG = Constitution of Germany

GS = Secretary office

G'scher = the follower

GVG = Tribunal Constitution Law

GVP = Business Distribution plan

i.S.d. = at the sense of

LG = regional court (of Düsseldorf)

NAB = non-remedial decisions = instructions for blind

NJW = review of juridical articles

NRW = North Rhine-Westphalia (state of federal Germany), Capital Düsseldorf

NZB= complaint against the non permission of legal complaint

ObStAnw = Upper State Attorney

OLG= Court of appeal (of Düsseldorf)

PKH= demand for financial judicial aid

RA = lawyer, advocate

StGB= Germany´s penal code

StPO = Germany´s penal procedure

v.A.w = promoted from office

VU = default judgement

ZPO = Civil Procedure Code

   

                    The reader learns from this chronologically structured report

 which tortious means the judges (LG / OLG / BGH) have committed on behalf of politics (legal infractions, fraud,

manipulation of legal texts of the BGB etc) as well as methods (legal violations of applicable national /

international laws, etc) have been used to enforce, that the claims for damages of the Greek . Ing. + Inventor, on

LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01, (OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16, BGH Az III ZR 332/17),

because of the crimes of the FA-Mettmann in 1979-2006, to be declared as barred.

Summary; (processing status July 2019)

(See also detailed articles on the individual events under "Regional Court (=LG)", "Court of appeal of Düsseldorf

(=OLG)", "Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe/D (BGH)", "Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe/D" (=BVerfG),

or click on "Miscellaneous", "Newsletter", "Press releases," Photos ".

Some details can be found in articles on "Volker Malsch's last legal remedies" or

to read about the cost officer Habich, or about Stockschlaeder-Nöll, or on criminal complaints

against Judges of LG/OLG/BGH. see there)

                                                                                Introduction

       The uppermost part of the smelly fish head of the judiciary, is provided by the

    Federal Court of Justice (= BGH), (article about the criminal complaint later) namely

  1. a) in the "without justification", the non-admission complaint (= NZB)

    rejecting - and PKH application-rejecting, BGH decision of 24 May 2018

    Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher, regarding the NZB

    against the judgement of October 18, 2017 of the OLG-Düsseldorf on Az 18 U 69/16),

  1. b) and in the BGH decision of July 26. 2018 to Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann /

     Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher (rejection of the hearing complaint, allegedly

     no violation of the right to be heard).

(Mr. Herrmann was chairman of the III Civil Senate of the BGH and Mr. St. Seiters - a career changer - as rapporteur

for Az III ZR 332/17and both promoted from politicians to BGH judge. Seiters and Herrmann have rejected the

Greek Engineer + inventor claims, i.e. both the non-admission complaint (= NZB) and the legal aid for the revision of the

OLG-Düsseldorf judgment on Az 18 U 69/16,

 

How should one "justify a hearing complaint" if the BGH violates its legal obligations and for rejecting the non-admission

complaint (= NZB) as well as for the rejection of the PKH requested, no reasons given? and the guardians of fundamental

rights (BVerfG, Vosskuhle & Co) close their eyes?

The silence of the BGH (and the tacit approval of the BVerfG) clearly indicates a conspiracy at the highest (political) level,

and underpins the judges' dependence on political and party sponsors.

The common thread becomes visible.

Proof: BGH decision of May 24, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter /

                           Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher (rejection of the NZB and PKH rejection)

Proof: BGH decision of July 26, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17 rejection of the hearing complaints

                           (Documents published under "Complaints to the BGH", see there)

Following decisions of the Court of appeal (OLG) -Düsseldorf from 2006-2018 confirm the popular saying

"THE FISH STARTS TO STINK AT THE HEAD" (widespread in several countries around the world)

  1. the OLG-Düsseldorf - judgment of 18.10.2017 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms Kirschner

     for Az 18 U 69/16 (regarding appeal of 8.8.2016 against the final judgment of May 11, 2016

    for LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /Mr Frank),

    (The names marked in yellow reveal the involvement of criminals,

     who had no scruples to break the law or important dates)

  1. the OLG-Düsseldorf decision of 12 January 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr /

     Ms. Kirschner (rejection of Ms. Glaeser because of bias; request rejected as unfounded!

     See comments about the crimes of Mrs. Glaeser),

  1. the decision of July 19, 2017 on OLG Az 18 W 25/16 (LG-2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein / Mr

      Unger / Ms. Kirschner (application for exclusion against Ms. Fuhr rejected without reason !!

       See comments about Ms. Fuhr's crimes);

  1. also the decision of August 30, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser (PKH application

      rejected for appeal; Claims allegedly barred!

      The two criminals deliberately continued their crimes)

Proof: OLG-Düsseldorf, judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01)

                signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner (claims allegedly barred,

               Legal complaint not allowed); OLG judgment already published

                   

Proof: OLG-Düsseldorf, decision of 12.1.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Drove/

             / Fri Kirschner (application for bias against the criminal Mrs. Glaeser is unfounded !!)

 

Proof: OLG-Düsseldorf, decision of 19.7.2017 on Az 18 W 25/16 signed Ms. Stein /Mr Unger /

                Mrs. Kirschner (petition for bias against the criminal Mrs. Fuhr is unfounded !!)

 

Proof: OLG-Düsseldorf, decision of 30.8.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr/

                Ms. Glaeser (PKH rejection, claims for damages allegedly barred !!)

                      (Documents published under the Court of appeal Düsseldorf, see there)

Here are some decisions of the LG-Düsseldorf 2b civil chamber:

Proof: LG-Düsseldorf final judgment of May 11, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-

               Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /Mr Frank

             (Final judgment dismissing the action with the assumption of all legal defenses made

             in the OLG decision Az 18 W 1/13 v. 3.9.2015 signed Mr Malsch /Mr Anger / Ms. Glaeser

              Claims - after manipulation of the legal texts BGB a.F.- allegedly barred !!)

Proof: Self-declaration of bias from 30.5.2016 regarding LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01

                  the judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Frank

               (in all other procedures related to content, bias contradicted / rejected !!)

                          (Documents published under district court Düsseldorf, see there)

It should therefore come as no surprise that the (politically ordered decisions, i.e. the rejection of claims for damages

and the imposition of litigation costs on the plaintiff !!) Courts or judges (LG-Düsseldorf, OLG-Düsseldorf, BGH-Karlsruhe) -

who claim to control and steer public life - only by misusing their official possibilities - the instructions of Politicians have

enforced and arbitrarily declared the claims for damages due to crimes of Tax office-Mettmann in the years 1979-1999

would have been time-barred; Several and different sham and contradicting sham arguments have been invented to

honour arbitrariness;

those responsible for the crimes and legal penalties in office (many of whom are personally informed about the content

of the allegations) hide as soon as they notify the plaintiff from a distance.

The events of the first five years (section A, 1999-2005) of the LG-Düsseldorf Az 2b o 271/01 are considered to be

known because several articles are dedicated to these events on this homepage.

 

The following report describes with a few comments the chronological processing of events from

2006 to and including December 2018 of the stinking fish head of the judiciary (LG-Düsseldorf, OLG-Düsseldorf,

BGH-Karlsruhe).

The secondary locations (AG / LG-Essen, LG-Cologne) are deliberately withheld for later additions.

                                                                    2006

B1. On April 14, 2006 reminder to Az 2b o 271/01 to 2b Chamber that the request for partiality

       from 11/13/2002 or from December 18, 2002 against Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll has not yet

       been decided;

       The request for the annulment of all resolutions of the 2b chamber is also signed by

       Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll since Dec 2002 to date (April 2006).

                                                               annotation

       The above Application is never decided. He is simply "buried" at OLG Az 18 W 23/05.

       The BGH, however, declares that "a procedure is ended when all applications have

         been approved".

       But when it comes to protect those responsible for the "funeral" of the applications

       of the Greek engineers + inventors, the judiciary (= BGH) is just as easy stupid boy one.

     So the fish starts to stink at the head.

B2. On April 21, 2006 Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll calculated the value in dispute for Az 2b o 271/01 for

       the purpose Determination of court fees and records them in the files, amount in dispute:

       € 1,838,180.46

      Proof: Sheet No. 408 (determination of the amount in dispute by Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                   on April 21, 2006)

B3. On July 13, 2006, Mr HABICH's "hand notes" were entered at the top in sheet 408 on

        "Value, concerning Az 2b o 271/01: fees € 21.021,77 (GA Bl.No. 413).

         So, the man (Habich) at that time (July 2006) had not yet been instructed to initiate litigation

         and the court fees are therefore entered correctly.

     Proof: GA Bl. 413, hand notes on the amount in dispute and the amount of the court fees:

                 € 21,021.77

                                                           annotation

B4. On August 29, 2007, the cost officer (Habich) will enter a completely different and wrong value

     in dispute and wrong amount over court fees (evidence see 2007) and thus initiate trial fraud by

     the LG judges (Ms Strupp-Müller /Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle) and make it possible. The

     whole thing was organized by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

B5. The plaintiff reports on December 15, 2006 at LG-Düsseldorf to Az 2b o 118/99, 2b o 271/01 two

      more Defeats of the (FA=) tax office-Mettmann at the FG-Düsseldorf and the conclusion of a

    "settlement", whereby the FA-Mettmann restore a large part (approx. DM 248 thousand) of the

     looted liquidity in the amount of approx. DM 264.500,- of the plaintiff's company - in recognition

     of the unlawful enforcement measures and bank seizures for alleged tax evasion.

     (Note: after 27 years, not even the entire looted capital is reimbursed, without interest !!

                  and the 1986-1989 bank seizures have not yet been lifted; see evidence)

B6. By the end of December 2006, the plaintiff had paid € 1.182,00 more than the required court

       fees of LG-Az 2b o 271/01 were, and therefore the delivery of the suit since January 2007

        continuously requested.

       (Confirmation of the full payment of the court fees Dec. 2006 delivered on 3.9.15  for the

       18 W 1/13 of the 18th Senate and this was taken over by the LG in the final judgment on

       May 11, 2016)

B7. The LG-2b civil chamber blocked the delivery of the suit until September 13, 2010 (for allegedly

       court fees not fully paid !!) by means of litigation fraud by LG judges Ms Strupp-Müller /Ms

       Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle, with the help of the cost officer (Habich) (see litigation fraud of

     September 18, 2007 with the title "The Silver Spearheads" can be found under LG, p. 3)

                                                                             2007

B8. On 4th July 2007 the last OLG decision on Az 18 W 38/04 signed Mr Malsch /Mr Haarmann / Ms.

      Anderegg (GA Bl. 434) regarding the PKH application from 5.2.2001 and thus it turns out that until

      for the above Date of issue (July 4th, 2007) the limitation was inhibited.

     Proof: OLG decision of 4.7.2007 on Az 18 W 34/04 signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Anderegg

                                                                             annotation

    The RECELEUR (French word = fence), Malsch, does not want to know anything about it, and

   passes on 3.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (and Az 18 W 44/14) the evidence provided to his next

    Process fraud (the alleged limitation of claims on July 31, 2006).

         (For proof see 2015, as well as article under "OLG-Düsseldorf" about Malsch)

        And such people or criminal-like types as Malsch want with their judgments

         and decisions control public life?

         And why the BGH / BVerfG responsible keep silent about it? The fish stinks !!.

B9. The complaint 2b o 271/01 is only after repeated complaints (also from the commissioned Lawyer)

      delivered in September 2010 after almost 4 full years. Almost FOUR FULL YEARS BLOCKED THE

     SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION by 2b Chamber; The OLG and BGH judges are silent about the

     LG blockade of the delivery of the suit indicated; Because of the silence of the BGH / BVerfG-

     those responsible have become accomplices of the LG crime. The fish now stinks completely.

B10. On August 9, 2007, a PKH negative LG decision signed Ms Strupp-Müller /Ms Engelkamp-Neeser

         /Mr Galle for the PKH application of September 9, 2005 (after 2 years !!) although Mrs. Strupp-

       Müller was excluded since May 5, 2003 because of bias and should not be allowed to sign.

       Proof: GA Bl. No. 472 (PKH application from 9.9.2005 rejected;

                                                       supposedly no prospect of success!)

               (see article: "Whoever fights with silver spearheads wins" under LG-Düsseldorf)

B11. On August 29, 2007, the cost officer (HABICH) made a note in the court files (GA Bl.

        No. 476R, R = back) about the amount of the fees for disputed values ​​in the amount of

        5.374.315,00 DM = 2.747.843,63 €, i.e. according to the outdated lawsuit/PKH of 5.2.2001,

     for 2b o 271/01 and writes "according to provisionally accepted values ​​in dispute" (GA Bl. 499)

     still missing € 9.454,69; the court fees are € 29.304,69 and the plaintiff paid only € 19.850,- (!!!).

                                                                    annotation

   Not only the incorrect entry 19.850, - € (instead of 22.200,- €) but also the sentence "after

   provisionally accepted disputed values ​​"unequivocally indicates litigation fraud according to plan.

   (see hand notes from Mr. Habich on July 13, 2006). The hidden criminals are on the job.

   Proof: GA Bl. 476R (R = back, hand notes dated Aug 29, 2007, signed Habich)

   Proof: GA Bl. 492 (official statement by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll dated September 18, 2007)

   Proof: GA Bl. 499 (hand notes dated Aug 29, 2007, signed Habich, on Az 2b o 271/01)

   Because, Stockschlaeder-Nöll had the exact value in dispute on April 21, 2006 (see order:

   Determination of the amount in dispute with 1.838.180,46 € (GA sheet no. 408) exactly

   determined / fixed.

   It was therefore not necessary to use a "provisionally accepted value in dispute".

    The LG judges Ms Strupp-Müller / Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle on September 18, 2007

   intentionally used as basis and the delivery of the suit was refused;

    the group of offenders Ms Strupp-Müller / Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle allegedly overlooked

   the fact that the value in dispute based on the provisionally accepted value in dispute by the cost

   official (Habich) was incorrect, and that the correct amount in dispute € 1.838.180,46 has also been

   found on file since Apr. 21, 2006; the 3 supposedly experienced (?) judges acted according to the

     putsch plan

         This can only convince by agreement according to the plan of a process fraud that will come

         soon should. The accused are silent about it. The OLG 18th Senate (Malsch) has the "offense"

         of LG offenders then "capped" according to the following pattern.

