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)

This article tells the reader, where must report their claims for damages,

if the BGH judges commit perversion of the law.

In addition, it can be seen how many obstacles the civil servant posed to the citizen

so that the claims for damages are not assessed or not legally binding.

To this end, corrupted presiding judges are used to kill the unsuspecting

"Girls" (= young professionals, judges in probationary period) in the mud of criminal offenses

"to incorporate"

The report (lawsuit) also makes it clear that the offenders in judges' gowns are not afraid

have criminal consequences because colleagues always issue one decision

"Closing ranks" without specifically entering into the criminal offenses reported.

every reader can draw their conclusions.

 

                                                                                                                                                 Dr. Th. Sartoros

                                                                                                                                                  Laddringsweg 15

                                                                                                                                             45219 Essen-Kettwig

  1.                                                                                                                                               04. Jan. 2021

In advance by fax: 0721- 926-3114- (without attachments)

Karlsruhe Regional Court

Hans-Thoma-Str. 7th

76133 Karlsruhe

 

 

Abbreviations used

 

AG = One magistrate court = Guardianship Court (of city-Essen)

Az = Process-Number

Bl. = Blatt = Sheet

BGB = Bürgerliches Gesetz Buch = Civil code

BGH = BundesGerichtsHof = Supreme political Tribunal of Germany    

BRD = BundesRepublik Deutschland= FRG = Federal Republik of Germany

BVerfG = BundesVerfassungsGericht = Constitutional tribunal

€ = EUR = EURO = abbreviation of actual money of European Union (EU)

ECHR= European court of Human Rights (at Strasburg/France)

EGBGB = Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetz Buch = Introduction law about civil code

EuGVVO / EuGVÜ = Directive of European Union

FA-Mettmann = Tax office of the city Mettmann (near Düsseldorf)

FG-D'dorf = financial Tribunal of Düsseldorf

GA = Files of judicial process

"GEDECKELT" = Covered, capped

GGD = GegenDarstellung = counter evidence (counter position)

GG = Grund Gesetz= Constitution of Germany

GenStAnw-D'dorf = General Staatsanwalt Düsseldorf= General public prosecutor's office, Düsseldorf

GS = Geschäftsstelle= Secretariat office

GVG = GerichtsVerfassungsGesetz=Law about constitution and function of Tribunals

GVP = GeschäftsVerteilungsPlan= allocation of duties plan between the Judges
LG-D´dorf = Regional Court (of Düsseldorf)

NABeschluss = Nicht-Abhilfe-Beschluss = No-Remedy-decision

NJW = New juridical periodical

NRW = Nord Rhein Westfalen= North Rhine-Westphalia=State of Federal Germany, capitol Düsseldorf

NZB = non-admission-complaint

ObStAnw= OberStaatsAnwalt = Titel, Chief public prosecutor

o.g. = oben genannte = above mentioned

OLG = OberLandesGericht = Higher Regional Court (of Düsseldorf)

PKH = ProzessKostenHilfe= Demand of juridical aid

RA = Advocate=Lawyer

Retentakt = short saved files of a process

StGB =Straf Gesetz Buch = Pennal Code

T-DM = tausend Deutsche Mark (DM = Money of Germany until 2001)

ZPO = Zivil Prozess Ordnung= German Civil Code

 

 

Re: Az new (10 o 12/21, VRLG Gruber)

         : PKH for future official liability suit against BRD due to perversion of the BGH judges

            Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher to BGH Az III ZR 332/17 in

             the Resolutions from May 24, 2018 and July 26, 2018 (regarding OLG-Düsseldorf Az 18 U 69/16,

             LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 271/01)

             and thus caused material and immaterial damage, in the amount of approx. € 2.0 million

           : The BGH judges are from the Federal Minister of Justice Mohrenstrasse 37, 10117 Berlin

             represented, and this represented by General public prosecutor based in Karlsruhe.

           : Statute of limitations has not occurred;

           : Application for an EMERGENCY ADVOCATE according to § 78b ZPO

 

Dear Sirs,

Briefly the most important of the attached lawsuit / PKH

The above-mentioned BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) are accused

to BGH Az III ZR 332/17 in the resolutions of May 24, 2018 and July 26, 2018 the trial fraud committed by the

OLG Düsseldorf judges (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. KIrschner) on Az 18 U 69/16 in the judgment

of 18.10.2017 to have "GEDECKELT" and thus to have become an accomplice in the serious crimes of the

OLG-D'dorf judges; The OLG judges claim that the claims for damages of the engineer + inventor are statute-barred

on 06/30/2000; the BGH committee has them all described crimes / perversion of law / fraudulent proceedings /

legal violations by the LG / OLG judges approved. The FRG is liable for the judges' perversions to the law.

 

The above-mentioned OLG judges (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. KIrschner) have the LG-D'dorf

on July 7th, 2014 the statute of limitations of the engineer + inventor's claims for damages due to the crimes of

the Mettmann tax office, attempted in the OLG judgment on Az 18 U 69/16 of October 18th, 2017, by manipulating

the legal texts of the BGB old version as "30.6.2000" to declare barred; further legal violations uncovered;

Criminal complaint against the above-mentioned OLG judges has been pending at the D'dorf public prosecutor

since 19.9.2019, but has not yet been decided.

The LG-D'dorf, 2b civil chamber (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) had in the final judgment on Az 2b o 271/01

of May 11, 2016 with the legal frauds of the OLG committee of 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1 / 13 (i.e. committed approx.

8 months in advance) fully identified and adopted in the final judgment that the statute of limitations for the claims

due to the crimes of FA-Mettmann declared as statute-barred on "July 31, 2006". The fraudulent proceedings

are uncovered and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll "moved"

 

The OLG-D´dorf committee Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger tried in a resolution of 3 September 2015

to Az 18 W 1/13, the claims for damages of the engineer + inventor due to the crimes of the tax office Mettmann,

by manipulating the legal texts of the BGB old version (valid until 31.12.2001) and by mixing the BGB old version,

and BGB new version etc. to declare statute-barred on "July 31, 2006".

 

The uncovered and indicated perversion of the law led to the removal of Mr. Malsch from the position

of chairman of the 18th Senate.

 

The 2b civil chamber of the LG-D'dorf (Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag) had on

May 28, 2014 Regarding Az 2b o 271/01 determined that the statute of limitations for the engineer +

inventor's claims for damages due to the crimes of the Mettmann tax office came into effect on "June 30, 2010".

 

The 2b civil chamber of the LG-D'dorf (Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht) had determined

on November 26th, 2012 for Az 2b o 271/01 that the statute of limitations for the engineer + inventor's claims

for damages due to the crimes of the tax office Mettmann had entered on "December 31, 2009".

 

In 2010 the 11th Senate of the OLG-D'dorf tried to eliminate the plaintiff with 7 judges.

The attempted coup with 99 decisions of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) uncovered and reported;

The coup club has been dissolved and the members "offset" in all directions.

The BGH committee was silent about it.

 

A number of obvious frauds by the LG judges (Ms.Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Strupp-Müller /

Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr. Galle), the costs officer Habich, from 2007, are on the part of the BGH Panel

also took it lying down. Thus, the BGH judges are accomplices in all crimes of the LG judges become.

The 2b civil chamber of the LG-D'dorf had secretly tried twice (2000, 2008) to eliminate the plaintiff as

partially (!?) Incapable of litigation and both times violated the EuGVVO / EuGVÜ) and EGBGB;

the attempts are revealed and displayed. In 2001 the LG-2b is cast in chamber completely replaced.

The attached documents relate to the appeals of the LG / OLG / BGH judges and it is assumed that files

2b o 271/01, 18 U 69/16, III ZR 332/17 are included, therefore the GA sheet no. of the decision is also given.

It is also briefly noted that file 2b o 271/01 has been very heavily "fudged" and more than 200 Leaves

and facts relevant to the decision are removed, and in Aug./Sept. 2017 sent to the OLG D'dorf for Az

18 U 69/16.

The search for another LG file (2b o 77/08), which allegedly "disappeared", where the crimes of

FA-Mettmann are described, so that the plaintiff does not discover the frauds of the LG judges.

 

The crimes of the tax office Mettmann against the engineer + inventor in the years 1979-2006 are described

in the lawsuit 2b o 271/01 of 5.2.2001, and in NZB against the OLG-D'dorf judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az

18 U 69/16 the large number of lawsuits won at the FG-D'dorf against the FA-Mettmann can also be read.

The FA-Mettmann finally had a total of about 248 T-DM in the years 1999/2000/2001 and 2006 restored.

 

In the official liability suit 2b o 271/01, and in the appeal 18 U 69/16 not a single document from the crimes

of FA-Mettmann (more than 1,000 pages!) Is considered and the accused BGH committee has remained silent

about it.

The attached chronological processing of the official liability suit with Az 2b o 271/01 at the LG-D'dorf, the appeal

with OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 and the non-admission complaint (NZB) filed to the BGH only contains the most

important events of the lawsuit that was blocked for 18 years / Appeal / NZB.

 

The application for approval of the PKH will be submitted after the court has sent an official form to declare

personal and economic circumstances.

 

  1. Introduction to the issue with brief comments; Liability of the FRG for the BGH judges

                                                             1979-1999

 

The FA-Mettmann committed double recording errors in an external audit amounting to approx. 511,000 DM;

it prosecuted the plaintiff for alleged tax evasion and seized more than 264,500 DM in the years 1986-1989

at the banks because of alleged tax debts in the amount of 333.253, -DM, and left the plaintiff after several

legal frauds at the FG, therefore on 17./18. Dec. 1992 arrested.

 

The cause of the suspicion was a plant in GR, built with third-party loans and own savings to realize their

own patents / inventions. The FA had blackmailed the plaintiff regarding the work.

The plaintiff had won more than 30 trials at the FG-D'dorf (between 1996-2006) against the FA-Mettmann;

The FA repaid part of the looted capital in 1999-2000-2001; Any repayment by the FA interrupted the statute

of limitations. On December 15, 2006 after a FG agreement, the FA

reimbursed a further 80 T- € (comparison made after two more FA defeats)

 

On June 21, 1999 (after receiving the first 7 FG judgments), the plaintiff applied to the LG-D'dorf for compensation

with a first PKH / lawsuit (2b o 118/99); On February 5, 2001 the 2nd official liability suit against NRW (2b o 271/01)

for the crimes of FA-Mettmann followed and demanded compensation for the lost subsidy bonus in the amount

of approx. 1.77 million DM due to the bank seizures due to alleged tax evasion in the amount of about 333.3 T-DM;

On November 28, 2001, a third official liability suit (2b o 268/01) against NRW based on the new FG judgments

followed. (see NZB)

                                                         -- 1999 - 2001   --

 

The then chairwomen of the 2b civil chamber (Mrs. Tannert) connected the first two of the above complaints with PKH,

and tried (March 2000) with the help of the judge Ms. Fuhr and by means of secret applications to the AG-Guardianship

Court-Essen as the plaintiff to be partially (!?) disabled; other LG judges (e.g. Ms. Stöve, Ms. Wolks-Falter) were

busy looking for paragraphs in the Greek ZPO and BGB in order to justify the goal of the elimination. (see evidence)

 

On November 28, 2000 the 2b civil chamber had issued a "decision on evidence" signed Ms. Tannert / Ms Fuhr /

Mr. Schumacher, with which the plaintiff should be stamped as partially (!?) Incapable of litigation by the D'dorf Medical

Association, i.e. only for the lawsuits pending at 2b Chamber!

 

Evidence: LG decision of 11/28/2000 signed Ms Tannert / Ms Fuhr / Schumacher

 

           > the above LG decision of November 28, 2000 and the official statement by Ms. Tannert from

               May 18, 2000, the BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters & Co) ruled on the participation

             Ms. Fuhr was silent about it in the 1st instance and Ms. Fuhr's other offenses were "capped"

             The exclusion of Ms. Fuhr was presented both in the appeal and in the NZB, but the BGH

             Judges simply ignored the subject. They are liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff.

 

On February 5, 2001 the lawsuit was filed with PKH on Az 2b o 271/01 and the PKH application was

"made known" to the defendant on February 20, 2001 (thus the statute of limitations according to BGB

old version was interrupted; see appeal of August 18, 2016 P. 29, 57, 61; also OLG judgment of October 18,

2017, page 26, version 30 pages)

                                                                 annotation

 

     The announcement of the PKH application dated February 5, 2001 to the defendant state of

     North Rhine-Westphalia on February 20, 2001 was BGH committee after reading the OLG-D'dorf

     judgment of 18.10.2017 noticed, and insofar about the interruption of the statute of limitations

   according to the old version of the German Civil Code was convincing, but they were silent about it and

   COVERED (= concealed) the event.

   If the above fact were assessed, the BGH judges would have the alleged statute of limitations for

the claims on the part of LG / OLG-D'dorf and have to return the dispute. BRD is liable for the damage.

 

On December 29, 2001, the RA made an amendment to Az 2b o 271/01 (see OLG decision August 30, 2017,

Az 18 W 69/16, signed Ms.Stein/Ms.Fuhr/Ms. Glaeser, p. 11), i.e. a performance suit submitted.

After the discovery and reporting of the LG plot (Tannert /Fuhr /Schumacher) the attempt failed;

The 2b chamber cast (Tannert & Co) was completely replaced around the end of November 2001.

 

                                                               annotation

 

The amendment to the complaint of December 29, 2001 was included in the file and after reading it

by the BGH committee of the OLG-PKH negative decision of August 30, 2017 p. 11, (the amendment

of the complaint). That the statute of limitations was interrupted is again from BGH committee concealed.

Complicity undisputed !!

The BGH judges and the FRG in the sense of § 839 BGB are liable for the non-disclosure of the fact

that is relevant to the decision.

                                                                 - 2001-2005 -

 

The decision to take evidence of November 28, 2000 was revoked on November 29, 2001 by another occupation

of the 2b civil chamber (Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co). The related proceedings (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01)

have been separated again. Ms. Fuhr has been promoted to OLG judge !!!

 

A Hearing of the parties took place on November 12, 2002; the NRW legal representative (Nissen) stated for

the record that the bank seizures were the cause of the failure of the plaintiff's company, (seizures)

carried out by FA-Mettmann, but the underlying tax assessments were not unlawful ;

See minutes of the hearing on November 12, 2002, page 3.

 

                                                           annotation

 

The BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter & Co) was thus able to inform itself about the CAUSALITY

of the bank account seizures convince, what the LG-D'dorf (Tannert / Stockschlaeder-Nöll) and the

OLG-D'dorf (Malsch /Ms Glaeser / Anger, Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) has always kept silent.

Crimes undisputed!

 

The BGH has ruled on the causality of the bank seizures in the decisions on May 24, 2018 and on

July 26, 2018 not a word written; The BGH committee has "COVERED (concealed) " all criminal offenses of the

FA-Mettmann.

For the offense, § 339 StGB is decisive, but the BGH judges and in sense of § 839 BGB are decisive for liability

the BRD.

On December 18, 2002, a petition for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll (= S-N) was filed for all three proceedings

(because of hairdressing the files), which was rejected on January 17, 2008 by an illegally formed LG committee

(see below) ; insofar as all decisions up to the point of legal force were not legally compliant and should have been

revoked upon request.

 

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

           /Ms Schmidt

 

On February 19, 2003, the plaintiff filed an application to establish the illegality of the tax assessments on which

the bank seizures were based (letter from Az 2b o 271/01 " fudged" ( =arbitrarily removed)

 

The 1st PKH application of February 5, 2001 was rejected on April 4, 2003 by an unlawful body

(Brückner-Hoffmann/Strupp-Müller /Ms. Adam, violations of Art. 101 GG, against § 75 GVG) and the

processing the immediately raised complaint and hearing notices lasted until July 4, 2007, until the

OLG-D'dorf (18 W 36/04) had decided. (Until then there was no limitation according to the old version

of the German Civil Code; solely because of the first PKH application from February 5, 2001, which

was also made known to the defendant!)

 

After the rejection of the 1en PKH on April 4, 2003 of February 5, 2001, the RA filed a reduced official liability

suit on August 13, 2004 and the plaintiff began to RATE for the court fees of the Az 2b o 271/01 to be paid

monthly (without court order !!); See list of payments to LG..

 

The full payment of the court fees of 22,200 was made in December 2006 (according to the confirmation

from the OLG 18th Senate on September 3, 2015 on Az 18 W 1/13, p. 3, and according to the letter on Az

2b o 271 / 01 of the new cost officer Ms. Stregel dated June 30, 2010, GA sheet no.797). See evidence

From January 2007 the plaintiff began to urge the 2b civil chamber to serve the complaint of

5 February 2001 on the defendant. The lawsuit is after the LG / OLG judges have carried out and uncovered

further fraudulent proceedings, after 4 years of blockade !! delivered in September 2010. (see OLG decision

18 W 1/13, page 3)

The then RA confirmed on July 17th, 2003 that he had filed an UNCONDITIONAL ACTION with PKH

on February 5th, 2001. (see evidence), in this respect the statute of limitations according to BGB old version

was also interrupted

                                                                   annotation

 

O.g. letter from 17.7.2003 always kept secret by the LG / OLG / BGH; Offense of the committees

undisputed!

Because of the illegality of the LG committee of 4 April 2003 (Ms Brückner-Hoffmann/Ms Strupp-Müller/Ms. Adam)

an application for bias against Brückner-Hoffmann and Strupp-Müller was made on May 5th, 2003. Ms.

Brückner-Hoffmann went to OLG-D'dorf immediately after the PKH resolutions were announced for

"advanced training" and after 3 months she returned to LG-D'dorf as the presiding judge of a chamber

of commerce.

On May 19, 2003, the 11th Senate (including Az 11 W 12/03, Bünten & Co) praised the criminal act of LG judge

Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann and thus received an application for bias on July 6, 2003 (Az 11 W 58 / 02 and 11 W 12/03)

which was rejected by an illegally formed OLG committee on 5.1.2005.

 

On July 25, 2003 the 2b Chamber will be reminded of the request for bias of December 18, 2002 against S-N

to decide;  nothing happens. See file

In September 2003 was discovered that the rapporteur at the time (Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann) was blackmailed

from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll (S-N) and

She asked the rapporteur to "reject all of the applicant's applications en bloc so that the judiciary does

not get bogged down"                  (evidence contained in Retentakt 2b o 271/01, if not fudged);

 

On November 20, 2003, the accused of bias (S-N) passed resolutions on Az 2b o 271/01 first "as a single judge"

(although she was not a single judge according to § 348 ZPO) and then with Mr. Schu-macher and Ms. Schuster

others, which were also contested (was against Mr. Schumacher on 11/13/2003 because of his participation in

the adoption of the "decision on evidence 28/11/2000" charged with official liability action). See evidence.

 

In 2003, two official liability suits with PKH against (Ms. Tannert and Ms. Wolks-Falter, Az 2b o 146/03) because

of the conspiracies 2000-2001, as well as against (Ms. Fuhr / Schumacher) because of participation in the decision

to take evidence (Az 2b o 250/03) submitted.

The exclusion request against Strupp-Müller is on May 11, 2005 by an illegally formed LG body (Stockschlaeder-Nöll

/ Ms. Drees /Mr. Galle, violations of Art. 101 GG, against § 75 GVG, against GVP of the year 2005) as unfounded

rejected.

                                                                       annotation

 

The result was challenged with a complaint on May 27, 2005 (and thereafter always a complaint;

S-N should § 47 ZPO did not participate and Mr. Galle was neither responsible for jumping in according

to GVP nor a member of the 2b civil chamber; The protests were unsuccessful.

S-N had passed further resolutions until 2009.

The BGH committee determined the deliberate crimes of the LG judges and covered them with silence

For the criminal offenses § 339 StGB is decisive but for the BGH judges and i.S.d. § 839 BGB the FRG is liable

 

                                                                            - 2006 -

 

The year starts with enforcement threats due to incorrect cost decisions of the 11th Senate (Bünten & Co)

on Az 11 W 17/05; thereafter, the single judge Goldschmidt-Neumann Az 10 W 120/05 (also via OLG-Az

11 W 54/03), as well as the district auditor Ms. Brouwers, lasted the whole year. (see file)

On March 20, 2006, an illegally formed OLG committee (Haarmann / Behring / Ms. Anderegg, without the

chairman Malsch, violation of Article 101 GG, and GVG § 122) decided on Az 18 W 23/05 (2b o 271/01 )

only on the 4 points of the LG decision of May 11, 2005 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Drees / Galle), i.e.

excluding the point of exonerating Ms. Strupp-Müller) on the part of the above unlawfully formed LG

committee.                                                                                            (see evidence)

With the decision of April 5th, 2006 on OLG-Az 11 W 15/06 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01) signed Bünten / Bender

/ Mielke, the discharge of Ms. Strupp-Müller on the part of the unlawful and incompetent

LG committee (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Drees / Galle) dated May 11, 2005 declared to be proper;

that cost the signatory Bünten a bias application.                                                 (see file)

 

On April 14, 2006 the reminder was sent to the Regional Court on Az 2b o 271/01 regarding the application

of bias dated December 18, 2002 against Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, that the bias application has not yet been

decided;

Renewed motion to repeal all resolutions of the 2b Chamber signed by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

since Dec 2002                                                                                                      (GA sheet no. 411)

 

On April 21, 2006 the Stockschlaeder-Nöll ruling was issued with the determination of

the value in dispute for Az 2b o 271/01 in the amount of 1,838,180.46 €   (GA sheet No. 408)

 

With application to 2b o 271/01 of April 23, 2006, the service of the lawsuit is unconditional

                           requested the payment of court fees                                        (GA sheet no. 409)

 

The letter of April 25, 2006 from the D'dorf court treasury contains a cost calculation from April 7, 2006

in the amount of 47,566.00 € = (50.00 + 34,156.00 + 13,306.00 €), about the court costs for the free PKH

proceedings run at the 11th Senate of the OLG. The dispute lasted for several years

On July 14, 2006 Stockschlaeder-Nöll submitted a proposal for 2b o 268/01, i.e. like the paid instalments

for the three official liability suits (2b o 118/99, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 271/01) distributed

and offset so that the Az 2b o 268/01 (with transfer of € 4,050) could be decided first. See file

With LG decision on 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Ms Elle /Ms Strupp-Müller of Aug. 24, 2006,

the PKH application from 9.9.2005 rejected.

                                                                       Annotation:

 

Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll should not have signed the above-mentioned resolution on August 24, 2006

because of the unsettled application of bias of December 18, 2002; In addition, Ms. Strupp-Müller

was not legally exonerated; Violations of Art. 101 GG, § 47 ZPO, GVP; the repeated requests for

annulment were never considered.

The BGH committee silently approved the LG crimes; thus assumed responsibility.

For the offense, § 339 StGB is decisive, but the BGH judges and i.S.d. § 839 BGB are decisive for liability

the FRG on it.

 

On October 3, 2006, the plaintiff filed a complaint of failure to act on Az 2b o 271/01 and recalled

the application of April 14, 2006, which has not yet been decided; It is requested again to repeal all resolutions

after December 18, 2002, in the procedure 2b o 271/01, signed by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll                                  

                                                                                                       (GA sheet no. 440 or GA sheet no. 444)

                                                                       annotation

 

"The above-mentioned application had not been decided by the time it was terminated (including the

BGH proceedings !!)". Offense undisputed!

   The silence of the BGH committee about the funeral of the annulment requests means complicity

For the offense, § 339 StGB is decisive, but the BGH judges and i.S.d. § 839 BGB are decisive for

liability the FRG on it.

 

On December 21, 2006 the plaintiff filed a complaint to 2b o 271/01 about the inactivity of the

2b civil chamber of the LG-D'dorf; with the same letter the message about 2 more FG defeats of FA-Mettmann;

In recognition of the reimbursement claims, the FA reimburses a large part (€ 80,000)

of the plaintiff's looted assets from the period 1979-1991)                                              (sheet no. 453)

 

                                                                          - 2007 -

 

During the period (2001-2019) of the new chairwomen (Stockschlaeder-Nöll) dozens of illegal decisions

were passed by illegally formed LG bodies (organized and controlled by SN, which are described in the list),

as well as perversions, judge offenses , Litigation fraud that was contested / reported in due time, but repeatedly

rejected (also by the BGH!) With "shoulder to shoulder resolutions" as if no criminal offenses had been committed

 

On Jan. 21, 2007, a letter was sent to the President of the OLG-D'dorf with a copy of the application

   of January 20, 2007 applied for the repeal of the LG / OLG decisions as unlawful, and the legal

   follow described for court costs; Court bills must be kept.

On April 2, 2007 renewed reminder to Az 2b o 271/01 to 2b Chamber about the applications

           To decide on the cancellation of the LG / OLG decisions immediately                              (see file)

See: About the applications for repeal of Az 2b o 271/01 (letters e.g. from April 14, 2006, 7.1.2007,

January 14, 2007, January 20, 2007), as well as to the OLG e.g. from Jan. 18, 2008, 3rd reminder on

Az 18 W 46/07 to LG-D´dorf 2b o 271/01 and 18 W 38/04 with content the illegal LG decisions (signed S-N,

Strupp-Müller, and OLG decisions based on the LG decisions of Mrs. S-N and Strupp-Müller repeal)

the 2b Chamber could no longer raise an excuse.

