Menu
Offender of German Criminal law
more information
Dr. Ing. Th. Sartoros Patente
Mechanismus DPMA-Nr.: |
|
DPMA-Nr.: |
|
|
Hydrostatisches-selbstsperrendes- differential-planeten-getriebe
 DE 04014241A1 |
Zusatz
|
DAS PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISMUS" DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 WIRD ZUM VERKAUF ANGEBOTEN, PREIS: 265.000,-- € + 19% MWSt PATENT "ANTIKYTHERA MECHANISM" TO SELL DPMA Nr. 10 2010 105 501 PRICE 265.000,-- € + 19% Tax (MWSt) |
"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
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
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
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".