        (see "Silver Spearheads". The plaintiff's website has been visited from many Judges).

B12. When the immediate complaint on October 9, 2007 against the LG lawsuit fraud on September

        18, 2007 of Judges Ms Strupp-Müller / Ms Engelkamp-Neeser/Mr Galle arrives at the OLG-

        Düsseldorf 18th Senate, where Mrs. Strupp-Müller has been doing her "advanced training at the

       18 Senate" since October 2007 (who has determined if not the driver of the judiciary? that she

      was there urgently needed because of her file knowledge for the next process fraud since October

       2007?), now " the immediate complaint "and the RECELEUR (= fence) Malsch abuses the OLG-Az

        18 W 46/07 to cover the intentional disappearance of the immediate complaint

         dated October 9, 2007.

       The crime reported, but the hunters of crime (= public prosecutor Düsseldorf) remain silent

       about that; The 18th Senate (Malsch) lets Grass grow above it and Mrs. Strupp-Müller returns

       2008 back to LG-Düsseldorf as chair of a chamber. Promoting the Corrupt?

       with what criteria promoted? And this woman can still speak RIGHT ?? The fish stinks.

B13. On the one hand the BVerfG endeavours to create clear rules, so that trust

         the public to the judiciary is strengthened, on the other hand the judiciary

        undermine the rules, and nothing happens to the criminals !!!

        Crimes or litigation in the name of the people ?? the people decided otherwise!

B14. July 31st. In 2007 the plaintiff filed an application for Az 2b o 271/01 to abolish the

         Coverage and shading by the secret services of the FRG / NRW (and adds a "Photo of

         Mr Pfahls and Bücklings "at) supplemented by the saying:

"Justice is the space that politics leaves" "Free justice is just an oxymoron scheme;

the term belongs to the rhetoric of the politicians who direct the judiciary "

          Proof: GA sheet no. 508 (see report "der Bückling" under LG)

        "Evidence of secret service activities available upon request," witnesses are still alive.

B15. On September 18, 2007 (on the day of litigation fraud by Ms. Strupp-Müller/Ms Engelkamp-

      Neeser /Mr Galle) Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll gives a "official statement" on the bias

      application from Dec. 18, 2002 to Az 2b o 271/01 from (i.e. after almost 5 full years !!) and

      untruthfully pretend that, Not to have known the request for exclusion dated February 18, 2002;

      

      she talks herself out of the fact that the application for partiality is allegedly would be not present

      on file until July 4th, 2007. She forces Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser to write that the plaintiff has not

      proven that the above Application for bias from December 18, 2002 would be included in the files.

      (That Stockschlader-Nöll sorted the files in November 2001 and always checked them afterwards

      and so she "styled" or exchanged everything - she incriminated documents - too not

      mentioned). Ms Engelkamp-Neeser does not recognize how dangerous it is to participate.

  Evidence: Court records (= GA) sheet no. 492: "Official statement" Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                    from September 18, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01

                                                                   2008

  B.16 The unlawful body (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt) provides relief

             Decision of January 17, 2008 the Stockschlaeder-Nöll on the charge of bias.

            Mrs. Köstner-Plümpe becomes OLG judge a little later; promoted with what criteria?

                   Proof: LG decision January 17, 2008 to Az 2b or 271/01 signed Ms Köstner-Plümpe/Ms Vaupel /

                   Ms Schmidt

 

        First use girls for legal violations, and then promote some of them! smelly fish.

                                                                  annotation

        The decisions at the 2b civil chamber of the LG-Düsseldorf are made by young, inexperienced

        people and controlled, "girls" (Ms Vaupel, Ms Schmidt), often only "interns = on trial";

        They are looking for a job in the judiciary and are willing for survive criminals to do,

         to get the convenient job in the judiciary, or to keep it.

B17. On 10 February 2008, the plaintiff indignantly demonstrated the LIES of the Stockschaleder-Nöll

          in their official opinion; the evidence provided has remained uncontested), however she is not

         impressed by it either.

        Proof: GA sheet no .543

                                                                   annotation

    

     Like Ms. Tannert in 2001, Stockschlaeder-Nöll hastily forges an illegal one Group (against § 75 GVG,

     Art. 101 GG) of willing "girls" (Ms. Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms. Schmidt); the first (Köstner-

     Plümpe) is not a chairperson (Section 75 GVG) and is also a member of the 2b chamber and should

     not be there according to GVP (= business distribution plan); the others two (Ms. Vaupel, Ms.

     Schmidt) on March 23/24, 2009 on the instructions of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and with the help

          of Ms. Hoffmann, 14 crimes committed !! see article titled

           "the 14th Bendings by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, etc, in the LG-Düsseldorf section).

 

B18. On March 11, 2008 the OLG decision on Az 18 W 46/07 signed Malsch / Haarmann /

         Ms. Anderegg (LG 2b o 271/01; tenor: "The immediate complaint of August 31, 2007

         against the the PKH's decision of 9 August 2007 on 2b o 271/01 denied Strupp-Müller /

         Engelkamp-Neeser / Mr Galle) is rejected ".

 

                                                                          annotation

Also due to the above OLG-decision is obvious that the limitation of the claims in Az 2b o 271/01 until March 11,

2008 was inhibited

Nevertheless, the RECELEUR (Malsch) does not want to know anything about it, and announced on September 3,

2015 to Az 18 W 1/13 that the claims for damages were already statute-barred on July 30, 2006; afterwards on May 11th,

2016 Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Gundlach take over the same sham arguments and real legal defaults of the OLG

18th Senate.

                     That the OLG-decision of April 5, 2006 was contested by the plaintiff, and that

                     the LG decision was issued by Stockschlaeder-Nöll, (but which is charged of

                     Bias, and she was not yet legally relieved, and consequently Ms. Strupp-Müller

                      was still excluded, the 18th Senate has kept silent.

                    So the RECELEUR (Malsch) always covers the illegality of the LG judges

                  

                                                           Question to the BVerfG:

                         How should ordinary people show trust in the judiciary, if such

                         People types (like Malsch and Stockschlaeder-Nöll) the Right and the

                                                  Official Power, abuse?

 

B19. On Apr. 16, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. the plaintiff survived an attempted murder by a Ford

        Focus, on the A5 motorway, south of Karlsruhe.

                                                                 annotation

       Similar circumstances as in the simulated car accident in the case of the Upper State Attorney

     (= ObStAnw) Jörg Hillinger, which the corrupt politicians H. Kohl, V. Pfahl, and the "Millions

         DM wanted to legally pursue lubricating middlemen, such as the "clerk".

         

           Who could have known that the plaintiff was traveling with a strange car that day

          and lurked for him? if not the secret services, which the telephone and the mail always

         check ? how did the killer get the data (car number and car colour and route)?

         Who gave the order to kill? who paid the killer? The cost of Taxpayer?

         Who was the intelligence agency responsible for the plaintiff's liquidation?

         The whole thing can only be organized by secret service;

         The fish stinks, in the head and in the belly.

 

B20. Signed Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms Köstner-Plümpe/Ms. Tigges on May 28, 2008 orders Ms.    

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll with the non-remedial decision (= blind instruction) for Az 2b o 271/01

        to the OLG the Result of the immediate complaint dated February 25, 2008, i.e. that the plaintiff

        first Submission of bias filed on December 18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

       Proof: GA Bl. Nr.569 non-remedial decision of May 28, 2008, "Order of LG wishes"

         The judges' resolutions must sound plausible. That trust in the Justice disappears

          leaving the privileged cold. "Nothing can happen to them".      The fish stinks.

B21. On June 30, 2008 with OLG decision on 11 W 26/2008 (2b o 271/01) signed Mr. Bünten /Mr

        Mielke /Mr Busch, (GA Bl. No. 581) becomes the immediate complaint dated February 25, 2008

        against the LG decision from January 17, 2008 (signed Ms Köstner-Plümpe / Ms. Vaupel / Ms.

       Schmidt) and it rejected as inadmissible.

         The panel's reasoning is:

  "The complaint is not signed by an advocate, which is in accordance with Section 78 (1) sentence 1,

   571 (4)Sentence 1, 569 paragr. 2, sentence 1, ZPO would be required. An exception according to

  • § 78 paragraph 5, 569 paragraph 3,571 (4) sentence 2 ZPO is (allegedly) not available. (OLG

Cologne,  MDR 1996, 1182, OLGR 1999,218; Musielack / Heinrich ZPO 5 ed., § 46 Rn 5, Zöller /

Vollkommer, ZPO 26 ed. § 46 Rn 16 ".

                                                               annotation

      The fact that the request for partiality was made on December 18, 2002 as part of the PKH

      application was from 11.Senate suppressed and then jumped to §§ regarding "lawsuit

      proceedings", but here not true/not valid.

       This RED THREAD PASSES THROUGH ALL INSTANCES; The smell of fish is spreading.

     The plaintiff realizes that judge groups LG / OLG are organized, abuse the Right and  

       the official power, and the citizens have little opportunity to remedy these abuses;

       Who organizes / controls these judicial groups that are also willing to do crimes?

B22. Nevertheless, on July 8, 2008, a "counter-performance" was submitted and requested the

         legal complaint according to § 574 ZPO against OLG decision of June 30, 2008 signed

         Mr. Bünten /Mr Mielke /Mr Busch to 11 W 26/08.

       A foreigner who is not an advocate dares something like that? wonder at the 11th Senate.

       Proof: GA sheet no.589

B23. On July 12, 2008 the plaintiff repeated his views regarding the legal complaint in the

        loose PKH procedure and on 19 December 2008 the OLG decision on 11 W 26/08 signed Mr.

       Bünten /Mr Mielke /Mr Busch, (LG 2b o 271/01) that the plaintiff's entry from July 8, 2008

       (immediate Complaint 25.2.2008 against LG-Düsseldorf decision of 17.01.2008 of the 2b chamber,

       signed Köstner-Plümpe / Vaupel / Schmidt etc. is forbidden as a legal complaint; as counter-

       position is unfounded, therefore rejected; in the contested OLG decision the committee claims

       that advocate is compulsory for complaints procedures. The common thread is visible.

B24. From March to August 2008 the Stockschlaeder-Nöll throws back with the help of Ms Engelkamp-

         Neeser/Ms Köstner-Plümpe/Ms. Tigges, 8 actions for declaratory judgment / PKH (Az 2b o

         71/08, 2b o 67/08, 2b o 77/08, 2b o 84/08,2b o 91/08, 2b o 142/08, 2b o 143/08, 2b o 170/08)

         and 4 official liability claims with PKH-Application (Az 2b o 129/08, 2b o 145/08, 2b o 154/08,

         2b o 172/08); so overall 12 lawsuits / PKH;

        The OLG-Düsseldorf (11th and 18th Senate) is silent about the above PKH for declaratory actions !!

                                                         

                                                               annotation

 

        Although the BGH demands in its constant jurisprudence to file a declaratory judgment are

        enough to inhibit the statute of limitations, Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll & controlled girls, as well

        as the OLG, ignore the BGH case law and thus do the instruction their sponsors from politics.

        Also the declaratory action Az 2b o 71/08 in addition to the declaratory action 2b o 194/07

           caused further crimes by the driver of the judiciary and planning and execution

          of the plaintiff's murder on Apr 18, 2008 on the A5 motorway, south of Karlsruhe.

       The guards are silent about the violations of the law later, than the cases coming at the BVerfG

        regarding the judge colleagues from Düsseldorf ; The fish stinks.

B25. In addition, Stockschlaeder-Nöll had pushed away out of the process with lies two advocates

       (Borgelt/Goumagias)

       So it was their main concern the advocates too chase them away, so that they could fight the

       plaintiff - fighting alone-, better / easier after their new coup Plan could turn off.

       Their lies indicated but those responsible remain silent.

        The fish stinks. BVerfG and the public prosecutor's office, are you reading these reports?

B26. Engelkamp-Neeser and Stockschlaeder-Nöll are trying on July 24, 2008, August 8, 2008,

         April 29/30. Sept. 2008 by means of secret applications (contrary to the EuGVVO Art. 1

       and EGBGB Art. 7) and by means of emails, to put pressure on the judge Seelmann of the

       AG-ESSEN and to do so, move the plaintiff to turn it off, as partially (!?) incapable of trial.

       They ask Seelmann to appoint a supervisor without the consent of the plaintiff.

       The plaintiff is not afraid to name the offenses committed by the 2 judges.

       So there is no Boundaries in crime of women;

       the above mentioned women they don´t want apply the Law of EuGVVO and EGBGB on

         political instruction.

                                                    annotation

      Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll was the judge who abolished the "Evidence Decision of

      November 28, 2000 by Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Schumacher ", with reference to the Greek ZPO

     and BGB; it was therefore informed that for the Greek plaintiff EuGVVO Art. 1 and EGBGB Article 7

       apply; it should therefore not circumvent the legally prescribed procedure.

      With Emails to AG-Essen judge Seelmann, she tried to enforce her criminal act.

      I.e. In July-Sept. 2008 serious crimes in office (§ 331 StGB) and legal penalty committed.

     Crimes reported several times but no response from those responsible

     Prosecutor / General Prosecutor / OLG judge / BGH judge / BVerfG judge;

     The common thread is visible! The fish stinks from all sides. The directed authorities stink.

B27. After the uncovered plot by the LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-

         Neeser, initiated at AG-Essen, made a rejection request on December 16, 2008

        the above Women for bias and exclusion request for serious crimes.

                                             2009 (from here continuation part 2)

B28. On January 7, 2009, the accused submitted "official statements", with almost identical

         ones Content. The two women have discussed the content or, for safety reasons, none

         Dissonance pushes outward, one copied from the other: dictatorship of fear

 Proof: Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll's official statement of January 7, 2009 on Az 2b o 271/01

 Proof: Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser's official statement of January 7, 2009 on Az 2b o 271/01

 

B29. The plaintiff does not give up (sheet no. 635) and on January 16. 2009 declares that the legal

        complaints according to § 574 ZPO on OLG Az 11 W 26/08 is permitted because (according to

       BVerfG) questions of the PKH-Proceedings concerned LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01; the "alleged

       legal errors of the 11th Senate" in the above Decision of December 19, 2008 (Mr. Bünten /Mr

       Mielke/Mr Busch) are reprimanded: The legal complaint is well founded, the request for

       forwarding to the right complaint court (BGH) is justified, and is repeated here:

         the request for the cancellation of the OLG decision of 19.12.2008 and on waiver of costs.