 

With OLG decision on Az 18 W 38/04 (LG-2b o 271/01) of July 4th. 2007 signed (Malsch / Haarmann /

Ms. Anderegg) the termination of the first PKH proceedings from 5.2.2001 is signalled (GA sheet no. 434)

Then application to Az 2b o 271/01 of September 26th, 2010 to determine the illegality / repeal of the LG resolutions

v. September 18, 2007 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle, with which the delivery of the lawsuit

was rejected due to alleged incomplete payment of court fees, GA sheet 838 etc.).

 

Applications for annulment were never decided and were almost always "buried" at the OLG-18th Senate.

 

(Evidence: See LG notification of February 2, 2007 from LG-D'dorf on 2b o 271/01 that the applications of

January 20, 2007 for the annulment of the resolutions were signed by the biased Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll (= SN),

forwarded to the OLG on Az 18 W 23/05 (and "buried" there).

 

Note: The LG notification on February 2, 2007 is "fudged" (= deliberately removed) from the files of 2b o 271/01

See also the letter of Jan. 21, 2007 to the OLG-D'dorf President (letter is missing from the GA).

 

From August 2007 fraudulent proceedings also took place, committed by the LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

Ms. Strupp-Müller, Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser, Mr Galle and the cost officer (Mr Habich).

 

The second PKH application for 2b o 271/01 from 9.9.2005 is on 9.8.2007 (after 2 years!) Because of the alleged

lack of prospect of success (!) from the above-mentioned illegal LG committee Ms. Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser

/Mr Galle (violations of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG, § 47 ZPO, and because of Mr. Galle who was not responsible

according to GVP) rejected. (see also: Malsch / Strupp-Müller: Manipulation of files 2b o 271/01 between

September 18, 2007 to mid-2008)

 

Aug. 12, 2007: Reminder to 2b Chamber to serve complaints 2b o 268/01 and 2b o 271/01

                         and send the plaintiff a corresponding proof of service                (GA sheet no. 471)

 

On August 29, 2007, the criminal notices of the cost officer Habich (GA Bl. No. 476R) about the payment of

the fees for disputed amounts according to the outdated complaint of 5.2.2001 follow; alleged error! Regarding

2b o 271/01 "according to provisionally accepted amounts in dispute" writes the HABICH, € 9,454.69

would still be missing                                                                                         (GA sheet 499)

                                                                      annotation

 

"An addition to the file was not necessary because the amount in dispute for Az 2b o 271/01 was

correctly determined by Stockschlaeder-Nöll on April 21, 2006 and the court fees (also from the cost

officer) were registered in the file Criminal offense determined by the KB and approved with silence.

In this respect, the FRG is liable for the complicity of the BGH committee for the implementation of

LG litigation fraud

 

On August 31, 2007 an immediate complaint was filed against the decision of August 9, 2007 signed

Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Mr. Galle with rejection of the PKH application from 9.9.2005,

the reason was: Ms. Strupp-Müller was due to a bias application from decisions excluded and the exclusion

request never finally decided                                                                   (see file)

:

Application for the repeal of the above LG decision of August 9, 2007 (amendment to the application

                       from January 21, 2007) regarding 2b o 271/01 never decided               (GA sheet 490)

 

On September 6, 2007, a declaratory action with PKH is due to the bias of the judge Stockschlaeder-Nöll of the

2b civil chamber in the LG-D'dorf process 2b o 271/01 and receives the Az 2b o 194/07

 

On September 10, 2007, another reminder to serve complaints 2b o 271/01 will be issued

As a result, on September 18, 2007 the (criminal-like formed) LG committee (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser

/ Galle) refused to serve the lawsuit because allegedly the court fees were not paid in full; the open

amount would supposedly be € 9,454.69 !!! The cost officer did Ms. Bückner of the (GS =) office and the judge

Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser wrote on September 18, 2007 (Proof; see decision of September 18, 2007 signed

Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle)

                                                                               annotation

 

The immediate complaint v. October 9th, 2007 against the decision of September 18th, 2007 has been

"fudged" from the file between October 2007 and May 2008 (disappeared);

The BGH committee determined the fraud of the LG judges and silently approved it; Consequently

does the BGH committee have responsibility and liability over d. LG litigation fraud according to § 839 BGB

 

Ms. Strupp-Müller is already on the 15th of October 2007 for "advanced training" at the OLG-D´dorf 18th civil

senate (where the file 2b o 271/01 ends up; who was responsible for it ??); In the period from Oct. 2007

to mid-2008, file 2b o 271/01 was heavily "manipulated", the immediate complaint disappeared and Ms.

Strupp-Müller returned to the LG-D'dorf as the presiding judge of a civil chamber

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

                                                                    A1.

The following list shows (after research) the contours of the litigation fraud of September 18, 2007

Sept. 18, 2007: Transfer decision to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms Strupp-Müller /Ms Engelkamp-Neeser /

                         /Mr Galle, the complaint of August 31, 2007 is not remedied and sent to the OLG-D'dorf

                         forwarded.                                                                                          (GA sheet no. 493)

September 18, 2007: Official statement by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on 2b o 271/01; she supposedly

                              has from the request for bias of 18.12.2002 not known, and only with the letter of

                              29.9.2007 found out about this. It deliberately mixes up to create confusion

                             Bias application with the complaint against her decision of November 20, 2003 (with

                          which she the rejection of the photocopy of the "Votum der Kammer" (Stockschlaeder-

                          Nöll / Brückner-Hoffmann / Strupp-Müller) announced in 2003     (GA sheet no. 492)

September 18, 2007: Letter from Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser that the cost officer should examine the fees

                                    and found that the fees for Az 2b o 271/01, 29,304.69 Euros, based on an amount

                                   in dispute of 5,374,315 DM; are paid until now 19,850 Euros therefore 9,754.69

                                  Euros are missing. (see cost officer's handwritten notes dated August 29, 2007 in

                                   the file)

               For procedure 2b o 268/01, the amount in dispute is assumed to be DM 12,335,486.29 from

               the time 11/20/2001 and determines court fees 61,516.08 Euros and only 4,050 Euros would

               have been paid.

               Open remainder EUR 57,466.08; however, files 2b o 268/01 are still with the OLG-D'dorf.

                                                                                                                                                (GA sheet no. 498)

September 18, 2007: Letter from the office signed Bückner that the cost officer pays the court fees

                           has calculated higher than the plaintiff, namely on the amounts in dispute of 5.2.2001

                     and insofar can the lawsuit. re. 2b o 271/01 are not delivered      (MISSING from the file)

September 18, 2007: Letter from the office signed Bückner that the files will be sent to the OLG

                                       with reference to sheet No. 493                                     (MISSING from the file)

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

                                                                              A1.1

         Comments (compilation of some events, regarding hot-melted immediate complaint

                                               from October 9, 2007 to Az 2b o 271/01):

 

On September 18, 2007 (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) sign one

                                   No remedy- decision on Az 2b o 271/01 and send the immediate

                         Complaint against LG decision on August 9, 2007 to the OLG       (GA sheet No. 493)

On September 18, 2007, Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser (in the presence of the chairman !!) ordered the sending

of the File 2b o 271/01 to the OLG and there it arrives on October 9, 2007 (see OLG postmark)

                                                                                                                                              GA sheet no 494

On September 18, 2007, Ms. Bückner sent file 2b o 271/01 to OLG GA sheet no. 505

                         with reference to sheet no. 493 (regarding LG-NA revision 18.9.2007)

                      

On October 8, 2007, Ms. Bückner sent the LG decision of September 18, 2007

                         to the defendant and is served there on October 9, 2007, GA sheet no. 520

                      

On October 8, 2007, Ms. Bückner sent the LG decision of September 18, 2007

                         to the plaintiff and will be delivered there on October 9, 2007, 11 a.m. GA sheet no. 521

                      

On October 9, 2007 the plaintiff files an immediate complaint against the LG decision

                       from Sept. 18, 2007 and arrives at the LG on Oct. 10, 2007. GA sheet no. ???

                      

                       Ms. Bückner suspects that the file sent to the OLG 18th Senate

                        2b o 271/01 is already there and sends the immediate to the OLG

                       Complaint dated October 9, 2007 (by courier, i.e. with Ms. Strupp-Müller,

                       because on September 18, 2007 she is no longer "in the presence of the chairperson").

                       The immediate complaint on October 9, 2007 comes to the OLG 18th Senate on the

                       same Day i.e. on 10/10/2007

                      

                       Unclear why file 2b o 271/01 was delayed and sent to the OLG, and there

                       arrives late.

                      

On October 10, 2007, Malsch wrote an order on OLG Az 18 W 46/07 and sent GA sheet no. 506

                                     the complaint (which one?) to the opposing party (OFD) for comment

                                       within two weeks

                      

On October 15, 2007, the OFD replied to the OLG (received by the OLG on October 17, 2007),

                         that the complaint (which one?) was not included in the letter,             GA sheet no. 507

                          therefore it cannot give an opinion

                      

                       The OFD's reply from October 15, 2007 was never sent to the plaintiff although the

                     OLG several times (on December 5, 2007, sheet no. 534; on January 18, 2008

                       Bl. No. 536) on OLG Az 18 W 46/07 and OLG Az 18 W 38/04

                      

On November 8, 2007, Ms. Bückner requested file 2b o 271/01 from OLG 18 Senate

                       "back again" and asks for information about the obstacles;                        GA sheet no. 513

                       the letter arrives there on November 13, 2007. When did she have file

                       2b o 271/01 sent to the 18th Senate and reclaimed a first time not on file

                       contain; it is assumed, however, that the file was sent on September 18, 2007 and at

                       Higher Regional Court arrived on October 9, 2007 and the file until November 8, 2007

                       was requested, was at the 18th Senate.

                      

With the same letter dated November 8, 2007 and the addition "2 Requirement",    GA sheet no. 514

                      Ms. Bückner from 18th Senate 18 W 46/07 demands file 2b o 271/01 back.

                         She also writes a note on "Due to pending decision on "Request for bias".

                       There (for 18 W 46/07) the LG letter (2nd request) arrives on

                       Nov 29, 2007.

                      

On December 6, 2007, the OLG sends file 2b o 271/01 back to the LG GA Bl. No. 515

                           and it arrives there on the same day (December 6, 2007).

                        

As GA sheet No. 516 !!! Ms. Bückner sends file 2b o 271/01 to OLG GA sheet no. 516 with

                     reference to sheet no 493 (LG-NA decision September 18, 2007, Strupp-Müller /

                   Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) and a copy of the NABeschl. (No-Remedy) GA sheet no 517

                      

On October 10, 2007 (backdating?), Malsch will again award the Az 18 W 46/07 for

                   a received complaint (which one?) and sends the letter to the LG; GA sheet no.519

                     it arrives there on October 12, 2007.

               (the double Az 18 W 46/07 awarded by Malsch on the same day (10.10.2007) for

                 2 different complaints convinced of the intention of fraudulent proceedings!

               The 2nd Az 18 W 46/07 clearly proves the immediate complaint from October 9, 2007

                 In file 2b o 271/01, however, the second Az, sent to the LG, does not exist !! )

 

On October 9th, 2007 the LG decision. September 18, 2007 handed over to OFD Cologne with delivery

of GA sheet no. 520 and the postal confirmation of delivery will be returned to the LG on October 12, 2007

On October 9th, 2007 LG decision. September 18, 2007 delivered to the plaintiff personally,

The GA sheet no. 524 contains the picture of the Mr. V. Pfahl with the kipper .         GA sheet no. 521

      This picture (sheet no. 524) belongs to the immediate complaint from October 9, 2007

       against the LG decision of September 18, 2007 (refusal to serve the action     Proof: Sheet No. 524

       due to not fully paid fees). The picture of the kipper is on page 2 the Immediate Complaint

     mentioned 10/9/2007, and does not match, neither as a reminder of December 12, 2007 (sheet

  1. 523) and to the reminder on 7.1.2008 (without receipt stamp, only processing stamp Jan. 14,  

       2008)                                                                                                                                  GA sheet no 525

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

  1. Oct. 2007: Inquiry why the lawsuits after payment of the court fees since June 2006

                           not be delivered? re. 2b o 271/01 GA sheet no. 501 + sheet no. 518

                   : Inquiry why about the annulment requests against the resolutions of Ms. Stockschlaeder-

                     -Nöll and Ms. Strupp-Müller have not yet been decided since January 2007?

                : Inquiry regarding the decision of the 2b civil chamber on the immediate appeal

                       of August 31, 2007 against the resolution of August 9, 2007 signed Strupp-Müller

25.11.2007: Outraged letter on Az 2b o 194/07 (declaratory action) with a series

                     of evidence in "Bez .:". the official statements of the others

                     Type machines (Ms Strupp-Müller and Mr Galle were requested;

                     Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser is accused of gross lies;

                     Access to files requires where the files are (and not at the office).

December 5, 2007: Letter to the OLG-18th Senate on Az 18 W 46/2007 with a photo of the kipper in

                         front of the Holger Pfahl, and reference:

                 : Complaint dated October 9, 2007 to 2b o 271/01 because of the court fees paid and

                   alleged error of the cost officer, as well as applications from July 31, 2007 to 18 W 38/04

                     (2b o 271/01) for the lifting of the spying              (GA sheet No. 534 and GA sheet No. 1956

             : List from January 14, 2007 / January 20, 2007 (Az LG-D´dorf 2b o 271/01) of the LG / OLG

                 decisions,the cancellation of which has been requested

             : Communication from the 18th Senate of 10.10.2007 that the (complaint, but which was not

                 named !!) has been forwarded to the opposing party for a statement within 2 weeks.

December 6th, 2007: Communication on Az 2b o 268/01 that the company AVT / Mülheim Ruhr no

                                    longer exists; Invitation impossible

                  : Reminder to serve the complaints (2b o 268/01 and 2b o 271/01) to NRW

                  : Reminder of the decision to repeal the LG resolutions signed by

                       Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Strupp-Müller (see list from January 20, 2007 to

                     Az 2b o 271/01) and repeal of the OLG-D'dorf resolutions of the 11th

                     and 18th Senate (photo of the kipper in front of the Holger Pfahl in p. 4)

Dec. 18, 2007: 2nd reminder to forward the opponent's position on Az 18 W 46/07

                         : 2nd reminder to end the spying (letter of July 31, 2007)

                         : Repetition of the application to repeal the LG / OLG decisions (see list

                           the resolutions of January 14, 2007 and January 20, 2007 by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                           and Ms. Strupp-Müller) to decide immediately                           GA sheet no.535

 

                                                                          - 2008 -

 

The committee "Köstner-Plümpe / Vaupel / Schmidt", controlled and illegally formed by Stockschlaeder-Nöll,

decided on January 17, 2008 with the decision of the LG. re 2b o 271/01, the application of bias against

Stockschlaeder-Nöll dated December 18, 2002 (after almost 6 years !!) rejected as unfounded !; in the

LG No-remedy. However, it is not contradicted that the application

was actually made on December 18, 2002.                                                                 GA sheet number 529

In March 2008, the application for a declaration of February 19, 2003 has not yet been decided and the plaintiff

is sufficient on March 25. 2008 a declaratory action with PKH (Az 2b o 77/08); it lists the 273 tax notices

(terror of the FA-Mettmann, with changes to the amended ones, or the notices previously declared invalid !! etc)

for the income tax incidents of the years 1979-1992, and requests to determine the illegality and to lift the

bank seizures.

                                                                           annotation

 

The bank seizures have not yet been lifted (see also NZB; statute of limitations never occurred)

     LG file 2b o 77/08 disappears after it has been intensively v. LG to FG and vice versa.

 

   The research into the missing file 2b o 77/08 shows that as early as June 2008 the Ms.

   Stockschlaeder-Nöll (S-N) turned on the judge SCHUCK of the tax court D'dorf and

   asked how she could get the declaratory action of March 25, 2008 off the table.

 

On June 18, 2008, Mr. SCHUCK issued legal advice to Stockschlaeder-Nöll (Evidence No. 64)

See letter v. June 18, 2008 signed by the chairman Schuck, on FG Az 13 AR 2071/08 to the LG-D'dorf

(The attached evidence is missing from files 2b o 271/01 !!!).

As a result, the declaratory action 2b o 77/08 disappeared and the LG-did not decide;

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

           A2. Further research regarding missing files from Az 2b o 77/08:

 

According to the notification of the OLG-D'dorf dated Nov. 25, 2009 on Az 18 W 7/09, the LG files

2b o 77/08 from the BGH to the BFH on Az VIII B 173/09, on the advice of the FG- D'dorf (to FG-Az

13 K 3285/08) sent; then the traces of files 2b o 77/08 are lost

 

New findings of the criminal cooperation Schuck / Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Galle appeared in 2019

and confirmed that the file 2b o 77/08 was last at the FG in December 2016; According to a statement

by the FG President from 2019, LG file 2b o 77/08 is no longer there.

       _________________________________________________

February 10, 2008: Forwarding of a photocopy of the official statement of the -

                           Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll v. August 6, 2003 submitted to Az 2b o 268/01, (sheet no. 194),

                         for the files of the local proceedings 2b o 271/01 GA sheet no. 543

Feb. 11, 2008: Further reasons for the refusal of the judges (Engelkamp-Neeser /

                         Strupp-Müller / Galle) to Az 2b o 194/07 (with photo of the kipper / Holger Pfahl)

                     : Photocopy of the official statement from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll v. 6.8.03 to

                       Az 2b o 268/01 (sheet no. 194), where they refer to the request for bias and to a

                       Other official statement issued on December 20, 2002 on Az 2b o 118/99

                       takes; Also mentioned is the application for partiality made on this side

                     (from December 18, 2002, identical for all three official liability suits 2b o 118/99,

                     2b o 268/01, and 2b o 271/01)

Feb. 26, 2008: My letter to 2b o 271/01; Subsequent submission of the price calculations for the

                       Axial piston pump (AKP) and for the radial vane pump (DWRFZ) supplemented with

                   Economic data from GR for the year 1986, within the framework of the PKH procedure

                                                                                                                                            GA sheet No. 559

In March 2008 (and June 2008) there are several declaratory and official liability suits with PKH

                       submitted; including the missing one with Az 2b o 77/08 (determination of the legal

                     contradiction of tax assessments used for bank seizures 1986-1989)

On April 12, 2008: the plaintiff complains about the condition of files 2b o 271/01, which have long

                               gaps has and is incomplete; (Even then, the file manipulation was noticed!)

               With reference to the request for bias dated December 18, 2002, there are 11 documents

               mentioned in 2b o 271/01, which encumber Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.    GA sheet no. 566

 

On April 16, 2008 approx. 2:30 p.m .: attempted murder on the A5 motorway south of Karlsruhe,

 

             The perpetrator drove a black Ford Focus; How did the killer know that day

                 the plaintiff would be driving a strange vehicle? (the witness is still alive!)

May 28, 2008: decision not to remedy the situation (= NA decision) 2b o 271/01 signed

                         Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Köstner-Plümpe / Galle; Complaint of February 25, 2008

                        forwarded to the OLG, order of the LG wishes;

the plaintiff allegedly submits a bias application v. December 18, 2002 against Stockschlaeder-Nöll

                                                                                                                                      GA sheet no. 569

                                                       Annotation

 

       The judge Mr Galle jumps in every time to help the Ms Stockschlaeder-Nöll;

       He has no jurisdiction according to GVP. The 2b chamber was occupied by Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser,

    which, however, enjoyed no trust from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll.

       She (E-N) was ejected from 2b in Nov. 2009

 

With a letter of June 19, 2008 from the President of the OLG-D'dorf it is confirmed that the court fees

for 2b o 268/01, OLG 18 W 28/05, 50, - ; to Az 2b o 268/01, OLG 11 W 57/03, 13.306, - €;

to Az 2b o 118/99, OLG 11 W 54/01, 34.156, - €, according to the report of the court treasury D'dorf

from. June 16, 2008 are depressed indefinitely. (Letter not included in the file)

 

2nd July. 2008: my letter for information to the OLG-D´dorf Az 11 W 26/2008; (LG-D'dorf 2b o 271/01);

                   the immediate complaint of February 25, 2008 against the above LG decision of January 17,

                 2008is managed on a PKH basis, for which the application is made here again

                                                                                                                                           GA sheet no.586

                   : Reference to the incomplete status of the case file of LG-Az 2b o 271/01

                   : Reference to the pending official liability suit against NRW because of the actions

                     the judge Dr. Failed in previous proceedings.

July 10, 2008: OLG decision on 18 W 39/06 signed Malsch / Haarmann / Ms. Anderegg;

                     the complaint v. February 7, 2008 against the LG decision of January 17, 2008 signed

                 Köstner-Plümpe / Vaupel / Schmidt Az 2b o 118/99 with which the repeal of the LG decision.

  1. 11/29/2001 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Goldschmidt-Neumann / Schmidt-Kötters was

                rejected by the OLG as inadmissible and discarded for a fee

 

                                                                     Annotation:

 

The OLG judges (Volker MALSCH & Co) are silent about the illegality of the LG committee

Köstner-Plümpe / Vaupel / Schmidt (no presiding judge, violation of Art. 101 GG, GVG § 75);

So everything "COVERED" that is illegal under the LG. Tactics noticed since 2003 and practiced

until Sept. 2015

The BGH committee with its silence finds the legal violations and undermining of the law normal.

The liability of the FRG for the failure of the BGH committee to Az III ZR 332/17 is unequivocal and clear.

 

In the months of July-Sept. In 2008 the 2b Chamber (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser) tried again

to eliminate the plaintiff as partially (!?) Incapable of litigation by means of secret petitions at the Essen

Guardianship Court. They correspond via email with AG judge Seelmann, whom they try to persuade or

put under pressure to "quickly appoint a supervisor".

The attempt of the LG-D'dorf conspirators failed because of the resistance of the judge Seelmann.

 

                                                                     annotation

 

It is the most disgusting attempt by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to push the "girl" forward

Engelkamp-Neeser; The BGH committee found no reason to violate the applicable laws

Send the dispute back to the OLG or announce a decision (to reduce costs).

Thus, the BGH committee has become an accomplice in the fraud of the LG judges;

The LG / OLG judges have thus recognized that they would not get a reprimand from

the BGH if they commit fraudulent proceedings or legal violations. The liability of the FRG

is also unequivocal.

 

The plot with the secret applications to the Essen Guardianship Court has been discovered, and

applications for bias filed against Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Engelkamp-Neeser on December 16, 2008;

Reason: violation of the EGBGB Art. 7, and Art. 1 EuGVVO etc)   (see evidence)

 

                                                         annotation

 

Stockschlaeder-Nöll was the same person who signed the decision of November 28, 2000 signed

Ms Tannert / Ms Fuhr / Schumacher had repealed and knew about the applicable laws.

The BGH committee was also able to infer the above fact from the files; nevertheless it approved

the violations.

The BGH judges or the FRG are responsible for ignoring the facts relevant to the decision.

 

                                                                 - 2009 -

 

The application of bias dated December 16, 2008 in all 14 pending proceedings is on 23/24. March 2009

by an illegally formed LG body (controlled by the S-N) (Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann,

violations of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG and GVP) rejected as unfounded. Tenor of the 14 resolutions of the

unlawful LG committee

                   "The accused LG judges allegedly did not violate any laws" (see evidence)

 

                                                                    annotation

 

   When it comes to "capping" the crimes of the LG / OLG judge colleagues, the BGH judges are always

     helpful with a ranks resolution. This time they granted not just one, but 14 legal Violations,

     committed on 23/24 March 2009 by Ms. Tigges / Ms Schmidt / Ms Dr. Hoffmann

     The BGH complicity is undisputed here and § 339 StGB applies. The FRG is responsible.

 

For her crimes (until 2014) Ms. Dr. Hoffmann as chairwomen of the 2b civil chamber in December 2019

     promoted after the S-N was removed from the 2b chamber (after vehement protests by the LG

       President / NRW Minister of Justice /Criminal complaint from September 19, 2019, etc.).

 

The immediate complaints against the LG resolutions of 23/24 March 2009, filed in due time, were rejected

on 23 September 2009 by the 11th Senate D'dorf for a fee (Az 11 W 36/09 to 11 W 58/09); that cost the OLG

signatories of the decisions, in January 2010 bias requests.

 

                                                          - 2010 -

 

Then 7 OLG judges of the 11th Senate (Bünten / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes / Dahm /

Claus-Georg Müller / Ms. Grabensee) acted like criminals, organized in 3 groups:

 

The first inconspicuous OLG group (Wermeckes / Müller / Ms Grabensee), under the leadership of

the pseudo-chairman Wermeckes, removed the biased judges of the 2nd group on February 16, 2010

theoretically exonerated from the charge of bias. Theoretically, because against Art. 101 GG, and

have violated § 122 GVG; insofar resolutions are legally ineffective.

 

The second OLG group (Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Wermeckes) acted on February 18, 2010 and under

the leadership of the pseudo-chairwomen Ms. Jungclaus, the 3rd group and the "Superman"

(Dr. Bünten) chairman of the 11th Senate theoretically exonerated from the charge of bias;

 

The resolutions violate Article 101 of the Basic Law, and § 122 of the Basic Law to that extent are legally ineffective.

 

The third group Bünten /Ms Jungclaus /Ms. Baan / Wermeckes acted on February 22, 2010, under

the leadership of the "Superman" (Bünten), rejected the complaints against the decisions of September 23, 2009

for a fee.

The chairman (Bünten) and the others (e.g. Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan) were not legally exonerated

and insofar their resolutions of February 22, 2010 are legally ineffective.

 

In the above-mentioned date (February 16, 2010, February 18, 2010, February 22, 2010) it was noticeable that

no 14 days statutory Deadline was met by the criminals of the 3 groups.

 

The plaintiff received 42 (= 3 * 14) resolutions from the coup club within one week.

Still are all 42 resolutions challenged with legal remedies within 14 days.

 

On March 30, 2010 the theatre repeats itself; the first group (Wermeckes / Dahm /Ms Grabensee,

with Wermeckes as the pseudo-chairman) rejects the complaints raised against his resolutions f. February 16,

2020 due to alleged defects in the form. (Offenses against Art. 101 GG, § 122 GVG)

 

On March 31, 2010, the second group will be led by the pseudo-chairwomen, Ms. Jungclaus active and rejects

the complaint against the decisions of February 18, 2010 (violations of Art. 101 GG ,against § 122 GVG)

 

It rained BVerfG complaints against the OLG-D'dorf decisions which were not accepted for decision.

(Bross / Di Fabio / Landau; Ms. Osterloh / Mellinghoff / Gerhardt; Voßkuhle / Gerhardt / Huber and

other committees were busy with it. The judiciary is busy with itself

 

On May 12, 2010, the "Superman" Bünten rejected, as usual, for a fee the complaints against his decisions

of February 22, 2010, which were also contested.

 

With the resolution of July 12, 2010 on 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann /

Ms. Weitzel gives the 2b Chamber an explanation why the files were sent to the FG-D'dorf;

She shifts the subject and (S-N) writes:                                                                            (GA sheet no. 801)

             The civil jurisdiction is not responsible for a decision on tax assessments.

 

                                                                       annotation

 

     On February 19th, 2003 (7 years ago !!) the plaintiff only had the "determination of illegality" of

     applied for the tax assessment notices listed and referred to Az 2b o 77/08 in a letter dated July 8,

     2008 to the article by the BGH judge Stuttmann in NJW, 2003, no. 20, p. 1432, with the title

     "Second Chance at the civil judge, the review of final administrative acts "taken and wilfully

    invalid opinion of the LG committee; Then silence.

 

On September 17th, 2010 the advocate Minnerop commissioned by the North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW)

submits an extension of the lawsuit on Az 2b o 271/01 and mentions (without providing evidence) that the

claimant's claims for damages are allegedly time barred! he moves the action

to be dismissed. The "code word" statute of "limitations" appears here

 

On September 21, 2010, an application for bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll/ Mr Galle/Ms. Dr. Hoffmann,

because with decision to Az 2b o 271/01 of September 18, 2007 signed Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser

/Mr Galle had refused the signatory's request for service to be served on the grounds that the court fees

had not been paid in full.                                             GA. sheet 855 (Vol. IV).

                                

This was followed by letters dated September 18, 2007 from Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser and Ms. Bückner,

dated Jan. 14, 2009 signed Ms. Stregel, and from October 14, 2009 signed Ms. Twardon that the court fees

for 2b o 271/01 not completely !! would be paid.                                      GA sheet 855+ sheet 860

 

On September 27, 2010 there was an official liability suit with PKH (2b o 177/10) against NRW because

of the perversion of Ms. Strupp-Müller/Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser /Mr. Galle, when issuing the LG decision

of September 18, 2007 and refusing to serve the action because of allegedly not fully paid court fees for

Az 2b o 271/01.                            (The above complaint is not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

The above PKH from September 27th, 2010 to Az 2b o 177/10 is on November 15th, 2010 by an illegally

formed body (Mrs. Dr. Hoffmann / Mrs. Baumeister / Mrs. Moosbrucker, violations of

Art. 101 GG, against § 75 GVG because Ms. Dr. Hoffmann is not a presiding judge) rejected.

 

                                                           annotation

 

The formation of the above LG committee corresponds to the method of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

   unsuspecting "girls" (young professionals in probationary period) Drifting into the mud of legal

   in fraudulent actions.

 

On 10.10.2010 a criminal complaint against Ms. Tannert / Ms. Wolks-Falter / Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

Ms. Brückner-Hoffmann / Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann /

Dr. Bünten /Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / C.-G. Müller / Wermeckes / Malsch / Haarmann

(handed over to the D'dorf public prosecutor on October 19, 2010) and received the Az 40 Js 7240/10

 

The public prosecutor's office D'dorf (Mrs. Alexander) rejects the investigation against the LG / OLG judges on

November 5, 2010 and for complaints refers to GenStAnw-D'dorf (shoulder to shoulder decision).

 

On November 15, 2010 the LG decision on Az 2b o 177/10 of the unlawful body (violations of Art. 101 GG,

§ 75 GVG etc.) signed Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms Baumeister / Ms Moosbrucker, whereby the PKH applied

for is rejected; The unlawful LG committee claims that there is no legal remedy against the LG decision of

August 19, 2007 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Mr. Galle to Az 2b o 271/01 would be taken

against the blockade of the service of the action.

                                                                                     Annotation

 

The "fudged" (immediate complaint from October 9, 2007, deliberately removed from file 2b o 271/01

against the resolution September 18, 2007 signed Ms. Strupp-Müller/Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser/Mr. Galle)

has simply been concealed by the above-mentioned illegal LG committee. The immediate complaint

that was forwarded on October 9, 2007 is not included in Az 2b o 271/01 or in Az 2b o 177/10.

It was also not mentioned that the LG committee was unlawfully formed on September 18, 2007.

 

A little later (autumn 2010) is the "Superman" (Bünten) of the OLG-11. Senate "transferred";

peu a peu are the other members of the Putsch Club, such as Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes,

"offset" and distributed in the four wind directions; But some offenders are closed Presiding

judge of an OLG senate promoted !!

 

The immediate complaint filed on November 30th, 2010 against LG decision f. November 15, 2010 to Az

2b o 177/10 was forwarded to the OLG on December 8th, 2010 with the LG decision not to remedy Az

2b o 177/10 signed Ms Keiser / Ms Moosbrucker / Schwarz (with the order of the LG requests)

 

                                                             - 2011 -

 

With OLG decision of an unlawful body of 10.2.2011 on OLG-Az 11 W 97/10 (LG 2b o 177/10) signed

Ms. Rotzheim / Ms. Jungclaus /C.-G. Müller is the request for bias against Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan /

Wermeckes / Müller rejected as inadmissible; The immediate complaint f. November 30, 2010 against

LG decision of November 15, 2010 on Az 2b o 177/10, has been rejected, insofar as the rejection request

by the unlawful LG committee (Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Baumeister / Ms. Moosbrucker) was rejected.

 

                                                               annotation

 

No word was written in the OLG decision of February 10, 2011 about the legal violations of the illegal

LG committee (Ms. Hoffmann / Ms. Baumeister / Ms. Moosbrucker); So crimes of the buddy from

the OLG "GEDECKELT"

The complaint against the above-mentioned OLG decision of February 10, 2011 signed Ms. Rotzheim /

Ms. Jungclaus / Müller remains unsuccessful.

                          The LG judges accused of perverting the law remain unpunished.

 

On March 9th, 2011 the plaintiff sends a letter to the 2b Chamber and reports "legal objections"

to Az 2b o 271/01 because of the composition of the committee on March 16, 2011 with female judges

(Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Dr. Hoffmann) who have been excluded because of bias since

September 21, 2010 and are heavily burdened with official liability suits for perversion of the law .

(GA, sheet 977)

 

On March 11th, 2011, the supplementary report by the physician Dr. K.-H. L. to 2b chamber sent.

The medical reports have never been taken into account; once even as a simple opinion of the doctor,

on the part of the reporter Ms. Brecht, was downgraded because of allegedly unproven causality.

Supervision complaint forwarding to the GenStAnwalt-D'dorf.

 

The application of the RA W. to Az 2b o 271/01 of 14.3.2011 to postpone the oral Negotiation

so that he can speak to the doctor has never been answered                               (GA sheet no. 981)

On March 16, 2011, the above-mentioned exclusion request was not decided, but the above-mentioned

2 women were still on the decision-making body; they announce the default judgment (= VU) to Az

2b o 271/01). Insofar, default judgment (VU) to Az 2b o 271/01). is illegal and ineffective.

                                                                                      (GA, sheet No. 1073; Protocol Sheet No. 1072a)

                                                           annotation

 

Due to this illegal and legally ineffective insurance, the plaintiff will be condemned on May 11, 2016 !!

   The BGH committee determined the legal violation of the LG judges and COVERED it with silence

After rejection by the D'dorf General Public Prosecutor and by the D'dorf Public Prosecutor from

Feb. 15, 2011 with Az 4 Zs 2386/10 signed by ObStAnw Caspers, a pleading dated March 19, 2011

with 682 sheets is sent to the OLG-D'dorf with an application for the initiation of the enforcement proceedings

against LG / OLG judges for perversion of rights according to § 339 StGB (in the mailbox of the OLG-D'dorf)

thrown in on March 21, 2011; (OLG Az III- 1 Ws 80/11) (not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

With the decision of April 5, 2011 on Az III- 1 Ws 80/11 of an illegally formed OLG committeeof the 1st Criminal

Senate, signed Stüttgen / Ms. Dr. Hubrach / Wißmann (AG judge !!) is the application for the enforcement

proceedings against Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Dr. Bünten / Malsch / Tannert / Wolks-Falter and others rejected

as inadmissible according to § 172 StPO because it was not signed by an RA, and the PKH application rejected

as unfounded due to a lack of conclusive presentation of the report.

 

On April 8, 2011, the plaintiff reported to the 2b Chamber that the VU of March 16, 2011 on

Az 2b o 271/01 was unlawful and therefore legally ineffective. (see file)

 

April 10, 2012: additional application for granting the PKH for Az 2b o 271/01 because of the

           lost profit from T & X with the patented adjustable DWFZ pump                  (sheet no. 1170)

With a letter of April 13th, 2011 to the OLG-D'dorf-III-1 Ws-80/10, the OLG committee is justifying it

the extraordinary composition of the decision-making body of April 5, 2011 (Stüttgen /Ms Hubrach / Wißmann

(AG judge!) requested and on April 16, 2011 an immediate appeal against OLG-D'dorf decision of April 5, 2011,

Az III- 1 Ws 80 / 11 signed Stüttgen /Ms Hubrach / Wißmann (AG-Richter!) raised.                      

                                                                                       (Not included in 2b o 271/01)

On April 15, 2011, the 1st VU of March 16, 2011 on Az 2b o 271/01 was contested with an legal objection

by the RA W.

 

ECHR complaint no. 39.060 / 11 was filed on May 8, 2011; The complaint was directed against the rejection

of the applicant's application for rejection against the judges at the Düsseldorf Regional Court

Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms Engelkamp-Neeser because of bias in Az 2b o 170/08 (concerning secret account

of FA-Mettmann, as well as against the rejection of the applicant's request for rejection against the judges of

the 11th Senate Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Dr. Bünten /Mrs. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller) to

Az I-11 W 49/09 (not included in 2b o 271/01)

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

On May 25, 2011, the BGH decision was issued to Az 2 ARs 140/11 and 2 AR 99/11 signed Fischer/Berger/Krehl

via OLG-D'dorf Az III-1 Ws 80/11 lawsuit enforcement proceedings (StAnw-D'dorf 40 Js 7240/10);

 

After hearing the Federal Public Prosecutor and the applicant on May 25, 2011, the 2nd BGH criminal panel decided:

"The Applicant´s complaint against the decision of the OLG-D'dorf from April 5th, 2011 Az III-1 Ws 80 / 11- is discarded

as inadmissible at his costs because this decision cannot be contested with the complaint (Section 304 (4)

sentence 2 StPO) "(not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

                             A3. Comment on Section 304, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2, StPO

 

In Section 304, Paragraph 4, Clause 2, StPO, an immediate appeal against decisions of the OLG which have been

decided in the first instance (and this is always the case of the enforcement procedure) is still permissible.

The BGH judges of the 2nd Criminal Senate boast that only they own the law books and know the laws by heart;

of course always wrongly laid out, as it suits them !!

 

Thereupon the OLG-D'dorf also decided on June 22nd, 2011 to Az 1 Ws 124/11 signed Stüttgen /

Dr. Hubrach / Wißmann (continuation of the enforcement procedure 1 Ws 80/11) rejected

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

A new PKH application for Az 2b o 271/01 was submitted on June 14, 2011:            (GA, Bl. No. 1076)

and on June 15, 2011, the pension expert Ms. Ketteler-Jansen determined 1,637.25 €/month

as legal Pension to paid and sent to the 2b Chamber

                                                         Annotation:

      (The expert's pension calculation is not included in the files, so it has never been assessed).

On June 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the OLG decision pursuant to Section 321a

ZPO f. 7.6.2011 signed Ms Rotzheim / Ms Jungclaus / Wurmeckes Az 11 W 12/11 (2b o 271/01) with application

for admission of the legal complaint and bias application against Ms. Jungclaus and Mr. Wermeckes          

                                                                                                                (GA, sheet no. 997)

With OLG letter 22.6.2011 the official statements (not signed!) of Ms. Jungclaus from 21.6.11 and

Mr Wermeckes from 22.6.2011 regarding Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01) are sent to the plaintiff                        

                                                                                                                                   (MISSING from the file)

4.7.2011: Return of the unsigned, official statements by Wermeckes / Jungclaus

                   to Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01)                                                           GA. Sheet No. 1008

July 18, 2011: Advocate Minnerop requests that advocate W.'s objection against VU from March 15,

                             2011 should be rejected

July 18, 2011: Comments on the official statements by Ms. Jungclaus and H. Wermeckes

                             Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01, 7 pages                                            (GA. Bl. No. 1014)

July 25, 2011: OLG decision Az 18 W 13/11, signed Malsch / Stobbe / Weith (LG-Az 2b o 177/10) with

                 back Instruction of the immediate complaint dated November 30, 2010 against LG decision

                 of November 15, 2010 (Rejection of the PKH), as unfounded;

                 immediate complaint f. October 9, 2007 against the LG decision of September 18, 2007

                 (Strupp-Müller /Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) on Az 2b o 271/01 would allegedly not be in the

                 trial files contain!

                                                                   annotation

 

                   The process fraud (Malsch / Strupp-Müller) by manipulating the court file is kept secret !!

                                                                                                

  1. Aug. 2011: Forwarding copies of pages 48-53 from the PKH application from 14.6.2011 to Az

                 2b o 271/01 regarding the consequential damage (and causality of the individual acts)

                 the retention on the part of FA-Mettmann of Income tax and sales tax refunds from 1977

                 until 1989                                                                                (MISSING from file 2b o 271/01)

  1. Aug. 2011: Hearing complaint according to § 321a ZPO against the OLG decision v. July 25, 2011

                       signed Malsch /Stobbe / Weith on Az 18 W 13/11 as well as my application for admission

                     of the legal complaint;

         Disappeared? Complaint f. October 9, 2007 against LG decision Az 2b o 271/01 of September 18,

           2007 signed Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Mr. Galle; the three memories of the 18th

           Senate regarding the complaint of October 9, 2007 and his silence not mentioned !!

August 12, 2011: OLG decision on Az 11 W 12/11 signed Rotzheim /Ms Baan / Koewius (regarding LG

                 2b o 271/01 Mr. Galle / Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser); The request for bias against

               Ms. Jungclaus is has become inadmissible because she went to LG-D'dorf as Vice President.

                                                                                                                                          GA, sheet no.1026

                   The bias motion against Mr. Wermeckes is (allegedly) unfounded !!.

                   For bias Stockschlaeder-Nöll there is (supposedly) no reason for rejection !!!

August 19, 2011: OLG-Az 11 W 12/11 (LG- 2b o 271/01) hearing complaint according to § 321a ZPO                

                     against decision of August 12, 2011

                 : H. Wermeckes remains excluded                                                                GA, sheet no. 1030

                 : Ms. Baan is also known as a multiple criminal in judges' tunics and

                    therefore excluded. : Application for admission of the legal complaint

05 September 2011: OLG decision Az 11 W 12/11 (LG 2b o 271/01) signed Ms Rotzheim /Ms Baan / Koewius.    

          The bias motion against Ms Baan is rejected as inadmissible (and abusive);

             The hearing complaint f. August 19, 2011 against OLG decision of August 12, 2011 (11 W 12/11)

             is called rejected unfounded. As is responsible for the costs of the complaint.    Sheet No. 1034

29.9.2011: Order, Stockschlaeder-Nöll: Date 5.10.2011 for 2b o 271/01 is cancelled.

                                   "So the manipulation of the files continues !!"

 

2.11.2011: OLG decision Az 1 Ws 366/11 f. Dr. Hubrach (Chairwoman!) / H. Stüttgen / H. Dr. Börsch

                 (Judge at the LG!). Text: "The request of Dr. Theodor Sartoros from Essen for transmission

                     the comments submitted in proceedings III-1 Ws 80/11, as well as 124/11, and 228/11

                   of the Public Prosecutor's Office D'dorf is rejected "

                    "Thus, the committee wanted the competence of the General prosecutor D´dorf

                             to conceal according to § 142a GVG "(not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

December 20, 2011: OLG decision Az 11 W 81/10 (LG 2b o 170/08) signed Ms Rotzheim / Wermeckes / Koewius;

                     Bias application against Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /Ms Baan / Müller as inadmissible

                   discarded; The pseudo-chairman Wermeckes allegedly did not commit any crime

                     Application allegedly abusive with querulatory content. The bias application

                   against Stockschlaeder-Nöll or the immediate complaint against the LG decision. v. 9.9.10

                   is rejected as unfounded;                  Comment: "one hand washes the other"

                                                                                                           (not included in 2b o 271/01)

                                                                   - 2012 -

 

Jan. 25, 2012: OLG decision. Az 18 W 71/10 (2b o 118/99) signed Malsch / Haarmann / Weith;

                   "The civil court is not responsible for determining the unlawfulness of tax assessments"

 

                                                                annotation

 

              After 9 years !! (2003-2012) the OLG gives an incorrect explanation that was already invalid.

 

March 22, 2012: LG decision on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms Hoffmann / Ms

                               Brecht; PKH rejection (1,779,197.00 + 3,323 + € 50,000);

                           reason: Motion 1 is in the application on February 5, 2001but with a total of DM

                           1,407,000 = € 719,387.68,                                                                     sheet no.1157

 

March 23, 2012: Az 2b o 271/01; asked why the application for legal aid of 14.6.2011

                    has not yet been decided.                              Sheet No. 1160 (mail) and Sheet No. 1154 Fax

 

March 26, 2012: Summons for Az 2b o 271/01 Date for the hearing: June 20, 2012       p. No. 1155

 

5.4. 2012: immediate complaint against LG decision of March 22, 2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

                   Ms Hoffmann /Ms. Brecht Az 2b o 271/01                                                           P. No. 1175

 

                                                                           annotation

 

                            The "fake news" of Ms. Brecht have been most severely attacked

 

April 10, 2012: additional application for granting the PKH for Az 2b o 271/01 because of the

                     lost profits from T & X with the patented adjustable DWFZ pump sheet no. 1170

 

On July 12, 2012: statement of claim of the RA N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01 with three applications

                       (subsidy bonus, Pension, and a probable fourth partial application because of those

                         who have become useless Expenses (= NGA)

 

On July 16, 2012: New PKH application for 2b o 271/01 according to lawsuit v. 12.7.12 of the RA N.L.

                     but with 4 Applications, i.e. including the application for expenses that have become

                     useless (= NGA)

 

On July 18, 2012: the LG-raporteur Ms. Brecht called the RA N.L. and with lies too tried to convince

                               the advocate to not continue the mandate, because allegedly would have no

                               prospect of success;

                      she added, the appeal against the default judgment (VU, March 16, 2011) too late at the

                    court would have been received and insofar as the deadline for justifying the objection

                   would have expired.

                                                                            annotation

 

                     The tactic had already been used in 2008 by Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and 4 RAe

                     (Borgelt / Goumagias / Klöpper) kept away from proceedings 2b o 268/01 with lies

 

On July 19, 2012: Letter from Ms. Brecht to the plaintiff that the new PKH application from July 16,

                     2012 for the Lawsuit / pleading of the RA N.L. v. 12.7.12 (2b o 271/01) would allegedly

                     "be of the same position", like the PKH application from June 15, 2011 and therefore

                      due to lack of legal protection should be inadmissible.

 

July 26, 2012: Statement from RA N.L. to LG-2b o 271/01 with answer to Ms. Brecht (related to

                     the call from Ms. Brecht on July 18, 2012) that the court did not set a deadline

                     has been used to justify the objection! So the process continues!

 

July 27, 2012: Letter from the plaintiff to LG-2b o 271/01 with an answer to Ms. Brecht that the new

                      PKH application from July 16, 2012 is not the same as the PKH application from June 15,

                       2011 and that the new facts need to be appreciated.

 

August 6, 2012: LG notification on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Mrs. Brecht; The earlier PKH application

                   from June 15, 2011is already decided on the part of the OLG with a decision of May 16,

                  2012 but the files are still at the OLG; After its return to the LG she will decide about

                    the application of July 16, 2012 which is based on the application of the RA N.L. .

 

September 20, 2012: Reminder to 2b Chamber 2b o 271/01 for a decision on the above-mentioned

                          PKH application from July 16, 2012 and that notification from the court expects that the

                         opposing party to be aware f. PKH application has been obtained

                                                                                                                 (missing from file 2b o 271/01)

 

27 Sept. 2012: Request for an official statement from Ms. Baan on OLG-D'dorf Az

                               18 W 76/10, 18 W 33/12, 18 W 38/12 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01)

 

Oct. 10, 2012: LG decision on official liability suit Az 2b o 170/12 (regarding legal perversions

                         to Az 2b o 194/07, of the Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Bünten, Wermeckes etc)

                         PKH application from October 1st, 2012 rejected, signed Ms Brecht / Ms Jürging /

                          Ms Schumacher

                                                                 annotation

 

                       The LG committee is illegal. Ms. Brecht´s is not a presiding judge;

                                       (Violation of Art. 101 GG, § 75 GVG, Violation of GVP etc.)

 

October 15, 2012: Letter from the D'dorf court treasury signed Berrisch (treasurer in reppresenta-

                   tion) that he will no longer respond. Account 2b o 271/01 deleted after the deadline (!);

                     Overpayment no longer detectable (!); On January 24th, 2011 allegedly the listing was

                     sent with the note that all demands in view of the hopeless situation of a compulsory

                     Recovery were put down.

 

                                                                       annotation

 

                                  The above letter is not contained in file 2b o 271/01.

 

10/20/2012; Letter to the President of the AG-D'dorf with attachment of the LG letter dated

                       14.01.2009, signed Ms. Stregel, the listing of the cost officer for the instalments paid

                       for Az 2b o 271/01 and the letter from Berrisch dated October 15, 2012, with lines

                             underlined in red

                         The above letter is not contained in file 2b o 271/01.

 

Nov. 12, 2012: OLG decision Az 18 W 33/12 (2b o 271/01) signed Malsch / Weith / Ms. Baan;

                         The hearing complaint of May 26, 2012 against the OLG decision of May 16, 2012 is

                       considered inadmissible discarded. The exclusion request against Ms. Baan is rejected

                       as inadmissible. The legal complaint is not admitted; the other judges are not strong

                        Law excluded from the decisions.

 

                                                                     annotation

 

                 Malsch's requests for exclusion against the multiple offender Ms. Baan are always

               considered inadmissible discarded; one offender (Malsch) protect the other offender (Ms. Baan) !!

26.11.2012: LG decision Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht;

                     Request to RA N.L. the objection to the 1st VU from March 16, 2011 within a

                     Months to justify. Determination of the amount in dispute at: 1,779,197,00 €,

                     plus 33,468.95 €, plus € 50,000 for pain and suffering; Total € 1,862,665.96

 

                                                                   annotation

 

                 Thus, the lies of Ms. Brecht from July 18, 2012, i.e. the objection to the 1st VU, prove

               themselves but arrived at the LG on time; The BGH panel allegedly wants from the lies

                 Ms. Brecht did not find anything on July 18, 2012 and is silent about it.

                   The BGH silence is confirmation of the charge against Ms. Brecht.

               The liability of the BGH judges is not diminished by the fact that they barricade

                 behind § 543/544 ZPO.

 

11/26/2012: LG decision Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht;

                       PKH application of July 16, 2012 rejected; Application to determine a minimum damage

                       inadmissible !!

                                                               annotation

 

                   The decision on November 26, 2012 regarding Az 2b o 271/01 is illegal because it was on

                   the part of Stockschlaeder-Nöll drawn; The LG committee abuses and deliberately

                   misinterprets § 287 ZPO.

                   The LG committee claims (for the first time) the statute of limitations occurred on

                   December 31, 2009!

                 The BGH committee fell out of the sky but was still silent about the LG finding

                  This was an attempt on the part of the BGH committee to call the LG judges' criminal

                 offense "incorrect Application of law ";

                 with the further attempts of the 2b chamber (to exclude the plaintiff ) the interpretation

               (incorrect application of the law) was not enforceable, hence the treacherous Remain silent;

               The liability of the BGH committee according to § 839 BGB is clear.

 

30.11.12 Letter from the RA N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01 to clarify the whereabouts of the

                 overpayment 1,182. - €

 

December 6, 2012; Letter from the cost officer (Mrs. Stregel) to Az 2b o 271/01 that only 703.11 €

                   still are registered as a surplus (and not € 1,182 overpayment) and that this is due to

                   Debts with the D'dorf court treasury are withheld until the Az (2b o 271/01)

                   and then are offset against the claims of the court treasury.

                     It rejects a repayment with reference to VV to § 70 LHO 34.1 ff.