         The last one has never been decided.

B30. On February 24, 2009, the OLG decision on 11 W 26/08 signed Mr. Bünten /Mr Mielke /Mr

         Busch; (GA Bl. No. 643) and gives in.

       "The applicant's appeal against the Senate decision of June 30, 2009, filed on July 8, 2009, will not

         be remedied. The files will be submitted to the BGH for decision § 574 ZPO ".

                                                                       annotation

           The word in brackets (allegedly) is supplemented by the plaintiff; It is again noticeable that

           the OLG has ordered the result to the BGH. Typical for the privileged.

 

B31. Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll hastily organizes the next trial fraud; she switches on illegal body

         (§ 75 GVG, Art. 101 GG) with three "girls" (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt/Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann),

       whereby Ms. Tigges is not a chairwoman, and Ms. Dr. Hoffmann as a member of the 2b chamber

       and according to GVP should not participate; (see EGMR 42095/98 Daktaras % LTU). The parties

       do not recognize the legal limits. The laws are said to apply only for ordinary citizens, not for the

       judges of the 2b civil chamber of LG-Düsseldorf;

       The pattern of process fraud is exactly the same as on January 17, 2008 and bears the

       unmistakable signature of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll. The fish stinks

    Dear reader: What do you think? do I have to do with LG-JUSTIZ or with criminals?

     (see article about "the triumvirate Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann"

       under regional court)

B32. On March 23/24, 2009, the illegally formed triumvirate (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr.

        Hoffmann) with 14 resolutions reject the application for bias against the two women as

        unfounded.

       The souffleur (French word = prompter, whisperer, i.e. Stockschlaeder-Nöll) dictates the result

       and that "Mädel" (Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann, nickname "the dwarf") does it. The fish stinks.

                                                                  annotation

        So the LG decisions of the 2b Chamber, after abuse of official power and after

        Order of the chairmen; the "girls" have to obey when they get the job at the justice

        and they Want to keep it. The clear white colour is changed from the girls to the dark

        black Colour converted. "Girls Justice" at LG-Düsseldorf-2b civil chamber. The fish stinks!

B33. On March 24, 2009, the district court-ESSEN throws the secret requests of the LG-Düsseldorf

         back and rejects the appointment of a supervisor with reservation of consent ; the LG judges

       and the prompter (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) are now looking for new support.

        They order with non-remedial decisions (= NAB = instructions for blind) to the OLG-Düsseldorf

       the result of the immediate complaints to take out the plaintiff,

        (which - the OLG- implements in the complaints decisions with the following sentence:

          "due to the correct reasoning of the contested decision !!)       The fish stinks.

        Proof: AG-ESSEN decision of March 24, 2009 on Az 74 XVII Sa 261 signed winter lease;

                       "The appointment of a supervisor is rejected"

B34. On March 19, 2009, the BGH decision on Az III ZB 17/09 (11 W 26/08, LG Az 2b o 271/01)

         signed only by two (!?) judges Schlick / Herrmann, according to which the OLG judges (allegedly)

        are right have pointed out that (in lawsuit proceedings) advocate is mandatory.

                                                                         annotation

      The main topic is suppressed by the BGH (Schlick / Herrmann). The common thread is visible.

       That the immediate complaint was raised as part of the free PKH procedure

       the BGH judges avoided writing a syllable about it. ΠΑΛΙΑ ΜΑΣ ΤΕΧΝΗ ΚΟΣΚΙΝΟ.

B35. On September 23, 2009, the 11th Senate of the OLG-Düsseldorf (Mr. Bünten & Co) casts

        according to the LG orders all 14 immediate complaints against the 14 decisions of the criminal

        women’s Triumvirate of March 23/24, 2009 (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann) as

        unfounded and keep the complainant's costs up to the plaintiff.

       These costs were reflected in 2015, but will burden the plaintiff (in 2019).

       Mr. Bünten is "transferred" as president to the Duisburg district court and today enjoys a lavish

       pension. The criminals at FA-Mettmann-Düsseldorf have good company. The fish stinks.

                                                                    annotation

         The 11th Senate of the OLG (Mr. Bünten & Co) does not disclose that the LG committee

         was illegally formed and massively violated the plaintiff's Basic Law (GG).

         So that the plaintiff does not succeed in challenging the OLG resolutions of September 23, 2009,

         these are delivered in three packages at the same time one after the other.

           (criminal planning !?)

         It is obvious that the 11th Senate has speculated on the Damocles sword of the legal period

         of time for 14 days. So only illegal resolutions on the part of the 7 conspirators of the OLG

         11th Senate to create fait accompli against the plaintiff. The fish stinks.

                                                          

          Who enforced the reform of the law and the legal DEADLINE for complaints to only 2 weeks,

          and the statute of limitations reduced from 30 to three (3) years if not the Lobby of privileged

         judges ? (So ​​that they have less work!)

B36. Nevertheless, the plaintiff manages to meet the legal deadline on October 7, 2009 and

         October 9, 2009 to contest the OLG resolutions of the 11th Senate of September 23, 2009

         with hearings, and also to put an application for bias against Mr Bünten.

B37. On October 12, 2009 a LG decision on 2b o 143/08 signed Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Ms. Dr.

        Hoffmann / Ms. Dr. Schims, again according to the pattern of process fraud as on

        April 4, 2003, May 11, 2005, January 17, 2008 and as on March 23/24, 2009 (violations of

       law against § 75 GVG and against Art. 101 GG and against GVP); Ms. Schims added the

       legally protected title the "LG judge", although she is only an intern (= judge on trial).

       Who encouraged the "Mädel = Ms. Schims" to abuse the legally protected title?

       and in addition the Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser urged to play the role of the presiding judge?

       Such 2b-chamber internal actions are typical of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll. The fish stinks.

B38. On October 14, 2009, Ms. Twardon (as a cost officer) also remembered an order

         to write Az 2b o 271/01 and thereby confirms that the plaintiff has payed € 22.200,-

         but the amount in dispute is € 2.747.843,63 (= DM 5.374.315,-); in that respect they

         would be Court fees not paid in full.

                                                                annotation

                 The above LG notice again proves the allegations against the LG judges;

                 The court fees for Az 2b o 271/01 are paid in full but they block

                 the delivery of the lawsuit. The BGH is silent about this; The fish stinks.

       The Habich trial fraud on August 29, 2007 is still current two years later (Oct. 2009).

       And such officials (Mr Habich and Ms. Twardon) receive salary to make mistakes?

       instead of removing them from service? What does the employer say? Just insignificant mistakes?

          (See article "Surplus Yes, No, Jain, Yes, under LG). The fish stinks.

B39. In October 2009, the plaintiff must file 5 immediate complaints against LG decisions

         made by the rejected LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Engelkamp-Neeser

                                                                  annotation

        At the beginning of November 2009, the 2b civil chamber left Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser,

         bullied and sick

                                       Who made the "girl" sick? if not Stockschlaeder-Nöll?

B40. The rejected Mr. Bünten will provide a "official statement" on December 7th, 2009

        with same content to 14 processes, and he writes:

      "The procedure follows from the files. The accusation of legal diffraction raised is lacking

        any basis. I am not aware of any complaint against me ”

   He meant (Bünten) the Az 2b o 154/08 from July 2008 in which his offenses are reprimanded.

   The eloquent offender is now playing dementia sufferers !! and does not remember !! that

    he made a decision a few days ago on September 23, 2009 signed on LG-Az 2 o 154/08 !!

B41. The OLG requires the 14 letters with the official letter delivered on 14.12.2009

         Statement "within a week !!!" to comment.

                                                                 annotation

     For an opinion (of 2 lines) from Mr. Bunten, the plaintiff had must wait over a month

     and the plaintiff had to deal with the comments in 14 processes within a week

     as if he had a typing office with several typists !!!. The fish stinks.

     JUSTICE? or REVANCE of the eloquent offender? or declaration of war by the 11th Senate?

B42. On December 19, 2009, a LG decision on Az 2b o 203/09 is again based on the model of

        Trial fraud on January 7, 2008; March 23/24, 2009; October 12, 2009 by an unlawful party

        tinkered panel with LG judges Ms. Pietroschinsky / Ms. Henkefend) / Mr. Noltze

       (Ms. Henkefend is only a judge, she has no LG qualification, she abuses that by law

       protected title); also legal violations of § 75 GVG, Art. 101 GG, GVP) and the

        Plaintiff must defend himself alongside all other obligations.

                                                                         

                                                                 Annotation:

     The fraud is again organized by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll; She drives Fr.

     Pietroschinsky to play the role of the presiding judge and the girl Henkefend

    misuse the LG judge's protected title. The OLG -11. Senate is silent about it.

                                                                    2010

B43. On January 5, 2010, the signatories to the 14 resolutions of September 23, 2009 are

         due Prejudice (because of the smell of fish) rejected.

        Thus, the members of the 11th Senate understand that the plaintiff's declaration of war

        has accepted and cannot be bent.

          (see also "The phantom of the OLG victims called Wermeckes", or the article

            "Like the Lord, so the G'scher" or the "Challenge to the Putschists"

              can be found in the "OLG-Düsseldorf" section on this homepage).

B44. At the OLG-11. Senate in 2010, were formed 3 groups of judges in accordance with the coup,

         to eliminate plaintiff (non-lawyer) with administrative tricks and by circumventing the law:

        The first group with the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes (and Ms. Grabensee /Mr Dahm) issues

        14 resolutions on February 16, 2010, and relieves the accusation of bias of the colleagues

        Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /Mr Müller etc. allegedly unfounded allegations! The OLG fish stinks.

       The above the first 14 resolutions will be served on February 23, 2010. See picture proof

B45. On February 18, 2010 the 2nd group with the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Jungclaus (and

         Wermeckes /Müller or Ms. Baan) relieved the accusation of bias for Mr. Bünten

          Also this time: allegations allegedly unfounded. The OLG fish stinks very strongly.

        The 14 resolutions of Ms. Jungclaus were served on February 25, 2010; see "picture proof"

B46. On February 22nd 2010 the 3rd group with the theatrically relieved Mr. Bünten is active and

           throws the hearing complaints against his decisions from 23.9.2009 back, as unfounded.

                                                                  annotation

       All of the above 3 * 14 = 42 OLG resolutions of the Putsch Club of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate

       "delivered within a week" to the Plaintiff and these must be challenged within 14 days.

       The plaintiff names the putsch plan in clear words and accuses those involved OLG judge

       for crimes in the sense of § 331 StGB or § 339 StGB. The hearings are also issued

       within 14 days on time. The smell of the fish is unbearable.

      (See copy of 42 OLG envelopes delivered on February 23, 2010, February 25, 2010

         and February 27, 2010)

         The theater at the OLG-Düsseldorf 11th Senate starts again on March 30th, 2010 and ff

B47. The first group with the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes (and Ms. Grabensee /Mr Dahm) issues

         in one day (30.3.2010) 14 decisions, and throws back the complaints about formal errors.

                                                                     annotation

       The committee apparently is well informed about formal errors, but about § 122 GVG, about GVP,

       101 GG, § 331 StGB, the above Offenders know nothing. The fish stinks.

B48. On March 31, 2010 the 2nd group with the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Junglaus (and Wurmeckes /

         Müller or Ms. Baan), and raises the hearings against the decisions of February 18, 2010

        "due to lack of substantiation".

                                                                            annotation

       The 2nd group had "substantiated theatrically" relieved the charge

         of bias of the Mr. Bünten. Is the "SUBSTANTIATION" a trick ?? The fish stinks

        (See copy of the OLG envelopes with the decisions of Mrs. Jungclaus on 7.4.2010

          delivered, can be found at the end of this report)

B49. On May 12, 2010 the "theatrically" exonerated Mr. Bünten also commits his thanks

        to express those involved in the putsch plan and elect them as co-signers of the

        Decisions rejecting counter-notifications (So: 7 times Ms. Jungclaus; 6 times Fr.

        Baan and Mr. G. Müller; 3 times the phantom of the OLG opera called Wermeckes.

        The case would allegedly be settled for the offenders, if the plaintiff's blows were carefree

        would have accepted. The fish's stinky head can only come up with stinky plans.

      See photo of the 14 envelopes of the resolutions of the putsch group N. 3 with Mr. Bünten,

     which delivered on May 21, 2010 (at the end of this article)

B50. Well, it is raining (literally) on the plaintiff's constitutional complaints, which the

       Constitutional judges surprise; The negative BVerfG decisions come in a few weeks,

       but the warning of the BVerfG judges to the LG / OLG-Düsseldorf the processes

      to speed up, the criminals do not want to understand.

     

                                                                    annotation

      The 3 OLG groups of offenders claim the judge privilege for themselves and incriminate

      the plaintiff with 6 * 14 = 84 decisions and all would have to be within 14 days (legal period !!)

      be challenged. The OLG criminals underestimated the plaintiff because of the challenges

      and the BVerfG complaints were made on time. The smelly fish is fed up.

B51. On June 25, 2010, a PKH rejection decision on 2b o 154/08 signed Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Fr.

        Pietroschinsky / Ms. Henkefend (intern) and on July 19, 2010 a LG decision. to Az 2b o

        121/10 signed Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Prote / Ms. Weitzel (intern);

                                                                    annotation

         Both of the above Resolutions are again based on the fraud pattern of January 7, 2008,

         March 23/24, 2009; Oct. 12, 2009; Dec. 19, 2009, from an illegally formed (and on the part

       of Stockschlaeder-Nöll tinkered) body, without the presiding judge (violations of § 75 GVG,

       Art. 101 GG, GVP) because Ms. Dr. Hoffmann is not a chairwoman and as a member of the 2b

         chamber may Do not participate accordingly to GVP: The controlled girls do not recognize any

         legal limit. The fish is rotten and smelly.

B52. On July 12, 2010 the rejected judge and still excluded Stockschlaeder-Nöll

         with the "girls" Ms. Dr. Hoffmann and Ms. Weitzel (another intern, Commissioned with the

        duty to reject the PKH application!), The PKH application from December 9, 2009 to Az 2b o

         271/01 is rejected as unfounded. Interesting is the statement made by the offender in

         Page 2 of the LG decision:

      "For a decision on the illegality of tax assessments, civil jurisdiction is not responsible:

                                                                annotation

     So, for the first time since February 2003, the LG-2b Civil Chamber made clear its negative or

     blocking stance that the civil court has no jurisdiction (!!!) competence.

       The body avoids, contrary to the binding case law of the BGH a decision on the unlawfulness

       of the bank seizures to make lying tax assessments.

       The plaintiff had previously on the article of the judge Stuttmann in NJW 2003, Vol. 20, p. 1432

       pointed out. The 2b chamber ignores the information. The utterance is also a testimony

       of one Ignorance of the LG judges regarding higher case law. The fish stinks.

       The plaintiff is does not convinced by the above LG testimony, and lodges an immediate complaint.

B53. On 8 August 2010, the plaintiff filed an application for a review of case 2b o 271/01 with regard

        to the amount in dispute and payment of the court fee instalments and applies for a fixed cost

        settlement decision within 4 weeks. (GA sheet no.813)

B54. On August 13, 2010 the decision to settle the value in dispute for Az 2b o 271/01 was signed.

      Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Keiser / Ms. Weitzel; Disputed amount (since Aug 14, 2004:

     €1.788.180.46  Compensation + € 50.000,- in pain compensation; Total: € 1.838.180,46,

       GA sheet no.814

B55. The panicked 2b chamber, on the finding that court fees for the agreed amount in dispute

         has been paid since Dec. 2006, prompted the Application of February 5, 2001 and the revised        

         claims of August 13, 2004 on Az 2b o to be sent to the defendant Land (NRW) on 271/01:

       Mind you: no decision has been taken !!

 

                                                                 annotation

 

  This means that the limitation period for claims for damages has been since the filing of the lawsuit

  on February 5, 2001 (BGB a.F. and BGB n.F.) have been interrupted.

  

                                         Start (Aug. 2010) of the new coup plan

                               to declare the claims for compensation as barred.

B56. From the month of August 2010, the ugly work for the LG judge Stockschlaeder-Nöll begins

        and the OLG judge (Malsch) to look for reasons (in BGB and in the files) to the Claimant's

        claims for damages to be declared time-barred. Both are overworked and that Search work

        takes a lot of time. What to do? The smelly fish cannot think of the consequences.

      The Stockschlaeder-Nöll, which is weak in the statute of limitations of the BGB and in the ZPO,

     applies for and receives for this purpose (on the part of the head of the judiciary) first Ms. Brecht,

      then Ms. Jürging and finally Ms Freitag (all Drs = with Dr. title) and all three busy with the task of

      arguments to be found in the German Civil Code and in the files to declare the claimant's claims as

     statute-barred

     (See resolutions of November 26, 2012 and of May 28, 2014, as well as a decision not to remedy

     the situation of July 7, 2014).

B57. On September 21, 2010 renewed rejection application against Stockschlaeder-Nöll for Az 2b o

         271/01, which organized and controlled the above fraude on September 18, 2007

         (Ms. Strupp-Müller /Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle)

         The application for rejection was not decided until March 19, 2011.

         This means that Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll held the oral hearing on Az 2b o 271/01 may not lead.

     The violation of the law indicated, but OLG / BGH remain silent about that.

         The smelly fish has "metastases"!

B58. On October 7, 2010, the advocate Minnerop, as an assistant to the defendant country, replied

        to the complaint and recommends that the judges "reject the plaintiff's claims as barred":

        The "Minster type" revealed the lawyer Minnerop on September 4, 2015 when he quite openly

       recommends "Decision" of the action 2b o 271/01. (see 2015) (GA Bl.No. 1853).

         The smelly fish also infected others !.

B59. On October 10, 2010, a criminal complaint was filed to the D'dorf public prosecutor's office

         handed over on October 19, 2010, Az 40 Js 7240/10 against 13 offenders: Ms. Tannert / Ms.

         Wolks-Falter / Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms.

         Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle /Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Mr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus /Mr Hans-Georg

         Müller /Mr Malsch /Mr Haarmann

B60. The hunters of crime have apparently been instructed to file a complaint no further pursuit;

        On November 5, 2010 a decision of the public prosecutor D'dorf is issued

       Az 40 Js 7240/10 signed Ms. Alexander; she writes the following about the smelly fish:

 

      "In the absence of any initial suspicion of criminal behaviour in the presence of anything

       Prosecutorial intervention is linked, I must therefore reject the investigation against the judiciary

       you have accused "

        "No initial suspicion !!!" and the lady got the lawsuit off the table. Officials and

         the dependence on political decisions. The smell of fish is unbearable

                                                                              --------------------------------------------

B61. The plaintiff turns in the Genaral public prosecutor-Düsseldorf with timely complaint from

        14.11.2010; a negative decision will also come from there on February 15, 2011 signed

       Caspers, (OberStaatsAnwalt);

        he writes to Az 4 Zs 2386/10 ( on name of General Attorney Düsseldorf):

 

       "After examining the facts, I see no reason to start an investigation to arrange. The resolution of

         the public prosecutor D'dorf (Az 40 Js 7240/10) corresponds to the Factual and legal situation.

       The complaint dismissed as unfounded. "Legal information attached.

        Only advocate can file a complaint with the OLG-Düsseldorf within 1 month;

           Fish stink everywhere

B62. Thus, on March 12, 2011, the court of appeal, criminal senate of the OLG-Düsseldorf, received

        a PKH application for a lawsuit enforcement proceedings according to § 172 StPO, Az I- Ws 80/11

       for crimes committed by the accused LG / OLG judge. (see continuation in 2011)

                                                           ------------------------------------------

B63. On October 23, 2010 the plaintiff filed an application for bias against Wermeckes/Ms. Jungclaus/

        Müller / Ms. Baan for 7 Az (11 W 61/10 (2b o 145/08), 11 W 55/10 (LG 2b o 203/08), 11 W 77/10

     (LG 2b o 129/09), 11 W 79/10, 11 W 81/10 (LG 2b o 170/08), 11 W 82/10 (LG 2b o 143/08), 11 W

     83/10 (LG 2b o 172/08) due to legal injuries in 29 cases within the meaning of § 339 StGB

B64. On Nov. 8, 2010 the plaintiff filed a complaint to the city of Essen public prosecutor,

       "Criminal charges against Unknown "because of the break-ins of unknown people in his

        apartment and theft of data from the PC etc.

       (The plaintiff had not used an Internet connection at the time)

B65. On December 25, 2010, the plaintiff submitted a new AHK / PKH against NRW (LG-Az 2b o 6/11),

       because Legal violations in 85 cases (in the Az 11 W 36/09 to 11 W 59/09 from 23.9.2009 to

      12.5.2010 carried out by OLG judge Mr. Bünten /Mr Mielke / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /Mr Müller

     / Mr Wermeckes

B66. The Parliament of NRW (= LT = Landtag) will also be informed on December 28, 2010 about the

         events at the LG / OLG-Düsseldorf with about 600 sheets of documentation about the smell of

         fish.

                                                                  annotation

The OLG judges of the criminal senate shake their heads for the rough methods of the judge colleagues

of the civil senates, but have no interest in condemning the OLG judge colleagues and staining the name

of the OLG-D'dorf.

A conviction of OLG judge colleagues ?? !! that would be unique in the history of the FRG !!;

As an excuse, they find that the application was not made by an authorized advocate. (see 2012)

The state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia must not interfere!

 

  1.                                                                  2011

         Dominate in 2011:

>the plaintiff's attempt to enforce a penal proceeding against the LG / OLG-Düsseldorf judges;

> the complaints to the BGH-2. Criminal senate;

> the applicant's correspondence with the LT-NRW Petitions Committee regarding the events

       at the 11th Senate;

> the processing of LG-Az 2b o 268/01;

> the complaints to the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg / France = EGMR),

> the disputes with those still remaining at the 11th Senate Criminals (Ms. Jungclaus, Ms. Baan,

  1. Müller, Wermeckes;

>the main culprit is Mr. Bünten was "relocated" to LG-Duisburg in summer 2010 with a transport); Etc.

C1. On January 12, 2011, the negotiation date will be January 19, 2011 to March 16, 2011

     misplaced by the alleged sole judge Ms. Keiser. The LG gives as a reason: The files are still

     at the OLG !!! Why single judge? Why no decision? the plaintiff wonders and asks

     also the advocate (= RA) . The RA recommends not to touch the stinking fish.

C2. The plaintiff stated in a letter from 9.3.2011 "Legal concerns" regarding Az 2b o 271/01

   regarding the composition of the committee is scheduled for 16.3.11 with judges, who

     because of Prejudice ruled out and difficult with legal liability actions for legal defrauds

    are burdened (GA, Bl. 977). The letter of March 9, 2011 remains ineffective in the files.

C3. On March 11, 2011, the Medical Dr. L. describes into 7 dense sheet an expert opinion in

       the trauma recorded by the plaintiff, and the commissioned RA provided an application for

       postponement by one month so that he has the time with the doctor speak;

       the RA application is ignored and not answered. The fish stinks tremendously.

C4. The hearing will take place on March 16, 2011, without the applicant RA; it happens

      the 1st default judgment (VU) signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Keiser.

      Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Hoffmann should be on March 16, 2011 due to the bias

       application from 21.9.2010 do not participate. Both women don't care about the laws

      Stockschlaeder-Nöll, inexperienced in ZPO, dictates (full of deficiencies)

           the default judgment (VU):

    "The action 2b o 271/01 is dismissed; the costs are borne by the plaintiff; the judgment is

    preliminary enforceable ". The smelly fish spreads its stench even in illegal judgments

 C5. On the same day there is also a VU to Az 2b o 268/01 with the same above, content

C6. The VU of March 16, 2011 are sent to the RA and he collects (hand rubbing) on ​​April 15, 2011

     timely appeals. He has won the time he needed; but hostility (Stench of the rotten fish) of the LG

   judges displeases him and makes him rethink.

C7. April 8th. In 2011 the plaintiff wrote to Az 2b o 271/01 that the "hearing on

      16.3.2011 "and the" default judgment of 16.3.2011 are illegal ", but the letter

      remains without effects and forgotten in the files.

                               Half the truth of the OLG-D'dorf penalty senate, which is a whole lie;

      The deliberate lie of the representative Dr. Berard des General Attorney prosecutor of FRG- Karlsruhe

         The criminal prelude of the BGH-2er Strafsenat (Judge: Fischer / Berger / Krehl) - Karlsruhe

C8. Interested readers will find the OLG-rejecting decision from Apr. 5, 2011 signed

     Mr. Stüttgen / Ms. Hubrach /Mr Wißmann (the last, only AG-judge !!) to Az III-1 Ws 80/11

   over the Application for enforcement proceedings, including on the PKH application made on

     March 19, 2011, the plaintiff contested on April 16, 2011 with an immediate complaint,

     and this finally to the BGH lands.

    Proof: OLG-Düsseldorf, negative decision of April 5, 2011 for Az III- 1 Ws 80/11

                (Enforcement proceedings) signed Stüttgen / Ms. Hubrach / Wißmann (AG judge !!)

                                                                  Note 1

            None of the signatories to the above OLG-Düsseldorf decision is a presiding judge !!!;

            in this respect the decision is illegal because against § 122 GVG and Art. 101 GG offends.

            The fish is rotten and stinks.

            When asked to enter the official title below the names, there was no response

           So, conditions at the OLG-1. Penal senate, like the LG-Düsseldorf 2b civil chamber !!! JUSTICE ??

                                                             Note 2

In page 2 of the contested OLG decision of 5.4.2011 on Az I-1 Ws 80/11 signed Stüttgen / Ms. Hubrach / Wißmann

will also explain the reasons for rejecting the PKH application decision of the BVerfG named, and that the ASt

would not have met these (BVerfG) conditions.

The reader will be amazed that the PKH application is over 149 pages long, contains 279 evidence,

and the last concerns the explanation of personal and economic circumstances. Total of sheets 682. Because

of its size, the PKH application made on March 19, 2011 did not appear in the documents; Can be forwarded

on request. And the detailed justification of every offense committed by the accused is allegedly not enough.

In addition, the OLG-1.criminal senate must first (separately!) decide on the PKH application

and then the plaintiff give time to find out if he could find an attorney for the lawsuit. None of that.

C9. The State Representative, Dr. Berard, of the "General attorney prosecutor of FRG" recommends

       on May 2nd, 2011 to the BGH-Az 2 AR 99/11 and 2 ARs 140/11 the complaint against OLG-

      Düsseldorf decision on Az 1 Ws 80/11 of 5.4.2011 to be rejected as inadmissible; he writes

     (see evidence)

     "According to § 304 para. 4, sentence 2, half sentence 1 StPO is a complaint against decisions and

      In principle, orders of the OLG are not permitted.

   One of the second sentence of section 304 (4) sentence 2 Exceptional cases named StPO does not

     exist "(underlining of the plaintiff)

Proof: Statement of 2.5.2011 from the representative Dr. Berard

                       of General attorney prosecutor of FRG

                                                               annotation

The reader will be surprised if he opens a book of the StPO on § 304 (IV) or calls up § 304 StPO on

the Internet; it expressly states that the complaint against OLG decisions or orders is admissible, in particular if

the OLG is competent in the first instance, and the decisions refuse to open the main proceedings. Dr.??? Berard

of the General attorney of FRG rigorously claims the opposite !!.

Does he even know the laws? and the Dr. Title bought him ?. Attached is the text of § 304 (IV) StPO.

The thick fish stinks particularly badly.

  •                                                       § 304 (IV) StPO (text):  

   "No appeal is admissible against decisions and orders of the Federal Court of Justice. The same

    applies for decisions and orders of the higher regional courts; in matters in which the higher regional

    courts in first instance, the complaint is admissible, against decisions and orders,

       Which

  1. the arrest, temporary placement, observation, seizure or Search.
  2. refuse to open the main proceedings or the proceedings because of an obstacle to the

        proceedings hire (underlining of the plaintiff)

        Has the plaintiff misinterpreted § 304, IV, 2 StPO? or has the representative of General attorney

       prosecutor of FRG lied? if yes, for what reason? If the task of the General attorney prosecutor of

       FRG is also to lie, when it comes to avoiding stains to the judiciary (due to judicial defenses)?