 

                                                                    annotation

 

                    What has been done with the difference (1,182.00 - 703.11 =) 478.89 €

                     the above letter does not contain any information; Later (March 16, 2019) the ZZSJ-

                     Hamm confirmed to have received the entire amount of € 1,182.00 and thus repaid

                   alleged debts.

 

  1. Dec. 2012: Immediate complaint against the LG decision of 16.7.2012 rejecting the PKH

                             11/26/2012 (2b o 271/01) collected

 

Dec. 14, 2012: Statement from RA N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01 (with extension of the action of July 12,

                           2012) regarding interest on arrears for the late restored tax by FA-Mettmann,

                         Justification of the claim to compensation for pain and suffering and announcement

                         of later legal action Extension because of the assertion + interest on the useless

                         Expenses (= NGA).

                                                                        annotation

            

                   The above-mentioned extension of the complaint because of the NGA is at the final

                     hearing to Az 2b o 271/01 on April 13th. 2016, Not submitted (forgotten by the RA)

 

                                                                              - 2013 -

 

8.1.2013: Supplementary report from the physician Dr. L. (Opinion on the falsifications

                 of his statements in the report of March 11, 2011 by Ms. Strauch of the GenStAnw D'dorf)

                 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;

                                                                   annotation

 

      "The above-mentioned report has been sent to 2b Chamber, but has never been taken into account"

 

Jan. 13, 2013: Request for bias against Ms. Baan because of perversions of the law within the

                     meaning of Section 339 StGB to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01; PKH of July 16, 2012;

                 immediate appeal of December 10, 2012) List of resolutions where Ms. Baan participated

                  and co-signed

                                                                      annotation

 

             "Although there are always new facts brought forward against Ms. Blaa-Blaa-B(l)aan, they

                     has always refused to give an official statement, and she has herself Absolution granted

                     ; She and her chairman Malsch were the subject of several official Liability lawsuits and

                   criminal charges were ". The BGH committee was silent about it.

              

February 4, 2013: Defence lawyer Minnerop (of NRW) on the application of July 12th, 2012

                                 by advocate N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01

 

February 21, 2013: Administrative complaint from the RA N.L. to GenStAnw D'dorf against Ms.

                                Strauch because of the Falsification of the medical practitioner's statement in his

                             report from 11.3.11 to Az 2b o 271/01

 

February 21, 2013: Submission of the RA N.L. to LG-2b o 271/01 with the dispatch of the medicine

                                 Expert opinion 8.1.2013

 

                                                                               annotation

 

                       This brief with the medical report has never been considered / assessed either.

                   The BGH committee did not ask itself why no mention in LG / OLG judgments,

                   or asked himself and kept silent about it in order to hide the crimes of FA-Mettmann

                   The BGH committee should have asked for the medical report, and it didn't.

                   The resolution to cover the crimes of FA-Mettmann is clear and they are liable for it

                   BGH judge of the III civil senate (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher)

                 according to § 839 BGB

March 5, 2013: Application of RA N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01 to extend the deadline by two more

                         weeks so that he was with the freshly operated plaintiff on the defence lawyer

                        Minnerop from 4.2.13 to be discussed                                                      sheet no.1572

 

March 6, 2013: DECISION on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll;

                                                                                                                Sheet No. 1574 + Sheet No. 1579

       Text "The plaintiff is informed that an extension of the deadline due to the application

                 can no longer be granted after expiry of the deadline in a written statement dated

               March 5, 2013.

                 The document dated February 4, 2013 was identified on the basis of the acknowledgment

               of receipt Complainant's representative served on February 11, 2013. The three-week

               comment period granted expired on March 4th, 2013. "

 

                                                         annotation

 

           Typical reaction of a morbidly biased LG judge who could only write orders.

           When the NRW authorized advocate Minnerop applied for an extension of the deadline,

           granted him (Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll) another three weeks (because of the end of the year !!).

          (see file)

14.3.2013: Statement from RA-N.L. to the defence of 4 February 2013 of the Minnerop advocate

 

Apr. 18, 2013: Communication on Az 18 W 1/13 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) from Ms. Baan that she has the

                             files 2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01 for information from the LG has requested

                                                                                                                                             sheet no. 1478

                                                               annotation

 

               The files collected were piled on Ms. Baan's desk for over 3.0 years.

               This also causes a further delay in the procedure, but on the part of the Chairman

               of the 18th Senate (V. Malsch) was always protected that would have the BGH

                 committee have to attract attention. The BGH committee was silent about it.

 

April 24, 2013: Letter to OLG-18 W 1/13; access to files 2b o 271/01

                         and 118/99 Is refused to Ms. Baan; she is "Persona non grata"        Sheet. no. 1479

Apr. 25, 2013: Forwarding of the application for annulment of the disputed value determination

                         decision on 2b o 271/01, 2b o 268/01, 2b o 118/99, 2b o 71/08, 2b o 67/08

                                                                                                                                                  sheet no. 1614

May 6, 2013: “DISPOSAL” from Stockschlaeder-Nöll for postponement of June 26, 2013

                         on Dec. 4, 2013, 9:30 a.m. for the oral hearing on Az 2b o 271/01

                       Reason: the files must be sent to the OLG (for manipulation?)

May 17, 2013: Letter from RA N.L. to LG-2b o 271/01 with a request to the 2b chamber

               to keep the negotiation date 6/26/2013                   Fax Sheet No. 1621 Post Sheet No. 1622

8.8.2013: Complaint of inaction sent to the director of the AG-D'dorf because of the unresolved

                 Remaining of the 1,182, - € too much paid for court fees for Az 2b o 271/01           p. No. ??

Aug. 28, 2013: Complaint extension to Az 2b o 271/01 for expenses that have become useless

                         (= NGA) of the RA N.L. with claims for damages in the amount of € 786,104.32 from

                         1977 to 1995. On page 6 are copies of the patent "Antikythera Mechanism" and

                       "Patent Certificate" mentioned as attached.

                       At the end of the above-mentioned pleading, the letter of March 25, 2008 on Az

                       2b o 77/08 is also available as additional annex mentioned and application for

                         reference to file 2b o 77/08.

                                                                                annotation

 

                 Both copies of the patent and the certificate are missing from GA; Appendix 2b o 77/08

                 is missing from GA

29 Aug 2013: Reminder of the RA N.L. to Az 2b o 271/01 to clarify the whereabouts of too much

                         Paid court fees 1,182 €                                                                                  sheet no. 1629

Sept. 2, 2013: PKH application (sent to the office of the 2b civil chamber on September 2, 2013,

                       11:40 a.m. hands) for the extension of the action dated August 28, 2013 to Az 2b o

                     271/01 for the NGA in the amount of 786,104.32 € with exclusion request for the

                       LG / OLG judges                                                                         Bl. No. 1481 + Bl. No. 1625

                     Forwarding also took place on 9/12/2013                                              sheet no. 1634

Sept. 3, 2013: List of the D'dorf court treasury with the claims from the proceedings

                         at the LG and OLG; Editor Knauf; Total € 49,059.06                              Sheet No.? ? ? ?

4th Sept. 2013: The RA N.L. writes to 2b o 271/01 that the bank account seizures from

                             1986-1989 are not repealed                          (MISSING from the court file, "coiffed")

9/6/2013: Letter from the President of the D'dorf District Court regarding the overpaid € 1,182

                 for Az 2b o 271/01. He refers to the LG's cost officials;

               the KB would be responsible for the offsetting!                (MISSING from GA 2b o 271/01)

Sept. 10, 2013: Letter from Mrs. Stregel on Az 2b o 271/01; registered costs / debts 49,059.06 €

                           according to the statement of 3 September 2013 of the court treasury D'dorf

                                                                                                                                            Sheet No. 1630

September 16, 2013: Supplement to the PKH application from September 2, 2013 for NGA to

                               Az 2b o 271/01 with details of the names of those rejected because of bias

                               LG judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Jürging) and

                  OLG judge (Ms. Fleischer / Ms. Engels / Koewius / Malsch / Haarmann) Bl. No. 1532 + 1636

September 17th, 2013: DISPOSAL Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll; Announcement of the PKH application to

                                    NRW Rejected because a decision has to be made on the PKH application first,

                                                                                                                                                 sheet no. 1632

                                                                            annotation

 

                         Both, Ms. Tannert and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, had the PKH applications in the past

                         only sent to the attorney general for comment !! Different now!

 

30.9.13: Official statement by Ms. Brecht on Az 2b o 271/01 because of the application for bias

  1. f.9/16/2013; she does not claim to be biased; in part, the allegations should not do this

                 Procedure (2b o 271/01) and in particular that in this procedure as an individual

                 was a (single) judge.

                 Regarding the allegedly accidentally issued resolution on the value in dispute (SWFS) -

                 Resolutions in other PKH proceedings, the matter is settled because these (resolutions)

                 has been repealed                                                                                                Sheet No. 1640

October 1, 2013: Official statement from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Az 2b o 271/01 because

                           of the Bias motion v. 16.9.13; she claim does not be biased;

                          she allegedly acted according to the law;

                   In particular, no judge has influenced her opinion and has not tried to either

                   4 appointed RAe to convince not to take over the mandate. Also are

                 several allegations are the subject of appeal proceedings and these are final

                 decided. Because of the general and unspecified allegations, she can

                 not give an opinion.                                                                           Sheet No. 1642

                                                                        Annotation:

 

        (RA Borgelt, RA Dr. Goumagias, RA Klöpper, were with lies from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll from the

        Proceedings ousted !!) otherwise always intrigued and unsuspecting girls driven into perverse law

 

October 2nd, 2013: Letter from RA N.L. to LG-Az 2b o 271/01 with a request for clarification,

                                 with which the 478.89 € from the overpaid court fees 1,182 € have been offset

                                                                                                                                             Fax sheet no.1645

October 13, 2013: Comments (30 pages) on Az 2b o 271/01 on the official statement

                               Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll with additions and a copy for NRW            sheet no. 1661

October 14, 2013: Comments (6 pages) on Az 2b o 271/01 on the official statement

                          Ms. Brecht with additions (with a copy for North Rhine-Westphalia)    sheet no. 1658

October 14, 2013: Order of Ms. Stregel; no answer about the added € 478.89                sheet no. 1650

November 11, 2013 Reminder of the RA N.L .to 2b chamber / cost officials for clarification

                                    offsetting to Az 2b o 271/01                                                            sheet no.1690

November 15, 2013: Copy of the letter from Ms. Brecht to NRW-OFD-Rheinland that is intended

                                  to repeal the SWFS resolution of February 22, 2012 on Az 2b o 198/11;

                                 "Reason: A SWFS is not provided for in PKH proceedings".

                                                             annotation

 

             Ms. Brecht (and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll) have had several SWFS resolutions in the past

            enact and tried to make them valid or mandatory to collect; due to the Indications of the

           plaintiff in immediate complaints raised, that no SWFS decision in PKH proceedings,

         the above judges have had to overturn the (SWFS) decisions. This time it shows

             Ms. Brecht how she is afraid of the OFD.

 

Nov. 21, 2013: "DISPOSAL" to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Schwarz in the case of the chairman!?;

                                                                                                                                            Sheet No. 1696

                         Date 4 December 2013 is cancelled; (no new date named !!)

                        Reason: files at OLG, PKH not decided, ongoing bias proceedings.

11/28/2013: Fax + postal letter to LG-2b o 271/01 that the received fax from

                     11/21/2013 what a falsification looks like (not written on official LG paper,

                    No author's signature, no employee's name, no stamped

                   and "the chairman on behalf" was written below the text

                   but no new chairman is known here; an official and signed

                   Order in official paper with a discharge requested.                                       Sheet No. 1703

 

                                                           - 2014 -

 

May 28, 2014: LG PKH negative decision to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms Brecht /

                        Ms Freitag, PKH application dated 2.9.2013 for NGA or for an extension of the

                     application dated 8/28/2013, Az 2b o 271/01, has 4 main arguments (calculation error,

                   statute of limitations, earlier Decision, economic circumstances of the plaintiff unclear /

                   incomplete) rejected.                                                                        GA sheet no.1729

                                                               Note:                                                                    

                   "Alleged limitation of the claims for damages already on"30.6.2010 "(!?) Occurred:

                   that was already the 2nd attempt of the Drs (Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag) of the 2b Chamber of

                   damages to declare claims as barred !!! The first attempt was already on November 26th,

                 2012 by Ms. Brecht performed; Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll relied on the results of the girls and

                   signed.

                 The BGH committee fell out of the sky for the second time, but the decision-making

                significant fact kept silent. Thus, like criminals, accomplices in the attempt have become

                to deceive or damage plaintiffs and to help the above-mentioned LG judges;

                 they are liable according to § 839 BGB

            

June 12, 2014: Order of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll to the Secretariat, the decision rejecting the PKH

                   Az 2b o 271/01 of May 28, 2014, the plaintiff on fax no. 02054-4073 to be sent

                                                                                                                                             GA sheet no.1732

                                                                        Annotation

                                                                    

                  Typical revenge of a morbidly biased LG judge who also deals

                     the plaintiff's personal data at improperly misused.

                    The file contains the above-mentioned LG instruction to GS; The violation of personal data

                     is not a trivialized little thing, apparently unimportant for the BGH committee to mention it.

June 16, 2014: On the part of Ms. De Boer (GS) as a birthday present, faxed the LG decision

                 from May 28, 2014 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed S-N / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag

                   with the PKH rejection.                                                                                   MISSING from GA

                                                                                                                                                      

June 17, 14: By fax, word of thanks to the LG judges for the kindness of the PKH negative

                   decision from May 28, 2014, here on June 16, 2014 as a birthday present

                     to be forwarded                                                                                         GA sheet no. 1735

                          

4.7.2014: immediate complaint by the RA N.L. against decision rejecting PKH 28.5.2014 (for NGA),

                                                                                                                                   Sheet No. 1753-1763

                                          

07/07/2014: LG non-remedy decision (= NABeschl.) to Az 2b o 271/01 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

                 Ms. Brecht / Feldmann (trainee, judge on probation); Text:

                "The immediate complaint of July 4, 2014 against the LG decision of May 28, 2014 (PKH

                 rejection for NGA) is not helped and further to the OLG.

               "The Chamber insists on the statute of limitations (!)" Writes the LG;

                                                                                                      GA Sheet No. 1840 + Sheet No. 1764

                                                                         annotation

 

       The uncertainty of the weak in matter "limitation period", Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, is thus visible;

         "she unequivocally ordered the statute of limitations" as the final result of the OLG decision

            on the Immediate complaint made. The NABeschl. is not contestable.

           Her previous 2 attempts with Limitations on December 31, 2009 or June 30, 2010

           would not be binding on the OLG.

          The BGH committee noted the LG order from 7/7/2014 in the files but remained silent

           The order should not be classified as incorrect application of the law, therefore the BGH

           judge was silent. They are liable for the ordered illegality within the meaning of 839 BGB.

 

November 8, 2014 Forwarding copy of the transfer 1.114, - € from the obligee to AG Hagen,

                                   to Az 2b o 271/01 to prove the lie of Mrs. Brecht

                                                                                             Fax, GA sheet No. 1841; Post sheet No. 1843

11/12/2014: Reply of Ms. Brecht on Az 2b o 102/14, confirmation of the transfer € 1,140 to

                       AG-Hagen, on the part of the obligee, will be considered in an immediate complaint;

                       She recommends sending the certificate to the OLG under Az 2b o 271/01.

 

                                                                         annotation

 

           Like a schoolgirl, Ms. Brecht admits that she will not do the "mess with fake news" again

           will make and promises the transfer of the obligee to the AG-Hagen in the decision about

           consider the immediate complaint; Still, she didn't do that.

           Were the BGH judges unable to determine Ms. Brecht's violation of the law? or did it on purpose

           kept silent ??                                                          (the above letter is not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

November 19, 2014: Letter to chairman Volker Malsch on Az 18 W 1/13, whether the blockade

                                  of Az 2b o 271/01 as part of the "service according to regulations", is issued

                                                                                                                                 GA sheet no. 1779 + 1780

Nov. 21, 2014: Forwarding to the OLG on Az 18 W 1/13 copy of the Transfer € 1,140 to AG-HAGEN

December 26, 2014: New AHK / PKH because of the delay of the 18th Senate,

                                 especially because of the role Ms. Baan in the postponement of the decision

                               on Az 2b o 271/01 and the resulting damage caused to the realization of the

                               PATENT "Antikythera Mechanism" (Az 2b o 258/14) (not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

                                                                   annotation

 

       The certificate of grant for the above patent is dated April 12, 2013; For the realization of the patent

       i.e. to build a functioning model, the inventor needed money and hoped for an early decision

       of the 18th Senate, with the approval of the PKH applied for. The judges (Malsch / Ms Baan)

       and the inventor could do nothing but wait; The elapsed time, however, was a considerable

       great loss for the inventor. The OLG blockers had received their salaries on time.

 

                                                                   - 2015 -

 

January 15, 2015: Letter from the RA N.L. to LG-2b o 271/10 that no Az has yet been received from

                              the OLG, and whether evidence will be taken?

                                                                                                     Fax GA sheet no.1845 Post sheet no.1847

15.1.2015: Letter from the RA NL to the OLG Az 18 W 1/13 with the request for a status report

                                                                                                                                           GA sheet no.1785

January 16, 2015: ORDER Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Az 2b o 271/01; The files are at the OLG,

                     Decision 13.1.2015 does not exist; Request from the RA N.L. forwarded to the OLG.

                                                                                                                                           GA sheet no.1849

13.4.2015: Question from RA N.L. to OLG 18 W 44/14 (2b o 271/01) according to the processing status

                                                                                                                                      GA sheet no.1788

                      

April 30, 2015: Notice from the OLG-D'dorf on Az 18 W 44/14 (LG 2b o 271/01, NGA) signed Ms.Glaeser

                          that

                    A decision can be expected at the end of May 2015 or the beginning of June 2015.

                 (regarding PKH 6/14/2011) 18 W 44/14 regarding the extension of the complaint from

                   8/28/2013 for NGA in the amount of 786,104.32 € from 1977 to 1995 for which PKH

                    was applied for on 2.9.2013              

                                                                             GA sheet no? Only handwritten text without sheet no.

July 17, 2015: New lawsuit / PKH (Az 2b o 98/15, continuation of Az 2b o 6/11) with damage and

                       Compensation for pain and suffering due to the economic and emotional damage

                      Burden caused to the plaintiff engineer + inventor) on the part of the judges of

                     11th Senate of the OLG-D'dorf, through the following 99 unlawful OLG decisions:

> from June 30, 2008 to OLG-Az 11 W 26/2008 signed Dr. Bünten / Mielke / Busch (LG-Az 2b o 271/01)

> from September 23, 2009 signed Bünten / Mielke / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller, in 14 Az

                                                                                                                               11W 36/09 to 11W 59/09

> from February 16, 2010, signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm in 14 Az.11 W 36/09 to

                                                                                                                                                    11 W 59/09

> from February 18, 2010 signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Ms. Baan / Müller, in 14 Az,

                                                                                                                                    11 W 36/09 to 59/09

> from February 22, 2010 signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Baan / Müller

                                                                                                                 in 14 Az 11 W 36/09 to 11W 59/09

> from 30.3.2010 signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm in 14 Az, 11 W 36/09 to 11 W 59/09

> from 31.3.2010 signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /Ms. Baan /Müller, in 14 Az, 11 W 36/09 to 59/09

> from May 12, 2010 signed Bünten /Wermeckes /Ms. Jungclaus /Ms. Baan /Müller

                                                                                                                        in 14 Az 11W36 / 09 to 59/09

In addition, the OLG judges of the 18th Senate Malsch / Ms. Baan because of the blockade

the processing of the complaint to OLG-Az 18 W 38/14 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01), 18 W 39/12

(LG-Az 2b o 6/11) accused; they have prevented the engineer + inventor from 2012 until the end of June 2015

(the decision was only issued on 23.6.15 on OLG-Az 18 W 39/12, LG-Az 2b o 6/11) for more than 3.5 years

to realize his patent "Antikythera Mechanism". Thus, the statute of limitations is evident and the claims are justified.      

            Complaint filed on July 20, 2015 at the LG Postzentrale.

 

                                                              Annotation:

 

The above-mentioned lawsuit / PKH is not included in the files of 2b o 271/01; it serves here only as

information, which and how many obstacles the criminals in judge gowns have put the plaintiff in order

to complete him ruin. (not included in 2b o 271/01)

 

July 20, 2015: Letter to the OLG President; Complaint about blocking the processing of the

                       Complaints to LG Az 2b o 271/01 on the part of the 18th Senate (Malsch / Ms. Baan)

                               (The above letter is not contained in file 2b o 271/01; why ??)

 

Sept. 2, 2015: OLG decision. for Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01) signed Malsch /Ms. Glaeser /Anger

                     Application of bias against H. Malsch rejected as inadmissible / illegal

                     There are no grounds for admitting a legal complaint in accordance with

                     Section 574 (2) ZPO.                                                     GA sheet no.1799 to sheet no.1809

                                                                  annotation

 

             The plaintiff had on 2.9.2015 in front of the entrance of the OLG-D'dorf building with a POSTER

             protested against the long-standing blockade of LG-Az 2b o 271/01; excited OLG judges (A. Vitek)

             view the POSTER, photographed it and called the police for help. This after controlling the Personal

             data has declared that it is not responsible to intervene and said goodbye in a friendly manner.

              The OLG judges were disappointed and disappeared into the OLG building, grinding their teeth.

             The pressure on Malsch has also become known to outsiders, therefore within one

             Day (2.9.2015) the above-mentioned bias application against him was rejected as abusive.

 

Sept. 3, 2015: OLG decision (10 pages!) for Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch/Ms. Glaeser/Anger

                       Immediate complaint against the PKH negative LG decision from 11/26/2012

                      signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht (after 3 years of blockade !!) as

                       rejected unfounded;

                     "All claims according to the German Civil Code (BGB) allegedly become statute-barred

                          on July 31, 2006!"                                                                                    GA sheet no.1810

                                                                   annotation

 

                 The perversion of the above-mentioned OLG committee is not only in the date "31.7.2006"

                 to see the alleged statute of limitations of claims for damages, but also in the manipulation

                 / change / amendment of the legal texts, including § 209 BGB old version.

                 (with an alleged extension of another 6 months !!) recognizable.

                 The OLG panel had recognized that the full payment of the court fees in Dec. 2006

               for Az 2b o 271/01 the statute of limitations of the LG-D'dorf determined Claims neither

               on "31.12.2009" (according to the LG decision of 26.11.2012) nor on "June 30, 2010"

               (after the LG decision of May 28, 2014) was enforceable.

               Therefore by manipulating the legal texts the alleged statute of limitations as on

               "July 31, 2006" had entered. The chairman of the 18 Civil Senate Volker Malsch

               relieved of his post approx. Sept. 25, 2015 and retired cleverly.

                The above-mentioned manipulation of the legal texts (with the 6 months extension of § 209 BGB

                 old version) also helped the fraud against Az 18 U 69/16 committed on October 18, 2017 to discover.

               There served the trial fraud as having done in favour of the plaintiff

               The BGH committee charged that the perversion of the law Malsch/Ms. Glaeser/Anger from

               September 3, 2015 in the file and acknowledged with silence. They are thus an accomplice

               of Process fraud, whereby § 339 StGB is fully applicable here and the compensation claim

             of the plaintiff is also justified. The stay of the fraudster Mrs. Glaeser with 18th Senate had

               to attract the BGH committee very suspiciously. BGH has not written anything about this.

 

A4. A few comparisons to understand the role of Ms. Glaeser and Mr. Malsch

 

       Ms. Glaeser is in the OLG-18. Civil Senate entered around March 2015, and signed on 3.9.2015

       the decision, in which the committee (Malsch /Ms. Glaeser /Anger) the criminal "process fraud"

       committed.

     She proves which criminal instincts Ms. Glaeser possessed / owns in the resolutions of 3.9.2015

      to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14;

       the facts were found by the BGH committee Herrmann/Seiters/Reiter/Ms. Liebert/Ms. Böttcher

         kept silent in order to protect the fraudsters;

       the BGH body is liable for the damage suffered by the plaintiff

     The following facts are conspicuous in this decision of September 3, 2015, Az 18 W 1/13:

                                                                                                                                                (see decision)

  1. all events that took place in the period 2000-2003 and for the question of the statute of limitations

           were relevant, are concealed by the committee (Malsch /Ms. Glaeser /Anger); e.g. about

  1. Connection in March 2001 and separation in November 2001 of the 2 procedures 2b o 118/99 and

                                                                                                                                                      2b o 271/01,

III. or via the secret motions of March 2000 from Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr to the AG-Essen meal

  1. or via the AG-Essen resolution on 2.1.2002, rejection by the supervisor with reservation of consent
  2. or about the final clarification of the plaintiff's litigation capability on January 23, 2003,
  3. or about the decision to take evidence of November 28, 2000 (Tannert / Fuhr / Schumacher)

               which was not issued until 11/29/2001 is cancelled by another chamber occupation.