C10. On May 19, 2011 the plaintiff replied to BGH on Az 2 Ars 140/11 that the complaint against

         OLG-Düsseldorf decision of Apr 5, 2011 to Az III-1 Ws 80/11 signed Stüttgen/Hubrach/Wißmann

         contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General of May 2, 2011 signed Dr. Berard, after

  • § 304 IV 2 StPO is admissible. But the complaint is ignored. The thick fish stinks strongly.

         NB .: ΣΤΟΥ ΚΟΥΦΟΥ ΤΗΝ ΠΟΡΤΑ ΟΣΟ ΘΕΛΕΙΣ ΒΡΟΝΤΑ, ΔΕΝ ΘΑ ΣΕ ΑΚΟΥΣΕΙ.

C11. The reader will be surprised that the 2nd criminal division of the BGH on May 25, 2011 by

         resolution to Az 2 ARs 140/11 u. 2 AR 99/11 signed Fischer / Berger / Krehl the complaint

         with the following Reason rejects.

       "After hearing the Attorney General and the Bf on May 25, 2011, the 2nd Senate decided:

        The ASt's complaint against the decision of the OLG-Düsseldorf of 5.4.2011 Az III-1 Ws 80 / 11-

        will be rejected as inadmissible at his own expense because this decision does not include the

                        complaint can be challenged (section 304 (4) sentence 2 StPO).

    Proof: BGH decision Az 2 ARs140 / 11 (2 AR 99/11) from May 25, 2011

                 signed: Fischer / Berger / Krehl

 

                                                       annotation

The comparison of the BGH decision 25.5.2011 and the legal text reveals the trick of the BGH judges; they relate

to the first half sentence of § 304 IV 2 StPO and deliberately suppress the second half sentence, which expressly

declares the complaint admissible if an application to open the enforcement proceedings is rejected.

The common thread is visible in all instances. So the privileged defend their privileges.

  

One wonders: are only the BGH judges of the 2nd criminal senate corrupt? if so, by whom?

The citizen has to live with half the truth of the BGH-2nd Penal Senate, which is a complete lie.

Whether the BGH decision from May 25, 2011 also a mental torture of the undocumented plaintiff

 i.S.d. EGMR is, shall the BVerfG may employ. But no decision comes from there !!

C12. On the same day, May 19, 2011, a negative decision of the BGH-III Senate is also passed

         to Az III ZA 10/11 regarding OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 W 70/10, decision April 18, 2011;

           the BGH writes

      "The PKH application for legal complaint procedures is rejected because the intended Law

       enforcement offers no prospect of success. The intended legal appeal of the As against the

       OLG decision is inadmissible because it is incontestable (section 321a (4) sentence 4 ZPO).

 

                                                                 annotation

      The second signatory (Mr. Herrmann) of this BGH decision 19.5.2011 Az III ZA 10/11 (who in

      Years 2002 failed to become a BGH judge and only with political support promoted to BGH

     on the second attempt) is also the first signatory of the BGH-rejecting Decision of May 25, 2018

     (without justification !!) and of July 26, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17 advanced.

      Was the negative decision on BGH-Az III ZR 332/17 of May 25, 2018 a late a word of thanks

      from the man to his former political sponsors? The fish stinks on the head.

C13. On June 14, 2011 the plaintiff filed a new PKH application for Az 2b o 271/01 and documented it

        him and others with the opinion of the Medical Dr. Lutz from March 11, 2011; Immediately after

       the arrival of the PKH application to the LG-Düsseldorf, the report "disappears" from the

       documentation and Stockschlaeder-Nöll accuses the plaintiff of not having added the expert

       opinion !!   The fish stinks tremendously.

 

C14. On June 15, 2011, a pension advisor created a pension calculation and determined the statutory

         plaintiff 's pension if the FA takes its enforcement measures (bank seizures) etc would not have

        executed. This pension calculation was also sent to the 2b chamber immediately not found later

        in the files. Wrong stapling? or disappeared? no reaction.

C15. On July 5, 2011 the decree for Az 2b o 268/01 will be issued;

       "Trial date set for Wednesday, October 5, 2011; 11:00 a.m.".

C16. The new trick of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is a "harmless" question to the plaintiff about Az

        2b o 268/01 with the creation date September 19, 2011, but on September 29. in 2011

         Sent by post! and the plaintiff only receives 4 days before the date 5.10.2011 to declare:

      "what is the relationship between the claims in the application of November 20, 2001, the

       Proposals dated 13.8.2004 and the claims in the PKH brief from 15-6-2011 ".

C17. The woman is obviously looking for an occasion to make the plaintiff even reject the

        indolence Accuse cooperation. Despite the shortage of 4 days, the plaintiff creates on

       1.10.2011 to send a declaration with 4 pages to the LG.

C18. On September 29, 2011 the plaintiff is surprised; the date 5.10.2011 for Az 2b o 271/01

          cancelled ; Reason: The files are still with the OLG.

C19. The application according to § 121 ZPO will be faxed to LG-2b o 268/01 on October 4, 2011;

        the court should order an Lawyer for the plaintiff, because after resignation of RA Weidemann and

      because of the for a short time no requested RA wanted to take over the case; but there are 3 RAe,

       which follow Granting appropriate time for familiarization and processing, the case would be ready

       Check prospect of success and then decide;

      Called the RAe: 1: Klöpper in Oberhausen; 2: Griebs in Düsseldorf; Lasaroff in Essen. The chamber

      will be discussed and next week the decisions on the PKH application from 15.6.2011 issued

C20. On the day of the hearing on October 5, 2011 for Az 2b o 268/01 at 09:30 a.m. (and before the

       start the trial) the plaintiff will hand over to the office of the 2b chamber on 4.10.2011

       faxed request; according to § 121 ZPO the chamber should determine an RA from three willing

       RAs.

              

C21. The result of the negotiation on Az 2b o 268/01 of October 5, 2011 comes with decision v.

        12.10.2011 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Dr. Brecht:

       Ms. Brecht appears for the first time; she is still an intern (= judge on trial) anyway

        she signs as "LG judge". Misuse of the legally protected title !!

        The smell of fish is unbearable.

 

      "The PKH application from 15-6-2011 regarding lost profit from the Apostolopouloi Brothers, AVT,

      loss of profit due to collection of tax not owed 1986-1991, compensation for pain and suffering

      is rejected. The intended legal action does not offer a sufficient prospect

      for success. Because of the facts, LG decision. v. 4.4.2003. The ace is also after

      the Chamber's last notification of September 19, 2011 was unsuccessful, sufficient

     Relationship between the pending lawsuits of August 13, 2004 and the PKH Request ".

       The assumption has come true: the words "unsuccessful" reveal the purpose the question

       is dated September 19, 2011 or the well-known intriguing nature of Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

      and the reference to LG decision of 4.4.2003 is very clear; The fish stinks particularly.

C22. Ms. Hubrach is appointed judge of the Court of appeal criminal senate and she passes on

         November 2, 2011 a decision signed by Stüttgen and Mr. Börsch (LG judge !!); with the following

         Content:

       "The application of Dr. Theodor Sartoros from Essen on the sending of the in the procedure

       III-1 Ws 80/11, and 124/11, and 228/11 issued statements by the Attorney General

         D'dorf community is rejected "

                                                                 annotation

    So she acknowledges that the plaintiff's comments are not forwarded to the prosecutor

    and that the Senate on April 5, 2011 submitted the application to open the enforcement

     proceedings rejected as inadmissible in accordance with section 172 (2) sentence 1 StPO.

     But what does § 172 StPO prescribe? The fish stinks.

                                                                 Section 172 StPO (text)

  1. If the applicant is at the same time the injured party, he is against the decision pursuant to Section

   171 within two Weeks after the announcement, the complaint to the superior public prosecutor

  1. The deadline is met by filing the complaint with the public prosecutor. It doesn't run

    if the instruction according to § 171 has been omitted.

  1. Against the negative decision of the superior official of the public prosecutor's office, the application

    apply for a court decision within one month of the announcement. About this

    are to be instructed about the intended form; the time limit does not run when the instruction

    has been omitted. The application is not allowed if the procedure is only a criminal offense

    Object that can be prosecuted by the injured person by private action, or the state

    Attorney-at-law in accordance with section 153 (1), section 153a (1) sentence 1, or section 153b (1)

   of prosecution apart from; the same applies in the cases of sections 153c to 154 (1) and sections

     154b and 154c.

III. The application for a judicial decision must be the facts that make the public action

    should justify and state the evidence. It must be signed by an RA; for the

    Legal aid is subject to the same rules as in civil litigation. The application is

   submitted to the court responsible for the decision. (Applicant's underline)

In the decision of April 5, 2011, the OLG judges apparently only mentioned the first half of Section 172,

Paragraph III, Sentence 2, which is separated from the second half by a semicolon. In the second half,

he determines that the rules apply to PKH that also apply to civil litigation.

The reference to the ZPO means that the PKH applications have to be decided first.

That makes sense if the plaintiff needs time to collect money to hire an RA who has to sign the application for

enforcement proceedings.

The OLG judges therefore deliberately violated the plaintiff's procedural rights. The common thread runs

through all instances.

The order dated November 23, 2011 of the LG wishes to the OLG regarding the content

of the OLG decision on the immediate complaint.

C23. With decision not to remedy (= instructions for the blind) dated 23 Nov. 2011 on Az 2b o 268/11

        Stockschlaeder-Nöll your wishes, such as the OLG result about the immediate complaint

        should look; she writes:.....;

 "As far as the plaintiff complains that the chamber is not properly staffed because of bias requests

     have not been decided, the most recent decision of the OLG Düsseldorf from 9.2.2011

     (sheet 1302 of files.)

   The plaintiff has not demonstrated that an application for partiality dated November 12, 2002 (on

   this Day, a hearing regarding PKH procedures took place at the court has been.

   According to the foiling, the file is complete ..... As far as the plaintiff asks for an opinion from his

   doctor Lutz dated March 11, 2011 indicates that this was not relevant the case when deciding on the

   application ".

          So the most important document (expert opinion of the doctor Lutz) has disappeared !!!

 She continues to write in the decision not to remedy on November 23, 2011

(after the contribution of Mrs. Brecht !!)

"Moreover, the statements made by psychiatrist L. do not confirm the plaintiff's claims.

In his "expert opinion" he explains that it is not possible for him to do so later

to assess an expert's psychological damage. As far as he is an "ongoing Personality change after extreme

stress "diagnosed, he bases this solely on the Information from the plaintiff that he believes to be credible.

On medical examinations, findings, etc he cannot fall back ".

                                                            annotation

The representative of the Düsseldorf public prosecutor's office also took over the request for the OLG in her opinion,

and both briefs outrage the expert on 8 January 2013

An additional report creates and confirms the plaintiff's identified traumas.

   

  1.                                                                2012

D1. The OLG-Düsseldorf confirmed on January 25th, 2012 to Az 18 W 71/10 (2b o 118/99) signed

       Mr Malsch /Mr Haarmann /Mr Weith an earlier LG order dated July 12, 2010 regarding the

       review of the Illegality of the tax assessments on which the bank attachments are based;

       The Senate writes (what it has ordered!) That:

   "The civil court is not responsible for determining the illegality of the tax assessment notice"

                                                                annotation

    The constant case law of the BGH (see Stuttmann in NJW 2003, Vol. 20, p. 1432) is therefore

    also ignored. The LG / OLG-Düsseldorf judges can write what they want; they don't have to

   fear as long as the plaintiff without financial means u. fighting alone.

   The common thread is visible

D2. The (RA =) plaintiff's legal representative (NL) submitted a comprehensive new application on

     July 12, 2012Az 2b o 271/01 and related to the above the plaintiff had PKH application made and

      the letter personally on July 16, 2012 applied for to estimate a minimum damage according to

  • § 287 ZPO.

 D3. On July 18, 2012, i.e. only 4 working days after receipt of the RA brief), the judge has

       (Ms. Brecht) called the commissioned RA and tried to convince him to refuse the further

       leadership of the process. It uses the usual plausible lies;

       It would allegedly not be a justified objection to the 1st default judgment (1st VU)

       received on March 16, 2011 on time: The procedure has no prospect of success, etc.

                                                                   annotation

     (Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll had successfully carried out similar experiments on Az 2b o 268/01

     and 4 commissioned lawyers (Borgelt / Goumagias / Klöpper / Weidemann) from the negotiation

     ousted / chased / kept away with friendly lies). Ms. Brecht had to demonstrate that she was also

   smart enough to achieve the same result with plausible lies.

     (See article about the "attempt by Ms. Brecht to convince the RA not to continue the mandate

          respectively"

D4. On July 26, 2012, the RA replied to Ms. Brecht that the court in the VU had no time limit

      Justified the objection raised to the RA (§ 339 ZPO), in so far as the Process 2b o 271/01 is

     continued. etc.

                                                                                                                                              

D5. The angry 2b civil chamber of the LG-Düsseldorf then gave the RA a monthly deadline

       to justify the objection to the 1st VU, which is an appendix to a value determination decision

         of 26.11.2012 was        (See document, note the hostile tone of the judges)

D6. On November 26th, 2012 the 2b Chamber throws (with 2 girls) signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll

    / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht back the PKH application dated July 16, 2012; but she admits that

   none was given the time to the RA to justify the objection; in page 2 is for the first time since

   Feb. 2001 claims that the claims on December 31, 2009 (i.e. prior to the 4 years - Jan. 2007-

   Sept. 2010 - deliberately blocked delivery of the lawsuit) would have been time-barred;

   in page 3 of the above LG's decision is asserted by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll (she was

   rejected since September 21, 2010 and should therefore not be able to sign the decision, § 47 ZPO),

   that "the estimate of a minimum damage is inadmissible; the ZPO sees such an application

    not before"

                                                                 annotation

Knocking on lies and saying the above, is used Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll. Section 287 ZPO enables the judges

to estimate a minimum damage. No judge is punished for lying! It is then interpreted by other colleagues in

the judge that incorrect application of the law is not punishable; The salaries go on regardless of whether the

judges lie. The fish stinks.

 

The 2b chamber has not disclosed how it relates to the above. Date 31.12.2009 has come, why the claims on December 31,

2009 would be time-barred; it was later determined by the plaintiff that the chamber had taken into account the processes

at the 4th Senate FG-Düsseldorf, which were run until December 15, 2006, and the FA-Mettmann on December 15, 2006

also a (tax) reimbursement accomplished.

     (See photocopy of the LG decision November 26, 2012, to be found under regional court)

                                                                       2013

         The following relevant events took place in 2013:

         > On January 8, 2013, the doctor Dr. L. a supplementary report (opinion on

             the falsification of his statements in the report dated March 11, 2011 on the part of Mrs.

             Strauch of GenStAnw Düsseldorf) valid for 7 Az: 2b o 146/12, 2b o 148/12, 2b o 149/12,

             2b o 151/12, 2b o 196/12, 2b o 271/01, 4 O 100/10. He also criticizes Ms. Brecht sharply

          > In January 2013, two complaints to the ECHR by Ms. Keller were rejected as inadmissible.

          > Application by the plaintiff's RA to extend the period by one week, but on the part of

          Stockschlaeder-Nöll is rejected;

         > The variety of decisions made by Ms. Baan and the Complaints;

        >  the negotiation date for Az 2b o 271/01 v.A.w. cancelled

D7. The Chamber rejected the next PKH application from September 2, 2013 by resolution

       of May 28, 2014 sign. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag back;

       Here is the alleged limitation period Claims for damages only occurred on June 30, 2010.

         (Battle of the hens).

                                                                      annotation

The 2b chamber is silent again this time as the date 30.6.10 is determined. In both of the above the 2b Chamber had d

deliberately suppressed LG decisions that the plaintiff had already paid the full court fees by the end of December 2006,

and repeatedly requested that the suit be served. However, the 2b chamber had blocked the suit for almost four (4) years,

i.e. blocked from December 2006

to September 23, 2010. The fact that the court fees had already been paid in December 2006 is on September 3, 2015

in the OLG decision on Az 18 W 1/13, and on May 11, 2016 (final judgment Az 2b o 271/01) on the part of the rejected

Stockschlaeder-Nöll have been confirmed.

                                                                                2014

D8. The plaintiff filed an immediate complaint against the LG decision of 28 May 2014 Az 2b o 271/01

        and then the "secret order" of the LG-2b chamber to the OLG took place on July 7, 2014 (secret

        because the decision not to remedy (= instructions for the blind) dated 7.7.2014, signed

       Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Mr Feldmann) was not sent to the plaintiff for information)

                                            that  "the Chamber insists on the limitation of claims".

      Proof: Non-remedial decision dated 07.07.2014 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht /

                     Feldmann (see regional court article "Ordering the final result ..... and photocopy")

D9. The LG committee of the 2b civil chamber Düsseldorf, (Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co) waived the

     own findings (read in the resolutions named below) that the damage claims for compensation,

     formulated in the last application on July 12, 2012 (and subsequent documents 14.12.2012 etc)

   because of the crimes of the tax office (= FA) Mettmann, once on 31.12.2009 allegedly would have

     been time-barred (LG decision 26.11.2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Fr. Jürging/Ms. Brecht, with

     the 2 Dres = women with a Dr. title), and a second time on June 30, 2010 (Decision signed

     Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Brecht/Ms. Freitag, also this time 2 Dres) the claims would have been

   allegedly barred.

   In both of the above LG decisions take into account the FG processes that lasted until December 15,

   2006, the payments made by the debtor (= FA) Mettmann in the years 1999-2001 and 2006,

   but totally silent that the court fees for Az 2b o 271/01 have been in Dec. 2006 were fully paid, and

   the LG would have v.A.w. the lawsuit already in Dec. 2006 / Jan. 2007 have to deliver so that the

   lawsuit could begin. Done none of this; and the OLG-Düsseldorf has kept silent about the blockade.

   The common thread is visible.

The dense series of evidence provided that the court fees had already been paid in full on December 30, 2006,

and the LG (or Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle, with the help of the cost official

(Mr. Habichthe delivery of the lawsuit (by means of process fraudulent methods) had been blocked for almost 4 years,

has remained unchallenged on the part of the LG committees mentioned in the previous paragraph (and on the part

of the later OLG / BGH instances). The fish stinks enormously.

So the LG judges of the 2b civil chamber are trained to deal with legal fraud and not to speak for law. The allegation of

trial fraud makes it easier for some women to go one step further in their careers. So far, at least 14 people accused

of litigation have been promoted. And why do the lawful judges have to wait for the promotion forever?

                      (see also article in menu first page of the website)

D10. The large number of unsuspecting interns (= judges on probation) make it a safe job

         in the judiciary (more than 20 counted on this side) are on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll

        also abused; by contrast, Ms. Strupp-Müller /Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr Galle, and the cost

       officials (Mr. Habich) deliberately and knowingly involved in litigation fraud on August 29, 2007

       and on Participated in September 18, 2007.

       (The public prosecutor Düsseldorf is silent about it and does not want to do anything !!!).

     The fish stinks.

D11. The LG committee Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Feldmann (= intern) presses on July 7th

         2014 in the non-remedial decision (= blind instructions) for Az 2b o 271/01 their uncertainty,

         and ordered to the OLG-18. Senate unmistakably the result of the survey Complaints

         i.e. that "the 2b chamber insists on the limitation of claims"  (see document). The fish stinks

                                                                annotation

             In the middle of each year (from approx. 2008) Stockschlaeder-Nöll receives an "intern"

             or one Intern "for familiarization". Only two were able to get used to it for almost 4 years

             withstand. all others left the 2b civil chamber after a few months (approx. 3-5)

D12. The procedure with Az 2b o 102/14 also runs in 2014, whereby Ms. Brecht as a single

         judge abused her official power and disclosed her disposition; It raises the

         Accusation against the plaintiff to create whirling dust in his statements

         who would not have written the truth in economic and personal terms, and that

       the plaintiff would be financially strong enough to bear the costs of the proceedings (!!!).

        To the plaintiff's angry reaction with evidence that Mrs. Brecht suppressed,

        (Ms. Brecht) was not impressed and her defamatory claim in three

      Decisions entered. At the same time to match her decision of 28 May 2014 on Az 2b o

      271/01. So that was no accident. The common thread runs through all instances and procedures.

D13. The sadistic Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, arranged the Ms. De Boer in June 12th, 2014

         the office, the PKH-rejecting decision of 28.5.14 also to the plaintiff by fax

         to fax on June 16, 2014 as a birthday present and she gives the fax number known to her

         Plaintiff's statement. The plaintiff therefore has the PKH-rejecting party for the third time

         Resolution 28.5.2014 (with alleged limitation of the claims on 30.6.2010) received and

         thanked on June 17, 2014 with a cynical fax text for sending the gift on June 16, 2014.

 

       Proof: Hand notes (instruction, point 2) from Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to GS Mrs. De Boer

                       (GA Bl. 1732) (See article "Proof of Sadism by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll), in LG

       So Stockschlaeder-Nöll also misused the personal data and nothing happened to her!

D14. According to the practiced LG customs, the OLG receives the instruction from 07/07/2014

        the 2b civil chamber, the complaints against the PKH-rejecting LG decisions 26.11.2012

       and 28.5.2014, to be rejected due to the alleged limitation of damage claims.

                                                                    2015

           

D15. On March 7, 2015, unknown persons break into the plaintiff's apartment and copy everyone

       Data from the computer hard drive, hoping to find something criminally relevant and benefit

       from the saved scientific work. They leave their anonymous business card.

      The announcement of the break-in and data theft disappears in the labyrinth

     of the administration !!

D16. On August 30, 2015, the plaintiff protested in front of the entrance to the Düsseldorf District

        Court for approx. 2,5 hours with two posters with serious accusations etc. against Stockschlaeder-

       Nöll because of the blockade of the procedure etc, and on September 2nd, 2015 the protest of the

       Plaintiff with a poster in front of the entrance to the Court of appeal Düsseldorf because of the

       blockade of the Procedure, excitement in building surveillance, which alarms 2 judges and these

       After photographing the poster twice, call the police for help.

      The police car appeared after a few minutes and the police officer reports it to Central the data

     read from the plaintiff's passport and learns from there that when the plaintiff protests the police

   is not responsible to intervene. The disappointment of the two OLG judges is obviously.

      Proof: Photos of the posters placed in front of the LG-Düsseldorf and in front of the OLG-

                   Düsseldorf (to be found in Miscellaneous / Photo) with the title "KUNGELEI and

                 corruption in LG-Düsseldorf

D17. On September 2, 2015, the accused Malsch personally rejected as abusive an application

         for bias him (despite the prohibition that no one may make his own decision), and

        on September 3, 2015, two OLG resolutions on Az 18 W 1/13 (LG 2b o 271/01) and Az

       18 W 44/14; all three above Decisions signed by Volker Malsch / Ms. Glaeser /Mr Anger:

         the OLG result in the last two resolutions i.S.d. LG order dated 07/07/2014, i.e. the damage

       claims for compensation would allegedly expire on July 31, 2006 !!!. (see document)

D18. The RECELEUR (Malsch) has simply suppressed that the lawyer Pl. asserted on July 17, 2003

         that an UNCONDITIONAL CLAIM, filed on February 5, 2001; reported a counter-presentation of

         the plaintiff of August 20, 2004 rejected only on July 4, 2007 (and therefore the statute of

        limitations over 3 years inhibited!! but kept silent about it !!), and realized that the complete

         Payment of the court fees has interrupted the limitation period, which is why until Dec. 15th 2006

        current FG procedures and payments (1999-2001, 2006) of the debtor (i.e. the FA-Mettmann)

        and the legal texts on BGB a.F. manipulated / changed / added how would fit its arbitrary purpose.

       This is how desk offenders worked during the 1930s brown dictatorship to punish unpleasant

        opponents / socially switch off / eliminate.

         The OLG fish stinks on the head; BGH / BVerfG are silent about it.

D19. The offense that advocate St. Minnerop proposed on 4 September 2015 has

          now receive the seal of the OLG-Düsseldorf 18th Senate. Only with torture

          if the process 2b o 271/01 ends, RA St. Minnerop announces.

 

    Proof: (GA Bl. No. 1853) (see "Reply to St. Minnerop ..." to be found in the district court of D'dorf

D20. The plaintiff's stormy response with hearings on September 11, 2015, on September 14, 2015,

       on September 16, 2015 and on September 22nd, 2015 (despite the blockade for several days

      by strangers from afar, computer and printer) with unmistakable evidence of manipulation /

       modification/Supplement to the legal texts of the BGB a.F. which the OLG-Malsch/Ms. Glaeser/

       Anger in the above Resolutions (3.9.15 on Az 18 W 1/13, and 18 W 44/14) mentioned to the LG,

       the ministerial office responsible will arrange to retire Malsch, who is called RECELEUR on the

       Internet.

      A few days later (around September 20, 2015) Malsch was released from his position.

       The dismissal of Malsch on September 20, 2015 has the smell of criminal

       smelly fish head not reduced. (See article in OLG 18 W 1/13)

D21. Ms. Stein will take over the position of Chair of the 18th Senate and on September 22nd, 2015

       reports with a decision on OLG Az 18 W 44/13 (2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein / Fr.

       Glaeser / Anger. The 2 offenders (Ms. Glaeser and Mr. Anger) are still with her at

       18th Senate active. But Ms. Stein does not compare the real side with the laws.

D22. Attorney St. Minnerop was informed about the protests with posters and about the events

      at the OLG-Düsseldorf; the defendant of state of North Rhine-Westphalia, recommends the

     district court on Sept. 4, 2015 "Boxing through the procedure" (i.e. ending with a tortious blow!

       Or "alla gangster style" !!) and on September 14th, 2015 thanks !! RA Minnerop at the LG for

       the received note (??) from 9.9.2015 !!.

       In the court files = (GA) unfortunately no trace (no evidence) for the LG reference

      from 9.9.2015 discovered; The document (note from 9.9.2015) stapled incorrectly? or

      accidentally disappeared ?? or deliberately styled? What was the content of the note?

D23. On the scolding tirades of the "gangster type" (for ending the procedure 2b o

         271/01) in favour of RA St. Minnerop, the plaintiff replied on October 11, 2015 with a

         10 pages of brief (see document already published).

D24. It is obvious that the 2b chamber (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) supports him.

         Has initiated briefs on the part of the RA Minnerop. Those due to offenses i.S.d.

  • § 339 StGB charged LG judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co) obviously need one Allies

        for the planned and yet to be executed "alla gangster-style" legal inflection.

  1.                                                                                2016

E1. On May 11, 2016, the LG-Düsseldorf final judgment on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-

      Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /Mr Frank. In doing so, the LG committee will review its own and in the

      2 Resolutions of November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014 Findings on the alleged limitation of the

      Claims dropped on December 31, 2009 or June 30, 2010 at the latest. They close up unconditionally

     the criminal manipulations / changes / additions of the dismissed RECELEUR (Malsch). The LG judges

   are charged with complicity.

     (see photocopy of the final judgment of May 11, 2016 Az 2b o 271/01 in "Miscellaneous / Photos")

E2. The LG committee thus proves that she is not afraid of her posts due to legal diffraction

       to be suspended immediately. The OLG intern Mr "Anger" is only from the 18th Senate

       retired at the end of 2016. More or disadvantageous consequences for the criminals

       Manipulations of the legal texts on BGB a.F. he didn't suffer. The fish stinks.

E3. On May 30, 2016, the LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Frank

      made Use of § 48 ZPO and explain the bias concerning Az 2b o 76/16 and 2b o 271/01.

      The "self-declaration of bias" had denied the Stockschlaeder-Nöll for years.

      Now suddenly she admits this openly. The document was never used by the OLG or BGH

     (see "Note 30.5.2016 voluntary declaration of bias by Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co)

E4. On July 20, 2016, the application to lift the enforceability of the resolutions (cost

       determinations) to OLG-Düsseldorf Az 24 W 34/16 and 24 W 35/16 (LG-Az 2b o 102/14 Pl.)

       because the allegedly entitled RA Dr. Pl. Never submitted a written application like § 103

       Prescribe ZPO and § 104 ZPO.

       In addition, the RA Becker names his client in his application for a cost assessment

       RA Dr. Pl. As "KLÄGER" (see Photo)

      The application from July 20, 2016 was not granted until August 2018, so that the plaintiff on

     August 8, 2018, both a reminder of the LG (cost officer) and an official liability suit with the PKH

       i.a. for unlawful decisions. See 2018

E5. On August 3, 2016, the GenStAnw D'dorf submitted a statement signed Ms. von der Heide,

       Az 2 FP 19/16 to LG Az 2b o 76/16, with the usual argument that the lawsuit is inadmissible

      be (due to previous proceedings 2b o 177/10 and 196/12), as well as unfounded and not

      conclusive. On the last page and last line, the author addresses the "desperate Cry for help"

       to the LG and she asks for a" NOTE "so that she could do the following.