VII. or on the exclusion of Ms. Fuhr (according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO or according to § 48 ZPO) in further

             decisions  applications to Az 2b o 271/01 to participate

VIII. Or about the illegality of the composition of the LG bodies (e.g. 04/04/2003, 11/05/2005,

           March 16, 2011)

  1. or about the consequences of the statute of limitations of the requests for bias against the LG

       judges (December 18, 2002 Stockschlaeder-Nöll; May 5, 2003 against Strupp-Müller; September

         21, 2010 against Ms. Hoffmann)

  1. or about the consequences of the fraudulent proceedings on August 9, 2007 and September

       18, 2007 by Strupp-Müller /Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle and the litigation fraud of August 29, 2007

         of the cost officer (Habich)

  1. or about the repayments of the FA-Mettmann to the plaintiff in the years 1999-2000-2001-

      (The repayment after the AGREEMENT 15.12.2006 is valued differently by the LG / OLG !!)

 

Likewise, not a word is written in the comment section about the effects of bank garnishments,

although the OLG ruling on September 3, 2015 (on immediate complaint against LG rulings with

PKH rejection) counts on page 5, line 7 from below, the "unlawful seizures" mentioned will;

 

There is no word in any LG / OLG decision or LG / OLG judgment about the applications of the three

department heads of the FA-Mettmann to lift the bank seizures altogether.

The suppression of the essential evidence is a criminal offense of the BGH that must be punished.

 

Also in the OLG decision of September 3, 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) it is argued that the claimant's

claims for damages "were statute barred on July 31, 2006" (page 9, line 7 counted from above), because the

"lawsuit "was only delivered in September 2010 and the full payment of the court fees in December 2006

could no longer change the statute of limitations that had already occurred.

 

                           The aim of the OLG group (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) is obvious:

             Statute of limitations before full court fee payment takes effect in Dec. 2006

 

In order to arrive at the absurd result, the above-mentioned committee arbitrarily manipulated the legal

texts of the BGB (old version) (e.g. § 209) with a 6 month supplement / extension of the period of limitation

interruption added / supplemented after delivery of the last FG judgment (see page 6, paragraph 2, line 10

counted from above, or page 7, line 3 counted from above, in OLG decision Az 18 W 1/13 of 3.9.2015) .

 

The arbitrary change / manipulation of the text of the law is a serious criminal offense which is punished

with at least 5 years imprisonment according to the StGB and justifies the local claims for damages.

After the above-mentioned OLG decision of September 3, 2015 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger followed

on 9/22/2015 vehement hearing complaint and (approx. Sept. 25, 2015) the chairman Malsch is relieved of his

position and sent into retirement. Mr. Anger was removed from the 18th Senate around the end of the year,

while Ms. Glaeser stayed with the 18th Senate and committed further criminal offenses.

To avoid repetition, see hearing notice on September 22, 2015 on Az 18 W 1/13 and supplements.

 

A5. Legal differences between the two OLG committees with the participation of Ms. Glaeser

 

(on 3.9.15 and on 30.8.2017); Responsibility of the BGH judges (Herrmann/Seiters/Reiter & Co)

Below are some noticeable legal differences between the two OLG bodies on September 3, 2015 (Malsch /

Ms. Glaeser / Anger) on Az 18 W 1/13, and August 30, 2017 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) to Az

18 U 69/16 shown (in order to clarify the contribution of the BGH committee to "litigation fraud")

In the decision of September 3, 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) it is stated that the brief submitted

on February 5, 2001 by a "lawsuit" or "motions" (7) is reported seven times, e.g.

Page 2, line 10 counted from the bottom, about "Claims dated December 29, 2001";

Page 2, lines 5-4 counted from the bottom, about "Claim 1 revised on August 13, 2004";

                             NB: the "claim 1" was filed with the claim of 5 February 2001;

Page 3, line 20 counted from above about "the lawsuit (pleadings of 5.2.2001 and 13.8.2004)

                           was delivered on September 13, 2010 ";

Page 3, line 24 counted from above about "The lawsuit dismissed"

                           (From which date the complaint is not specified !!), that is, the one from 5.2.2001 !!

Page 5, line 9 counted from above, above "Claim 1";

                             NB: the "claim 1" was filed with the claim of 5 February 2001;

Page 8, point b) "Claim re II";

Page 8, point c) "Claim re III"

So it is not about applications in the PKH proceedings, but about "lawsuits" or "claims of lawsuits".

In this respect, this is consistent with the submissions of the RA.

In the resolution of August 30, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser, on the other hand, only speaks

of a "service of action" on page 7 and page 9, but otherwise only reports about MOTIONS;

the term "Lawsuit" or "petitions" of the decision of 3 September 2015 is deleted / not used !! Coincidence ??

 

                                                                       A6.

 

Other serious differences relate to "the complaints that were revised on December 29, 2001"

(according to the decision of September 3, 2015, page 2),

while in page 11, line 7 of the OLG decision of 30.8.2017 from a "payment action"

is reported, but the legal consequences for the interruption of the limitation period in both

of the above Decisions (3.9.15 and 30.8.17) withheld. The text in resolution 30.8.2017 is as follows:

"... revised application for legal aid received by the court on December 31, 2001

   dropped and limited to action for payment and an application for a supplementary pension ".

Well, the alleged PKH motion is in the newly drafted complaint of December 29, 2001 of the RA

dropped and filed a lawsuit for payment; on the first page 2 times there was talk of a lawsuit and on page 2

also 2 reports of a lawsuit.

In addition, this brief (December 29, 2001, which was received by the court on December 31, 2001) was

"made known" to the defendant. !!

In other words, a lawsuit filed before January 1st, 2002 interrupts the statute of limitations according

to the old version of the German Civil Code.

Both the LG (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) on May 11, 2016, as well as the OLG committees in the

two resolutions (3 September 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger), and on 30 August 2017 (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser)

as well as in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) suppressed in order to hide

the legal consequences of the alleged limitation of claims.

 

The BGH committee is also silent on this in its decision on May 24, 2018 on BGH Az III ZR 332/17

(OLG 18 U 69/16). Why ? Coincidence ??

 

All of the above-mentioned LG / OLG and BGH bodies claim that the limitation period was

not interrupted before 1.1.2002.

This is where the "trial fraud of all those accused" also of the BGH committee lies.

It is a "crime" punished with 5 years imprisonment, which justifies the local claims for damages

In the OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017, page 6, as well as in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017,

page 22 (version 29 pages) it is reported about the manipulation / change of the legal text (§ 209) BGB

old version that the 6 month extension of the limitation period "IN THE FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMENT"

takes place, during in the decision of 3 September 2015 (Malsch & Co) the 6-month extension on page 7

is not commented on.

So the women (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) suddenly stand above the law and are allowed

to arbitrary / arbitrary the duration of the interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG judgments

"Extend or shorten in favour of a party", and thus procure procedural advantages or disadvantages for

one party (and the BGH is silent about it !!). This is punishable under Section 339 of the Criminal Code.

           the suppression of evidence by BGH judges is perversion of the law

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

                                                                    A7.

Another noticeable difference between the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser

/ Ms. Kirschner) and the previous LG decisions of November 26, 2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging

/ Ms. Brecht) and from May 28, 2014 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag), as well as from the

OLG decision of September 3, 2015 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) the reader finds the date of the end of the

limitation period (after taking into account the FG agreement on December 15, 2006, or after ignoring the

FG agreement of December 15, 2006).

 

     In the LG decision of November 26, 2012 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht) the

             termination of the limitation period according to the old version of the German Civil Code

           on December 31, 2009.

   In the LG decision of May 28, 2014 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag) the termination

               of the statute of limitations according to the new version of the German Civil Code

              on June 30, 2010.

   In the OLG decision of September 3, 2015, the end of the limitation period according to BGB (old

           version) on July 31, 2006.

     In the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) the end of the limitation

             period according to BGB new version on June 30th, 2000, at the latest (!?) July 31st, 2006.

    

For the BGH committee Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher in the decision of

         May 24, 2018 such noticeable differences do not recognize any errors !!! therefore also

         treacherously silent !!

    

All of the above decisions only show that the authors and the committees deliberately raised the

issue and falsified the legal situation to come to the conclusion that the claims were statute-barred.

 

In the 1st LG decision (dated November 26, 2012) the statute of limitations according to the old

                     version of the German Civil Code (BGB) allegedly occurs on December 31, 2009,

                      so before the service of the lawsuit, which only took place in September 2010.

In the 2nd LG decision (dated May 28, 2014) the statute of limitations according to BGB new version

                   allegedly comes into effect on June 30, 2010,

                   i.e. before the service was served in September 2010

in the 3rd OLG decision (from September 3, 2015) the statute of limitations according to the old

                       version of the German Civil Code (BGB) allegedly occurs on July 31, 2006,

                     i.e. before the court fees were paid in full in Dec. 2006.

In the 4th OLG decision (of October 18, 2017) the statute of limitations according to BGB new version

                   / BGB old version supposedly occurs on June 30th, 2000 (!!!),

                 i.e. before the new statute of limitations comes into force (on January 1st, 2002)

 

As people can see, the disagreement of the LG / OLG bodies only concerns the date of the statute of

         limitations occurs, but the goal is always the same "LIMITATION". And everyone wants to be

         correct and accurate have decided!!! The accused BGH judges recognized the above-mentioned

           contradictions and concealed!

The criminal offenses are punished with more than 5 years imprisonment and on the other hand

           justify the local claims for damages

The suppression of evidence by BGH judges is a perversion of the law.

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

 

A8. Compensation for pain and suffering and the responsibility of the BGH committee

                                                     on Az III ZR 332/17

 

     The BGH committee does not write anything about the claim for pain and suffering

         (Herrmann / Seiters /Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher), although the topic belongs to

         Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01).

 

       Both in the decision of 3.9.2015, Az 18 W 1/13 (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) and

       in the decision 30.8.2017, Az 18 W 69/16, (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) and in the OLG

       judgment of October 18, 2017 on Az 18 U 69/16 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser /Ms Kirschner) incorrect

       allegations which constitute criminal offenses and justify elementary legal violations or criminal

       offenses.

 

       The first instance asserted compensation for pain and suffering was not the subject

       of the proceedings to LG Düsseldorf Az 2b o 268/01 - OLG Düsseldorf Az 18 U 223/11 -

       like the Prove files of 2b o 268/01. To say the opposite is a deliberate, punishable lie.

       The subject of Az 2b o 268/01 were claims from lost profits and

       a claim for damages due to a lost order (AVT).

 

   In addition, in the opinion of the LG Düsseldorf, the claim to compensation for pain and suffering

     was no longer applicable so that no decision has been made about it that would have become final

     can. The BGH committee is also liable for any criminal offense through violation of Art. 103 GG.

 

       In addition, the committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) arbitrarily claims on page 10,

       Point a, of the resolution on August 30, 2017, that the compensation claims (which in 30 years

       would be statute-barred !!!) already on July 31, 2006 (!!) in addition, in Az 18 W 26/19 Page 5,

       on the committed "process fraud" with the manipulation of the legal text § 209 BGB old version

       The reference to litigation fraud is convincing about the intention to harm the plaintiff

   The reader will find almost identical explanations on the above topic in the OLG ruling on

       October 18, 2017, Az 18 U 69/16, on page 27 (version 29 pages), to which reference is made,

         with which the continuation of litigation fraud proven and the claims for damages against BRD

       are justified.

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

     A9. Statutory pension and the liability of the BGH committee to Az III ZR 332/17

 

    The BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter /Ms Liebert /Ms Böttcher), nothing written

       about statutory pension .

  

   The facts are set out below that are not considered by any LG / OLG committee.

    

   In the OLG decision of 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13, the allegedly missing need for legal protection

     of the plaintiff presented as an argument; also in the OLG decision 30.8.2017 page 11, and

     then mentioned in OLG judgment 18.10.2017 page 27, point 6 (version 29 pages)

 

     Regarding the claimant's pension entitlement, the OLG committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser /

                      / Anger) in his decision of September 3, 2015 on page 8:

               “The complaint is unfounded for the reasons given by the LG.

               The claim lacks the need for legal protection, since it is the subject of proceedings

              2b O 118/99 - in varying amounts but unchanged in principle. "

                                               Annotation

             It is undisputed that in the claims of the action of August 13, 2004 on

           File number 2b o 118/99 no pension claims have been asserted,

           as the files of Az 2b o 118/99 prove.

         To assert the opposite is a punishable deliberate lie that justifies the crime.

 

             The plaintiff waived the application for a supplementary pension

             on the grounds in the application of June 21, 1999.

 

On the other hand, the need for legal protection for a statutory pension remains,

because the decisions on the PKH applications have not grown into material legal force.

 

This means that the claimant (without loss of rights) can submit pension applications

(for statutory or supplementary pension) and can justify them anew each time.

 

The pension application for Az 2b o 271/01 is for the first time a detailed pension calculation from his

 pension advisor. This calculation has never been objected to (cf. brief on Az 2b o 271/01 of July 12, 2012,

page 118 ff.).

 

Further legal violations on the part of the OLG committee Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger are in the

Appeal from 08/18/2016 and is referred to in order to avoid redundancy.

 

A10. Interest on payments to RAe (§ 256 BGB) etc. and the liability of the BGH judges

 

Without the legal fraud of the LG / OLG-D'dorf judges and without the "capping" of the criminal offenses

by the BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher), no RAe would be required

and no fees to RAe and paid no court fees either.

In this respect, the claim to interest is based on the time of the expenditure according to § 256 BGB new version

up to the final decision on the claim and then until the payment by the obligated party (FRG) in the applications here.

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

Sept. 3, 2015: OLG decision to Az 18 W 44/13 (LG-2b o 271/01) Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

                      Immediate complaint against the LG decision of May 28, 2014 rejecting the PKH

                         signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag is rejected as unfounded;

                         All claims according to the German Civil Code (BGB) are supposedly statute-barred

                         (see note above on Az 18 W 1/13, also applicable here)

3rd Sept. 2015: OLG decision. for Az 18 W 2/13 (LG-2b o 118/99) Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

                       Immediate complaint against the LG decision rejecting the PKH as

                       rejected unfounded; All claims according to the new version of the BGB expire,

                         (see note above on Az 18 W 1/13, also applicable here) GA sheet no

Sept. 4, 2015: The RA Minnerop (authorized representative of North Rhine-Westphalia) applies for

                           termination for 2b o 271/01;

                  he recommends "boxing through" the procedure                               GA sheet no. 1853

 

                                                                   annotation

 

                                 Boxing through i.e. like "gangster type" (= with litigation fraud !!)

 

             Whether the Lawyer St. Minnerop already from the content of the OLG decision of 3.9.2015

               Az 18 W 1/13 was informed, is still unclear. The decision of September 3, 2015 was due to

                     of the plaintiff's protest on 2.9.2015 before the OLG, hastily completed.

 

Sept. 14, 2015: Notice of hearing (22 pages) against OLG decision. Az 18 W 44/14 of 3.9.15 signed

                           Malsch /Ms. Glaeser /Anger; Reasons for the admission of the legal complaint against

                         the above-mentioned OLG decision. ;

                       PKH proceedings not ended; no limitation of claims for damages;

                     Notice of hearing due to violation of the right to be heard (with PKH application)

                           Fax GA sheet no. 1857a - sheet no. 1857n, mailing sheet no. 1858-1868

 

Sept. 14, 2015: Lawyer Minnerop thanks for the hint from 9.9.2015 (!?); he recommends

               "Boxing through" the LG procedure before the plaintiff submits new applications

                       and complaints                                                                                    GA sheet no.1869

                                                                               annotation

 

                     The LG notice from 9.9.2015 to RA Minnerop is not contained in file 2b o 271/01

                     ("hairdressed") to eliminate incriminating documents against LG judges or to leave traces

                     blur. This is how the criminals work:

                   The BGH committee was silent about the disappearance of the notification 9.9.2015

                   (So ​​intended to protect the criminals! The assumption is not unrealistic).

 

Sept. 16, 2015: Notice of hearing (handwritten 7 pages) against OLG decision. v 2.9.15 signed

                         Malsch / Ms Glaeser / Anger to OLG Az 18 W 1/13;  

                                                                                                         Handwritten GA sheet no. 1902-1908

                             Notice of hearing forwarding 22.9.2015 with PC-written.           GA sheet no.1875

                               Text:

                             "First application for exclusion against H. Malsch on Az 2b o 271/01 is admissible;

                             Evidence of the cap of legal violations / perversions of the LG judges

                             Evidence of approval of resolutions by illegally formed LG bodies

                           Decision of September 2, 2015 on the application of partiality against H. Malsch and

                           others, the responsible OLG-11 Senate should have announced / decided

              : Reasons for the admission of the legal complaint against the above-mentioned OLG decision

                           : Notice of hearing due to violation of the right to be heard (with PKH application)

                           "Le receleur fait le voleur" Malsch (as receleur = fence) is considered excluded

                             The typewritten version of the hearing notice from 9/16/15 is on 9/22/15

                            was handed over to the policewomen at the OLG-D'dorf entrance.

                                                                                          

Sept. 18, 2015: Letter from the RA N.L. to OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01) that the plaintiff

                   will personally raise a hearing complaint because he is overworked and cannot it.

                                                                                                                                        GA sheet no.1894

Sept. 22, 2015: Notice of hearing 28 pages against OLG decision 3.9.15 Az 18 W 1/13 (2b o 271/01);

                           Content:

                         : no limitation of claims for damages according to § 852 BGB old version

                        : The first PKH procedure v. 5.2.2001 has not yet been legally concluded;

                         : Notice of hearing due to violation of the right to be heard (with PKH application)

                       : Reasons for the admission of the legal complaint against the above-mentioned OLG

                             decision                                  Posting. GA sheet no. 1937-1950 + sheet no. 1879-1892

Sept. 22, 2015: Notice to OLG-18 W 44/14 (2b o 271/01) that the reasons are compiled in

                     Hearing complaints from 9/22/15 on OLG Az 18 W 1/13 for the application of the

                   BGB old version. apply accordingly to Az 18 W 44/14.                              GA sheet no.1899

Sept. 25, 2015: Letter from the plaintiff to the OLG Az 18 W 1/13, 18 W 44/14, 18 W 2/13 with

                 Compilation of the BGH decisions which are necessary for the application of the BGB old

                 version speak i.e. that the claims for damages are not time barred.  GA sheet no. 1958 - 1961

October 1, 2015: Application by the Minnerop attorney to cancel the date of March 23, 2015

                       because of his vacation; there are also holiday weeks in NRW !!

Oct. 4, 2015: Letter from RA St. Minnerop to LG-2b o 271/01;

                       he demands "through decision" because the plaintiff's motions

                       block the settlement on a monthly basis !!!

                       (The gangster mentality of advocate St. Minnerop, in Zenith)

             The BGH committee decided in favour of "decision-making" and was thus an accomplice

           become in a recommended offense; The resulting liability of the BGH quintet clearly.

 

10/11/2015; Answer of the plaintiff to Az 2b o 271/01 to the rantings of the Lawyer Minnerop

                                                                                                                             GA sheet no. 1999 - 2008

October 12, 2015: DISPOSAL Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll; Date of March 23, 2015 is cancelled;

                               Ms. Brecht is not a single judge; new date April 13, 2016 GA sheet no. 2009

October 16, 2015: OLG Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 (LG 2b o 271/01);

                   Forwarding to the OLG, the LG decision of September 18, 2007 signed Strupp-Müller /

                   Engelkamp- Neeser / Galle (with signatures and double sheet numbering,

                   and the immediate complaint v. Oct 9, 2007 and copy of letter

                  of Dec. 5, 2007 to OLG 18 W 46/07 with evidence of the appeal of Oct. 9, 2007.

                   (Immediate complaint October 9, 2007 with a picture of the kippers!

                   Without leaf number, stapled after leaf 1956)                       GA sheet no. 1952 - 1955

                                                                                                                        

                                                                           annotation

 

         Because of the extremely important question of liability of the OLG judge Malsch, Ms. Strupp-

         Müller and Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll is attached to the immediate complaint from October 9, 2007

       also recorded; A criminal complaint has been filed against Ms. Strupp-Müller with the D'dorf

         public prosecutor submitted on January 16, 2020. Ms. Strupp-Müller is also in an open letter about

       the most difficult Accusation and informed about the criminal prosecution. No response so far.

                  

October 30, 2015: Letter to LG 2b o 271/01; Application for repeal of the single judge

                       Ms. Brecht on the date of March 23, 2016 and the negotiation date (under

                       Consideration of the request of the legal representative of the defendant state of North

                       Rhine-Westphalia) for a Week to be brought forward i.e. to be set for March 16, 2016.

                       Establishing the date of April 13, 2016 would have been lost.

 

7th Dec. 2015: DISPOSAL of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll The date 13.4.16 remains because of the RA

                       Forced; As a single judge, Ms. Brecht accidentally issued the ruling of 23.9.15

                       signed; The dispute 2b o 271/01 continues as a chamber matter.

                                                                                                                                               GA sheet no. 2016

Dec 16, 2015; The RA N.L. submits the request for the hearing to be brought forward

                         from April 13, 2016 to March 16, 2016                                   GA sheet no. 2020 + 2021

Dec. 18, 2015: DIRECTIVE from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Az 2b o 271/01; The RA does not name

                          any substantial reasons according to § 227 ZPO for bringing forward the hearing;

                         In addition, March 16, 2016 is fully booked with other dates.           GA sheet no.2022

 

                                                                  - 2016 -

 

Jan. 22, 2016: OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01) decision of 2.9.15 signed Malsch/Ms. Glaeser/ Anger,

                           received 9/11/2015, withdrawal of the request for bias against Malsch

                             Description: Request for bias against H. Malsch from 2.9.2013

                           : Decision of 2.9.2015 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

                           : Notice of hearing dated September 16, 2015 against the above-mentioned OLG

decision of September 2, 2015

                       Content of the hearing complaint                                           GA sheet no. ILLEGIBLE

> The first application for exclusion against H. Malsch on Az 271/01 was admissible;

>Evidence for “capping” of legal violations / perversions of law LG judges

> Evidence of approval of resolutions of illegally formed LG bodies

>Decision of September 2, 2015 on the application of partiality against H. Malsch and others

                           the responsible OLG-11 Senate should have announced / decided

> Reasons for the admission of the legal complaint against the above-mentioned OLG decision

           : Notice of hearing dated September 16, 2015 due to violation of the right to be heard (with PKH

                application)

   Here: A decision is to be made about the legal problems, regardless of the fact that the

               when RECELEUR accused H. Malsch of being removed from the position of chairman

February 9, 2016: Letter to the OLG-18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14 with the content that the LG decisions

                       of May 28, 2014 and July 7, 2014 issued by illegally formed LG bodies with 2 judges

                       inside (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht) with requests for bias dated 2.9.13 /

                       16.9.13 According to § 46/47 ZPO were excluded and the complaint procedure still

                       was not completed by the 11th Senate. (Sheet No. 1969 missing)

                                                                                                                                  GA sheet No. 1968 + 1970

                                                                           annotation

               The BGH committee was able to establish the truth of the illegality of the LG committee, but

                 nothing done about it; i.e. the LG resolutions of November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014 as

                 validly apply. The legal violations of the LG judges also burden the BGH Committee

                (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) and help clarify liability

                 the FRG according to § 839 BGB.

Feb. 15, 2016: Letter from the plaintiff with a description of the RECELEUR pull-ups (= V. Malsch)

                          so that he could achieve the LG-ordered result (the limitation of claims) to

                         OLG Az 18 W 1/13 and 18 W 44/14, sent to the OLG            GA sheet no. 1971 + 1973

                                                                              annotation

                   The ruthless description of the legal violations of the repeated criminal Malsch are

                   the BGH judge noticed and verified; still nothing done. The legal ones

                 Questions regarding criminal offenses and liability have largely been clarified.

                 Nevertheless, the BGH committee nothing done.

 

Feb. 17, 2016: Letter to OLG Az 18 W 1/13, 18 W 44/14, 18 W 2/13; References to Palandt, BGB

                                                        Fax only 2 pages, post complete 3 pages, GA sheet no. 1974 + 1977

February 19, 2016: Forwarding of the letter July 17, 2003 from the former lawyer Dr. Pl.

                                                                                                                            GA sheet no. 1978 + 1982

March 30, 2016: LG 2b o 271/01; DIRECTIVE from Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll, with a question to RAe

                             whether she can meet the deadline of April 13, 2016; The files are with the OLG

                             and a decision is not possible by April 13, 2016                              GA Sheet No. 2026

                                                                                                                                                                          

April 5, 2016: OLG decision Az 18 W 1/13, Ms Stein /Ms Glaeser / Anger; Hearing notice from 16.9.15

                       and 22.9.2015with 3rd pages Bla-Bla rejected                               GA sheet no. 1985 + 1989

April 5, 2016: OLG decision Az 18 W 44/14 (Ms Stein / Ms Glaeser / Anger); Hearing notice of

                   14.9.2015, GGD, and Application for admission of the legal complaint rejected the rush

                 of the 18th Senate to send files 2b o 271/01 to the LG is obvious        GA Bl. No. 1990 + 1994

April 7, 2016: OLG decision Az 18 W 61/15 (LG-2b o 98/15 Legal infractions of the OLG judges 11th

                           Senate and exclusion request against S-N) signed Ms Stein /Ms. Glasses /Anger;

                         immediate complaint the LG decision rejecting the PKH is unsuccessful; as a reason

                         on the LG decision referred;

                                                                                    annotation

 

               The above-mentioned procedure 18 W 61/15 (LG Az 2b o 98/15) does not belong to Az 2b o 271/01

               (OLG or BGH), is only mentioned here because as a continuation of Az 2b o 6/11 until mid-2019 for

               more than 8 years because of the legal infractions of the LG / OLG judges, employed the judiciary.