       And the salaries keep going. The fish stinks.

E6. On Aug. 2, 2016, the plaintiff files a new PKH / lawsuit because of the 4 bank seizures of

       1986-1989 which have not yet been repealed (Az 2b o 137/16); It adds to the excitement

        at, in particular the 11th OLG Senate (Ms. Engels); the attempts (also the paying agent of

       the AG-Düsseldorf) also the cost of the fee-free complaint procedure in PKH proceedings

       Judge's refusal to slow the plaintiff down creates a huge administrative burden

       and cause ten times the cost than the small amounts requested. The fish stinks.

       The salaries of those responsible continue to honour the Parkinson's law.

        

       The lawsuit / PKH will be rejected on August 18, 2016; Claims allegedly barred (!!!) though

        bank seizures have continued since 1986-1989. The immediate complaint dated

          August 29, 2018 to 2018 were decided later in the negative.

E7. With the appeal on August 18, 2016, the LG final judgment on Az 2b o 271/01 of May 11, 2016

      attacked and on August 19, 2016 a new PKH application is made and Ms. Glaeser and Mr.

      Anger from the decision on criminal offenses in the sense of § 339 StGB (legal diffraction) or

      because of Prejudice rejected. An application for bias against Ms. Glaeser and Mr. Anger

       submitted on 24 Aug. 2016 to OLG-Az 18 W 2/13 (2b o 118/99)

E8. On file inspection on Aug 29, 2016 on Az 2b o 271/01 and 18 U 69/16 at OLG-Düsseldorf

         between 10:00 a.m. and 1:50 p.m., the large number of file manipulations and the

         evidence of this will be sent to the OLG 18th Senate later (Aug. 2017).

E9. LG-Non-Remedies Decision of 31 Aug. 2016 on Az 2b o 137/16 (concerning PKH for official liability

         lawsuit with claims for pain and suffering because of the non-cancelled bank attachments)

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Wink orders Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll her wishes and

         the OLG judge rushes against the plaintiff that his pleading is allegedly offensive

         Content would be that the plaintiff uses the term "intern" etc)

E10. Ms. Glaeser gives a "official statement" with 2 lines !!! dated August 31, 2016

        to Az 18 U 69/16 , followed on September 6, 2016 by the official opinion of Mr.

        Anger to Az 18 U 69/16 with 5 lines.

       Proof: Official statement of August 31, 2016 by Mrs. Glaeser on OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16

E11. Comments from September 23, 2016 on the official opinion judge H. Anger of the court of appeal

        Comments Sept. 26 2016 on the official opinion of the OLG judge Ms. Glaeser

       (18 U 69/16); It is striking that the postal item in the GA is incomplete; it only contains

       Pages 1,3,5 the other pages No. 2,4,6,7 are missing !!! (GA Bl. No. 2372-2374, postal consignment)

                                             

E12. With DISPOSAL (=Verfügung) from Sept. 29, 2016 to Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein is the date

                   for oral Negotiation scheduled for September 27, 2017, 2nd floor, room A 215, 3:00 p.m.

E13. On November 1, 2016, the plaintiff submits a PKH 2b o 195/16 for an official liability claim

         against NRW, because of the non-material damage, intentionally caused to the plaintiff by

        officials of the tax office Mettmann / Düsseldorf, through the operated arrest on December

       17/18, 1992 (due to alleged tax evasion and alleged tax debts totalling DM 91.186,45).

E14. The response of November 25, 2016 by the RA Fassnacht with 8.5 lines (!!) to OLG-Az

       18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) shows that the text of the reply on the part of his

       Client (NRW) is dictated to him. (Document already published). The fish stinks.

                                                                  2017

E15. In 2017 to mid-2018 the plaintiff's dispute over cost decisions of the Court of appeal

         of 11th Senate and after Ms. Engels hunts the pay agent of AG-Düsseldorf, the central paying

         agency in Hamm and the AG-Essen against the plaintiff, in order that he (the plaintiff)

         the falls cost decisions of the OLG judge at Az 11 W 14/16 LG Az 2b o 227/13 PKH, and 11 W

         45/16 (LG Az 2b o 137/16 PKH) can pays The fish stinks.

        the plaintiff is not impressed from execution threats and arrest warrants (requested by

        the paying agent of the AG-Düsseldorf) and reject any payment request.

        According to the plaintiff, the complaints in PKH proceedings even with judge rejection are

        (according to ZPO and GKG) free of charge. Mrs. Engels foams. (more on this chapter later)

E16. On January 12, 2017 with the OLG decision on Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein

         / Ms. Fuhr/Ms. Kirschner the application to exclude Ms. Glaeser is rejected as unfounded;

          the "manipulations of the legal texts etc in the resolution of 3.9.15 on Az 18 W 1/13,

          would allegedly not be criminal offenses, but "represented legal views" and

          Mistakes in law are not criminal offenses !! A criminal (Ms. Fuhr) exonerates the

         other criminal (Ms. Glaeser) and she (Ms Fuhr) expects facsimiles

E17. The plaintiff reacts on Febr. 1. 2017 outraged that Ms. Fuhr (the former confidante of

         Ms.Tannert and well-known offender has been incriminating to Az 2b o 118/99 and also

         to Az 2b o 271/01) suddenly appears to Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01) and the other

         Criminal (Ms. Glaeser) exonerated from allegations of bias. Ms. Fuhr is with

         in the same letter dated February 1, 2017 with a request for exclusion.

         The smell of fish is terrible.

E18. On April 3, 2017, new enforcement threat from the paying agent of the AG-Düsseldorf regarding

         costs complaint procedure 11 W 16/14 (LG 2b o 227/13), which the applicant challenges.

E19. On April 11, 2017, Ms. Fuhr made a professional statement on Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01).

         She admits in two lines that on November 28, 2000 she made a decision against the plaintiff

        signed but did not commit any crimes: Ms. Fuhr's allegations will be made on

        5.5.2017 commented on several pages by the plaintiff

      Proof: Ms. Fuhr's official statement of 11.4.2017 on OLG-Düsseldorf 18 U 69/16

E20. On April 12, 2017, the OLG decision on Az 11 W 8/17 (LG-Az 2b o 195/16) was issued.

           Thole / Ms. Engels / Böcker; Justification of the cost decision with reference to RNr. 53

  • § 127 ZPO, Zöller, edition 2016. The signature of Mrs. Engels in the above mentioned is striking.

           Decision, and on April 28, 2017 a counter notification (GGD) will be forwarded.

 

E21. The paying agent of the AG-Düsseldorf also registers the birthday date once

          abused for a new enforcement threat on June 16, 2017, which after rejection

          then in a warrant for alleged debts of € 185 on August 1, 2017

          is converted by the AG-Essen. The smell of fish is suffocating.

E22. On July 19, 2017, the OLG passed decision on Az 18 W 25/16 (LG-2b o 271/01) signed.

          Ms. Stein / Mr. Unger / Ms. Kirschner; Tenor:

       the application to exclude Ms. Fuhr would allegedly be unfounded. No crimes committed!

                                                                annotation

     The above OLG committee of the 18th Senate (Ms. Stein / Mr. Unger / Ms. Kirschner) is not

     responsible for to decide applications for bias against judges of the 18th Senate; That is the 11th

     Senate.

     The plaintiff has held the OLG bodies of the 18th Senate several times between 2017 and 2019

     challenged to name a BGH decision, which could prove that the Decisive bodies of the 18th Senate

     were formed in accordance with the law would be.

     The crucial bodies of the 18th Senate only repeat that they are occupied by the GVP

     allowed to decide. Because the BGH decision cannot deliver or name, the plaintiff refuses

     in each letter to the OLG-18 Senate because of the two offenders (Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser)

    "Crime". (see photos at the end of this report)

     The BGH never commented on Az III ZR 332/17 the attitude of the OLG-18.Senat and

    the previous thrown criminals never exonerated. The silence is typical of the smelly fish.

E23. On July 27, 2017, the plaintiff complained to the OLG-Düsseldorf President about injuries

         of the GVP or GVG § 21e and Art. 101 GG: on 2.9.2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 (or 18 U

         69/16); on 3 September 2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 u. to Az 18 W 44/14 (both 18 U 69/16);

         for 18 W 2/13 (2b o 118/99) on January 12, 2017 and for Az 18 W 25/16 (or 18 U 69/16);

         on July 19, 2017 to Az 18 W 25/16 (or 18 U 69/16); all Az from the 18th Senate.

        The plaintiff also requests disciplinary action against the offenders

        but which are not initiated.

E24. With DISPOSAL Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to Az 2b o 271/01 dated July 31, 2017

         informed that PKH for the application of June 3, 2017 cannot be approved because of

         PKH application after the final judgment according to ZPO § 117 RNr. 2b edition 31 is not possible;

E25. The plaintiff begins on August 2, 2017 by sending 81 sheets to OLG 18 U 69/16

        of the period 1999-2001 which are missing from the court files (GA) of LG Az 2b o 271/01.

        On Aug. 9, 2017, the plaintiff sends another 29 missing sheets from the period 1.1.2002 to

        12/31/2005 and on Aug 14, 2017 and on Aug 17, 2017, Aug 19, 2017, on Aug 21, 2017,

       Aug. 23, 2017, Aug. 24, 2017, Aug. 25, 2017, Aug. 28, 2017, Aug. 31, 2017, Sept. 12, 2017 follow

       further forwarding until October 3, 2017, so that with a total of 16 forwarding more than 200

        missing sheets (accompanied by brief comments for file manipulation) forwarded

        become. Even on September 28, 2017 and October 3, 2017, the plaintiff sends more to Az

           18 U 69/16  Evidence of missing sheets from GA Az 2b o 271/01.

        The number and volume of the forwarding causes trouble when filling the

  1. Senate; the ladies recognize that the plaintiff's allegations of manipulation on the part of LG

       and OLG is right; the GA 2b o 271/01 are enormously manipulated /"styled"; The file manipulation

       is contested by the 18th Senate !!!!

                                  

 E26. On August 30, 2017, the OLG decision on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein/Ms. Fuhr/Ms. Glaeser;

           PKH is rejected; the claims for damages are according to BGB a.F. (!!!) allegedly barred and not

           founded !!!

                                                                       annotation

      Ms. Fuhr was excluded by law according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO and therefore should be on the

      decision on Aug. 30, 2018 do not attend; On November 28, 2000, she had the "Evidence

      order "against the plaintiff, the Düsseldorf Medical Association appointed to check the plaintiff's

     legal capacity and thereby circumvented EuGVÜ Art. 1 Brussels I Regulation, and § 7 EGBGB;

      The illegal decision of Mrs. Fuhr is from another 2b chamber occupation on November 29, 2001

       as illegal and with reference to GR-ZPO / BGB abolished.

      Fuhr's participation in the OLG process 18 U 69/16 was also with NZB against the OLG Judgment

     18.10.2017 criticized but the BGH has kept silent about it. The common thread is visible

      

      The crime of both women (Fuhr / Glaeser) can be found in page 6, second paragraph, last

       Line of the PKH-rejecting OLG decision 30.8.2017.

       There it is recognized that the FG proceedings have interrupted the limitation, but the limitation

       period, which began at the beginning of 2000, ended 6 months later on June 30, 2000.

       And then with 3 lines in the next paragraph explain that the claims for compensation are due

       of the loss of the subsidy bonus on June 30, 2000 had expired, on July 31, 2006 at the latest

       would be.

       The reader is looking for explanation how this gap or jump in time from June 30, 2000 to July

       31, 2006 is explained; but no explanation in the OLG decision 30.8.2017 .

           BGH / BVerfG are silent about it.

      

       The explanation does not come in page 23 of the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017;

       Repeated there the scheme of rejection: that the Senate "in favour of the plaintiff the 6 months

       has assumed the legal force of the FG judgment " so that the interruption of limitation at the

      latest ended on June 30, 2000.

     The criminal about it: they try with terms "legal force of the FG judgment" and "statute of

     limitations interruption " to cover the process fraud of 3.9.15. Because a new 3-year limitation

     period the deadline for the FG ruling did not start until the beginning of 2000, so it was the

      beginning 2003 ended and not on June 20, 2006: In addition, the inhibition events due to the

      Evidence decision dated November 28, 2000, as well as stitching together the two lawsuits

     2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 as well as the lawsuits of December 29, 2001 and the declaration

     of July 17, 2003 of the RA (on filing an UNCONDITIONAL ACTION) would be considered.

     Due to the theatrical relief of Mrs. Glaeser on the part of the law excluded Mrs. Fuhr made it

     impossible for Mrs. Glaeser to take part in the 18 U 69/16 decision; especially the Manipulation

     of the legal texts BGB a.F. (e.g. § 209) she had on September 3, 2015 on Az 18 W 1/13

     signed off. As a criminal, she was heavily burdened. The smell of fish has prevailed

                          

E27. The hearing will take place on September 27, 2017 at OLG-Düsseldorf on Az 18 U 69/16

        (LG 2b o 271/01) instead. Judges: Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner, RA of the plaintiff and

        RA Fassnacht for NRW, as well as a plainclothes policeman. Fassnacht confirmed the document

        dated 22.9.2017 of the plaintiff's RA and would still like to examine him; as a precaution

       filed the motion to dismiss the appeal.

       The plaintiff RA claimed that there was no limitation and a bundle with 7 sheets handed over to

   Ms. Stein. Also suggested rejecting the dispute (2b o 271/01) to LG-Düsseldorf because many

       applications have not been decided and documents have not been considered. Duration approx.

       19 min.

       Ms. Stein could hardly express your annoyance / nervousness, Ms. Glaeser hid her face

       behind her hair. The calm Mrs. Kirschner followed the discussion acoustically and saved it

       to memory.