 

April 8, 2016: Stockschlaeder-Nöll faxed to RA N.L. that the date April 13, 2016 for 2b o 271/01

                           will take place; Files received from OLG

Apr. 8, 2016: Application by the attorney Minnerop (senior) to cancel the April 13, 2016 appointment

                       due to Illness of RA St. Minnerop (son) and inpatient treatment        GA sheet no. 2042b

April 10, 2016: GGD to OLG Az 18 W 1/13 application for deletion of the inadmissible.

                             Supplement of § 209 BGB old version

                                     Fax NL GA sheet no. 2041 again TS Fax GA sheet no. 2046c + 2048 + 2049 + 2053

April 13, 2016: LG negotiation for 2b o 271/01; present: Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Mr.

                           Frank, RA-Mineropp Senior, his secretary, RA N.L. and Dr. Th. Sartoros;

                        Duration only 14 minutes. Applications confirmed in writing on July 12, 2012;

                         RA Minnerops application; Maintenance of the 1st VU from March 16, 2011;

                           Deadline for comments on the OLG

                       Decision by May 11, 2011. Extension of the suit dated August 28, 2013 not served

                           because of Plaintiff could not pay court fees;

   MOTIONS N.L .: in accordance with the pleading dated April 15, 2011 (= objection to 1st VU of

                     March 16, 2011and from July 12, 2012);

           (N.L. forgot the NGA applications from December 14, 2012 and August 28, 2013 to repeat!!!)

                      

                                                                    annotation

                       After the end of the meeting, the plaintiff had both judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll and

                       Ms. Gundlach) called "murderer". No reaction so far;   So the toad swallowed.

 

April 13, 2016: Minutes of LG-Az 2b o 271/01                                             GA Bl. No. 2043 + 2046

Apr. 18, 2016: Application from RA N.L. upon delivery of the reduced extension of the action for

                       payment € 22,200 court fees for 2b o 271/01; Amount corresponds to amounts in dispute

                   up to 1.95Mill. €, i.e. for an additional approx. € 87,000 of the extended complaint. Posting.

                                                                                                                                 GA sheet no.2061 - 2062

                                                                       annotation

      

           The OLG-D'dorf rejected the above-mentioned application as inadmissible

                                                                           with judgment 18.10.2017 Az 18 U 69/16;

           In NZB it is proven that the inadmissibility violates the established BGH case law.

       The BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) raised

       the complaint in silence plugged in i.e. the liability according to BGB § 839 for the OLG-D'dorf

       litigation fraud completely assumed.

May 9, 2016: Opinion of the RA N.L. on Az 2b o 271/01 against the alleged limitation of the

                         Claims (39 pages) by mail.                                                               GA sheet no.2063 - 2101

                                    

May 9, 2016: Repetition of the application by RA N.L. for the delivery of the reduced lawsuit

                       Extension of April 18, 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01 to the defendant Post GA sheet no. 2115

May 10, 2016: LG-PKH-rejection decision Az 2b o 271/01 signed S-N/Ms. Gundlach/Mr. Frank;

                    The chamber would have on the claims with decision f. Nov. 26, 2012 and f. May 28, 2014

                     decided, and the OLG confirmed on September 3, 2015. The claims are statute-barred.

                     Reference to OLG-18 W 1/13 Executions. (The LG trial fraud noticeable) GA sheet no. 2103

 

                                                                       annotation

 

              The LG-2b Chamber identifies unconditionally with the one committed about 8 months previously

              Trial fraud of the OLG-18. Senate (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) from 3.9.15 to Az 18 W 1/13

              The aforementioned LG decisions of November 26, 2012 and May 28, 2014 with the alleged

              statute of limitations the claims on December 31, 2009 or on June 30, 2010 were included after the

              wishes were ordered No-Remedy resolution 7/7/2014, obsolete.

             The opinion of the girls (Ms. Brecht/Ms. Freitag) was for Stockschlaeder-Nöll was wrong,

             so she had chosen Ms. Gundlach as the scapegoat

             The BGH committee noticed how fuzzy the LG claims are and remains silent about them.

             The liability of the BGH judges according to § 839 BGB for LG litigation fraud is beyond doubt.

                                                                                                                                      

May 11, 2016: FINAL JUDGMENT; Rejection of complaint 2b o 271/01 of 5.2.2001; the 1st VU from

                       March 16, 2011 is upheld !!!, and the lawsuit for alleged limitation of the Claims

                       (with reference to legal fraud contained in the OLG decisions of Sept. 3, 2015 to OLG

                   Az 18 W 1/13 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) rejected.

                       The plaintiff bears the costs!  see above.

                    Judgment signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Mr. Frank (intern)

                                                                                                                                 GA sheet no.2105 - 2112

                                                                     annotation

                     The LG judgment of May 11, 2016 was written by Ms. Gundlach; Noticeable that all

                     facts relevant to the decision are suppressed; Stockschlaeder-Nöll is now satisfied that

                     she has saddled the Greeks with further and considerable costs.

                     The fraud committed in the final judgment on May 11, 2016 by Stockschlaeder-Nöll & Co

                     the BGH reporter (Seiters) and its chairman (Herrmann) noticed but nevertheless granted

                   the offense with silence. The BGH judges are therefore liable for the Plaintiffs caused harm.

                     According to Section 339 of the Criminal Code, the offense is not a trivial act.

 

May 17, 2016: Reminder to the LG-D'dorf to Az 2b o 271/01 to forward the minutes of the meeting

                          from April 13, 2016; Reminder to prove the legal cause for Announcement to NRW

                         of the PKH application of May 6, 2016                                        Fax GA sheet no. 2116

May 24th, 2016: Immediate complaint against LG-PKH-negative decision v. May 10, 2016

                               signed Ms S-N /Ms Gundlach /Mr Frank                      Post. GA sheet no. 2121-2123

May 30, 2016 LG-NA 2b o 271/01 S-N / Ms. Gundlach / Frank; right away. Evocation v 24.5.2016 not

                       helped and on to the OLG; Scripture receives no new submission; to avoid of repetitions.

                     reference to the final judgment on April 11, 2016 and in the contested decision.

                                                                                                                                            GA sheet no.2119

May 30, 2016: LG-Az 2b o 76/16 voluntary self-disclosure of bias on the part of Stockschlaeder-

                       Nöll, Ms. Gundlach, Frank at Az 2b o 271/01; SELF REJECTION according to § 48 ZPO,

 

                                                               annotation

                          

           The self-disclosure because of partiality according to § 48 ZPO is not contained in file 2b o 271/01

             This is a voluntary self-rejection to Az 2b o 271/01 without time restrictions

             Thus the accused Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll admits that she was biased all the years.

             The BGH committee sees in the files the voluntary self-rejection due to bias and skips

             the fact as if it were nothing Section 339 of the Criminal Code is fully applicable here and

           justifies the claims for damages against the FRG because of the perversion of the BGH judges

 

June 15, 2016: OLG decision Az 18 W 1/13 (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Anger);

                     Application dated April 10, 2016 Deletion in the decision of 3.9.15 and acceptance of

                   the correction is deemed inadmissible discarded; A case according to § 319 ZPO is

                   supposedly not present! the one expressed in the decision

                   The legal opinion is correct and the plaintiff's interest in legal protection is missing would!

                                                                                                                             GA sheet no. 2131-2133

                                                                             annotation

 

             The above-mentioned OLG decision is an advance notice of the next fraud (18.10.17) by the

               Ms. Glaeser i.e. she plans to continue to manipulate the law (BGB old version § 209).

 

June 16, 2016: LG decision Az 2b o 76/16 signed Ms. Jungclaus / Ms. Harsta / Witte; Tenor:

                       It is found that Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Ms. Gundlach and Frank from the exercise

                       judges are excluded from these proceedings; They also have on May 30th

                     2016 self-disclosure of partiality according to § 48 ZPO filed (and allegations of blockade

                     the service of the action 2b o 271/01, in the period when the court fees are paid in full

                     were not contradicted, Dec. 2006 to Sept. 2010) etc.

 

July 6, 2016: OLG 18 W 25/16 (2b o 271/01) Forwarding of the LG decision of June 16 to the OLG

                     2016 to Az 2b o 76/16 signed Jungclaus / Harsta / Witte

                                                                                                           GA Bl. No. 2146 - 2156 Fax and mail

                                                                         annotation

 

   The BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) has the voluntary self-

     disclosure the bias of the trial fraudsters (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) was discovered anyway

not mentioned in the resolutions of 24 May 2018 and 26 July 2018; thus the BGH committee has the

     Liability for the earlier and later unlawful decisions and judgments of the fraudsters

     accepted. The BGH judges are burdened with the damage caused to the plaintiff.

            

June 23, 2016: notification of the RA Minnerop to OLG Az 18 W U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01) about his

          Power of attorney and the application to reject the appeal (no justification !!)

                                                                                                                                          GA sheet no.2145

 

Aug. 18, 2016: OLG 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) Statement of appeal of the RA N.L. against the LG

                   judgment dated May 11, 2016 (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Frank) 66 pages

                   and copies the proofs fax NL                 GA sheet no. 2171 to sheet no. 2239 + attachments;

                                                                                                       Post sheet no. 2263-2340 + attachment

                                                           annotation

 

                 The description of the facts in the appeal of the RA N.L. relevant to the interruption of the Speak

                 statute of limitations are not taken into account; the reprimanded cooperation of Ms. Fuhr in

               the first instance also not taken into account. The BGH committee or the FRG is liable for keeping

               the facts silent

 

19 Aug 2016: OLG Az 18 U 69/16; By fax: only PKH application for appeal and bias application

                           against Ms. Glaeser and Anger (without explanation, without evidence)

 

22 Aug 2016: OLG Az 18 U 69/16; By post; PKH application for the appeal and bias application

                         against Ms. Glaeser and Anger (with explanation, with 2 documents)

                         Mail in GA incomplete only pp. 1, 3, 5 (the others 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 are missing)

                                                   GA p. No. 2359-2361, sheet no. 2362 is missing; PKH receipts?

 

                                                                    annotation

 

     The fact that a fax transmission sometimes does not arrive in full has already happened and is

     understandable.

     But it is unusual for the mail to reach the recipient incompletely; only in the Cases where commissioned

     informers are active (such as with the attempted murder on April 16, 2008) can be found on the pages

     removed and missing from the mail item. A question from the BGH committee to the OLG is not known

 

Aug. 24, 2016: OLG-Az 18 W 2/13 (2b o 271/01) Request for bias against Ms. Glaeser and Mr. Anger

                           due to perversion of rights within the meaning of 339 StGB (with reference to PKH +

                           application for exclusion from OLG Az 18 U 69/16) from 19 Aug. 2016, this is with

                           receipts by post on Monday 22.8.16 sent)

 

29 Aug 2016: Inspection of files by OLG-D'dorf 2b o 271/01 to 18 U 69/16 between 10:00 and 13:50

 

                                                                      Remarks

 

                     Constant uninterrupted police surveillance (even within the toilet !!); many files

                     Tampering detected; No document of service in the GA of the lawsuit 5.2.2001

                     found with applications 13.8.2004 to the defendant country; no LG decision18.9.2007

                     with the 3 signatures and the double numbering; no immediate complaint of 9 October

                     2007 against LG decision. September 18, 2007, available !!

                     No files on the incidents at the OLG 11th Senate between September 2009 and May2010;

                     No LG decision of the single judge Stockschlaeder-Nöll from November 20, 2003 to Az 2b

                     o 271/01; very many sheets double numbered. Also my forwarding of October 16, 2015

                   to the OLG Az 18 W 1/13 (18 W 44/14) with attachments the copy of the LG Decision

                   of September 18, 2007 (Strupp-Müller / Engelkamp-Neeser / Galle) on Az 2b o 271/01

                     and from the letter dated December 5, 2007. Several sheets very used. u.a.m.

 

31 Aug 2016: Official statement from Ms. Glaeser on Az 18 U 69/16 (2 lines)

 

September 6, 2016: Official statement by Mr. Anger on Az 18 U 69/16 (5 lines)

 

Sept. 26, 2016 Comments on the official statement of the OLG judge Ms. Glaeser (18 U 69/16) 

                    GA sheet no. 2372-2374 by mail. incomplete only p. 1,3,5 the other 2,4,6,7 are missing

 

                                                                     annotation

 

                                             See text note on the date Aug. 22, 2016

 

Sept. 29, 2016: DISPOSAL for Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein; Appointment for the hearing

                           Sept. 27, 2017, 2nd floor, room A 215, 3 p.m.                  GA sheet no. 2368 - 2371

 

October 19, 2016: Resignation of mandate 18 U 69/16 on the part of RA MINNEROP

                                                                                                                                           GA sheet no. 2382

 

October 29, 2016 Letter to the OLG 18 W 25/16 with a report on the discoveries in GA

                             on August 29. 2016

                                                         Fax GA sheet no. 2385-2387 by post. incomplete: page 1 is missing

 

November 4, 2016: Resignation of the mandate 18 U 69/16 on the part of the RA N.L.

 

Nov. 25, 2016: Response to appeal 8.5 lines (!!) from RA Fassnacht on OLG-Az 18 U 69/16

                       (2b o 271/01)                                                                               GA sheet no.2402 - 2405

                                                             annotation

 

           An attorney who only gives a bla-blah appeal response of 8.5 lines - the moment he does

           has applied for an extension of the deadline to leaf through the files received - means that he

           was forced by the driver of the judicial staff to use the received text of 8.5 lines as his own

           To send the opinion to the OLG. The BGH judges laughed like the process fraud

         were very superficial and poorly organized; especially since the fee of the RA Fassnacht has after

         oriented to the amount in dispute. The assumption of the RA costs in the claimant's damage is therefore

           justified and justified

 

Dec. 14, 2016: My letter to the appeal proceedings OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 (LG-Az 2b o 271/01,

               PKH proceedings from August 19, 2016                                              GA sheet no. 2410 - 2411

           Application: Request to speed up the PKH application;

                                   the NRW submitted its response to the appeal

                                                                                                                                      

December 27, 2016: Communication from Ms. Stein to Az 18 W 25/16 that the immediate complaint

                               against LG-Decision 10.5.16 (PKH rejection) with the main thing (18 U 69/16) being

                               decided

                                                                            - 2017 -

 

4.1.2017: Reminder of the plaintiff from 4.1.2017, to OLG to send a copy -

                 the service of the action to NRW 2b o 271/01 or 18 U 69/16        GA sheet no. 2414 - 2414a

12.1.2017: OLG decision. Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms Kirschner,

                       received January 27, 2017: Application for exclusion against Ms. Glaeser rejected as

                       unfounded                                                         Decision 12.1.17 missing from GA 18 U 69/16

                                                                                          

                                                             annotation

      Coated GA = proof that Ms. Glaeser is needed for the next OLG fraud trial (18.10.17)

         Ms. Fuhr should not have co-signed; it was according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO by law

           locked out; The BGH judges also stated it in the RA brief of Sept. 22, 2017 as well

       read in the NZB on 19.3.2018; nevertheless they have about the illegality of the OLG committee

           kept silent and thus assumed liability.

January 31, 2017: Complaint by fax to 18 U 69/16 (2b ο 271/01) against the OLG decision

                                 January 12, 2017 with application for exclusion of Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser

                               as well as application for admission of Legal complaint

1.2.2017: Mail to OLG Az 18 U 69/16 with a complaint against the decision 12.1.2017 and

                 Application for the removal of Ms. Fuhr and Ms. Glaeser, as well as application

                   for approval of the Legal complaint

               Contestation of the above OLG decision of January 12, 2017, Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms.

                 Kirschner

               : Legal violations by the above-mentioned body (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Kirschner)

                 on January 12, 2017 justify the request for the annulment of the resolution, exclusion

                 of Ms. Glaeser,

                 Admission of the legal complaint and also exclusion of Ms. Fuhr with immediate effect

                                                                         Fax and post GA sheet no. 2417 - 2435 incl. 10 attachments

 

Apr. 11, 2017: Official statement from Apr. 11, 2017 by Mrs. Fuhr on Az 18 U 69/16

 

                                                                     annotation

                 She admits that she was involved in the first instance of the related Az 2b o 271/01.

                 It was therefore excluded by law (Section 41 No. 6 ZPO); but for Ms. Stein was Ms. Fuhr

               indispensable; therefore Ms. Stein declared Ms. Fuhr as unencumbered on July 19, 2017!

             No respect for laws; All of the above-mentioned OLG criminals are in favour of the next fraud

               required. The BGH committee had determined this and still "capped" the crime

 

May 5, 2017: Comments on the official statement from Ms. FUHR of April 11, 2017

                      Re: OLG-Az 18 W 25/16 (official liability suit LG-2b o 271/01; immediate complaint from

                         May 24, 2016 against LG decision of May 10, 2016 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms.

                        Gundlach / Frank)

                 : OLG-18 W 1/13, decision 3.9.15; Application for exclusion against OLG judges Ms. Glaeser

                         and Mr. Anger

               : OLG 18 U 69/16 appeal v. August 18, 2016 against LG-D'dorf judgment v. May 11, 2016 for

                     Az 2b o 271 / 01

                

June 3, 2017: New PKH application for 2b o 271/01 due to NGA (699,456.47 + 5,324.84 + 7,382.28 +

                       € 2,179.61) = € 714,343.20 with previous history, at the GS of the 2b Chamber on June 6,

                         2017 submitted

19.7.2017: OLG decision Az 18 W 25/16 (LG-2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein / Mr. Unger / Ms. Kirschner

                     Request for exclusion against Ms. Fuhr unfounded; No cost decision

 

                                                                   annotation

 

               Ms. Stein has therefore suspended § 41 No. 6 ZPO; Violation of the right to be heard too

               on the part of the BGH committee on Az III ZR 332/17 (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert /

               Ms. Böttcher)

 

July 27, 2017: Complaint to OLG-D'dorf President about violations of the GVP or the GVG

  •     § 21e and Art. 101 GG, on the part of the 18th Senate with recommendation /

                             application for introduction of disciplinary measures;

     committed > on 2.9.2015 at Az 18 W 1/13 (or 18 U 69/16) Malsch / Ms. Glasses / anger;

                       > on 3.9.2015 for Az 18 W 1/13 and Az 18 W 44/14 (both 18 U 69/16);

                             18 W 2/13 (2b o 118/99) (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

                       > on January 12, 2017 for Az 18 W 25/16 (or 18 U 69/16); Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms.

                            Kirschner

                     > on July 19, 2017 for Az 18 W 25/16 (or 18 U 69/16); Ms. Stein /Mr. Unger / Ms. Kirschner

                        NB: the above letter is not contained in file 2b o 271/01. Here just for information

July 27, 2017: My letter to

                 : OLG-Az 18 W 1/13 (LG-2b o 271/01) decision of 2.9.15 and much more 3.9.15

                       signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

               : OLG-Az 18 W 44/14 (LG-2b o 271/01) decision of 2.9.15 and much more 3.9.15 signed

                       Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger

             : OLG-Az 18 W 25/16 (LG-2b o 271/01) decision of 19.7.17 signed Ms. Stein / Unger /

                       Ms. Kirschner

             Reprimand for violation of the right to be heard; Request for repeal of Decision 19.7.2017

           : the hereby contested OLG decision of 19.7.2017 signed Ms. Stein / Unger / Ms. Kirschner

                     is illegal because it was issued by the incompetent 18th Senate.

                Ms. Fuhr is excluded from Az 18 W 1/13, 18 W 44/14, 18 W 25/16 (and 18 U 69/16)

            : Ms. Glaeser is due to the OLG decision of 12.1.2017 on the part of the incompetent body

                     of the 18th Senate Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Kirschner only theoretically / theatrically

                       exonerated;

             The contested decision of January 12, 2017 does not develop any legal effects on the above

                   Az 18 W 1/13, 18 W 44/14, 18 W 25/16 (and 18 U 69/16)

           : Ms. Glaeser is therefore excluded from all decisions

         : further reasons for the admission of the legal complaint against the above-mentioned OLG

             decisions 12.1.2017,   7/19/2017

 

                                                                    annotation

 

               The offenders (Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) are beaming with joy because of the (theoretical) relief

               on the part of Ms. Stein & Co with the "shoulder to shoulder resolutions" regardless of the law!

 

July 31, 2017: DISCLAIMER of Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll on Az 2b o 271/01;

                       PKH for the application of June 3, 2017 cannot be approved because the PKH application

                       according to the final judgment according to ZPO § 117 RNr 2b Review. 31 is not possible;

                         Deadline to Reply within 3 weeks!

  1. Aug. 2017 Arrest warrant Az DR II 559/17 on the part of OGV Nauroschat, due to court costs claim

                           D'dorf June 16, 2017 (over 185, - € !!)

 

                                                                           annotation

           The long-planned prank by the driver of the judiciary staff - the plaintiff from the hearing

           at the OLG-D'dorf on September 27, 2017 to Az 18 U 69/16 to keep away or to turn it off -

           is obvious. The plaintiff always reacts prudently and in accordance with the norms.

         The "dark power" plan failed miserably. The case described here serves to illustrate

         how many obstacles the coalition partners have of the litigation fraud (LG /OLG /BGH /

         Administration)   put the plaintiff with his processes not terminated properly.

                                                                                     (Warrant of Arrest is not included in 2b o 271/01)

2nd Aug. 2017: 1st forwarding to OLG-18 U 69/16, 81 copies of missing documents from Az

                         2b o 271/01 section (Dec. 1999 - Dec. 2001), ascertained on August 29, 2016 at the

                         File inspection at the OLG-D'dorf;

                       (7 pages of text + annexes listed + copies attached)

9 Aug 2017: 2nd forwarding to OLG-18 U 69/16, 29 copies of missing documents from Az

                        2b o 271/01, subsection 1.1.2002 - 31 Dec. 2005.

  1. Aug. 2017: 3rd forwarding OLG-18 U 69/16, copies of missing documents from Az 2b o 271/01

17th Aug. 2017: 4th forwarding OLG-18 U 69/16, copies of missing documents from Az 2b o 271/01

  1. Aug. 2017: 5th forwarding OLG-18 U 69/16, copies of missing documents from Az 2b o 271/01

Aug. 21, 2017: 6e forwarding OLG-18 U 69/16, copies of missing documents from Az 2b o 271/01

22 Aug 2017: Report to OGV-Nauroschat about DR II 716/17; Charge for Sept. 1, 2017; arrest warrant

                         because of € 267.22 from OLG 11 W 16/14 (LG Az 2b o 227/13):

                         Preliminary Immediate Complaint of 22 Aug 2017 against the arrest warrant with

                           application on cancellation of the charge 1.9.2017 etc.

22 Aug 2017: OLG decision Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Unger / Ms. Kirschner, hearing notice from

                           7/27/2017 (regarding Ms. Fuhr) rejected on 8/22/2017 as unfounded.

 

                                                              annotation

 

                 The resolution of the OLG committee to keep Ms. Fuhr is obvious here.

         The BGH committee (Herrmann /Seiters /Reiter /Ms. Liebert /Ms. Böttcher)

         remained silent about this;

 

23 Aug 2017: 7th forwarding to OLG 18 U 69/16 copies of missing documents from Az 2b or similar

                           271/014 DINA4 sheets with photos of components of the DWRFZ pump

24 Aug 2017: 8e forwarding to OLG 18 U 69/16 copies of missing documents from Az 2b o 271/01

                         Evidence of the FA's crimes in 1987-1989

Aug. 24, 2017: I have the last 5 pleadings at the OLG post office

                         (August 17, August 19, August 21, August 23, and 24.8.2017)

                     (it was stamped by a young policeman and a Policewoman)

  1. Aug. 2017: 9e forwarding to OLG 18 U 69/16 copy of the seizure at Sparkasse Ratingen

                         29.9.1989

Aug. 28, 2017: 10th forwarding to OLG 18 U 69/16 with 92 sheets, and photo of the work

29 Aug 2017: 11th forwarding; I have the last two forwardings at the OLG post office

                         from 25.8.17 and 28.8.2017 with the 92 sheets submitted and stamped. The

                       The policeman didn't want to count the sheets and wrote on the stamp area

                       "a package as an attachment"

30 Aug 2017: OLG decision Az 18 W 25/16 signed Ms Stein / Ms Fuhr / Ms Glaeser, immediate appeal

                           against OLG discharge decision for Ms. Fuhr rejected as unfounded.

 

                                                                     annotation

               The OLG committee is still illegal because of Ms. Fuhr (§ 41 No. 6 ZPO); Decision legal ineffective.

             The BGH committee also did not provide an answer / statement on this; see below

 

  1. Aug. 2017: OLG decision (PKH rejection for Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein /

                           Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glasses; The applications are supposedly statute-barred (!!) and

                           also not justified, received 1.9.17

 

                                                                   annotation

 

      The above-mentioned OLG decision August 30, 2017 (recorded by Ms. Fuhr and supplemented by Ms.

        Glaeser and Ms. Stein), exposes the fixed plan (intent) of the OLG committee of the 18th Senate, by

       means of Reversal of the wording of the law, or concealment of relevant decisions Facts, the process

        fraud to Az 18 U 69/16 with the help of the manipulation of the legal texts of the BGB old version to try.

            In page 6, paragraph 2 of the above resolution August 30, 2017 speaks the OLG committee that

           "FOR THE BENEFIT OF the plaintiff" !!! committed the fraud.

         The limitation period (according to the OLG committee) is one month after the FG judgment has been

          served started to run on November 24th, 1999, but the FG judgment has become final (November 24th,

         1999) with a further 6 months "assumed". So women are above the law!