                                                                  annotation

       Mrs. Glaeser was not legally compliant with the allegations of serious crimes in office

        and legal defenses (due to the manipulation of the legal texts of the BGB a.F. on 3.9.2015

        to Az 18 W 1/13); Therefore, it should not be on September 27, 2017 and October 18, 2017

        co-decision; Especially in the OLG judgment 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 repeated on page 23

        the offense committed as of 3. September 2015 with the slight difference that it violates § 209

       BGB a.F. not mentioned, but otherwise on October 18, 2017 provides the same reasoning as on

         September 3, 2015.

E28. On October 8, 2017, the plaintiff filed a PKH application for 18 U 69/16 based on brief

           September 22, 2017 of the RA and on the minutes of the hearing on September 27, 2017,

         on October 10, 2017 added. The above Application will be rejected (almost immediately)

         on October 13, 2017.

E29. On October 18, 2017, the OLG decision on Az 18 U 69/16 was issued with a very similar one

          Justification of the alleged limitation of damage claims, and the legal complaint,

         on the other hand, is not allowed. The plaintiff RA recognizes a pitfall.

 Proof: OLG decision of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 sign. Ms. Stein/Ms. Glaeser/Ms. Kirschner

 

E30. On November 13, 2017, the RA announced at the BGH the non-admission complaint (NZB)

        and he receives the Az III ZR 332/17, as well as an extension of the deadline until March 20, 2018.

         

                                                               annotation

      There is no written evidence! The extension for the NZB at the BGH was given to the

      RA allegedly instructed by telephone !!

                                                                    2018

E31. The justification of the NZB will reach the BGH on Az III ZR 332/17 on time on March 18, 2018;

        the NZB's priorities focus against involvement due to bias rejected Ms. Fuhr, as well as against

        the absurd reasons of the alleged limitation of the expectations; The OLG claims that the plaintiff

         is filing claims with the FG-D'dorf for reimbursement the tax that would not interrupt the statute

       of limitations; so the plaintiff has lawsuits have not been brought against the illegality of the tax

        assessment, which is the statute of limitations interrupt !!; The OLG has no syllable about the bank

        garnishments still in progress written. The smell of the fish is huge and unbearable.

                                                                   annotation

       The hair splitter of the cast of the OLG-18. Senate proves that the shock suffered after detection

       and notification of the manipulation of the legal texts of the BGB a.F. on the part of the Receleur

       (Malsch / Anger / Ms. Glaeser) and on the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll/Ms. Gundlach, sits deep;

       the new chairwoman of the 18th senate distances itself from the manipulations of the previous

       one Occupation and no longer dares similar crimes.

        Instead, it creates a fake reason to justify the statute of limitations;

        It is striking that this new justification is not identical to the PKH- rejectection

        on August 30, 2018 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser.

         The fish stinks tremendously.

          To "relieve the offenders (Fuhr / Glaeser ) the " 6 months extension of the

          Legal effect of the FG judgments "declared" in favour of the plaintiff ".

E32. The plaintiff provides on March 19, 2018 for the NZB and for the revision procedure of

         the BGH-Az III ZR 332/17 a PKH application and justifies it with the legal violations of the

        LG / OLG Judge in the 17-year blockade and with the fact that the bank seizures since 1986,

        and in 1989, despite requests from 3 department heads at FA-Mettmann are cancelled.

     The BGH (Herrmann / Seiters & Co) ignore the PKH justification

        Sometimes the content is named.

   

E33. On May 24, 2018, the BGH decision on Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter /

           / Fri Liebert / Ms. Böttcher; The NZB is rejected "without justification" and the PKH-

            Application also rejected "without justification"

 

                                                             annotation

                                    The common thread is again evident;

 

  The new BGH decision 24.5.18 on Az III ZR 332/17 can be interpreted as follows:

 

"We (judges of the BGH) give the plaintiff no right, even if he claims for compensation

   (due to the crimes of the FA-Mettmann-Düsseldorf) is right.

  We (judges of the BGH) never condemn the tax office for crimes "

 

  The BGH judges say that they are not obliged to provide reasons for the

  to instruct the NZB to reject the PKH application and claims for damages.

  Fear of official liability or execution of a political order?

E34. On June 15, 2018, the commissioned RA raised a hearing against the BGH decision

         of May 24, 2018 with application to continue procedure III ZR 332/17 and uphold the complaint.

E35. A constitutional complaint dated June 22.6.2018 against the BGH decision of 24.7.2018

          Az III ZR 332/17 is charged; This ensures: the legal deadline is met, and the

         major violations of law by the LG / OLG / BGH judges from 1999 to 2018.

         (the PKH application to the BVerfG has already been published)

E36. Regarding the BGH's hearing, the following claims:

         in decision of July 26, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert /

         Ms. Böttcher, having taken everything into account and not violating the plaintiff's right to be

       heard to have. The decision was served on 1 August 2018 by the RA.

E.37. The constitutional complaint lodged on June 22, 2018 against the BGH decisions

          Az III ZR 332/17 was not adopted on September 20, 2018 for decision

          BVerfG decision signed Voßkuhle / Kessal-Wulf / Maidowski

 

                                                                 annotation

     The judges of the BVerfG (Voßkuhle & Co) have not seen that in all instances

     on the part of the judges have committed criminal offenses? and that the rejection of the

     Claims for damages equal to a political criminal decision?

                                                                             2019

The struggle for wear and tear with small officials because of the cost of the free PKH procedure reached its

provisional peak on June 28, 2019. The addition will follow later.

Proof: The representatives of the process incapable name their client RA Dr. Pl. As "plaintiff"

  

 

Three photos of the delivered on three days (23.2.2010, 25.2.2010 and 27.2.2010)

the decisions of PUTSCH-CLUB of OLG Düsseldorf, 11th Senate (Mr. Bünten/Ms jungclaus/Mr Wermeckes/

Ms Baan/ Mr Müller/Ms Grabensee/Mr Dahm)

 

On February 23, 2010 the 15 decisions of February 16, 2010 by the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes were served

On February 25th, 2010, 14 resolutions of the pseudo-chairwoman Ms. Jungclaus v. 18.2.10 delivered.

On February 27, 2010, 14 decisions of the "superhuman Dr. Bünten" were again served to the plaintiff.

 

The plaintiff had to contest all of the above resolutions within 14 days of delivery.

(14 day legal period !!); The criminals (OLG judges) took months. (see B35 ff of the local article)

Here is a photo of the resolutions passed on March 2, 2010 by the OLG-11. Senate

(Further photo evidence of useless resolutions of the 11th Senate dated March 30, 2010 (Wermeckes & Co), March 31, 2010

(Ms. Jungclaus & Co) and May 2010 (Dr. Bünten & Co) available on request)

 

The typists at the OLG-Düsseldorf were busy for weeks.

 

The costs for the useless resolutions of February 2010, March 2010, May 2010 etc. have the "superman"

(Dr. Bünten) and the 6 co-signatories of the breaches of law against the ZPO against

responsible for the Court Constitution Act (GVG) and against the Basic Law (GG).

 

Despite the obvious coup by the 7 OLG judges (Dr. Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /

Ms. Baan / H.G. Müller / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm), many of the causes of the useless costs

enjoy lavish pensions or are promoted and chaired an OLG-Düsseldorf Senate, the local plaintiff

is paid the costs.

This is ensured by the cost-fixing decisions bearing the stamp of the Düsseldorf Regional Court.

So the official power on the part of the above misused for this too in order to completely bring the plaintiff to ruin

after they failed with the coup.

Neither the BVerfG nor the EGMR / Strasbourg wrote any word about the complaints raised about

the coup by the judge colleagues of the OLG-D'dorf 11th Senate. The complaints were rejected as inadmissible

by a single judge (ECHR judge Ms. Keller).

 

Otherwise everything swept under the carpet.

Control of costs? none !! Justice ???

    

The OLG committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) claims (in the above-mentioned decision of June 5, 2019)

that the appointment of the 18th Senate corresponds to the business distribution plan.

The plaintiff stated: The cast may correspond to the GVP, is however not responsible for exclusion requests for

members of the same 18th Senate.

 

According to the OLG-D'dorf business distribution plan, the 11th Senate is responsible.

(see ECHR case law No. 42.095 / 98 Daktaras % LTU, notified to the OLG-18.Senat).

The committee (Mrs. Stein / Mrs. Fuhr / Mrs. Glaeser) repeatedly challenged a BGH

or ECHR decision, which means that the above Occupation of the 18th Senate

to decide on the request for exclusion against the 2 offenders (Ms. Fuhr and

Ms. Glaeser) Members of the 18th Senate, would be in accordance with the law;

the committee has never named or delivered a BGH evidence decision.

 

So the occupation with two known criminals is on June 5, 2019 (and in all

previous decisions, since 2017, with the two above Offenders) unlawful.

You may not sit on the decision-making body.

The present report continue

The translation from German to English made with Google translation program.

Text only in some paragraphs slightly changed  

The German text is valid

Last modified on Tuesday, 31 March 2020 16:43

 

             

                                                               

   

Last modified on Monday, 30 September 2019 22:41

BGH (Supreme Federal Court of Justice of Germany)

DECISION of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17

concerning the NZB of 19.3.2018

against OLG-Düsseldorf Judgment 18.10.2017

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

The BGH-III Senate has its own jurisdiction ignored when passing the resolution to III ZR 332/17 of 24 May 2018 ( about Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf Az 18 U 69/16,

LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second verdict of the BGH is:

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

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

  

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

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

OMERTÀ knows about the mafia?

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

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

  So the decisions of the BGH are gossip of yesterday?

Der BGH-III Senat hat seine eigene Rechtsprechung beim Erlass des Beschlusses

zu III ZR 332/17 vom 24. Mai 2018 (OLG-Düsseldorf 18 U 69/16, LG-D´dorf 2b o 271/01) ignoriert:

Hier werden nur zwei BGH-Entscheidungen erwähnt, die der BGH III Senat (Herrmann/Seiters/Reiter/Fr. Liebert/Fr. Böttcher) am 24. Mai 2018 beim Erlass des Beschlusses zu Az III ZR 332/17 (OLG-D´dorf 18 U 69/16, LG-D´dorf 2b o 271/01) völlig ignoriert hat, und somit bewiesen hat, dass er bereit ist politische Entscheidungen zu treffen (umzusetzen), wenn die  Rechtsfälle  Amtshaftungsklagen mit Schadenersatzansprüchen in Millionen Höhe (in €)   betreffen.

Die erste BGH Entscheidung ist immer wieder, sowohl beim LG-D´dorf (2b o 271/01) und OLG-D´dorf (18 U 69/16) als auch in der Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde vom 19. März 2018 zu BGH AZ III ZR 332/17 geschrieben, und hat folgenden (gekürzten) Inhalt:

"Solange der schädliche Eingriff dauert, kann die Verjährungsfrist nicht beginnen"

Es ist immer wieder vorgetragen und Beweise erbracht, dass die (seelisch krankmachenden) Bankkontopfändungen des FA-Mettmann wegen angeblicher Steuerhinterziehung, seit 1986 bzw seit 1989 immer noch andauern, und trotz der wiederholten Erinnerungen des Kläges und der Aufhebungsanträge von 3 Sachgebietsleitern des FA-Mettmann vom 1988 und 1989 die Bankpfändungen immer noch nicht aufgehoben sind. 

Der schädigende Eingriff dauert noch an,

und nach BGH Rechtsprechung kann die Verjährungsfrist nicht beginnen.

Trotzdem hat das OLG-Düsseldorf zu Az 18 U 69/16 befunden, dass die Schadenersatzansprüche und der Schmerzensgeldanspruch verjährt seien. 

Selbst der Schmerzensgeldanspruch der erst nach 30 Jahren verjähren würde, nun nach OLG-Urteil 18 U 69/16 vom 18.10.2017 verjährt sei.  JUSTIZ ??? 

Auf die in der NZB vorgetragenen Argumente ist der BGH-III Senat (Zusammensetzung wie oben) nicht eingegangen, deshalb erfolgt die Veröffentlichung des BGH-Beschlusses vom 24. Mai 2018 Az III ZR 332/17 hier unten.

Der zweite Spruch des BGH lautet:

"Ein Verfahren  beendet ist, wenn alle Anträge beschieden sind".

Es ist in den LG/OLG-Prozessen (Klage Az 2b o 271/01 und Berufung Az 18 U 69/16) immer wieder vorgetragen, dass mehrere Anträge (u.a. Aufhebungsanträge für LG und OLG-Beschlüsse, Befangenheitsanträge gegen LG/OLG-Richter, Zustellungsanträge für die reduzierte Klageerweiterung 2b o 271/01 etc.) nicht beschieden sind.

Nach Ansicht des Klägers (gestützt auf oben genannten BGH Beschluss) ist das Verfahren 2b o 271/01, mit Berufungsverfahren 18 U 69/16 noch nicht beendet.

Darüber hat der BGH im angefochtenen Beschluss vom 24.5.2018 geschwiegen und sowohl über die beantragte Prozesskostenhilfe (= PKH) als auch über die erhobene Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde (=NZB) keine Silbe geschrieben. OMERTÀ wei bei den Mafiosen ?.

Der kläger erinnert sich an den Spruch eines alten (früheren) Bundeskanzlers :

"was juckt mich mein Geschwätz von Gestern"

Also die Beschlüsse des BGH sind Geschwätz von Gestern ?    

BGH III ZR 332 17 NZB Entscheidung v 24.5.2018 S. 1   BGH III ZR 332 17 NZB Entscheidung v 24.5.2018 S. 2        

weitere kommentare kommen noch. 

BGH (Supreme Federal Court of Justice)

DECISION of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17

concerning the NZB of 19.3.2018

against OLG-Düsseldorf Judgment 18.10.2017

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

 

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

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

LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) :

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

The second verdict of the BGH is:

  

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

OMERTÀ knows about the mafia?

 

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

 

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

 

  So the decisions of the BGH are gossip of yesterday?

BGH (Supreme Federal Court of Justice)

DECISION of 24 May 2018 Az III ZR 332/17

concerning the NZB of 19.3.2018

against OLG-Düsseldorf Judgment 18.10.2017

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

 

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

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

LG-Düsseldorf 2b o 271/01) :

 

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

The second verdict of the BGH is:

  

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

 

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

  

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

 

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

OMERTÀ knows about the mafia?

 

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

 

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

 

  So the decisions of the BGH are gossip of yesterday?

Last modified on Monday, 30 September 2019 22:39

Today 120 | Yesterday 163 | Week 966 | Month 3457 | All 97377