         In the very next sentence it claims that the limitation period ended on "06/30/2000".

           In point d) of page 6 of the OLG decision. 8/30/17, Ms. Glaeser can parachute the puzzling liable

           supplement to read that the claims for damages would be statute-barred on "July 31, 2006"

           The BGH committee made the deliberate and arbitrary deviations from the applicable ones

         Laws established but kept silent about them; in this respect the BGH committee is liable for the

           Damage to the plaintiff due to the rejection of the PKH applied for or at least for the RA costs

           of the 2nd instance, for the pension for the BGH court fees and the OLG 2nd instance.

      

31 Aug 2017: 12e forwarding of missing documents from GA 2b o 271/01 from the period 2011-2014

September 12, 2017: LG decision on Az 2b o 271/01 signed S-N / Gundlach / Renner with PKH

                             rejection for NGA, received from N.L. on September 18, 2017;

                                 Deadline for immediate appeal until October 18, 2017

September 12, 2017: 13e forwarding with a copy of the immediate complaint from April 29, 2012

September 16, 2017: Complaint against the OLG decision rejecting the PKH 30.8.2017 for 18 U 69/16

                           (2b o 271/01) signed Ms. Stein & Co received on Sept. 4, 2017 at the D.Z.

 

                                                              annotation

 

             The sentence on page 1 of the OLG resolution 30.8.17 that "with the repeal of the Default

             judgment "- the applications made ....., is not adopted in the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017.

         On the contrary, the default judgment of March 16, 2011 is upheld in the OLG judgment of

            October 18,  2017.

      For this purpose, Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser agreed to delete the above sentence from Ms. Fuhr so ​​that

              she could Could justify non-admission of the appeal.

             The intention to harm the plaintiff is obvious.

          Also the one mentioned by the author Ms. Fuhr in the PKH negative decision of August 30, 2017

         Details (on page 11 about the amendment to the lawsuit dated December 29, 2001, etc.) are available

    from Ms. Stein and Ms. Glaeser in the judgment of October 18, 2017, because they had determined that

     the Statute of limitations on "June 30, 2000" would not be enforceable. They therefore had to sacrifice

           the above sentence with it the end of the limitation period in 2000 appears plausible; Ms. Glaeser

      helped with the parachute thrown in "extension of (6) six months of § 209 BGB old version" which the

         panel as "In favor of the plaintiff" (!!!) served several times in the OLG judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az

           18 U 69/16.

      So "litigation fraud in favor of the plaintiff" committed by the OLG committee! Who believes that?

             That is why the BGH judges remained silent and fully assumed liability.

20.9.2017: 14e forwarding of the missing No-Remedy-decision of 2.5.2012

                                   signed S-N / Ms. Hoffmann / Ms. Seidler

22.9.2017: Fax and mailing of the statement of the RA D.Z. to OLG 18 U 69/16,

                     (2b o 271/01) and at RA Fassnacht of NRW

 

                                                                   annotation

 

      The writing of the RA D.Z. explains and adds why there is no limitation period for claims for

      damages had occurred. The criminal offenses of the LG / OLG judges are caught with gloves.

       The use of Ms. Fuhr on Az 18 U 69/16 as a violation of the right to be heard was also criticized.

       Even if the trial frauds of the LG judges (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach) and the

       OLG committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) would not be included due to official liability,

       the BGH committee should recognize the litigation fraud committed from the context.

 

24.9.2017: Fifteenth (15e) forwarding with documents from the period 2011-2012 and 1986

                   Missing hearing notices from May 26, 2012 on OLG Az 18 W 33/10 and from May 27, 2012

                 to OLG Az 18 W 38/12

27.9.2017: Oral hearing at the OLG-D´dorf Az 18 U 69/16 (LG 2b o 271/01)

                   Ms. Stein / Ms. Glasses / Ms. Kirschner, RA D.Z. and RA Fassnacht, as well as a plainclothes

                     policeman.

                     RA Fassnacht has the brief of the RA D.Z. dated 9/22/2017 and would like to

                     check him still as a precaution filed the motion to reject the appeal.

                   RA D.Z. submitted that there was no statute of limitations and sent a binder with 7 sheets

                   to Ms. Stein handed over. Also suggested rejecting the dispute (2b o 271/01) LG,

                   because many applications and documents were not considered. Duration approx. 19 min.

 

                                                                                annotation

 

                     Ms. Stein could hardly suppress her anger (probably because of the efforts

                     the head of the judiciary to keep the plaintiff away from the trial, failed.

                     Ms. Glaeser always hid her face behind her hair.

                     Ms. Kirschner followed the discussion acoustically and in silence and saved it in memory.

 

September 28, 2017: Letter to the OLG-18 U 69/16, with the plaintiff's legal views on legal violations

                                 of the LG judge regarding the delivery of the action, interruption of the statute of

                                 limitations, etc. due to the BGH Judgment f. September 27, 1973, III ZR 197/71;

                                 another missing document is dated Sept. 27, 2012

 

  1. the bias requests against Ms. BAAN, due to 51 perversions during her work

                   in the 11th Senate (and some of them carried out in the present proceedings

                   2b o 271/01) sent; Also sent a letter from the court treasury D'dorf from 15.

                 Dec. 2012 signed Berrisch, cashier in connection with the result that the account

                 for the procedure 2b o 271/01 no longer exists at the court treasury and that after the

                 deadline (which However, the deadline is not specified !!!) has been deleted.

                 Then also submitted document of the Sparkasse Ratingen dated 11 Aug. 1986 certified

                 the consequences of the catastrophic effects of the garnishments (check DM 450 not paid

                 due to insufficient coverage, and a reminder that SCHUFA will be informed).

 

                                                                           annotation

 

          The above documents are not taken into account in the OLG judgment; on the contrary, in the

             judgment the Annoyance of Ms. Stein that by forwarding missing documents to the plaintiff

                 tried to "overturn" the prevailing RA compulsion

             The BGH committee was able to verify the above details but in its decision on May 24, 2018

              kept silent. In this respect, the BGH committee is responsible for not taking into account

                 Documents (§ 139 ZPO).

October 3, 2017: Fax forwarding to OLG 18 U 69/16 of the LG decision not to remedy the situation

                           dated May 2, 2012 signed Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Brecht

                      (ordering the result from the immediate complaint)

 

                                                                         annotation

                     This document was also not taken into account by the BGH committee; The silence

                     of the BGH committee is to be assessed as complicity within the meaning of § 339 StGB and

                   the local ones Claims for damages within the meaning of Section 839 BGB are justified

 

October 4, 2017: Fax, immediate complaint against the LG decision of September 12, 2017, which

                               rejects the PKH signed S-N / Ms. Gundlach / Renner for NGA 714,343.20 €

                           (OLG Az 18 W 46/17)

8.10.2017: new PKH application for 18 U 69/16 is based on submission 22.9.17 of the RA DZ and on

                     Minutes from September 27, 2017.

                              

October 10, 2017: Supplement to the PKH application from October 8, 2017 to OLG Az 18 U 69/16

October 13, 2017: OLG decision on Az 18 U 69/16 signed Stein / Kirschner / Glaeser;

                                 PKH application of October 8, 2017 rejected; Process ended !!

 

October 18, 2017: OLG judgment on Az 18 U 69/16 (2b o 271/01); Rejection of appeal, no revision

                         approved, signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Glasses / Ms. Kirschner.

 

                                                         annotation

 

      The heavy clouds of incense on the Federal Constitutional Court decisions, with which the OLG

        committee  tries to reverse the wording and meaning of the legal texts, or to confirm their

        statute of limitations theory abuse (that the claims for damages would be statute-barred on

     "6/30/2000"), as well as fraudulent proceedings with the help of the extension of § 209 BGB

      old version to declare with a further 6 months  (even as FAVORITE of the APPLICANT), cannot

       cover up the perversion of justice. The trial fraud on page 22 (judgment version with 29 pages)

      or page 23 (judgment version with 30 pages) about the 3-year limitation period that 6 months

       after delivery of the FG ruling on November 24, 1999, then suddenly on  June 30th, 2000 ended,

      is revealed and reported (see 2b o 145/19, as well as criminal complaint with the state D'dorf

        attorney from 19.9.2019, etc)

  The BGH committee (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) is also about it with NZB

     (page 7) informed. However, attention was drawn to the fraud committed by the OLG judges

       (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) with silence "COVERED"

   The BGH committee is liable within the meaning of Section 839 of the German Civil Code for the damage

  caused and in accordance with Section 339 of the StGB fully responsible for the crimes committed by the

    OLG colleagues.

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

                                                                                 A11.

    

   Excerpts from the OLG decision f. August 30, 2017 signed Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser for Az 18 U 69/16

         and comparison with the judgment text on Az 18 U 69/16 dated October 18, 2017 signed

             Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner

 

       On page 22, line 17ff, judgment of October 18, 2017, Az 18 U 69/16, version 29 pages, or page 23

       Version 30 pages, the committee (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) explains the validity and Applicability

       of the BGB (old version) (§ 211) that

                     "The three-year limitation period therefore began after the legally binding conclusion

                     (cf. § 211 BGB old version) of these output tax assessments from the 80s

                       to run the relevant proceedings again before the Finance Court in Düsseldorf.

   On page 6, PKH decision 30.8.2017 (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) Az 18 W 69/16 the reader will find the above

    Sentence in the following form ("the three-year limitation period consequently began after a legally

      binding conclusion (cf. § 211 BGB old version) to run the proceedings before the Düsseldorf Finance

    Court again ")

 

       The OLG committee commits the "multiple litigation fraud" in the last 3.5 lines of the above

      Paragraph (page 22, judgment version 29 pages), as well as in PKH decision 30.8.17, Az 18 U 69/16

       Page 6 (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) in identical form; in both cases (decision / judgment) the following:

         "In favour of the plaintiff, the Senate has, as in previous decisions, for this period up to

           Legal force of six months, so that through the legal action before the tax court

         The interruption of the statute of limitations triggered ended on 06/30/2000 at the latest. "

 

                                     From the above lines it follows that

 

  1. a) an interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG proceedings (due to the primary

                     Legal protection) has occurred and

  1. b) According to lines 17 ff, p. 22, the 3-year BGB limitation period has started again.
  2. c) the 18th Senate also committed the fraud proven below in "previous resolutions"
  3. d) belittling the fraudulent proceedings with the 6 months extension as "in favour of the plaintiff"
  4. e) the legal force (of the interruption of the limitation period) six (6) months after delivery of the

           FG judgment extended (namely as "IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMENT")

 

   Under the above "point c" ("previous decisions") the "fraud of Mrs. Glaeser" is in the decision

   to Az 18 W 1/13 (and 18 W 44/14) from 3.9.2015 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaser / Anger meant who in the

   next lines are analyzed / commented on.

 

The play on words with the terms "(statutory) limitation", "period of limitation", " interruption of limitation

(or suspension of limitation)" of the offenders (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) about the mix-up

and then  the wrong one

  

The result of achieving the alleged "limitation of claims" is provable;       as follows:

  

"The FG proceedings have interrupted the statute of limitations (primary legal protection) and this

 Interruption of the statute of limitations due to the FG proceedings (i.e. due to primary legal protection)

   ended one month (and not 6 months !!) after delivery of the (last ?!) FG judgment ".

 

   (The reader will find the 6 month extension first on page 7, OLG decision of 3.9.2015,

signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

 

The OLG committee adds the 6 months in order to achieve fraudulent proceedings by means of deception!

 

   Now, based on the data of the OLG-PKH decision 30.8.2017 in page 6, paragraph 2, as well as in

   OLG judgment 18.10.2017, page 22, version 29 pages, the last FG judgment released (allegedly !!) on

     24.11.1999, it follows that:

   Assuming that the FG judgment was served at the beginning of January 2000, took (due to the primary

   legal protection) the triggered interruption of the primary statute of limitations until the beginning

   February 2000 (legal deadline one month for the appeal at the BFH !! and not 6 months).

 

       Thereafter, i.e. from the beginning of February 2000, the statutory 3 year limitation period applies

       (according to BGB!) started to run for the filing of the official liability suit.

       (as confirmed by OLG-PKH decision on August 30, 2017, page 6 in line 1, paragraph 2!)

       The end of this statutory limitation period according to the BGB would be 3 years later i.e.

       entered in February 2003 (if you do not take into account the old version of the German Civil Code!)

 

     The OLG committee, however, claims that the interruption of the (BGB) "limitation period" on

     "06/30/2000" ended without specifying that the period of limitation was interrupted of primary

     legal protection (in January 2000) ended, and thereafter the 3 year limitation period of the BGB

     old version has started to run (as had already been confirmed; see above).

 

    The offense is thus completed and the offense is revealed in the OLG-PKH decision on August 30, 2017

  (Stein / Fuhr / Glaeser) also in page 6, paragraph 3, in point d) where it states that the limitation period

     of 3 years according to BGB (old version) § 211 on "June 30, 2000 at the latest on July 31, 2006".

 

     That, neither on "6/30/2000" nor on "7/31/2006" does the 3 year (BGB) limitation period (the

     February 2000 started to run!) Ended on "30.6.2000" is only the result of the planned /

     executed "trial fraud of women".

     The trio (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) intentionally avoided (at the most important point) to

       write that the 3-year limitation period according to the German Civil Code (BGB) began to run in

       February 2000.

     By suppressing and then using the word "limitation period interruption" (from the primary legal

   protection !!) the trio misled the reader, and thus the wrong result reached i.e. that the 3 year (BGB)

     limitation period on 30.6.2000 (!?), or at the latest (!?) on July 31, 2006 would have expired.

 

     In addition, the committee (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser), both in the resolution 30.8.2017 and

     also in the whole OLG judgment of October 18, 2017 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner) on Az 18 U 69/16

     not credibly explains how the date 7/31/2006 results. It is undoubtedly a criminal offense.

 

     The 3e paragr. Page 6 point d, of the OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017, and in page 23, line 1,

     The 29-page version of the judgment ends with an enigmatic date "7/31/2006"

     the arbitrariness of the panel and the "fraudulent proceedings" proves what the panel does in each

      case tried the absurd "statute of limitations".

     According to the StGB, this is punishable by imprisonment for more than 5 years.

    This is no trivial matter.

 

     The date "7/31/2006", which fell with the parachute of Ms. Glaeser, will serve the committee later

     for other criminal conclusions and "the fraud is considered in favour of the plaintiff" served.

   The ladies (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) are obviously above the laws and can extend or shorten

   the statutory monthly period as desired.

 

A12. The distortion of the facts committed in page 7 of the PKH decision of August 30, 2017

         serves the above goal, i.e. to enforce the statute of limitations for claims for damages and

         to "cover" the crimes of the FA-Mettmann (BANK Seizures)

 

     In the entire OLG-PKH decision of August 30, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed (Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms.

     Glaeser) and in the OLG ruling of October 18, 2017 (i.e. regarding both versions), and in the OLG

       ruling. 16.9.2019, Az 18 W 26/19 Nowhere a word was written about the complaint / reminder

       that was raised is that the bank seizures from 1986-1989 have not yet been lifted, although three -

     Head of the FA-Mettmann department had applied for cancellation twice.

     The head of the swamp was against it. Were the bank seizures and the dbzg jurisprudence

         of the BGH (shown below) not relevant for the fraudsters ???

 

           "As long as the damaging intervention lasts, the statute of limitations cannot start

                 the BGH decided (which still applies today) ".

 

     If the trio with the 2 offenders (from earlier proceedings Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser) from the

     had reported the above facts in the facts, then the PKH applied for (30.8.2017 and

     16.9.2019), as well as on 18.10.2017 in the judgment on 18 U 69/16 (Stein / Glaeser / Kirschner)

     agree to the compensation. The BGH committee Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter & Co is silent

     about it: With the silence the BGH committee wanted in any case the "LG-D'dorf enforce the

     statute of limitations "ordered on 07/07/2014, therefore from the bank seizures and the

 

Application of the 3 department heads kept silent and thus distorted / manipulated the facts,

  how comfortable it was for them.

     The suppression is punishable by § 339 StGB and the liability of the BGH judges is clear.

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

          

November 3, 2017: OLG letter (Ms. Stein); No special decision about the GGD (= counter position),

                     because everything was rejected on September 27, 2017 and a separate mention

                           the GGD would not be required.

November 4, 2017: Notice of hearing against the OLG decision on Az 18 U 69/16 of October 13, 2017;

                         description the tricks of the OLG judges; (Repetition of the application for PKH approval)

Nov 13, 2017: Announcement by the lawyer Schultz to the BGH (Federal Court of Justice) via the NZB

                         and request for an extension of the deadline for the first time by 2 months and

                         inspection of files

Dec. 10, 2017 Ms. Fuhr excluded by law (§ 41 No. 6 ZPO), repetition of the judicial

                             Actions that justify the exclusion.

 

                                                                 - 2018 -

 

4.1.2018: Approval by the BGH of the application for an extension of the deadline for NZB III ZR 332/17

                       until March 20, 2018

19.3.2018: Non-admission complaint (NZB) at BGH Az III ZR 332/17 (against OLG-D'dorf judgment Az

                     18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017; LG-D´dorf Az 2b o 271/01) of the RA Dr. Schultz submitted

 

                                                         annotation

 

             The reader learns briefly about the crimes of FA-Mettmann up to the bank garnishments

             alleged tax evasion in the amount of 333,253 DM.

             Here are the large number of FG-won lawsuits of the plaintiff against the FA-Mettmann listed,

       the cooperation of the judge Ms. Fuhr, who was excluded by law, reprimanded the legal violations

             the LG / OLG judges criticized, as well as contradicting the constant case law of the BGH

         Rejection of the OLG-D'dorf of the complaint extension, explained; In addition, in NZB (page 7 ff,

        point a) the Justification of litigation fraud in page 23 of the OLG judgment of October 18, 2017,

             additionally criticized.

      The bank garnishments still in existence in 1986-89 prove that the statute of limitations did not come

          into effect The alleged statute of limitations for pension entitlements is also criticized on page 11

           of the NZB.

            Finally, the OLG-D'dorf assertion that the extension of the lawsuit (because of € 86,653.97) is

             inadmissible contradicts the constant BGH case law (page 13 of the NZB).

         The BGH committee did not consider everything in NZB and COVERED the legal fraud of the OLG

        thus it has assumed liability within the meaning of § 839 BGB for the damage caused to the plaintiff

 

March 19, 2018: PKH application to BGH Az III ZR 332/17 sent directly by the plaintiff

 

                                                         annotation

 

         A first analysis of the hostile attitude of the LG judges who tried twice to eliminate the plaintiff

         as partially incapable of litigation and description of the first LG litigation fraud (2000-2014);

         Then explanations such as the fraud of the OLG-18th Senate on 3.9.2015 to Az 18 W 1/13

         (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger) and how the litigation fraud to LG-Az 2b o 271/01 on March 16, 2011

         (Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann) took place, as well as the importance of the voluntary

         disclosure of the Bias from May 30th, 2016 of LG judges Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach.

         The effect of the unconditional lawsuit of 5.2.2001, and each time the unlawful LG bodies,

         who have "capped" the legal violations of the colleagues

            

May 24, 2018: BGH decision on Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms.

                           Böttcher, NZB rejected and PKH rejected

 

                                                             annotation

 

   In the above-mentioned BGH decision it is only stated that the rapporteur Seiters, all listed

   Has determined legal violations of the OLG judges and with the chairman Herrmann one

   Have made a decision against the established case law of the BGH; thus are accomplices

   of the OLG offenders for serious fraudulent proceedings.

   The legal infractions of the BGH judges consist in the "capping" of the criminal offenses of the

   OLG/LG judges and the crimes of FA-Mettmann; see (criminal) legal responsibility of the BGH

    judges (OLG-Karlsruhe Az 1 Ws 90/20);

   The FRG is liable for litigation fraud / perversion of justice by the BGH judges; thus the

   representation the accused, the Federal Ministry of Justice, and finally the Attorney General.

   The §§ 543/544 ZPO mentioned by the BGH committee do not explain an arbitrary decision and

   According to the Federal Constitutional Court, do not serve to protect criminal judges.

   The reference to § 543 / 544e ZPO is only to be evaluated as a cheap excuse of arbitrariness.

   In this respect, the BGH-Judge is punishable according to § 339 StGB and the FRG is liable for the

   "capping of fraudulent proceedings" on the part of the BGH judge; especially since an attempt has been

   made by means of a BVerfG complaint, also within the meaning of § 839 BGB.

 

June 12, 2018: complaint from attorney Schultz against BGH decision of May 24, 2018 for

                      Az III ZR 332/17;

                      Reason (No reason for the BGH decision of May 24, 2018, none Response to complaints,

                     FG actions interrupting the statute of limitations, ongoing Bank seizures) continue the

                      procedure with application and allow the complaint

 

                                                                       annotation

         The hearing complaint was necessary because a constitutional complaint was planned.

         In brief, the hearing notice contains the most important arguments for revising the OLG-D'dorf

        judgment and which violations of the right to be heard the BGH committee committed on

       May 24, 2018

 

June 22, 2018: BVerfG complaint (2.57 kg) against the BGH decision of May 24, 2018 on Az III ZR

                       332/17 sent insured for 2.5 T-€ (as a parcel, as a registered letter over the limit 2 kg)

                        

                                                                  annotation

 

         With the BVerfG complaint raised, the documents of the dispute with the FA-Mettmann are sent,

         All LG / OLG / BGH decisions and the timely appeals filed were also there;

       the pending final judgments helped prove the judges' crimes.

July 26, 2018: BGH decision on Az III ZR 332/17 signed Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms.

                       Böttcher with rejection of the complaint; the Senate supposedly took everything into

                       account and made no violation of the right to be heard

 

                                                                   annotation

 

                     The BGH justification of July 26, 2018 for the rejection of the complaint

                     has to be classified as an ARBITRAL decision in view of the evidence provided

                  no reference to securing the law etc. It does not have different legal conceptions

              between BGH judges and plaintiffs) but about the determination of legal infractions and the

                  multitude to do the evidence for the legal violations of the LG / OLG judges.

                Even the blind see them litigation fraud described. The liability of the BGH judges is clear.

July 27, 2018: New AHK / PKH against: Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger in 18 W 1/13 and

                         S-N / Ms. Gundlach in Judgment 11.5.16 on Az 2b o 271/01,

                       because of legal violations or because of the RAe costs Az 2b o 271/01 and

                      to 18 U 69/16; Total € 47,447.13 (Az 2b o 146/18) (not included in Az 2b o 271/01)

 

Sept. 20, 2018; Federal Constitutional Court decision. signed Voßkuhle / Kessal-Wulf / Maidowski:

                           Constitutional complaint not accepted for decision (received October 6, 2018)

 

                                                         annotation

   Thus, the legal process has gone through at all national instances for the lawsuit against NRW

   (Finance Court / Regional Court / Higher Regional Court / Federal Court of Justice / Federal Constitutional

   Court) and thus the official liability suit for the BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms.

   Böttcher) became possible due to perversion of law according to § 839 BGB.

   The last BVerfG decision shown above also signals that the statute of limitations after 3 years

   (i.e. on Sept. 20, 2021) expires.

 

On January 10, 2019 and on February 5, 2019, the person responsible for the Federal Judicial Office

   in Bonn (Ms. Buffagni) declares that the waiver of the costs for the NZB in the amount of € 17,512

is rejected. Recovery at a later date is not excluded.

The damage caused to the plaintiff by the crimes of FA-Mettmann, by the frauds of the

LG / OLG-D'dorf judges and by the BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) appears in the following table:

 

  1. Damage caused by the BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter & Co)

 

       The damage caused by the BGH judges of the III civil senate is therefore

 

€ 1,949,319.93, in the loss of the amount in dispute from the NZB

     € 17,512 in the BGH costs for the NZB (BGH invoice)

     € 20,723.73 in the cost of the RA fee for representation before the BGH

           € 60 in the cost of the complaint against the first BGH decision,

             20, - €, in correspondence costs with RAen (flat rate)

           € 16 in correspondence costs with courts (send packages; insurance)

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

1,987,651.66 € total of the damage

 

B1. Requests

 

                                                        Annotation :

   the following partial motions 1.1-1.4 are contained in the appeal and justified; they explain that

   Total damage amount of € 1,949,319.93; they are reproduced here for information.

  

1 . The defendant (BRD) repealing the BGH decision of May 24, 2018 and the decision

       dated July 26, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17, the plaintiff is sentenced to the amount of

       € 1,949,319.93 interest at 5% above the base rate of the Bundesbank since it was pending

     (February 5, 2001), but for the applications 1.2. and 1.4 with the start of interest as explained

     below

 

     The above application includes the following actions:

 

1.1. Amendment of the LG-D'dorf final judgment of May 11, 2016 to Az 2b o 271/01, with repeal

     of the default judgment of March 16, 2011, and repeal of the OLG-D'dorf judgment of October 18,

       2017, Az 18 U 69/16,

     and

1.2. Payment to the plaintiff € 796.88 monthly as a statutory pension with 5% interest over the

     Base rate since July 1, 2006

     and

1.3. Payment to the plaintiff of reasonable compensation for pain and suffering in the amount of at

   least € 50,000 with interest 5% above the base rate to be paid since pending

   and

1.4. Payment to the plaintiff reimbursement of expenses in the amount of € 86,653.97 interest at 5%

   over the base interest rate from an amount equal to 51,178.78 € since Jan. 1, 1978, from an

   amount in the amount of € 30,323.77 since February 1 1982, from an amount equal to € 5,151.42

   since Jan. 1, 1997.

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

  1. The FRG will issue the amount of € 17,512.00 once the BGH decision of May 24th, 2018 becomes

     final to Az III ZR 332/17 or from the final decision to reject the decree, 5.2.2019

 

  1. The FRG reimburses the amount 60, - € (paid because of the rejection of the complaint

     to Az III ZR 332/17) bears 5% interest above the base rate from the transfer of August 8, 2018

 

  1. The FRG reimburses the amount € 20,723.73 (fee paid for representation before the BGH)

     interest at 5% above the base rate (according to the date of the table of installment transfers)

 

  1. The FRG pays the plaintiff the amount of 20, - € (lump sum, costs for correspondence with RAen)

     interest at 5% above the base rate from September 20, 2018

 

  1. The FRG pays the plaintiff € 16 for correspondence costs with courts (postage, parcels send);

         Insurance companies, etc.) bear 5% interest above the base rate from September 20, 2018

 

  1. The § 839 BGB in conjunction with Art. 34 GG

Sections 823 ff of the German Civil Code on unlawful acts are not applicable in cases where civil servants

are accused of having committed breaches of official duties.

 

According to § 839 BGB the following applies:

  1. If a civil servant intentionally or negligently violates what is incumbent on him towards a third party

   Official duty, he has to compensate the third party for the resulting damage.

  1. If an official violates his official duty in the judgment in a legal matter, he is in favour of it

   resulting damage is only responsible if the breach of duty consists of a criminal offense.

  1. The obligation to pay compensation does not apply if the injured party intentionally or negligently

     failed to do so Avoid damage by using a legal remedy.

 

According to Art. 34 GG, the state is liable instead of civil servants.

The lack of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is described in detail and proven in the PKH

application dated July 28, 2020; the plaintiff has repeatedly appealed and challenged the decisions (of the

LG-D'dorf and OLG-D'dorf), as well as the applicable and applicable laws. It follows that the plaintiff is not

at fault. (§ 839, 3 BGB)

 

The sentence 2 concerns judges (and Rpfl) who violate their duty in a decision and thereby the

There is a breach of duty in a criminal offense (pursuant to Section 339).

 

  1. Section 339 of the Criminal Code

Judicial independence is not protected under Section 339 of the Criminal Code.

As far as the offense of § 339 StGB extends, such independence does not exist.

Section 339 of the Criminal Code describes the offense and the amount of the penalty.

Section 339 of the Criminal Code determines the following:

"A judge, another official or an arbitrator, who is involved in the management or decision

is guilty of a violation of the law in a legal matter to the benefit or to the detriment of a party

punished with imprisonment from one year to 5 years "

It is noted that acting deliberately, or knowingly, is not required;

conditional intent is sufficient. Perpetrators can only be judges or other officials or arbitrators.

The jurisprudence has differentiated between collegial courts and single judges.

This is a collegial court (BGH-III civil senate, Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher).

Bending the law as stated in the legal text means the violation of the applicable law

to the advantage or disadvantage of one party.

According to objective theory, this always applies if material or procedural law is violated,

So objective legal rules are wrongly applied (as in the present case) !!

The act can (according to BGH) be committed through a violation of substantive law, e.g. through incorrect

application of the law, such as by deviating from clear legal norms; or by falsifying the facts to which the law

is to be applied; or in the event of a breach of the duty to provide information, or when an arrest warrant is issued.

In addition, the violation of procedural norms can also suffice;

The BGH jurisprudence sees it as necessary that the procedural violation justifies the concrete risk of a wrong

decision, without any advantage or disadvantage having actually occurred. The concrete danger would be

paved if the above-mentioned BGH judges had pursued the clarification of the facts and recognized the

determination of the fraudulent proceedings of the OLG-D'dorf, 18th Senate.

The act is completed with the issuance of the legally unjustifiable decision if this directly brings about the

effect of a better or worse position of a party (= success of the crime), or can develop through its implementation

 

  1. The § 78b ZPO, the requested emergency lawyer and the decision BVerfG 27.12.2002,

     Az   1 BvR 1710/02

An essential requirement in the above-mentioned law for the appointment of an emergency lawyer is the

LG / OLG Procedure prevailing RA coercion; Likewise, the lawsuit may not be willful or hopeless.

The above-mentioned legal requirements (i.S.d. BVerfG) are met in the present case. The lawsuit before

the LG Karlsruhe is not willful because both material and immaterial damage has occurred and the previous

LG / OLG / BGH decisions of the judges also secured GG Have violated rights (Art. 103 GG).

The hopelessness of the lawsuit is only supported by the solidarity of the officials.

The lawsuit is not directed against the applicable laws, but against arbitrariness (their intentionally incorrect

application), in deviation from law and statute. The titles of the accused are not taken into account.

The plaintiff's dwindling physical strength also requires an emergency lawyer. The court has no discretion.

 

  1. The § 543 ZPO and § 544 ZPO (protect no arbitrary decision)

In the NZB against the OLG-D'dorf judgment of October 18, 2017 and in the complaint against the BGH decision

of May 24, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17, concrete facts relevant to the decision due to violation of the right to be

heard are described; E.g. the participation of the OLG judge Fuhr, who was excluded by law, and that no statute

of limitations occurred because the bank seizures have not yet been lifted; so the NZB did not rely on alternative

legal errors. The refusal of the approval of the revision on the part of the OLG-D'dorf was - chosen exclusively -

in order to cover up the committed fraud. The court fraud of the OLG judges is on the part of the BGH committee

(Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) also intentionally (§ 839 BGB) passed over.

Admitting the appeal would also ensure the unity of jurisdiction and increase the trust of the population in the

judiciary (within the meaning of the legislature and the BVerfG).

 

According to § 544 (7) ZPO: if the appellate court violated the complainant's right to be heard in a significant way,

the appellate court may, contrary to paragraph 6, in the decision granting the complaint, revoke the contested

judgment and start the legal dispute for a new hearing and decision refer back to the court of appeal "

So much evidence was provided in NZB that the appellate court massively violated the complainant's claim

that Section 544 (7) ZPO had to be applied.

 

The BGH decision of May 24th, 2018 was an ARBITRANCIAL "shoulder to shoulder decision",

 

to protect the OLG colleagues from criminal consequences.

 

  1. Summary

In 2018, the BGH judges (Herrmann / Seiters / Reiter / Ms. Liebert / Ms. Böttcher) - contrary to the evidence

of the RA in the non-admission complaint (= NZB) (and the plaintiff in his PKH application for the NZB) -,

Deliberately and arbitrarily based on §§ 543/544 of the ZPO and announced with about 5 lines of decisions,

which the NZB (against the obvious fraud of the OLG-D'dorf judges to Az 18 U 69/16 that the claims for

damages i.H.v. 1.949 .319.93 € would allegedly be statute-barred on 6/30/2000) and rejected the complaint

and rejected the PKH applied for; in addition, the plaintiff was charged with the loss of the claim for damages

(€ 1,949,319.93) as well as costs (€ 17,512 + € 60) for the decisions on Az III ZR 332/17 which were not enacted i

n spite of motions for a decree !!).

The above-mentioned BGH judges approved the LG / OLG offenses (= destruction of the entrepreneurial /

social / economic / financial / inventive activities and the family of the plaintiff) by "capping" the fraud /

criminal offenses / perversions of the LG / OLG judges -Colleagues and the crimes of FA-Mettmann / D'dorf.

            

                                                                         Especially:

They "capped" or they approved the several legal frauds / perversions of the OLG-D'dorf judges

(Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) in 2017 to OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 .

They approved the participation in the OLG appeal Az 18 U 69/16 of those excluded by law

Judge Fuhr, although she (Mrs. Fuhr) worked in 2000 at the 2b civil chamber of the regional court D'dorf,

and a decision to prove (28.1.2000) against the plaintiff (on the then connected procedure

2b o 271/01) had signed; thus she was able to get the promotion to OLG judge in 2001.

However, according to § 41 No. 6 ZPO to OLG-Az 18 U 69/16 it should not participate.

They "capped" or they approved the frauds of the OLG-D'dorf committee (Malsch / Ms. Glaeser / Anger)

on Az 18 W 1/13 of September 3, 2015 (with manipulation of the legal texts) etc., so that they can get the

result that the claims for damages were supposedly statute-barred on July 31, 2006.

The accused have established and are silent: about the legal violations / fraudulent proceedings

(from 11.5.2005, of 29.8.2007, of 18.9.2007, of 16.3.2011, of 26.11.2012, of 28.5.2014, of. July 7th, 2014,

of May 11th, 2016, to Az 2b o 271/01 of the LG-D'dorf judges (Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach /

Ms. Strupp-Müller / Mr. Galle / cost officials Mr. Habich / Ms. Brecht / Ms. Freitag), as well as for the

4 years (2006-2010) blockade of the delivery of the complaint despite the court fees paid (without invoice /

request of the court!), And that the statute of limitations of the claims allegedly on December 31, 2009! ! ??

or on June 30, 2010, or on July 31, 2006!? The LG / OLG judges involved claimed to have made correct and

accurate decisions every time. At the end (October 18, 2017)

found the decisive body of the 18th Senate (Ms. Stein / Ms. Glaeser / Ms. Kirschner) that the claims for damages

of the engineer + inventor would allegedly be statute-barred on "June 30, 2000" !! ??;

Of course, the Manipulation of the legal text with the 6 months extension of § 209 of the BGB (old version)

 

The accused BGH judges stated but remained silent: about the incriminating legal violations of the LG / OLG judges,

who never mentioned the more than 30 lawsuits won by the plaintiff against the FA-Mettmann at the finance court

(= FG) D'dorf have never judged.

(Violation of the right to be heard (Art. 103 GG) and the clarification of the facts, § 139 ZPO)

They noted and kept silent: about the voluntary self-disclosure of bias dated May 30, 2016 regarding Az 2b o 271/01,

signed by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach; Nonetheless, the self-rejected have taken part in other

related proceedings.

 

The above-mentioned BGH judges "capped" the crimes of the FA-Mettmann and the criminal offenses of the FA,

as well as being silent about the manipulation of the survey account at the FA-Mettmann;

 

They also capped the plaintiff's arrest and imprisonment for alleged tax evasion of around 333,000 DM, and even

the illegal bank seizures by the FA (for alleged tax evasion), which continue to this day. This also violates the

plaintiff's personal rights.

So they approved the destruction of the plaintiff's investment in a factory, more than DM 1.5 million invested

in the years 1979-1985, in order to realize their own patents.

The BGH judges also approved, by "capping" the crimes of FA-Mettmann, the loss of a promised subsidy bonus

of around DM 2 million in 1987/88, and remained silent about it. the silence about it was clear confirmation of the

intention to harm.

The BGH judges are accused of having seen in the files how many crimes

the officials of the tax office Mettmann / D'dorf committed, and this overlooked.

The prerequisites and application of §§ 839 BGB / § 339 StGB are due to the legal violations / infractions of the

above-mentioned BGH judges through violation of the right to be heard

(Article 103 GG).

Because of the criminal acts of the LG / OLG-D'dorf judges, the plaintiff often has no legal judge

had. More than 20 such cases are on record, but the accused BGH judges have remained silent after determining

the lack of a legal judge; thus acted as accomplices of the criminal offenses, for which

  • § 339 StGB is applicable and justified the claims for damages

No party involved is punished for the offense; the then BGH reporter (Seiters) has been removed from the

BGH-III civil senate; also removed other people from the 3rd civil senate. The mentality of the criminal

offenses took away the distant ones.

 

In addition, the need for legal protection still exists, also because of the ongoing seizures from

1986-1989, as well as because of the RA fee claims and because of the pension.

 

The local jurisdiction of the LG-Karlsruhe results from the permanent seat of the BGH in Karlsruhe and the

Federal Public Prosecutor General also in Karlsruhe with the same address.

The PKH application with a declaration of the personal and financial circumstances of the plaintiff is

completed and submitted as soon as the plaintiff receives an official form from the court.

 

If the court would like explanations on one or the other legal topic, we ask you to give us a hint.

The court will be informed that the form for the declaration will be sent as soon as possible

personal and economic circumstances and then to announce a decision on the requested

EMERGENCY ADVOCATE and for the application for legal aid.

 

The list of requested RAs will be sent with the completed form for the declaration

of personal circumstances sent.

 

Further presentation reserved after receipt of the statement from the FRG or the legal representative

 

With best regards

 

Dr. Th. Sartoros

 

Attachments (numbered chronologically in descending order;

                               see also GA sheet no. In file 2b o 271/01)

  1. Federal Office of Justice, letter February 5, 2019 signed Buffagni, rejection of the waiver of the claim

     in the amount of € 17,512 for BGH-Az III ZR 332/17

  1. RAe Schultz-Schott, invoice dated June 12, 2018 in the amount of € 20,723.73 for representation at

             the BGH for Az III ZR 332/17 (page 1)

  1. RAe Schultz-Schott, listing of the installments for the settlement of the bill from 12.6.2018

           in the amount of 20,723.73 € for representation at the BGH on Az III ZR 332/17 (page 2)

  1. Federal Supreme Court accounting office, invoice dated 7.6.2018 for rejection by the NZB

           in the amount of € 17,512

  1. BVerfG Az 2 BvR 1840/18 decision of September 20, 2018; Constitutional complaint against BGH

         decision from July 26, 2018 and from May 24, 2018 on BGH Az III ZR 332/17 etc. is not for a

       decision accepted

  1. Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision of July 26, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17;

                           The complaint to be heard rejected as unfounded.

  1. RAe Schultz-Schott hearing complaint of June 12, 2018 against BGH decision of May 24, 2018

     on Az III ZR 332/17

  1. Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decision of May 24, 2018 on Az III ZR 332/17;

                   Complaint against the non-admission of the revision rejected (litigation fraud)

  1. RAe Schultz-Schott NON-ADMISSION COMPLAINT (=NZB) from 19.3.2018 on BGH Az III ZR 332/17

         against OLG-D'dorf judgment of 18.10.2017 on Az 18 U 69/16

  1. OLG-D'dorf judgment on Az 18 U 69/16 of October 18, 2017 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Glasses / Ms.

               Kirschner, the appeal against the final judgment on LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01 of 11 May 2016

               is rejected (version 30 pages, several lawsuits)

  1. (See list no. 65) Memorandum f. July 18, 2012 Ms. Brecht on Az 2b o 271/01 (telephone

                                conversation)

  1. OLG-D'dorf resolution August 30, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Glaeser);

                   PKH rejected for appeal (several legal frauds)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision August 22nd, 2017 Az 18 U 69/16 and 18 W 25/26 signed Ms. Stein / Unger /

               Ms. Kirschner);

         Hearing complaint dated July 27, 2017 against the Senate decision on July 19, 2017

               Rejected (legal fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision 19.7.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 and 18 W 25/26 signed Ms. Stein / Unger / Ms.

             Kirschner);

           Exclusion request from February 1, 2017 against Ms. Fuhr declared to be unfounded

             (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf official statement 11.4.2017 on OLG-D'dorf Az 18 U 69/16 of Ms. Fuhr

         She admits: employment with the 2b civil chamber in 2000 and participation in

         Evidence decision dated November 28, 2000

  1. OLG-D´dorf decision 12.1.2017 Az 18 U 69/16 signed Ms. Stein / Ms. Fuhr / Ms. Kirschner);

       Exclusion request v. 1.2.2017 rejected against Ms. Glaeser as unfounded (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D´dorf Official statement by Ms. Glaeser from August 31, 2016 on OLG-D´dorf Az

       18 U 69/16 and Az 18 W 25/16; "everything on record"

  1. OLG-D´dorf justification of appeal to OLG-D´dorf Az 18 U 69/16 of the RA N.L. with 6 applications

       (69 pages)

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; voluntary self-disclosure of bias according to § 48 ZPO

       of the LG judges Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Gundlach / Frank from May 30, 2016

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision 3.9.2015 Az 18 W 1/13 signed Malsch / Ms. Glaeser /Mr. Anger;

         Immediate complaint against LG decision of November 26, 2012 is rejected

         Claims for damages allegedly on "31.7.2006 statute-barred" !! (Litigation fraud)

  1. LG-D´dorf NA-resolution on Az 2b o 271/01 from 07/07/2014 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

       Ms. Brecht / Feldmann (intern)

       The Chamber's opinion = appointment: "The claims made are statute-barred !!

  1. LG-D´dorf decision May 28, 2014 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Brecht /

           Ms. Freitag   Claims for damages allegedly barred on June 30, 2010 !! (Litigation fraud)

  1. Complementary medicine Expert opinion dated 8.1.2013 by Dr. Med. K.-H. L. to Az 2b o 271/01 re.

       "Omission and twisting of the sense and the medical result on the part of Ms. Strauch".

  1. LG-D'dorf decision November 26th, 2012 Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

           Ms. Jürging / Ms. Brecht

         Claims for damages allegedly on "31.12.2009 barred" !! (Litigation fraud)

         Estimation of a minimum damage according to § 287 ZPO inadmissible!

  1. LG-D´dorf APPEAL from April 15, 2011 to Az 2b o 271/01 of the RA W.

     Application: The default judgment of March 16, 2011 is cancelled

  1. LG-D'dorf default judgment (VU) of March 16, 2011 to Az 2b o 271/01 signed

           Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /Ms Dr. Hoffmann / Ms. Keiser: The lawsuit is dismissed

  1. Copy of the letter of Sept. 21, 2010 to 2b Civil Chamber, Az 2b o 271/01

        Bias application against Stockschlaeder-Nöll, Mr. Galle, Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision May 12, 2010, Az 11 W 36/09 signed Bünten / Müller / Wermeckes

       The reply (= GGD) of March 8, 2010 / March 15, 2010 against the decision of February 22, 2010

         is rejected. (Litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision 31.3.2010 Az 11 W 36/09 signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes / Müller

       The complaint against the decision of February 18, 2010 is rejected as inadmissible

       (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision of March 30, 2010, Az 11 W 36/09 signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm

     The hearing notice of February 16, 2010 is rejected as inadmissible (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision 22.2.2010 Az 11 W 36/09 signed Bünten / Wermeckes / Müller

     The complaint against the decision of September 23, 2009 and the GGD of October 7, 2009 is

     rejected (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision February 18, 2010 Az 11 W 36/09 signed Ms. Jungclaus / Wermeckes /

         Müller

     The application for exclusion against Vice President Bünten is rejected (litigation fraud)

  1. OLG-D'dorf decision February 16, 2010 Az 11 W 36/09 signed Wermeckes / Ms. Grabensee / Dahm;

     The exclusion request against Ms. Jungclaus and Ms. Baan, as well as against Mr. Müller will be

     returned.   proven (litigation fraud)

  1. Essen District Court, ruling March 24, 2009, Az 74 XVII Sa 261. signed judge Winterpacht

         Tenor: The appointment of a supervisor is rejected

  1. (see list no. 66) LG decision of 24.3.2009 signed Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt /Ms. Dr. Hoffmann

                                                                                                                                  (Litigation fraud)

  1. EMAIL traffic between LG-D'dorf judge Stockschlaeder-Nöll and AG-Essen judge Seelmann

       dated Sept. 30, 2008, re. supervisor for Dr. Sartoros

  1. LG-D´dorf decision of August 8th, 2008, Az 2b o 118/99 signed Ms. Gottschalk (instruction S-N, E-N)

                         "Order for a supervisor with a reservation of consent"

  1. LG-D´dorf letter from September 18, 2007, Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Bückner of the GS

         (= office the 2b chamber)

       "According to cost officials the court costs for Az 2b o 271/01 are not paid in full"

  1. LG-D´dorf decision of September 18, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms.

         Engelkamp -Neeser / Mr Galle (litigation fraud)

         "Service denied; court fees allegedly incomplete paid, according to cost officials;

           there are still € 9,454.69 open "

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01 File note on sheet 476R of the cost officer from Aug. 29, 2007

       (signed Habich)

     "on the amount in dispute of 5.374.315, - DM etc remaining open according to the provisionally

         assumed 9,454.69 € "(litigation fraud)

  1. LG-D'dorf decision of August 9, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01 signed Ms. Strupp-Müller / Ms. Engelkamp

         Neeser / Mr. Galle (litigation fraud)

         Operative part: The PKH application of 9.9.2005 has been rejected

  1. LG-D´dorf letter of the GS (Mrs. Janssen) of September 18, 2007 on Az 2b o 271/01

       Confirmation that my letter of January 20th 2007 (with the applications for cancellation)

     to the OLG-D´dorf sent to Az 18 W 23/05.

  1. LG-D'dorf to Az 2b o 271/01; Copy of my letter dated January 20, 2007 (with the cancellation

         requests)

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01 Note on sheet 413 from July 20. 2006 of the cost officer

       (signed Habich): Fees € 21,021.77

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Determination of the amount in dispute by Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll

       from April 21, 2006 with € 1,838,180.46

  1. ​​OLG-D'dorf decision on Az 11 W 15/06 (LG Az 2b o 271/01) of April 5, 2016 signed Bünten /

       / Bender / Mielke; (Litigation fraud)

       Immediate complaint against the LG decision of May 11, 2005 rejected for a fee

  1. OLG-D´dorf letter January 20, 2006 on Az 11 W 17/15 signed Schmitz, judicial inspector;

           Threat of collecting court costs etc.

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Decision v. May 11, 2005 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll / Ms. Drees /

       Mr. Galle

  1. 4) The exclusion request of 5.5.2003 against Ms. Strupp-Müller is considered unfounded

         rejected (litigation fraud)

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Resolution (Dated back to Nov. 20, 2003 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-

       Nöll / Schumacher / Ms. Schuster (intern) (litigation fraud)

       Operative part: The application for a copy of the trial files is rejected

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Decision of November 20, 2003 signed by the single judge

         Stockschlaeder-Nöll (litigation fraud)

       Operative part: The application for a copy of the trial files is rejected

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Copy of my letter v. July 20, 2003 (exclusion Stockschlaeder-Nöll)
  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 271/01; Meeting minutes v. 11/12/2002 (causality of bank seizures)
  1. LG-D´dorf decision of November 29, 2001 on Az 2b o 118/99 signed Ms. Stockschlaeder-Nöll /

           Goldschmidt-Neumann / Schmidt-Kötters

         Operative part: The decision to take evidence of November 28, 2000 is reversed

  1. LG-D´dorf decision of 28.11.2001 on Az 2b o 118/99 signed Ms. Tannert / Ms. Fuhr / Schumacher

     The medical association D'dorf is named to determine that the plaintiff is partially incapable of

       litigation

  1. LG-D'dorf Az 2b o 118/99; Official statement of May 18, 2001 by Ms. Tannert

         She admits: having joined the two lawsuits (2b o 118/99 and 2b o 271/01) etc.

  1. LG-D'dorf decision of March 31, 2000 Az 2b o 118/99 signed Ms. Tannert

       Tenor: Order for a supervisor with reservation of consent (litigation fraud)

  1. Acknowledgment of receipt by the Director of the National Bank of Greece

       Branch in D'dorf, the bank seizure from 11.10.1989

  1. Copy of the bank seizure dated September 29, 1989 at the Sparkasse in Ratingen for

         DM 69,685.82

  1. Application dated September 14, 1988 from the three FA subject heads (Stempel / Ms. Franken /

       Ms. Harbecke) attached to postpone the enforcement measures to the enforcement agency.

  1. Copy of the bank seizure dated August 19, 1986 at the Stadtsparkasse D'dorf for DM 314,255.75
  1. Copy of the bank seizure dated August 14, 1986 at the Sparkasse in Ratingen for DM 312,114.74
  1. Copy of the bank seizure dated August 4, 1986 at the Sparkasse in Ratingen for DM 333,253.74
  1. Settlement of FA-Mettmann about the bank seizures on August 4th, 1986 at Sparkasse Ratingen

       over DM 333,253.74 (from this one also recognizes the terror of FA-Mettmann with the

             amended tax assessments)

  1. Proof of the correspondence between Mrs. Stockschlaeder-Nöll and the tax court judge SCHUCK.

       Letter of June 18, 2008 from Mr. SCHUCK of the FG-D'dorf to the 2b civil chamber of the LG

       Az 2b o 77/08, with advice on how to treat PKH requests as filed complaints

     and application of § 17a GVG etc.

  1. Memorandum from Ms. Brecht dated June 18, 2012 about her call to the authorized attorney

       N.L. not to continue the mandate for Az 2b o 271/01 because allegedly no prospect of success

       and the appeal against the first CC would have been received by the court too late.

  1. LG decision on Az 2b o 271/01 of March 24, 2009 of the unlawful LG committee

       Ms. Tigges / Ms. Schmidt / Ms. Dr. Hoffmann (offenses against Art. 101 GG, against § 75 GVG,

       against GVP) that the application of bias against Stockschlaeder-Nöll and Ms. Engelkamp-Neeser

     (because of the secret applications from July-Sept-2008 at the AG-Essen and secret

     correspondence with AG-Judge Seelmann regarding a supervisor with reservation of consent)

       would allegedly not be justified (Litigation fraud)

  1. Objection of Aug. 22, 1986 against garnishment at Sparkasse Ratingen
  1. Application of Aug. 13, 1986 for suspension of the enforcement of the attachment

               at Sparkasse Ratingen

Further evidence on request.

end

Last modified on Friday, 12 February 2021 20:21

Today 42 | Yesterday 276 | Week 42 | Month 8786 | All 74430